So, let's discuss primaries, vis a vis Hackett situation....

[Lerkfish]

In the past, whenever anyone has objected to a DLC or DINO candidate being too far right (which is not the case in Hackett vs. Brown, but this provides the hook of my discussion), the counter argument has always been: Well, then run your little progressive candidate in the primary, no one's stopping you. Even though they usually follow that with "and then you'll be voting republican in effect"

er... ok. But at least they were, on paper, acting as if primary contests were kosher.

But NOW, that the Democratic leaders have pushed out Hackett, in order to PREVENT a primary contest (apparently), it give rise to a very important question:

Is the purpose of the party to quash primary contests in order to secure nominations for their own anointed proffers?
Do they think the voter should not be allowed to vote in a primary to show their preference between candidates?
If so, why do we even have primaries at all? Why don't we just allow the party to select who they will offer? Why bother with primaries and caucuses and whatnot? Why not just announce, as a fait d'accompli their entry into the race?

In my mind, you can't have it both ways: you cannot claim the voters will not vote for a (fill in the blank) sort of candidate, and at the same time, cut off at the knees candidates who are (fill in the blank).

[Punkingal]

1. My opinion on your first two questions....

Is the purpose of the party to quash primary contests in order to secure nominations for their own anointed proffers? YES

Do they think the voter should not be allowed to vote in a primary to show their preference between candidates? NO

It's disgusting.

[Lerkfish]

4. Im sorry for being confused...your answers appear on the face of it

to be contradictory.

and what are you referring to when you say its "disgusting"

I can't tell enough from your post to respond, not picking on you at all.

[Punkingal]

10. Sorry if I confused you....

I think they want to pick the candidates. I don't think they want voters to have a choice in primaries. What I find disgusting is Democrats in Washington deciding who should be our candidates. For me it isn't about Hackett and Brown, and this isn't new. They have been doing this for a long time. They want status-quo, lock-step Democrats, just like the Republicans have, and I find that frightening.

[Lerkfish]

thanks for the clarification! ok, I agree wholeheartedly with you. :)

[sendero]

38. I could live with...

.... lock-step Dems, if they'd ever step the right way. Where is our lock-step? We can't mount a filibuster, we can't stop even the most odious legislation because we are not lock step. There is no leadership that can make the Dem senators toe the line, but they are happy to throw their weight around to kill off a candidate they don't like.

Hackett just got Deaned. It is as simple as that. The establishment Dems do not want any new ideas, any new approaches, nothing. It's almost like they are happy in their subservient position, getting to act like they are doing something while quietly and repeatedly enabling the opposition.

It's becoming impossible for me to be proud to be a Democrat.

[dansolo]

44. It would be more accurate to say he got Gored

If you remember back in late 2003, Gore was considering running, but decided against it when he realized that the Democratic Leadership was going out of their way to make sure that Gore got no financial support. That is exactly how they got to Hackett, and it is also how they are trying to knock out Cristine Cegelis from the IL-06 race.

[MercutioATC]

2. It would be distasteful enough if it was a successful strategy.

The practical issue with it is that it's not. We've SEEN what happens when "leadership" takes control. I'm honestly in a quandry...how do I change the government when we operate under a two-party system and my own party is screwing things up?

[johncoby2]

3. If it was so bad, why did he get out of the race?

It is his and his decision alone to make. If he wants to stay in, he should. Otherwise, get out and quit whining.

[Lerkfish]

5. thanks for your comment, but it has nothing to do with the topic

the topic is how should we view the primary process.

[More Than A Feeling]

6. I support primaries for everyone now.

May the best candidate win. More primaries would keep Democratic elected officials honest, and keep them in touch with the values this party stands for.

It would be a sick joke if the Democratic party didn't value democracy. The problem is that the party takes sides, and then it wants to see the candidate that it is mentally and otherwise invested in, ignoring the merits of the other candidates, who might be just as good if they had the same party support.

As it stands right now, the party does its best to determine who is and is not viable, to have the power to make or break candidates.

