The Christian Coalition turned itself into a big-time player in Republican politics by contesting GOP primaries and in the process helped turn the Republican party into the dominant force in American politics.

As for the rest... my advice is that you re-examine the extent to which you have internalized and accepted the GOP narrative about the Democratic party. My sense is that Democrats lose when the public believes that we act out of political expediency rather than from deeply held values.

If MoveOn wants to help knock out Henry Cuellar in TX-28 or Joe Lieberman in Conneticut, I say more power to them. It beats having them waste valuable activist resources with meaningless petitions and polls. Besides, there is almost no chance that either of those seats will be a GOP pickup. And both of those candidates would be worth defeating even if neither of them had chosen to play smoochies with Dubya.

Jeff,

Thank you for your comments. I told Move-on that if they proceed with their new approach they could kiss me good bye. If we get to a solid majority we can have the luxury of worrying about purity. All I care about at this point is getting the first vote in congress that chooses the majority leader and committee chairs. We coastal progressives do not make up a majority of the country. There are a lot of Democrats in red states that will not vote with us on all issues, but if they support us on enough we can end this nightmare the country is in. We need to keep our eye on the ball.

This has not been a good day for those of us who would like to win next fall and require a unified party to do it. As LT points out the Paul Hackett decision has split the party there and is causing heartburn elsewhere. "Big Eddy" lost his temper on KPOJ and was yelling at an Ohio Democrat that disagreed with him on the Hackett issue and he rarely does that. You would think we were fighting over the spoils and had already won instead of trying to scratch out a gain for our side.

If Moveon wants purity over majority they are full of themselves.

That choice is a false dilemma if I've ever heard one.

Republicans gained the majority by promoting ideological purity and enforcing discipline by knocking out candidates in GOP primaries who failed to respond to their base.

If anything, Democrats lost power in the 1990's by abandoning their base in the search for the mythical middle. The beltway wing of the Democratic Party gave us the worst of both worlds inasmuch as they lost credibility with the progressive activist core of the party while failing to persuade anyone in the center, which generally perceives our candidates as political opportunists rather than people of principle and conviction.

I don't think that the question lends itself to intellectual clarity.

I'm always railing against the DLC guys, Liebermann, Clinton, Emanuel, etcetera since I believe that they have decided that the only way to win is to whore themselves out on any issue. If they have no ideology at all, how can I be accused of pigeonholing them?

Idler, over at My Very Brain likes to go back to the 17th century for his definitions of Liberal and Conservative. As near as I can tell, his definition of liberal is about identical to my definition of libertarian. This may be accurate in some way, but practically, it just adds another layer of confusion to the topic.

My buddies on the real Lefty lists (Yes, Sasha, Wolfie, et. al. there are much more liberal sites in Oregon than BlueOregon), think that I'm an irredeemable Conservative or worse, because I favor some form of immigration law enforcement.

We're pretty much back to doing our own danged homework. The DSCC bastards called my house a week ago for money, and I'm so-o-o-o-o-o glad that I told 'em to take a flying leap. As LT mentions, what they did to Paul Hackett, absolutely proves their moral bankruptcy.

All I care about at this point is getting the first vote in congress that chooses the majority leader and committee chairs.

All I care about is winning on policy. You don't win on policy by giving people you don't agree with a free pass in primary elections. Besides, it's not a zero sum game. There is no reason to suppose that knocking off Henry Cuellar in the Texas-28 primary is going to hurt David Wu's chances in Oregon's 1st CD.

Also, the example of Paul Hackett, who was pushed out by the DSCC is a terrible example for making your case. If Hackett had lost the primary, his supporters would've lined up behind Sherrod Brown the same way that Dean supporters lined up behind Kerry. Now, because of how the DSCC pushed Hackett out, those majority of those people are going to sit on their hands and do nothing for us in Ohio this year.

Jeff: "appears to be a sort of push poll"

Push Poll (n.) From Wikipedia: A push poll is a political campaign technique in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. Push polls are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning. The term is also sometimes used incorrectly to refer to legitimate polls which test political messages, some of which may be negative. Push polling has been condemned by the American Association of Political Consultants.

Taken from a recent diary at Daily Kos

2.) Primaries are bad This is something akin to gospel in the Democratic Party and I used to buy it. Until 2004. In that cycle, competitive Republican primaries in Oklahoma, Alaska, South Carolina, and Florida allowed those Republicans to use the momentum boost and media coverage to eventually win their seats. Democrats cleared their primary fields up and down the map for all the good it did (absolutely none).

