Yes, I was distraught this morning and then I read Harrison over at Post Politics blaming Chip Forrester and the Chipinistas and I felt better about it. Just think, if Chip Forrester really did have this negative power, to ruin everything he touched, we’d be able to turn Tennessee into a progressive paradise by simply having Forrester work for the Republican candidates.
Of course, I have grave doubts as to whether, if Forrester really had this ability, any Tennessee Democrat with any power would be astute enough to think of that, but one can hope.
I also remembered that factions within the Tennessee Democrats have been casting about for at least a year for a way to hook some albatross to the neck of the progressives in order to reassure themselves that they can safely continue to ignore us.
That’s fine.
But moving right isn’t working.
I don’t know how many times bloggers can say this, but if people want to vote for Republicans, they can vote for Republicans. If you’ve got George Dickel and and a whiskey that tastes like George Dickel sitting in front of you, you don’t go for the imitation.
The fact is that the conservatives in this state are fractured, too. And our running to the right has provided enough pressure that those fissures have stayed somewhat closed. But they’re there. The libertarian-inclined folks and the nutjob faction sit together very uneasily. You think libertarians, who usually pride themselves on being smart, feel comfortable with the kind of “we hate book-learnin’” stuff that goes on in the nutjob faction? Do you think folks who can smartly and astutely argue about what the implications of the presence or absence of a comma between “militia” and “being” is and who can rattle off all sides of a 200 year old argument have any respect for people who don’t have any intellectual curiosity?
Please.
And the nutjobs are now, in an effort to support their great love of the 10th Amendment, floating this idea of repealing the 17th Amendment. You think libertarians are going to be excited about taking the power to directly elect senators out of the hands of the people so as to make the state more powerful? I’ll believe it when I see it.
And the best the nutjobs can do against Herron is that he’s secretly gay? That’s their big trump card? Secret gayness? And their proof is short shorts and vanity? Um, their dude sings. Christian songs.
I don’t know if you’ve looked around the Christian music scene lately, but singing Christian songs is as much a hobby of the secretly gay as being vain. Is this really the best they have to offer?
And how long can “But he’s a homosexual! Vote against him, he’s a homosexual” work on libertarians? They’re already ill-at-ease with that nonsense, but they hold their noses and vote for Republican candidates because they don’t trust the alternative.
When there’s no Democratic alterantive, when they’re settling this stuff in the primaries, it’ll be different.
Anyway, it’ll be interesting to see how it plays out.
As for us, we could try to be Democrats, actual Democrats, who stand for something other than being like the Republicans, but not.
Because here’s the question Democrats have to answer: You’ve been running ever-increasingly conservative candidates. You’ve been supporting ever-increasingly conservative legislation. If the Republicans do gain control of the legislature and redistrict you out of Tennessee politics for the next generation, will we be able to tell the difference?
Filed under: Politics and Other Nonsense, The State of Tennessee
[...] Tiny Cat Pants: The fact is that the conservatives in this state are fractured, too. And our running to the right has provided enough pressure that those fissures have stayed somewhat closed. But they’re there. The libertarian-inclined folks and the nutjob faction sit together very uneasily. You think libertarians, who usually pride themselves on being smart, feel comfortable with the kind of “we hate book-learnin’” stuff that goes on in the nutjob faction? Do you think folks who can smartly and astutely argue about what the implications of the presence or absence of a comma between “militia” and “being” is and who can rattle off all sides of a 200 year old argument have any respect for people who don’t have any intellectual curiosity? [...]
AuntB, what do you think a 30 something who has never run for office should ponder before deciding whether to run in the 6th District?
[...] Cat Pants » My Thoughts on Bart GordonPosted 67 minutes [...]
“this idea of repealing the 17th Amendment. You think libertarians are going to be excited about taking the power to directly elect senators out of the hands of the people so as to make the state more powerful? I’ll believe it when I see it.”
Yes. Libertarian sorts are fond of the idea. It would provide balance. As it stands, state governments are mostly out of the equation when it comes to federal law.
And secret gayness? Wasn’t that what Ds were saying about Kelsey a bit back?
What?! You guys would actually support taking the vote out of the hands of individuals and placing it in the hands of the state?
Don’t you trust individual voters?
And if the state wants more power, why can’t it wrestle it away from the feds w/out sacrificing the power of the people?