[liberal N proud]

7. The purpose is to give the most viable candidate the opportunity

to play on as fair a playing field as possible.
Face it, if Brown would have had to spend millions on a primary campaign while Dewine was spending a few thousand dollars on some campaign ads just to keep his name in the public mind.
Now in May after the primary is over, Brown now has to come up with new funding and brush off the bruises of the primary and take up battle with a well rested Dewine who already has a head start, 1 because he didn't have to fight a primary and 2 he is the incumbent.


That is what this is all about, eliminating the bloody primary to allow a viable candidate to perform at peak.

What is going on here is just playing right in to the republican hands.

[Lerkfish]

11. ok, so according to you...

"That is what this is all about, eliminating the bloody primary to allow a viable candidate to perform at peak."

then my question is: should we then abandon the primary process altogether if its so damaging?

and what do you mean by "What is going on here is just playing right in to the republican hands."?

[liberal N proud]

27. No I do not advocate abandoning the primaries

But if one candidate is more viable than the other (Hackett was down by 20 points for a May primary) and so much is at stake.

Hackett could have said no, I am going to stay in the running. Maybe all these people could have bankrolled him?


to the Playing into the Republican hands, they must love to see the Democrats eating each other alive like this.

[Lerkfish]

32. ok....so my thread is aiding the enemy?

you're accusing me of helping out republicans, but you're accusing ME of eating other democrats alive?

interesting POV.

[liberal N proud]

36. Don't take things here personal

I am just trying to point out that we need to come together and beat the republicans in November.
No personal accusations, just generalities. Democrats have a history of infighting and that is just what the republicans like.

Our Number ONE goal should be to beat each and every republican criminal that we can come November.

[IndianaGreen]

12. Yes, let's eliminate those troublesome primaries!

Let the party hacks pick our nominees, starting with the 2008 Presidential nomination.

:sarcasm:

[SteppingRazor]

8. Well, first off, I don't think Hackett is more progressive than Brown...

Second off, from a purely political angle, primaries do neither candidate any good. You're forced to spend money that could have gone to the general election, and, if the campaign gets at all dirty, you supply your general election opponent with plenty of grist to use against you later.

Speaking morally, I don't know that it's right for the Democrats to lean so much on Hackett that he drops out. But on a purely political level, I understand it.

[More Than A Feeling]

13. All our candidates should be tough enough to handle a primary

and a general, and we should select them with that in mind. The added pressure will forge stronger Democratic elected officials than we have had before. Politicians who shred all comers, who are constantly on message and voting right, because they have to to avoid getting dragged down.

[SteppingRazor]

14. I agree, but that doesn't change the issue...

even with a strong candidate, a primary makes them weaker, both monetarily (perhaps the most important facet of modern American elections) and politically.

As I said in my post above, speaking from a moral and ethical standpoint, I disagree with the Democratic Party leaning on Hackett and trying to get him to drop out. But from a political standpoint, it makes perfect sense. I completely agree that we need strong candidates, but the strength of a candidate doesn't change the hard truths of a nasty primary, which -- given Hackett's tendency to do politically unacceptable things like tell the blunt, unvarnished truth -- this was certainly shaping up to be.

[More Than A Feeling]

19. I do feel that Hackett's parting shot was completely unneccessary

It served no purpose whatsoever.

[Lerkfish]

21. on that I'll agree. It burned bridges unnecessarily, however I understand

why he did it.

[Lerkfish]

15. note that I never claimed that. reread the OP

I never said hackett was more progressive than brown..that's muddling my question.
I'm interested in the machinations of the party in terms of primaries.

so, are you saying we should eliminate primaries altogether?

[SteppingRazor]

22. Absolutely not. I'm all for primaries. It's the best thing for democracy..

I'm just pointing out the thinking behind removing people like Hackett. I'm not making a value judgement on it.

[Lerkfish]

24. but you think they are financially draining and divisive?

or am I misunderstanding your point?

[SteppingRazor]

29. I don't think they are. They are.

If you don't have a primary, you don't spend money on it. Ergo, you have more money for the general election without a primary. So, it is financially draining.