This obsession with clearing fields really is counterproductive, generating a great deal of hostility and ill-will. And really, what better place to work on message and build the campaign machinery than in a primary? The primary election, at worse, becomes a test run to make sure the machine is firing on all cylinders. And the money used on media and whatnot during a primary is not wasted money -- it's a way to build up early name recognition to the electorate. It worked wonders for Republicans in 2004.

Just to be clear, this is an argument of strategy, and I'm not going to go to the mat for Joe Lieberman or Henry Cuellar. But it IS a matter of strategy, and I think having a national PAC flood local races is a three-part blunder.

First, it nationalizes Party division, which is crappy PR. Second, it bleeds money, time, and organization away from races that are competitive in GOP districts. We happen to have one in Oregon. I'd love to see MoveOn mount a "winning in 'unwinnable' districts" push. That would unite the party and nationalize our unity. Finally, you have to make a decision: do you ask your party and leaders to fall in line with orthodoxy, or do you reach out to folks who, like Pat Ryan, will join you in larger, more inclusive agendas, but drop you in a New York (make that Clackamas County) minute if you push a narrow agenda. I think MoveOn represents the wrong choice.

Okay, bonus reason: I'm all for progressive candidates ousting conservatives. But this should totally be a grassroots effort, should arise from local leaders because of local will, and shouldn't be choreographed by twenty-somethings in Washington because of generic purity standards.

But, as I say, it's a strategic issue, and I think most of us are actually on the same team from a mission standpoint: regaining power and creating and passing progressive policy to undue some of the catastrophe of the Bush years. I'm a low-down pinko commie politically, but I'd settle for incremental, modest progress after the decade we've had.

Ima wondrin' if the DFO is gonna jump on this Hackett deal.

Veterans are the darlings of the Dems right now (me included), and since the Washington pols have nothing but contempt for (and fear of?) the Dean Bros., why shouldn't we flex our muscles a bit?

When Jeff says:

I'd love to see MoveOn mount a "winning in 'unwinnable' districts" push. That would unite the party and nationalize our unity. I think that he's on to something.

MoveOn, True Majority, and the DFO, might all want to take a look at this idea.........

For those of you following the Hackett story, this is a very useful commentary from KOS:

OH-Sen: Hackett out. Of politics. by kos Mon Feb 13, 2006 at 10:01:35 PM PDT Hackett is out.

Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran and popular Democratic candidate in Ohio's closely watched Senate contest, said yesterday that he was dropping out of the race and leaving politics altogether as a result of pressure from party leaders.

Mr. Hackett said Senators Charles E. Schumer of New York and Harry Reid of Nevada, the same party leaders who he said persuaded him last August to enter the Senate race, had pushed him to step aside so that Representative Sherrod Brown, a longtime member of Congress, could take on Senator Mike DeWine, the Republican incumbent.

Mr. Hackett staged a surprisingly strong Congressional run last year in an overwhelmingly Republican district and gained national prominence for his scathing criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq War. It was his performance in the Congressional race that led party leaders to recruit him for the Senate race.

But for the last two weeks, he said, state and national Democratic Party leaders have urged him to drop his Senate campaign and again run for Congress.

"This is an extremely disappointing decision that I feel has been forced on me," said Mr. Hackett, whose announcement comes two days before the state's filing deadline for candidates. He said he was outraged to learn that party leaders were calling his donors and asking them to stop giving and said he would not enter the Second District Congressional race.

"For me, this is a second betrayal," Mr. Hackett said. "First, my government misused and mismanaged the military in Iraq, and now my own party is afraid to support candidates like me."

Calling his donors? Seems like a bullshit thing to do. But the party wasn't afraid of Hackett, they were afraid of an untested candidate in a high-profile Senate race. He'd have all the support in the world had he decided to run for OH-02. And he'd be able to build on that support for a Senate race in 2010.

But alas, it was not to be. Too bad.

Update: To make something clear, Hackett is complaining about betrayal. Yet Rahm was trying to get him to become one of his candidates. In other words, Rahm was recruiting him. That's not a bad thing. That's a flattering thing.

