A bedtime story about a man named Nighthorse
| By Alan Franklin - Aug 9th, 2006 at 9:55 pm EDT |
| Also listed in: Broom Brigade |
At the end of the day, it's all about choices. And consequences.
Take erstwhile Senator Joe Lieberman for example. He made choices. Yesterday, he learned that they have consequences. Joe wants to blame those scurrilous "bloggers," hoping the name sounds sinister to the unsuspecting ear, but the truth is a lot simpler than that. The blogs didn't vote yesterday -- Connecticut citizens did. And they voted to dump Joe Lieberman.
There's been some talk today about the questionable decision by Colorado Senator Ken Salazar to continue backing defeated Democratic Senator Lieberman, even as he sheds his (D) and becomes an adversary in a crucial election year.
Of course we've been through this before, right here in Colorado. We had a Democratic Senator go over to the Republicans in 1995. The defection of Ben Nighthorse Campbell has remained a sore point among Colorado Democrats ever since -- even as they grudgingly concede that he was a most electable candidate. That's the thing about Colorado we so often forget: the world looks very different outside of these big cities. But even that reliable paradigm is shifting...
The next few weeks will likely settle the question for Salazar. If the GOP embraces the Lieberman candidacy, if Karl Rove's reputed offer to help Lieberman is accepted...Salazar will find himself in a terribly uncomfortable position.
And this is not a partisan thing: the problem is that Salazar is missing a key reason why Lieberman lost. Either he's missing it or he doesn't want to acknowledge it because it makes him nervous. Just as blaming Lieberman's defeat on some amorphous fulcrum like the "netroots" is folly, so too is the seductive other half of that equation -- the belief that you can support a failed agenda condemned by a growing majority of Americans without consequence.
True, you can get away with it longer if you're a Republican. Which brings us back to Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Colorado's last Democratic Senator. Despite what a number of people are saying today, I still prefer Ken Salazar to my last alternative. Just like a majority of Coloradans would probably prefer Salazar to, say, me as their Senator. It's a two-way street. But we need to remember, as Ken Salazar had damn well better remember, that there are values connoted by the letter following his name on TV. Values that put me in the ballot box each election, and shape the decisions I make there.
That is not a threat, unless somebody -- anybody -- who thinks they can "count on my vote" makes it one.
Take erstwhile Senator Joe Lieberman for example. He made choices. Yesterday, he learned that they have consequences. Joe wants to blame those scurrilous "bloggers," hoping the name sounds sinister to the unsuspecting ear, but the truth is a lot simpler than that. The blogs didn't vote yesterday -- Connecticut citizens did. And they voted to dump Joe Lieberman.
There's been some talk today about the questionable decision by Colorado Senator Ken Salazar to continue backing defeated Democratic Senator Lieberman, even as he sheds his (D) and becomes an adversary in a crucial election year.
Of course we've been through this before, right here in Colorado. We had a Democratic Senator go over to the Republicans in 1995. The defection of Ben Nighthorse Campbell has remained a sore point among Colorado Democrats ever since -- even as they grudgingly concede that he was a most electable candidate. That's the thing about Colorado we so often forget: the world looks very different outside of these big cities. But even that reliable paradigm is shifting...
The next few weeks will likely settle the question for Salazar. If the GOP embraces the Lieberman candidacy, if Karl Rove's reputed offer to help Lieberman is accepted...Salazar will find himself in a terribly uncomfortable position.
And this is not a partisan thing: the problem is that Salazar is missing a key reason why Lieberman lost. Either he's missing it or he doesn't want to acknowledge it because it makes him nervous. Just as blaming Lieberman's defeat on some amorphous fulcrum like the "netroots" is folly, so too is the seductive other half of that equation -- the belief that you can support a failed agenda condemned by a growing majority of Americans without consequence.