And I think any reasonable analysis would conclude that, while not always divisive, a primary certainly has the capacity to be.

So, no, you don't misunderstand my point. But I think these things are, unfortunately, necessary evils. Besides, the negatives of a drawn-out primary can affect either party, so it's a two-way street.

[Lerkfish]

34. so why do we have primaries?

honestly.

I mean, if we can just ignore the whole pesky voter preference angle, and just worry about the existing power structure's hold on power, why even have them?

I'm getting at this: if we cannot use primaries as intended, then why have them? To have them at all implies the existing Dem leadership is not acting as kingmakers, when we know they are. Why the sham?

Why not just announce selected candidates, and free up voters to vote for or against the only candidate they have to choose from?

Are we fooling the voter into thinking they MIGHT have a choice, when in fact, they really don't?


I find the whole thing bizarre. Either have the leadership tell us who to vote for or give us the choice, but don't pretend to do both.

[SteppingRazor]

37. You make some good points here...

but I hesitate to take this one case and apply it across the board. In other words, just because Hackett got the squeeze in Ohio, it doesn't follow that the same thing is happening in every other race -- and, indeed, the high level of primaries shaping up for 2006 belies the statement that the Democratic Party is taking a vested and undemocratic interest in the outcome of said elections by manipulating the candidates. That said, even if primaries went on unchallenged in every district in the United States, the Republican and Democratic parties, through sheer fundraising abilities, would act as kingmakers in most cases anyway. So, the point is somewhat moot.

In other words, even if Hackett stayed in, he would have been outspent about 10 to 1 by Brown, and that cash advantage would almost definitely have resulted in a Brown win anyway. The parties don't need to manipulate primaries the way they apparently did with Hackett. Their fundraising in and of itself is enough to ensure that whomever they want to be elected will be.

Given that, I'm at something of a loss to explain the party's actions in Ohio. Brown would have come out on top anyway, so why the strong arm?

[Lerkfish]

40. here's my concern. The ultimate projection of this is anti-grass roots.

the whole "think globally, act locally" meme is shot to hell with this.
My concern is that the Democratic party is learning the WRONG things from the republicans, namely: only sanctioning candidates with beltway approval, regardless of local representation.
The problem with that is, it prevents the rights of ANYONE to run for any office, something that I would suggest our country has always been based on. If there ends up being corruption at top levels, we'd be unable to clean house...much as the republicans are experiencing right now.
It removes ACCOUNTABILITY. It removes CONTROL through elections. It removes the people from the process. WE THE PEOPLE are a moot point. That's what concerns me gravely. I'm not surprised when republicands do this, I"m saddened when democrats do this.

and your astute question: "Given that, I'm at something of a loss to explain the party's actions in Ohio. Brown would have come out on top anyway, so why the strong arm?"

you don't eliminate someone who is NOT a threat, do you? I'm guessing Hackett was in a better position, voter-wise, than we're being led to believe.

IMHO

[IndianaGreen]

9. What if Schumer and Reid did the same thing to save Joe Lieberman?

What if Schumer and Reid did the same thing to save Joe Lieberman? Suppose Schumer, Reid, and Emmanuel pulled the same stunt to sabotage Ned Lamont's challenge to Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary? When will this shit stop?

What if they did the same thing to ram Hillary down our throats in '08?

[Lerkfish]

16. be careful what you use as a hypothetical example

:)

[mikehiggins]

17. What if? Give them time. Its coming as sure as the dawn

There will be ALL sorts of reasons NOT to run a primary against Joementum, and you are seeing them here already among the DUers who think its simply nifty keen for the Beltway Dems to decide who can run for office (or even in a primary) in Ohio and who cannot.

Lieberman is an incumbent and has seniority. IF the next millenium arrives early and the Dems somehow manage to seize control of the Senate, then that seniority might mean something. So, of course, we shouldn't take a chance on losing a tried-and-true (well, tried anyway) incumbent by letting a Democrat run against him in a costly and exhausting primary. God forbid he might be replaced by someone with an (R) next to his name, as opposed to (DINO).