To be clear -- Hackett didn't stand a chance. He had a tenth of Brown's money, and that was before party people allegedly tried to stop Hackett's donors from giving. His field operation in the special election was literally put together and implemented by Dan Lucas. Who is Dan Lucas? Sherrod Brown's campaign manager. Hackett's netroots effort in the special election was put together by Tim Tagaris. And while Tim is now at the DNC, he helped put together Brown's netroots operation.

So it was Brown's people who helped put together the nuts and bolts of Hackett's special election campaign, and they were now working for their boss -- Sherrod Brown.

To be further clear, Brown announced his candidacy before Hackett did. Yes, Reid and Schumer were urging Hackett to run, but he wouldn't commit to running. Labor Day, the traditional announcement day for most candidates, came and went with Hackett refusing to say what his plans were. So after waiting and waiting and waiting, Brown essentially said "fuck it" and got in. It was only after news of Brown's impending announcement were leaked that Hackett decided to commit to the race.

Bottom line? Hackett didn't stand a chance, he wasn't backstabbed by his party since Brown's candidacy was announced before his was (if he'd only committed sooner, Brown might've stayed out), and the party wasn't out to screw him, they were out to get him to run in the House.

Update II: It looks like people misunderstood at least part of my first update. I don't think Hackett stood a chance in the primary. I think either candidate would be able to take DeWine. But Hackett had fallen woefully behind on the money and organizational races, and lacked Brown in name ID. It would've been a tough slog.

But this should totally be a grassroots effort, should arise from local leaders because of local will, and shouldn't be choreographed by twenty-somethings in Washington because of generic purity standards.

Perhaps you don't exactly have your finger on the pulse of the Democratic grassroots in this country if you believe that this effort began inside the beltway. Lieberman is a poster child for why progressives are abandoning the Democratic Party. I'd argue that it's a much bigger strategic mistake, if we want to have any credibility with the party's base, to let people like Joe Lieberman feel safe when they side with the worst elements of the Republican party on policy.

Finally, you have to make a decision: do you ask your party and leaders to fall in line with orthodoxy, or do you reach out to folks who, like Pat Ryan

I'm sure he'll speak for himself on this, but somehow, I suspect that Pat doesn't have a big problem with the push to knock out guys like Joe Lieberman.

In any case, if contesting primaries is such a terrible strategy, why have the conservatives had so much success with it in recent years?

So, do we go after some Democrat that has voted conservative on some issues? Or do we go after the Republican majority in Congress? First things first - once we have Congress then we can deal with those that fall short of the ideal.

You've posited another false dilemma. The candidate lining up against Lieberman is willing and able to self-fund. What he needs is a stronger grassroots base. MoveOn has the capacity to provide him with that in Conneticut. And yes, they can also provide him with some money, and there are a lot of Democrats out there who will donate money to knock off Lieberman.

Doing this in no way detracts from other efforts around the country.

Again, if running contested primaries is a bad strategic decision, how do you explain the success that Evangelicals have had over the last 20 years in taking over the Republican party, and in helping to make the Republican party a dominant player in Washington?

Do any of us really think that the Republicans gained a majority in Congress by running to the middle? Steve, I'm shocked that you of all people haven't figured out what gerrymandering has done to our congressional landscape, and why it's a perfectly rational strategy to cater to the base in many congressional districts.

I have trouble with this, which shouldn't surprise people who know me. I think we do better if we attract more to our side, and I don't know how we do that by attacking folks who don't think exactly the same. This is a big country, and there are lots of different views out there, and lots of different political centers. Forcing an ideological agenda on people who cannot buy enough of it will mean fewer Democrats and fewer victories, not more. I'm willing to let candidates decide for themselves what's good for their campaigns and their electorates. When we let the hard-core types determine what everyone should believe, then we are diminishing democracy. It's very true that the GOP has won some, maybe lots, of elections in the past 10 years by going to their base to the exclusion of other groups. That's not all of it, however, and those who think it's that simple aren't very succesful in this business. History, I think, shows that their tactic s won't last. The question is, will we mimic the hard-line right of the GOP, or will we be ready to attract those they scare off? Or, will we just be content with scaring them off all by ourselves?

Forcing an ideological agenda on people who cannot buy enough of it will mean fewer Democrats and fewer victories, not more. I'm willing to let candidates decide for themselves what's good for their campaigns and their electorates.

