The American Prospect Urges Progressives To Fight For Blanche Lincoln

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 06:45:33 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I don't know what they are drinking over at The American Prospect, but this is a strange post:

It also, should be clear, what the stakes are here for progressives. As frustrating as Lincoln is, there's unlikely to be a true progressive representing Arkansas. Keeping the likes of Boozman out of the Senate is a as good a goal to have as any.

I can hardly think of a less intelligent goal. Setting aside Lincoln's record, which is awful (her opponent's is worse), Lincoln is down 30 points. She is done. Any dime or minute spent on Lincoln is a dime or minute wasted. A true progressive champion, Barbara Boxer, is fighting for her political life in California. If progressives have any money or time to spare, it should be going to fight for Barbara Boxer, not Blanche Lincoln. That TAPPED post is nuts.

Speaking for me only

< Obama: GOP Holding Middle Class Hostage To Provide Tax Cuts For The Wealthy | Friday Night Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The American Prospect Urges Progressives To Fight For Blanche Lincoln | 18 comments (18 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Yet another example of hegemonic (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by jeffinalabama on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 07:06:23 PM EST

thought by TAP and the 'permanent-elected-elites.' Pander to the progressives or liberals for help with a pet's vote. No mention of Boxer, who's far to the left, and in my opinion, far more savvy politically, than dear Blanche. But but but...

"Blanche has a 'D' after her name, lose control of the senate... so on so forth. I'm trying to think of a bill I considered important that she voted my way on.

I think we should spend time analyzing the death of the Democratic Party's relevance in a four year period when the dems controlled all three branches of government. Unless some miracle happens (and in politics the unbelievable can become the current wisdom, so I won't rule it out) I'll be concentrating on my state and local races. The R candidate for governer wants 'Arizona-type legislation' because of the huge problems caused by 'illegal immigrants.'

Pandering to fascism on a local level seems a much better fight than worrying about the ineffective and unelectable incumbent in Arkansas. I'll send a few bucks to the Boxer campaign. She's relevant.

I no longer think the dem establishment is, Pelosi notwithstanding. I'll send her 10 bucks if she's in jeopardy in her district. I won't be paying anything to the senate re-election fund, or the DCCC, either.

Sigh. Another attempt to herd the label-driven, 'progressives,' to do what the kingmakers want.

Progressive. It's an insurance company now. I'd rather remain a liberal of some stripe.

Still dunno why 60-Ds 'had to' bow down to 40- Rs (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Ellie on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 10:53:14 PM EST

... or a House majority and Speaker didn't even attempt to ram through a Liberal agenda, or an allegedly progressive President couldn't even try to use his exquisitely crafted fountain to reverse the mess his predecessor made with the Zegzeckutive Signing Crayon.

Huh. It's too bad that the cavalry charge amounts to tuff talk about the GOP being intolerant, unconstitutional or (LOL) "obstructionist".

Boxer's one of the good ones but it's not my hood anymore. Back to Cali? I don't think so.


Sen. Boxer has been such an excellent (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 07:19:13 PM EST

elected representative for the State of California. Has the electorate in CA changed so radically she may be defeated? Or does campaign money win the day in elections?


I don't vote there (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by jeffinalabama on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 08:13:45 PM EST

but I believe she's one of the big R targets. Since California isn't a definitive liberal state, I'm hoping for enough turnout in the more-liberal cities than the conservative ones, or the cities in the valley... LA and San Francisco and Sacramento could be overpowered if low turnout in those meets medium to high turnout in, inter alia, Bakersfield, Modesto, or Fresno... can't make a numerical comparison, but a body-to-body one could be made. Midterm, lower turnout, motivated conservative to libertarian turnout, unmotivated left-of-center to liberal turnout.

Hope the 10 bucks I'll send goes to GOTV. I'll be spending a lot more money and time here in Alabama.

The stakes on state and local gvernment are higher here, also. I think there's no way the crypto-fascist branch of the Republican party can garner enough upsets to overturn a presidential veto of terrible legislation.

But the state and local ideological positions I see here and in other states far from either coast are Father Coughlin or Francisco Franco frightening. And I do know enough, possibly too much, about the two fascists I mention.

Minus the antisemitic talk, I have heard, as recently as last weekend, people working for the government, the GS7-GS11 range, discussing earnestly that 'the new deal needs to be repealed.' Replaced either by privatized EVERYTHING (which they don't seem to grasp would include their jobs), or a stronger, more paternalistic, more 'stern' federal government.

Crazy scary talk, and from people from all over the US, including people with nationalized citizenship no more than five years old. Actually, the folks I met are all in positions that require a minimum of a bachelor's degree just to enter the GS7 training program. It's not a lack of education. It's the continued and infectious social putrefaction stemming from their stunted yet contageous protofascistic ideology.

It's to the point where irrationality, serious nonbelief, dismissal, and denial of what happened in the past and what is currently happening, is normal. Sincere and believed crazy talk. The solution includes more crazy talk, uncnstitutional solutions that are downright scary.