[Punkingal]

18. They will if they can...

Count on it, vis-a-vis Hillary. Or they will push plagiarizing Joe Biden on us. Or some other status-quo do-nothing Democrat, and we're screwed.

[Larkspur]

31. The CT Dem Establishment is already sending warning shots to Lamont

about challenging Lieberman in a primary. Mayor Perez of Hartford who is a DLC clown and who has a staffer married to one of Lieberman's staff already told Lamont at Lamont's Hartford event that he would not help him.

My DTC chair who works for our state senator, who is Mr. Status Quo Dem, said that she opposes Lamont's primary challenge because it diverts $$$ from other "much needed" races, like our 2nd district race and the governorship race. She's young so I deduce that she is quoting what her boss, Mr. STatus Quo Dem, said.

I got news for her and her boss, I decided where my hard earned $$$ go, not the CT Dem Establishment. Most of my political donation budget is going to candidates OUTSIDE of CT.

[IndianaGreen]

35. So the hatched job on Hackett is not an isolated incident

and the Beltway Gang will do the same to any Democrat that challenges the status quo!

[Larkspur]

42. Reid is not keen on Lieberman but dogs run in packs so I expect

incumbants to keep running together. If Reid stays silent on the Lieberman-Lamont primary, that will be a bonus to Lamont.

At my local DTC some of the members are not keen on Lieberman but they credit him with saving the sub base. Duh! Lieberman was not the only one at the CT delegation to save the sub base and anyway all CT leaders were caught flat footed when BRAC announced that Groton was on the elimination list. What kind of leadership is that anyway.

Lamont's campaign manager is Tom Swan, exec director of CCAG -- CT Citizen's Action Group http://www.ccag.net/, which was co-founded by Lieberman many years ago. CCAG is the largest progressive group in CT and I suspect backs Lamont. They have not publicly backed Lamont as a group, but it was Tom Swan, their Exec Director, who lead the search for a challenger to Lieberman. CCAG has not been happy with Lieberman for a long time.

CCAG will most likely keep Lamont's back and after CT DFA, CT MoveOn.org, other CT progressive groups, and their parent orgs get behind Lamont, the battle lines in CT will be Dem Establishment versus progressive activists and then the fireworks will begin. At the local Dem Establishment level -- the Democratic Town Committee level -- is where the biggest schisms will take place. I've seen it already in my DTC. I know of at least one DTC Chair in my corner of CT who is excited about Lamont, but that's it so far. After Ned gets his campaign going full blast, allegiences to either Lieberman or Lamont will become more public.

[LynneSin]

20. Once again: Brown was probably more liberal and Hackett quit

that is all

[Lerkfish]

23. thanks for the non sequitor: I'm not making the claim that Hacket

is more liberal. I'm talking about the process of primaries.

I appreciate your comment, but it has nothing to do with the discussion.

do you think primaries should be eliminated altogether, or should voters have the chance to determine which candidate (any candidate, not just this race) they prefer?

How can you say definitively the voters prefer xyz candidate, if abc candidate is knocked out of the race before the primary?

[LynneSin]

25. Why aren't we blaming Paul

I mean, this same stuff is happening in other states but at least those candidates like PA' Chuck Pennachio, have the balls to stand up to the DSCC.

If you can't stand up to people in your own party then good riddance and don't let the door slam you in the ass on the way out!

[Lerkfish]

26. again, I'm sure its cathartic for you to post that, but what does it have

to do with the central point?

do you feel the primaries should be eliminated, or that primary contests are healthy for democracy?

what is your opinion of the primary process, and how do you feel about leadership's end run around it?

[LynneSin]

28. Primaries are great and may the strongest survive

Obviously Paul was not one of them. He made the choice!

[Lerkfish]

30. ok, thanks. Now I get ya.

sorry for being dense.