Hi Wayne,

I'm not sure that I agree with the original frame of this discussion -- that MoveOn.Org siding with someone in a Democratic primary is tantamount to forcing an ideological agenda on anyone. Ultimately, the voters in these districts will decide what candidate they prefer.

Having said that, take a look at one of the races they will target:

In Texas 28, we have Ciro Rodriguez versus Henry Cuellar. Cuellar defeated the Democratic incumbant Rodriguez in 2004 after Cuellar asked republicans to rig the district in his favor as part of the Republicans effors to gerrymander the House Districts in Texas. A move that netted them 4 seats in congress.

Cuellar campaigned for George Bush in 2004, and himself was heavily supported by traditionally Republican funding sources including the Club for Growth, whose mission, until they endorsed Cuellar, read as follows:

"Club for Growth endorses Republican candidates who support limited government and lower taxes and pools club member's contributions to selected candidates."

Make no mistake: The winner of the Democratic primary in 28 will win the general election. Do we really want that person to be someone who was placed there by Tom DeLay's henchman in the redistricting of Texas?

I also recieved the same email from MoveOn. I agree, it is a poor strategy. Even more so, this strategy is now public (as if any of the emails MoveOn send aren't). My guess is Republican's are foaming at the mouth to see the Democrats knock each other out.

Yes, I don't like some conservative Democrats (Lieberman is one of those and Clinton is getting on my nerves as well), but that doesn't mean we need to be talking about knocking them off.

While I haven't follow the Paul Hackett situation very well, I think it is a big mistake to ask him to step aside. This is a person who seems genuine and is a hero who is fought for his county. This also a mistake on the part of those who asked him to do so.

I don't know, maybe it's time to re-register as an independent.

Republicans had success with evangelicals in conservative areas where a slightly higher turnout has edged out the swing voters. Have evangelicals made a big splash in Portland? No. We have to look at the context of each race.

Exactly. MoveOn's strategy appears to be to contest some bad incumbants in safe Democratic seats in the primary to see if they can get an upgrade. This is not all that different than what evangelicals did in the 1980's and 1990's to take over the Republican party.

As for context ... when Joe Lieberman goes on national television shows and bashes the Democratic nominee during the general election phase of the presidential campaign, joins Sean Hannity in mocking the Democratic base, and sides with the worst elements of the Republican party, he is begging for a primary opponent to send him off to retirement. Hopefully, MoveOn will oblige him.

Sorry, I meant to put my last name in my previous post. Don't like to appear anonymous.

I'm not arguing against primary challenges for Democrats -- people have a right to do that, and as for the situation in Connecticut (I was born in Bridgeport, by the way), that's up to the Democrats there.

What I don't like is nationalizing, cookie-cutter, one-thought-fits-all elections, and I don't like the idea of Move On, or any progressive group, becoming the lefty equivalent of the Club for Growth or Americans for Tax Reform. Any group has the right to do whatever it thinks is best, and I have the right to disagree.

For the life of me, I can't understand people who attack the far right, and the way some of their groups act, and then claim the path to victory is to act in exactly the same way. Polarization is running our politics, and driving good people away. Democrats should be the ones reaching out, not the ones closing the door.

There you go again. You put words in my mouth so to speak, that I never said or wrote or intended, then argue against them. I didn't write about Lieberman, I didn't write about not running contested primaries ...

Well Steve, here's what you said:

So, do we go after some Democrat that has voted conservative on some issues? Or do we go after the Republican majority in Congress? First things first - once we have Congress then we can deal with those that fall short of the ideal.

As I mentioned, it's a false dilemma. I gave some concrete examples of why it was a false dilemma.

There's no reason to suppose that progressives need to give "some Democrat that has voted conservative on some issues (like Lieberman)" a free pass this spring in order to go after the Republican majority in Congress this fall.

I'd say it's about time that the Democratic Party had an advocacy group that was willing to help organize progressives around the Democratic primary as well as during the general election.

I'm not arguing against primary challenges for Democrats -- people have a right to do that, and as for the situation in Connecticut (I was born in Bridgeport, by the way), that's up to the Democrats there.

What I don't like is nationalizing, cookie-cutter, one-thought-fits-all elections, and I don't like the idea of Move On, or any progressive group, becoming the lefty equivalent of the Club for Growth or Americans for Tax Reform. Any group has the right to do whatever it thinks is best, and I have the right to disagree.

