Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> TalkLeft

Legal Commentary

: TalkLeft

Whose "Idiots" Are Shrewder? GOP Fractures Over Tea Party Candidates

By Big Tent Democrat

At Powerline, Paul Mirengoff defends himself from attacks from Mark Levin:

Earlier this week, Mark Levin responded to one of my posts about the Delaware Senate primary. In that post, I noted that, in 2006, leftist activists supported less than reliably liberal Democratic candidates like Ben Nelson and were rewarded for their flexibility with the passage of Obamacare. I then argued that, by supporting Christine O'Donnell in the Delaware Senate primary despite the likelihood (demonstrated by polls) that she would lose the general election, whereas her centrist opponent in the primary would likely win, certain Republican activists are being less astute than leftists like Markos Moulitsas were in 2006.

This battle stems from the possibility that Mike Castle will be defeated in the GOP Senate primary in Delaware by Tea Partier Christine O'Donnell, putting a lock GOP pickup with Castle into the likely Dem hold category. O'Donnell would join Sharron Angle in Nevada, Joe Miller in Alaska and Rand Paul in Kentucky, in putting races that would have been GOP walkovers into a much more competitive state. It's an interesting strategic dilemma for activists. After all, Mike Castle appears not to agree too much with the Tea Party movement. Why shouldn't they support the candidate espousing their views? The issue is Delaware - a blue state that is an unlikely place for a Tea Party triumph (strangely enough, the Tea Party celebrated Scott Brown's win in Massachusetts, even though Brown is pretty much where Castle is on the issues.) I'll discuss the activist strategy on the flip.

First, if Daily Kos did much in the way of supporting Ben Nelson in 2006, I must have missed it. In fact, I remember posting an appreciation of Ben Nelson's unwillingness to punch his own party even though he is surely the most conservative Republican in Congress (befitting his representation of one of the most conservative sates in the country) as opposed to the manner in which Joe Lieberman behaved, and being severely criticized for it. The reality is the Netroots had little to say about Ben Nelson because the Netroots is irrelevant to Ben Nelson and his political fortunes (in Nebraska, the Netroots supported Scott Kleeb for, first the House, and then the Senate, Kleeb lost both races. Nebraska is not fertile ground for progressives.)

By contrast, the Netroots went all out in trying to defeat Joe Lieberman in 2006. The difference? Connecticut is a blue state and Lieberman was completely out of touch with the Democratic Party in Connecticut. Moreover, the winner of the Dem primary would have been the overwhelming favorite in the general election, but for the loophole in the Connecticut election law that permitted Lieberman to run both in the Dem primary and on the Connecticut for Lieberman party in the general election. In any event, the seat was not placed in jeopardy by the challenge to Lieberman.

Similarly, this year's challenge to Blanche Lincoln by Bill Halter in Arkansas did not put the seat in jeopardy. Lincoln was a dead person walking politically (as she remains today.) Halter may have had only a remote chance of winning, but a remote chance is better than no chance at all. The Dem Party's support for Lincoln has been, to coin a phrase, freaking retarded. It is wasted money.

A less thoughtful Netroots supported challenge involved Joe Sestak's against Arlen Specter. There is no knowing for sure, but I believe Specter would have a better chance of winning against GOP candidate Pat Toomey than Sestak has. And on the issues, I think Specter was better than Sestak, and would be for his final term (the same way Jim Jeffords was when he switched parties.)

This is all very interesting and cerebral, but can you really be a successful issue activist and operate in this manner? I think there are serious limits to this manner of thinking for activists. While I think supporting the O'Donnell candidacy is clearly stupid for the Tea Partiers, because it's Delaware, it's not such a clear cut case in Kentucky, Alaska and Nevada.

In Nevada, Sharron Angle beat a damaged candidate in Sue Lowden. Reid was in only a slightly worse position against Lowden, who was imploding. I'm not sure Republicans had great options in Nevada.

In Kentucky, Rand Paul is probably going to win, though by smaller margins than might have been the case with another candidate. The Netroots has hitched its horse to the Blue Dog Dem in the race, Jack Conway. I think this is a mistake by the Netroots. Jack Conway is not with progressives on most of the issues. Conway's win would be a win for the Democratic Party, but not for progressives (see Travis Childers and Heath Shuler.) Sure, I'd prefer a Conway win, but not to the point where I would lift a finger for him.

In Alaska, Joe Miller remains the favorite and his victory would be a big one for the Tea Party. This seems to me a case where the Tea Partiers' strategic calculation was an easy one - Alaska was ripe for the Tea Party.

I am still amazed that progressives have not made the Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold races the centerpiece of their activism this electoral season. Losses by either or both of these progressive stalwarts would be devastating to progressivism. These are the politicians who have fought for progressive legislation and progressive values through thick and thin. And yet, the Netroots seems indifferent to the fact that they are in the races of their lives. I don't get it.

Criticism of the Tea Partiers' strategic choices seems mired in the view that a Mike Castle win in Delaware is a win for the Tea Party. It isn't and the Tea Partiers have enough sense to realize that. But the strange thing is that the Tea Partiers do not have enough sense to realize a Christine O'Donnell win will likely not be an ultimate victory for the Tea Partiers.

But counting Dem wins as progressive wins is just as myopic. A win for Ben Nelson is not a win for progressivism. Yes the alternative was worse, but that signals a race where progressives need not have been invested. And they weren't. A Jack Conway win will also not be a win for progressivism.

Let me put it this way - for progressive activists, what would you rather see - Jack Conway win or Barbara Boxer win? Which outcome is more important? It's a no brainer to me. The Boxer race SHOULD be the most important of this cycle for progressive activists. It appears it is not.

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on September 13, 2010 (boomark / email).