Letters to the Editor
DCLaw1
Published Letters: 807 Editor's Choice: 2
-
on the mood of the public, and solutions
[Read the article: Dianne Feinstein, symbol of the worthless Beltway Democrat]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ah, Kitt, you beat me to the punch.
ModerateDem:
The left defeated Joe Lieberman in the 2006 primary and were defeated by him in the general. To me that indicates that the country will not vote for an agenda put forward by the base of the Democratic party.
I am frankly amazed at the endurance of this spurious Republican talking-point. As Kitt hinted at already, Lieberman would never have beaten Lamont had the Republican candidate not been so abysmally incompetent and unsupported by the national GOP. In what strongly appears to have been intentional neglect of the Republican candidate by his own party in order to ensure Lieberman could remain to defeat Lamont, Republicans voted in droves for Lieberman, and the fraction of Connecticut Democrats who also voted Lieberman tilted the balance in his favor.
Compare this fact to the empty slogan that Lieberman's beating Lamont in one of the smallest states in the nation is conclusive "proof" that America rejects progressive, antiwar politics.
Now, on the recurring topic of positive solutions to the predicament of GOP-enabling Democrats, I see at least a few viable options. First, put more emphasis and resources into grassroots primary challenges. If the seat is safely Democratic in any general election, this means that whoever wins the Dem primary will win the seat in most instances. Primaries, unlike general elections, tend to have smaller turnout and are thus more strongly affected by energetic, localized efforts. Though it does depend on a state's particular primary rules, I see nothing getting in the way of progressives mounting credible primary challenges to entrenched, complacent apostates.
Second, mount a massive national campaign to fundamentally change election and financing policy. Compel the FCC by way of legislation (perhaps regulation) to impose price caps on major network advertising slots during campaign seasons for political ads. Because the vast majority of money spent by candidates is on these exorbitantly priced TV ads, this will reduce the need for constant fundraising and marriage to wealthy donors. Simultaneously, begin a system of public financing of campaigns. The reduced cost of advertisements caused by the previous reform will lower the strain on the taxpayer for this new system, and it will also help reduce much of the influence private donors have over candidates.
The new standard for entry into a race as a major candidate will be popular support, as evidenced by petitions and other measures, not the degree of support one has from power brokers. This will compel a greater attention and adherence to public sentiment, and will significantly reduce the obstacles to challenges to incumbency, placing additional pressure on the officeholder to respond to the popular will.
There are other, more fundamental reforms that can be implemented, but these two would be an essential and highly significant start. Half-measures initiated by the officeholders themselves will never have the needed effect, and serve only to head-off more potent measures. Reforms need to burn from the bottom up - a brush fire of popular outrage and demand for sweeping changes that can only begin if people are made painfully aware that their interests are being sabotaged time and again by entrenched officeholders.
-
primary challenges
[Read the article: Dianne Feinstein, symbol of the worthless Beltway Democrat]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]pantanal:
Fortunately for her, the Republicans always nominated radical right wing extremists to run against her, so we never really had any choice but to vote for her, since no Democrat ever dared to challenge her in the primaries.
This is much of the problem. People should not complain that their representative is an unaccountable elitist if they can't even summon the will and effort it takes to challenge that representative in a primary election.
If California is so blue, where's the outraged run from the left when it matters? Is there no prominent California progressive willing to take the lead? In many ways, we have the government we deserve.
-
"to primary"
[Read the article: Dianne Feinstein, symbol of the worthless Beltway Democrat]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Che Pasa:
She managed to retain her seat against her primary opponent, and she managed to beat her Republican opponent in the general, so she is still in the House. She no longer serves as a reliable Bush enabler, however. And THAT is the advantage of returning a chastened incumbent who has had her ass primaried and has been thumped and thwacked around by her outraged constituents for her prior idiocy.
I agree completely - it's not just successful primary challenges that can pull a given representative office back to the public interest.
-
Ahmadinejad the Entertainer
[Read the article: Columbia to be punished for hosting the new Hitler enemy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]After all the huffing and puffing about the grave harm that will befall us if President Ahmadinejad were allowed to speak at Columbia, we have been shown at least two very important truths.
First, we learned how badly demagoguing an opponent can backfire and make one look foolish, while making the opponent look dignified. The President of Columbia University positively fell all over himself to mollify the loudest of Ahmadinejad's critics, and managed to make the Iranian President look like an insulted victim of hyperbole.
Second, we learned how allowing a "public enemy" to speak often hurts that enemy much more than it helps him - if this person is as bad as he is made out to be. When Mr. Ahmadinejad protested that Iran has no gay people, this did not exactly win him credibility points.
Just these two lessons, among others I haven't mentioned, made allowing him to speak a worthwhile, educational endeavor for not just Columbia University, but everyone watching. Entertaining too.