Come on Wayne, we're talking about a group organizing its members in district, and funneling some national money to campaigns they endorse. It's Lamont's campaign to run, and if he doesn't have traction in-district, then he's not likely to get very far. Besides, there's nothing unusual about an interest group targeting a candidate in a political primary, and there's nothing unusual about funneling national money into a local race. To put this in perspective, 80 percent of the money that Joe Lieberman has raised in his political career has come from outside of Conneticut. Why should the defense contractors and insurance lobby that finance Joementum, or other candidates likely to be targeted by MoveOn, play by one set of rules while MoveOn plays by another?

Golly Sal, read what I wrote.

I going to stick with my belief that my Democratic Party should be democratic. That, to me, means that people (and groups) who differ should do what they can to advance their views, but respect people and groups who don't agree with them all the time. We'd do better as a Party by focusing on what we agree on, and not finding stuff to fight about.

The Republicans are on the ropes. Does anyone really believe that the best way to beat them is to attack Democrats?

Golly Sal, read what I wrote.

I going to stick with my belief that my Democratic Party should be democratic. That, to me, means that people (and groups) who differ should do what they can to advance their views, but respect people and groups who don't agree with them all the time. We'd do better as a Party by focusing on what we agree on, and not finding stuff to fight about.

I agree with you've written above, I'm all for fighting hard for your candidate in the primary and closing ranks for the general election. But what follows is simply a false dilemma:

The Republicans are on the ropes. Does anyone really believe that the best way to beat them is to attack Democrats?

I disagree that contesting races in a primary is tantamount to "attacking Democrats". If you believe what you wrote earlier, why finish with the line I've just quoted? At best, it's a mixed message.

My view is that if MoveOn.Org gets a couple of wins in safe seats for progressives in Democratic primaries it will go a long way toward re-energizing a lot of folks in the Democratic base in this country. It'll help MoveOn's fundraising heading into the general election, not detract from it. Because every time a Democrat goes on television to bash progressives, or votes for a judicial nominee before he votes against him, or throws one of his Democratic colleagues under a bus, it lends credibility to the Republican yarn that Democrats don't really stand for anything. And we lose people in our base, and we lose people in the middle.

I'm sorry Jeff, no offence, but I think your "strategy" sucks. I'm a progressive first and a democrat second and right now I'm totally disgusted with the good ole boy dems who cut off Paul Hackett at the knees in Ohio.

No offense taken. Our tent is big enough to suffer strategic disagreements. But I'm not arguing for smoky, back-room deals, and I'm particularly shocked and dismayed about the Hackett thing. Let him run, see if he can win with 10% of the money. He is nothing but gracious, and would have suffered a loss decently.

ctkeith--please don't misinterpret my post. I'm all for Connecticut voters ousting Lieberman (you don't know how much I'd love it)--but locals agitating to get a popular Senator voted out is different than a national PAC spending its resources selecting races based on ideological purity. Let me ask you this: do you think MoveOn's new plan is the best way to spend their considerable influence and money? Comments on this thread would suggest otherwise (Blue's advocacy excepted).

After I got the moveon.org email I told them I'd be perfectly happy with them taking on right-wing Democrats--just as soon as they've finished getting rid of all the right-wing Republicans.

I was a very early donor to moveon back when impeachment was still their reason for existing and I enjoy being able to give a little bit of money to good out-of-state candidates running against right-wing extremists. I've been doing that via moveon since they started offering it. It's kind of like having a bet on a game--gives me a vehicle for learning more about those races and makes the outcome more interesting.

However, much as I don't like Joe Lieberman--and I'm sure I'd really detest the dude from Texas--if moveon starts spending money to go after Democrats I'm going to, well, moveon.

I also reject the notion that we see here often that having a more moderate position on an issue makes a person less of an idealist and that moderate positions are somehow mushy whereas extreme postions are purity itself. I don't think that notion holds up under even casual scrutiny.

Somehow the idea seems to be that if you are on the left of the political spectrum then you have to be a communist, or at the very least a socialist, or you don't really stand for anything.

What can we learn from this? Do not challenge moderate Democratic incumbents in places where liberal Democrats cannot win!!!