[welshTerrier2]

33. whether you "blame Paul" or not is NOT the issue being raised

i know very little about either Hackett or Brown ... both sound like they have something positive to offer ...

and i couldn't care less whether you "blame Paul" or you don't ... perhaps he shouldn't have withdrawn or perhaps he was so undermined by the elitists in his own party that he really had no chance of winning ...

the issue raised in the OP, however, has nothing to do with Hackett's conduct at all ... his conduct is a perfectly good issue to raise but it is NOT what this thread is about ...

so i ask you, is it appropriate, where two or more candidates have announced their candidacy to run for Senate as Democrats, to have the Party (whether they did this or NOT) stack the deck ... isn't this what machine politics are all about? shouldn't Democratic voters be able to make the choice without having the Party's elites make the choice for them?

it seems to me that a "fair fight" in the primary is in the best interests of democracy and gives the greatest possible voice to all Democrats ... having the national weight of the Party's machinery crush one candidate and boost up another stifles involvement from new, untested candidates ... it's a surefire way to always run the big names and stifle new ideas and incentive ...

[VonDoomPhd]

39. Primaries.

Open primaries are essential in our political process. It is not enough that we give people the illusion of choice, they must be given in fact a REAL choice.
Behind-closed-doors machinations and maneuverings are always going to be with us. However, we can limit the extent to which these clandestine steps are implemented by making our voices heard and telling those behind the scenes that such behaviour is unacceptable and undemocratic.

I understand why some can appreciate these tactics from a political standpoint as a primary campaign (especially if it turns gnarly) can drain a candidate financially and emotionally. But while these tactics may have merit they have no moment in American democracy. So, boo-fucking-hoo if the annointed republican-lite saviour of the Democratic party in (insert state and district) is savaged by his challengers and considerably weakened come the general election. Politics isn't a pollyana at Grandma's house. You should EXPECT to get roughed up. True leaders can take the heat and still come out swinging against the oppposition come November.

The fact of the matter is that progressive candidates (and I am NOT using Hackett as an example or anyone else) are traditionally those that are approached to get the hell out of the primary, i.e., "clear the field."
Why?
Because traditionally progressive/grassrooots candidates don't have the money and/or exposure that the establishment has. So when they gear up for a primary they talk about issues, give scary striaght answers to simple questions and point out how their challengers differ from them (this whole "pointing out how challengers differ" is sometimes called "attacking" and is indicative of running a dirty campaign. Again: boo-fucking-hoo.)
The progressive/grassroots candidate can say these things because he is like Marvel Comics' Daredevil: a man with nothing to lose is a Man Without Fear.

In regards to Chuch Pennachio, I like Chuck. He is a true-blue progressive Dem that gives answers to questions without a gratuitous helping of non-committals and qualifiers. But right now he is considered little more than an annoying gnat by PA's democratic leadership. However, should he take on a strong buzz in the coming months (and buzz is not money, money is money) then he will no doubt be approached and pressured by the leadership to "clear the field" so good-ole Bob (son of that Planned Parenthood Vs.) Casey can keep his powder dry for the general election.
That's not even the illusion the choice.
But then again, "more than anything", we need to get rid of Santorum, so there's that little argument to make everyone feel better about shunting aside their beliefs...

I'm rambling.

In conclusion: Primaries = Good, Fire = Bad.

[Lerkfish]

41. brilliant post! thank you!

that sums up very eloquently what I find concerning about the whole deal.

[radio4progressives]

43. You've got it right on Target. It's about the Process vs The Status Quo

The party functionaries are operating in full force here on DU obfuscating from the actual facts about how the money and support was suddenly pulled from Hackett's campaign and pushing the canard that this is about Hackett's personal choice.

Nothing at all to do with Hackett's personal choice and the party hacks promoting this bullshit, must really think that every body here are freaking idiots. everytime these functionaries post that garbage they lob one offensive insult after another - repeating the propaganda so that everyone actually believes it - it's insane.

promoting Brown's record as if that was the issue is not going to cut it.

The Washington Beltway, the insiders, the autocratic DLC are promoting this lie and i'm sick of seeing good hard working people being snowed this way.