I have to say, I’m really, really shocked by this.
I get why you’d trust the state over feds, but to trust the state over voters? I don’t get that.
The original formula was senate appointed by the states. The house by the people. If states were involved, there’d be fewer unfunded mandates. Senators are now beholden to special interests to get elected and not the state they represent. It would also provide states some oversight over the feds. All kinds of reasons states should be involved in the federal government.
“Don’t you trust individual voters?”
Well, if I want government cheese and gay cooties banned, I guess I would.
“I get why you’d trust the state over feds, but to trust the state over voters?”
Because then there would be some control by my state over the feds.
How much money they can raise? Whether they can win? Should those question come second to something people want more in a candidate?
Yeah, but don’t you think that Campfield would vote for a candidate who would ban gay cooties?
Politicians are, at the end of the day, just people. So why would they be less prone to the stupid things regular voters are?
It seems to me the old way is just as prone to corruption as this way, just not the same types of corruption.
Just to be clear here, there are good reasons that a super-majority of states themselves started the amendatory process that led to the 17th Amendment. (It wasn’t foisted on anybody, y’all. This came from the states.) State legislatures were full of backroom deals and smoke-filled rooms, graft, croneyism, and plenty of inter-party intrigue. When it came time to put up representatives to the Senate, the job went to the highest bidder with sufficient dirt on his opponents to pull it off. When (surprisingly often) a state legislature could not agree on the appointment, states went unrepresented in the Senate…and the vacancy could drag on and on. As part of a reform to strike at state corruption and clean up state governments (which were widely perceived to be inefficient and not as competent to do the people’s work as the people themselves voting in their own self-interest), states opted to go to a uniform system of direct election.
As someone who lives in Albany and gets to see the state government up close, I wouldn’t let this group of clowns elect the ringmaster of a flea circus.
Amen to Bridgett, and it’s been MY party in charge in Tennessee until January of this year.
We need to look at things on a LARGER scale, not a smaller one, and we need to understand that it’s no longer 1803. The idea of a “citizen legislature” no longer makes sense.
“Yeah, but don’t you think that Campfield would vote for a candidate who would ban gay cooties?”
Sure. But so would your average TN democrat. there’d be party squabbling to get legislative votes for the appointee. Means better vetting than TeeVee commercials.
“It seems to me the old way is just as prone to corruption as this way, just not the same types of corruption.”
Explain. Sure, subject to cronyism. But it’s a better check on federal power than we have now. Which is none.
Apparently, one should consider shopping at the Walmart in the 6th District where people talk about the 17th Amendment. Noted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
B., I highly recommend reading David Neiwert’s 1999 book on the Patriot Movement. The political doctrine of the Freemen– such as it can be so encapsulated– is instructive here. The notion that some return to a previous incarnation of the constitution as a solution is a tempting concept, but it quickly falls apart under scrutiny.
I think the problems that led to the desire for ‘reform’ (which in turn led to the 17th Amendment) of our method for selecting senators were never solved. Corruption and militant partisanship in state governments is no less an issue today than it was in the latter half of the 19th Century.
The biggest difference now is corporate influence in elections and politics. If you kick the selection of senators back to state legislatures, then you just add a layer of government officials that need to be bribed and cajoled (legally– through campaign funding– or not) in order for corporations and wealthy individuals to get their way. Incidentally, B., that’s why there’s often so little practical difference between Ds and Rs, especially in states that tend to lean conservative. They aren’t competing for the hearts and minds of conservative voters as much as they are for the wallets of conservative donors. We the People perennially and consistently prove ourselves willing to be fractured and led astray at the polls, so the candidates with the most to invest in showing us the shiny culture-war trinkets usually get elected.
I digress. My point is that repealing the 17th Amendment won’t matter a lick; hell, it might make things worse. Real solutions are more fundamental, and involve citizens growing up and getting past the culture war bullshit before they go to the polls. Then they might be able to look past the shiny campaign objects long enough to put just enough capable and decent representatives in office to break the bipartisan corporatocracy. Only then could we hope to make constitution-level changes that would really matter, like abolishing corporate personhood.
Christian, do you want a thoughtful answer or do you want a quick answer?
I think the Democrats need to resign themselves to losing for a while. But instead of imagining ourselves as people who just need to be more conservative, we need to have some principles and stick to them.