I agree wholeheartedly with that, and with the underlying rationale for it. But Conneticut and TX-28 are two examples where we can replace conservative Democrats with liberal or moderate ones and keep the seat in the general election. And particularly in the case of TX-28, I'll stand with the guy who is endorsed and funded by the AFL-CIO, members of the Democratic congressional delegation including Hilda Solis and Charlie Rangel, and related unions above the guy who is endorsed and funded by Wal-Mart and the Club for Growth.

If someone feels that MoveOn supporting a good candidate like Ciro in a democratic primary means they are picking fights with Democrats, then so be it. As far as I'm concerned, TX-28 is really a Republican controlled seat that should be in Democratic hands. And it's a good use of MoveOn's money and energy to pick up all the Democratic seats we can get.

Update: DFA has joined in supporting Ciro in TX-28. They've raised $30,000 in 4 days for his campaign.

Bill Hooker:

Brown assured Hackett in a face-to-face meeting that he would not seek the Democratic nomination for Ohio Senate in 2006. He publicly bowed out. Then, three days after Hackett declared his own candidacy, Brown suddenly decided that he wanted to run after all. ----

I am sure you can find other supporters of Paul Hackett putting their opinion on the web, but Ms. Majikthise knows no more than you or I. I will give more credance to Kos who runs a leading national blog, very liberal, and very connected. His report had a lot more detail behind it. Unless you can provide another more credible source, I will defer to his comments.

Whenever there has been any doubt that a conservative Republican could not win in a general election, the Republican Party structure has nearly always backed the moderate.

MoveOn.Org, DFA, and the liberal blogosphere are not the Democratic Party structure. They are the barbarians at the gate.

This business about Democrats not attacking Democrats is valid up to a point.

But how many beltway insiders called foul last year when people attached to Gephardt's campaign ran ads in Iowa morphing Howard Dean into Osama Bin laden because Dean had the temerity to listen to the Democratic base and bring an anti-war agenda into the mainstream of the democratic primary?

How many Democratic Party insiders, other than Howard Dean, stood up for Paul Hackett this week when the people who recruited him started calling his donors telling them to pull the plug on his candidacy?

I'm sorry. For me, and I think for a lot of folks, there are two fights going on.

The first of these is to take back power from the Republicans in Washington. But the second fight, and one that is arguably more important over the long-term, is a fight to help Governor Dean move the power center of the Democratic Party out of the hands of a beltway establishment that all-too-often puts power ahead of principle, and whose strategies have led to electoral defeat after electoral defeat for Democrats on the national stage while allowing the political polarity of this country to tilt ever further to the right.

That's a fight that is taking place in central committees and state organizations. And if it's going to be meaningful, it's a fight that has to take place in at least some Democratic primaries.

I will give more credance to Kos who runs a leading national blog, very liberal, and very connected. His report had a lot more detail behind it.

I'm a fan of Sherrod Brown, but Markos' report had several inaccuracies that anyone who has followed the race to unseat DeWine, including Markos, is aware of.

First, it's not true that Hackett only raised 1/10th the money that Brown raised during this campaign. Hackett had raised nearly twice as much money as Brown. What he lacked was Brown's warchest, and because he was running a vigorous primary campaign, his burn rate was double that of Brown so his cash-on-hand was 1/10th of what brown had.

Second, as Mother Jones noted last fall, Hackett decided to run only after Brown told him that he didn't want the seat.

Boy, see what happens when you take a bit of a break from politics to try to get a bit of work done, clean house, set up a new office area in your house, etc.? You lose track of what's going on.

I'm extremely disappointed to hear they did that to Hackett. I'm not surprised, since they did the same thing in Texas for DeLay's seat (not necessarily those same people, but the Dem Congressional leadership).

DFO is definitely looking for those people wanting to run in "unwinnable" or hard to win seats. Candidates and their supporters are more than welcome to contact us at [email protected] and give us info on the candidate, their seat, etc.

Charlie, you hit on a point worthy of a post at some point, perhaps--why would far-left liberals support a guy like Paul Hackett, who's position on issues isn't nearly as blue as their own positions?

Here's my answer: because he's more likely to fight for the issues he believes in, more likely to win converts from the other team, and more likely to end gridlock and forward liberal legislation than someone like Dennis Kucinich. (Full disclosure: I'm a radical. I'm a pacifist; I think rich Americans should pay 75% of their income in taxes; I think the airwaves should be returned to the the public; I think we should put a five-dollar per gallon tax on gas, and spend 50% of our defense budget on addressing global warming because it, not terrorism or Iran, are the greatest threat to our security in the 21st century.) But Hackett, even if he doesn't share all these views, is far more likely to get something accomplished than Kucinch, whose politics I adore.