Reality just gets in the way. denial of history, social systems, etc., go on and on. Some sort of Libertarian Protestant Christian Amuhrica existed prior to that devil's spawn Roosevelt, who gave us the apple and led us out of the Garden of Eden.

Hilarious that as TAP calls for people to waste their money and time supporting Blanche Lincoln, the inmates hav already made serious inroads into control of the asylum. Crazy talk. Ignorant writing for eunuchs by other eunuchs. Thanks again, Prospect.

It's getting seriously scary living out here in the margins. You folks more central need to pay attention, because it's uglier and more powerful and more focused than the anger after 9/11.

That was the yeast. What I'm talking about has been fermening for almost 10 years. And it's potent and dangerous. And growing and infecting people that used to be resistant.


I've been thinking about Father Coughlin (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by caseyOR on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 09:15:09 PM EST

and how he seems to have been resurrected for some time now. Creeping fascism is, as the saying goes, a clear and present danger to out country.

Fear, lack of information, a boatload of dis-information, economic upheaval- it's a potent and dangerous mix. We ignore it at our peril.

I'm worried. I'm very worried.


: Exactly why we should never, ever canoodle ... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by Ellie on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 10:10:35 PM EST

That's why I've always been opposed to the "post" partisan airbrushing, whether it's been in the name of human rights, labor, economic issues or foreign policy.
It's not a pro- or anti-Obama thing at all, as personality cultists like to frame it.
We've been habituated by failure after failure to confront baldly anti-Democratic values head on in favor of the validation (Oh well, they sure do believe what they believe, huh?)
It's become such a Dem habit that that has replaced the bright line, the firm opposition, and, at the very least, not rolling back the hard won progress we've already made.

I'm no California expert, but Boxer has had (none / 0) (#4)
by tigercourse on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 08:50:32 PM EST

somewhat close elections before (a margin of 5% in her first election and 10% in her second) against candidates who I don't think had nearly as deep campaign coffers as Fiorina. Given that this is such a bad year and that Brown is a bit of a drip (it's absurd that a Democratic AG in a state with a hated Republican Governor is trailing in the race) she could lose.


Brown just started airing TV ads. (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 09:59:24 PM EST

And, on behalf of Fiorina, clips of Bill Clinton dissing Brown when Brown ran against Clinton.


Meg Whitman (none / 0) (#10)
by caseyOR on Sat Sep 11, 2010 at 01:19:33 AM EST

Brown is running against Whitman, not Fiorina. Female, Republican, former high tech CEOs, too much alike to tell apart. :)


: Confusing, ain't it. I saw one of the (none / 0) (#16)
by oculus on Sat Sep 11, 2010 at 01:18:33 PM EST

ads against Brown last night during Padres game, which was a bunch more important to me than the ad.

Here is a link to her website (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Radiowalla on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 10:46:24 PM EST

A little spare change thrown her way could make a difference.

She is a true progressive, a real fighter and she deserves support.

Donate right here

The choice couldn't be clearer.

: A clear choice (none / 0) (#13)
by Rojas on Sat Sep 11, 2010 at 11:18:39 AM EST

If you profit from the corrections industry.
The legacy of a modern progressive.

Need to back Boxer. (none / 0) (#11)
by Wile ECoyote on Sat Sep 11, 2010 at 07:28:50 AM EST

China needs well connected lobbyists.

You mean defeat Fiorina ... (none / 0) (#12)
by Yman on Sat Sep 11, 2010 at 09:06:07 AM EST

... so she can be a lobbyist for China and continue the outsourcing she began as CEO of HP?

Not sure about the logic, ...

... but okay.


Research Boxer's (none / 0) (#14)
by Wile ECoyote on Sat Sep 11, 2010 at 11:54:17 AM EST

husband.


: No, thanks (none / 0) (#17)
by Yman on Sat Sep 11, 2010 at 02:43:57 PM EST

Unless, of course, her husband is running for the Senate seat, or there's something illegal or unethical about what she's doing.
Vague allusions of impropriety with nothing to back them up don't really warrant any time spent on research.

I don't think Fiorina's supporters want to go here (none / 0) (#15)
by cenobite on Sat Sep 11, 2010 at 01:15:43 PM EST

H-P Bribe Probe Widens

Hewlett-Packard Co. disclosed Thursday that a probe by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission of possible bribes the company paid in Russia is now wider than previously reported.
The disclosure, in an SEC filing, pertains to a long-running German investigation of allegations that H-P, through a German subsidiary, paid bribes in Russia to secure a contract valued at €35 million, or about $44.5 million, with the office of the prosecutor general of the Russian Federation.
The contract spanned 2001 to 2006 and was for the delivery and installation of an information technology network.

Fiorina was CEO from 1999-2005. That would pretty much put her right in the middle of this.

Do you really want to compare Boxer's business ties and legal entanglements to Fiorina's? I don't think so.


'tis a pity (none / 0) (#18)
by cpinva on Sat Sep 11, 2010 at 08:31:07 PM EST

sen. lincoln is an idiot. however, we are talking about arkansas....................