And show voters that we stick to them
Even if they disagree with us on some of those issues, we need to stick with them. Otherwise, we look like disingenuous liars.
If I were going to try to run in the 6th District, I wouldn’t show my face if I didn’t have a plan for how to bring jobs into the area.
The idea of Boss Naifeh or Boss Mumpower getting to hand pick US Senators makes my eyeballs ache.
This whole thread is fundamentally flawed. Agreeing with Bridgett against Say Uncle isn’t supposed to happen for another 3 years, according to the Mayan calendar.
I say we take it a step further. Not only did the Framers intend for Senators to be elected by the state legislatures, they also intended for voting for representatives to be limited to white males with property. Let’s return to our principles.
In all seriousness though, it’s always been difficult for me to accept the idea, even if I concede that the Framers did not envision a large federal government, that what the Framers did intend was that states should be all-powerful entities that can run roughshod over individual liberties. You can argue that the ballot box is that check, but states have used all sorts of methods over the years to block access to the ballot.
[...] yet another Congressional Democrat to announce he will not seek re-election, here’s the QOTD from Aunt B: “As for us, we could try to be Democrats, actual Democrats, who stand for something other [...]
Goldni, i think that’s why we have a few other constitutional amendments.
We do have a few other amendments, and the states rights crowd screams bloody murder every time one of those amendments are applied. They rarely even bothered enforcing the 14th or 15th Amendments for a century after they were ratified for fear of intervening in states rights.
Look what’s happening now in Asheville. They just elected an atheist to the city council. The conservatives are trying to sue to prevent him from taking office because the state constitution bars atheists from holding office, even though such religious tests have been found multiple times to be unconstitutional, even at the state level.
GoldnI, that’s why I referenced the Freemen. They will often refuse to recognize any authority outside of ‘the county sheriff.’ I think an underlying issue might be less a constitutional one than an issue of local accountability. In this case, local accountability is a nice way of saying ‘I can more easily rally enough like-minded people to bully my opposition at the local or state level than I can at the federal level.’
*applause for Aunt B*
I agree completely that TN Dems are just gonna lose for a while. The current leadership needs to die out, or quit in disgust, but pretty soon the powers that be are going to weaken to the point some new folks’ voices will actually be heard.
Anybody that thinks Dems are doomed in TN forever needs to get a different flavor Koolaid. The reason Republicans have been winning is TNDP’s failings, pretty much exclusively. If they’d even half try, they’d be competitive – but somewhere along the way, they got lazy. They figured they’d just keep trying the same old tactics that worked back in 1950 and elections would win themselves.
Well, guess what. The GOP developed a slew of sophisticated new tactics – among them forcing Dems into agreement with social-issue Constitutional amendments that only serve to drive mouth-breathers to the polls. They didn’t see it coming, and they should have.
Seriously. They have only themselves to blame. It sorta sucks watching the Republicans gloat over this, knowing the actual concepts of better jobs, health care, etc., aren’t flawed on their own merits – we’ve just got people who couldn’t organize a good-sized barbecue in charge of winning statewide elections.
Fact o’ business is that Tanner and Gordon, rather than fighting the tide, are hanging it up.
I thought for a long time that they were tools, but it turns out that they’re quitters as well.
Incumbency is a more reliable indicator than party affiliation. Once you’re in, it’s something like 35:1 odds against you being voted out of office, and that cuts across all electeds.
the Framers did not envision a large federal government, that what the Framers did intend was that states should be all-powerful entities that can run roughshod over individual liberties.
Of course they didn’t. They had the experience of the Articles of Confederation (and the Shay’s Rebellion) fresh in their minds at the time. And then there was this experiment called the Civil War 84 years later. And then the post-Brown experience starting in 1954. But there are those who’d remain willfully unaware of our history. There’s this seeming article of faith among these sorts that we can wait a couple of generations and then repeat our past mistakes trusting in different outcomes. Lather, doomed, repeat.
AuntB, that’s cool. What kind of candidate do you think should run during that period where “Democrats need to resign themselves to losing for a while?”
Christian, are you being a gadfly or do you intend to run? I think she’s been abundantly clear in this post and through the others on the subject: run as a damn Democrat (not as a Republican in all but party affiliation) and let the chips fall where they may.
Ooo, or maybe I was made head of the TNDP when I wasn’t paying attention!