Also, Hackett's a helluva guy, and there's something to be said for electing decent humans.

The support for Paul Hackett here on BlueOregon will cause me to rethink my beliefs...

... probably not a terrible idea. Although I am ideologically sympathetic to Brown because of his position on the war, and his opposition to free trade, everything that Jeff said about why Hackett has so much support in the blogosphere and among supposedly "far left" constituencies is true, in my book. Plus, I personally agree with Hackett on several of the issues that you listed as reasons for lefties not to like him.

FWIW, according to the political compass, my belief system is that of a left-leaning libertarian which is basically how I've always seen myself.

Also, you mentioned elsewhere that Boxer and Feingold are part of the far left that should be repudiated for Democrats to take power. Would it surprise you to know that both Boxer and Feingold defeated incumbant Republicans to win their seats?

Charlie in Gresham,

I think that you and I are more "on the same page" ideologically than not, so I'd like to suggest that lumping Dean in with Boxer, Waters, and Kennedy ain't all that accurate.

The general public have been told that Dean is a "librul that hates Murica" by:

His Dem opponents in the primary who were terrified of this upstart from Nowhere who was getting most of his money from outside of traditional channels and hence could not be controlled by the DLC Bastards.

This was reenforced by the anti-war crowd grafting themselves onto the only Dem candidate (besides Kucinich) that was asking even some of the right questions.

Finally, it was picked up by the Republican Spin Machine.

Residents of Vermont know him to be a pro-business moderate-to-conservative Democrat.

Tom,

Just doing my little bit for Truth, Justice, and The American Way.

Note: see the initial post for an update on MoveOn's campaign.

Note: see the initial post for an update on MoveOn's campaign.

Well, whether it was a good strategic move or not, by the time this is finished the blogosphere, including MoveOn.Org, DFA, the DailyKos, and some others will have raised between $750,000 and $1 million in small donations in less than a month to help knock Cuellar out of that seat in Texas. That's something like 40x the capacity that labor, which was previously Ciro's main base of support, will have brought to the table.

Just an update, I got another email from MoveOn saying 84% of people said they want to take on conservative Democrats.

Not sure if anyone's still commenting on this thread or not.

To put a belated cap on MoveOn.Org's decision to support Ciro Rodriguez in TX-28, I thought that it'd be worth pointing out to the "thou shalt not take on incumbent Democrats because it's picking a fight" crowd, here's a current list of Democratic endorsers/donors to Ciro's primary campaign:

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Congressman Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) Congressman Charles Gonzales (D-TX) Congressman Gene Greene (D-TX) Congressman Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ) Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) Congressman Mike Honda (D-CA) Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) Congressman John P. Murtha (D-PA) Congresswoman Grace Napolitano (D-CA) Congressman David R. Obey (D-WI) Congressman Solomon Ortiz (D-TX) Congressman Edward Pastor (D-AZ) Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) Congressman Sylvester Reyes (D-TX) Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) Congresswoman Linda Sanchez (D-CA) Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) Congresswoman Hilda L. Solis (D-CA) Congressman Ted Strickland (D-OH) Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA)

... and the PAC endorsers:

DFA MoveOn.Org LCV Sheet Metal Workers Union United Steelworkers of America Carpenters & Joiners Union
National Assn of Letter Carriers
Teamsters Union
Transport Workers Union
United Transportation Union
Amalgamated Transit Union
UNITE HERE
Air Line Pilots Assn
Laborers Union Painters & Allied Trades Union United Food & Commercial Workers Union

And for Cuellar:

National Rifle Assn Wal-Mart Stores Club for Growth Chevron Corp US Chamber of Commerce

I guess I still don't see why it's a bad strategy for MoveOn.Org to side with labor, the environmental lobby, DFA, and several members of the Democratic caucus to help beat a candidate who is clearly working for the other team. Does it really matter that Cuellar is a Democrat if he was hand picked by Republican leadership to run in that district? Would it have been a better strategy for MoveOn.Org to have not gotten involved and let their allies twist in the wind in a winnable race that has clearly been targeted?

Or are some of the folks who criticized MoveOn.Org prepared to admit that maybe it isn't quite the half-assed, divisive, strategy that folks made it out to be?