True, you can get away with it longer if you're a Republican. Which brings us back to Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Colorado's last Democratic Senator. Despite what a number of people are saying today, I still prefer Ken Salazar to my last alternative. Just like a majority of Coloradans would probably prefer Salazar to, say, me as their Senator. It's a two-way street. But we need to remember, as Ken Salazar had damn well better remember, that there are values connoted by the letter following his name on TV. Values that put me in the ballot box each election, and shape the decisions I make there.
That is not a threat, unless somebody -- anybody -- who thinks they can "count on my vote" makes it one.
Comments are closed for this post.
Look, why don't you wait to see what Salazar decides to do before you go lumping him in with that other brown guy from southern Colorado. I'm really shocked to see this post just after you guys edited someone else's post to hide the rather blatant racism that was behind the Salazar bashing.
As for the rest, I don't view my positions on these two events as incompatible. Perhaps not ideal, but I didn't create the situations. And I have been consistent on both the issues you would now claim I'm contradicting myself on. In both cases, we have watched our "friends" fail us. But what would you burn down in response, Luis? Answer carefully.
If I'm to wait to see what "Salazar decides to do" about Lieberman, you should wait to see what happens after November 7th here in Colorado to the Dems who caved in to the Tancredo hategenda.
And as I have said elsewhere, I think the Salazar = Campbell meme is deeply offensive. I shouldn't have to spend time refuting a comparison that is obviously wrong, but let's start with the fact that Ben Campbell (who had a 90% rating from the American Conservative Union) left the Democrats because supposedly that party doesn't support balanced budgets (yeah, I know, what a joke) whereas Senator Salazar makes it very clear that his (real) brand of fiscal restraint belongs in the Democratic Party.
If there is a lesson to be learned from the two situations, it is this one: After Campbell switched parties, the Democrats ran Dottie Lamm against him. I voted for her, but I knew she was taking Latino voters for granted and sure enough, Campbell was reelected on a wave of Latino votes from southern Colorado.
Having said that, I'm wondering if you read fully the point I was making. Like where I said Salazar remains preferable to the alternative.
Your conflating of the immigration special session with the issue of Salazar backing Lieberman is misdirected when applied to me. When just about every other blog and liberal commentator in the state was lining up to congratulate the Dems for their special session "victory," I knew better. I knew before the session began that it was a dubious undertaking. It was a short-term win with potentially long-term and serious repercussions. I never shied away from saying so.
My statement in an earlier post that Colorado Latinos would 'remember who their friends are' by election day acknowledges this costly mistake. It's the closest I came to a positive statement about the special session. Here's my question: what is your alternative? Do you honestly believe that what they did last month will drive Latinos into the arms of Tom Tancredo this November? Will they view Dave Schultheis and Mike May as friendlier to the totality of their interests? How about Bob "Mexican Time" Beauprez? I don't think so.
Keep those rhetorical questions in mind while we turn back to Lieberman. In the Connecticut Senate race, there was a credible progressive alternative. Which now has a strong chance of winning this November. In my mind, the choice was an easy one in the minds of progressive Connecticut voters. And Salazar's decision not to honor those results is a mistake.
I don't find my positions on these two unrelated events to be contradictory. Like I said, I believe your conflation of the two is forced for argumentative purposes. I guess if you insist on doing so, my reply would be the hope that our Colorado Dems -- including Ken Salazar -- can be shown the error of their ways, and that their good works will continue to counterbalance their mistakes. I have no such hopes regarding Joe Lieberman.
Anyway, thanks for taking my concerns seriously.
The cat has a backbone!
When he voted against Kerry's attempt at filibustering Justice Alito, I was furious. I wrote him a letter letting him know my feelings. When he voted with Harry Reid and others against the Minimum Wage scam that the Republican majority attempted to foist upon us, I wrote him a letter thanking him for his vote.
Democracy is a two way street. As voters, we've become too lazy. You can't expect a candidate to understand the pulse of his / her constitutents, if you don't provide well considered feedback. Snarky annonomous comments on a blog are not valuable feedback. They may be "fun", but they count next to zero in terms of usefullness.