Surely, someone would tell me if I had been, right?
Right?
Damn it. Should I show up to the TNDP headquarters tomorrow? I hope I have a nice desk.
Aunt B.,
If you become Chairman of the TNDP, I will buy you a couple of bow ties. And you can pick them out.
[...] feminists are shocked to learn what libertarians think of the 17th [...]
Yeah, I’m not a big fan.
bridgett, I wouldn’t intend to run until I decide to run. I would hope that’s how anyone goes about something as serious, but I do value advice. To that end, I would like to know what kind of candidate you all think should run during that period where AuntB says “Democrats need to resign themselves to losing for a while.”
What considerations should a candidate running during such a period make before manifesting their intentions? If it’s clear they will lose, I assume whether or not they could win is not a consideration. Is that a fair assumption? What should be a consideration? Or should we all just give up?
I am very interested in that part of the discussion and less interested in whether the 17th Amendment risks getting repealed.
[...] AuntB (progressive): I think the Democrats need to resign themselves to losing for a while. But instead of imagining ourselves as people who just need to be more conservative, we need to have some principles and stick to them. [...]
Interesting. If (and I do say “if”; I haven’t seen it) the Democrats have been running right, and the Republicans have been turning leftist (and they most certainly have–see McCain, John, or, around here, Sundquist, Don), then how long until they just change places?
Christian, I think candidates that care about serving their communities and who believe in Democratic principles should run.
We’re in a bad situation for the next little bit. Dems have played “But voting for us is almost like voting for a Republican” for so long that the people who vote for Democrats are primarily just voting against their opponants.
We have very little credibility.
But I think that a person who got to know voters, who knocked on doors and was him or herself unapologetically could make some headway.
You might not win the first time, but…
I also think that we Dems have to stop giving money to a party that keeps making boneheaded decision after boneheaded decision and instead we need to work at a local level with and for candidates we like and who support Democratic principles.
Right now, we have people saying “Oh, we can’t win, so we just won’t run anybody.” and “Oh, we can’t win unless we’re more conservative.” And low and behold, we’re not winning. We’re on the verge of getting our asses handed to us.
Maybe it’s time to go against conventional wisdom. Make the Republicans spend money in every race by running at least a plausible candidate in every race. And run as actual Democrats.
See what happens.
It literally could not be worse than what is about to happen, what the current way of doing things has wrought.
At least, that’s my opinion.
It is a good practice to never give money to the state or national party and instead give directly to candidates. You will move the party more effectively when you empower the voices you want to hear when your state and national party speaks. In the end, you’ll end up with the party you want.
The question I have for you, though, is would you give time and money to a candidate “who got to know voters, who knocked on doors and was him or herself unapologetically” while at the same time “resign themselves to losing?” In other words, what can such a principled candidate expect from you and maybe other Dems like you in way of tangible time and money? Would you want such a principled candidate to stand alone in the rain as you pelt them weekly with “give it up” posts and prayers, or will you stand with them to the end?
So, this is how you picture me, as someone who pelts otherwise fine candidates with “give it up” posts?
I mean, really?
Or do you mean this as some generic you?
Because otherwise, I don’t know how to even respond to this question. I’ve never pelted Democratic candidates with give it up posts, so, I’m confused about where you get this idea that that’s what I would do or why candidates need assurances that I would not do this.
Should I also promise I won’t kick their dogs?
I’m sorry. I’m not trying to be obnoxious but I really don’t get what you want from me. You ask all these questions.
Just come out and say what it is you’re thinking instead of trying to lead me to some grand realization.
I believe you don’t mean it to be patronizing, but it comes across that way to me. Just speak plainly and let’s stop misunderstanding each other.
Aunt B – I think his point is that if all Democrats come to the idea of being resigned to losing for a while, the losing may go on longer than you envisioned.
[...] yet another Congressional Democrat to announce he will not seek re-election, here’s the QOTD from Aunt B: “As for us, we could try to be Democrats, actual Democrats, who stand for something other [...]
And the point I took away from it is that a Democratic electorate needs to be grown and is more likely to grow if Tennessee Democrats present a viable alternative to the policy positions adopted by…well, by damn near everybody now because they’re all “We can’t be Democrats in Tennessee and get elected.” B clearly says that the strategy of running as DINOs keeps the Republican party strong, whereas if a whole lot of people ran as actual Democrats, they’d start exploiting and enlarging the fissures in that party,and over time, you’d have something.
In other words, she’s wisely counseling TNDP to develop a multi-election cycle plan and to think long-term statewide strategy. But go right ahead and grope your little part of the elephant if it makes you happy.
No, AuntB. It’s a serious question in which I provided a couple of choices – support or not support. Maybe that was worded wrong, but it was meant to describe whatever your alternative would be to supporting a candidate.
What I’m trying to get at is whether Democrats like yourself who feel Democrats should resign themselves to losing, as you said, will abandon those Democrats who run or whether you will be there for them with time and money despite you saying they should expect to lose. Everyone else I’ve asked that of got it, but maybe it’s because I spoke with them on the phone and they can hear it as the serious inquiry it was.
bridgett, that’s my read, too, but a “multi-election cycle plan” has cycles of loss. What I’m curious about is what level of support Democrats would be willing to give candidate who will lose or who stand up for solid Democratic ideals in solid Republican districts. I don’t have a sense of what the ideal candidate AuntB would like to see run can expect from people like AuntB other than a lack of support, and that won’t get the principled candidates to step up. What would make them step up, and are Democrats demonstrating they will be there to provide it?
No, Christian, let’s be clear. You were “interviewing” me for a blog post without being square about the fact that you were interviewing me and then passing my words off on your site like it was something other than a conversation in a comment section in which I was still confused about what the hell you were getting at.
http://www.nashvilleistalking.com/2009/12/searching-for-a-candidate-in-tennessees-6th-congressional-district/
At any point did you bother to say, “I’m asking around because I thought it’d be interesting for Nashville is Talking” or “I’m interested in your thoughts because I want to put them up at Nashville is Talking.”?
You’re not just aggregating me, there. You’re passing it off like we were having a conversation in which both parties knew what the hell was going on. Like you interviewed me.
Which you did not make clear to me here.
And now you want to goad me more? Fuck that shit.
I’m not anyone’s leader. There aren’t other people like me, and the people who read here and comment aren’t my followers; they’re people who read here and comment and then make up their own damn minds.
So, while I would certainly appreciate and be flattered if candidates were concerned about my support, you’re asking loaded questions that assume things about me that are bullshit.
Which you then, demonstrably, will take out of context in order to make it look like we were having some fair and square interview.
No thanks.
That is some uncool (misrepresenting, unethical, dishonest) shit, as the kids say.
What I’m trying to get at is whether Democrats like yourself who feel Democrats should resign themselves to losing, as you said, will abandon those Democrats who run or whether you will be there for them with time and money despite you saying they should expect to lose.
Here’s the issue – the Democrats in question are already resigned to losing. They’re effing quitting the races before they’re even engaged.
Maybe you should call Bart Gordon’s office and ask him why he’s pulling a Sarah Palin after a quarter century in office. Incumbency is still currency in political circles, after all. What’s he so scared of? His last serious challenge was from Steve Gill, and Gordon mopped the floor with him. Even if redistricting kicks in, it doesn’t happen until the 2012 cycle. Gordon hasn’t even drawn a credible challenger yet. WTF?
Here’s what has yet to happen: The Democrats have to articulate what they stand for. That’s not up to Aunt B. I’m sick to my death of hearing this shopworn trope that the shortcomings of the elected representatives are the fault of the represented. If Aunt B. (and others of like mind) are pointing out that these candidates are losing and seem to have no direction, she’s not on the hook for the actual losingness and directionlessness.
Christ. At this point, “Bredesen won 95 counties” is going to be etched on their tombstone.
AuntB, when I “interview” people I call them on the phone. I wasn’t interviewing you. Are you talking about my link to your blog post from NIT? I’ll read it again, but I think I just linked to a blog post like I did other people in the same post, none of whom I “interviewed.”
I’m genuinely interested in what you think aside from my role at NIT. I’m not trying to get your support for anyone, either. I’m trying to see what you’d be willing to do because you’re probably indicative of a lot of people, am I right?
No.
I’m indicative of me. People who read me and think that they’ve found some shorthand way of understanding some voting segment (and who would that be exactly, anyway) are making a grave mistake.
Good to know. I will now keep your political ponderings in it’s own special folder from now on, but do pick up the phone if I ever decide to “interview” you about whatever ;)