by David Safier
The comments section on my posts about Barber's votes have become more interesting than my posts. I want to bring part of one comment by Arizona Bobcat to the front, because I think it will lead to further valuable discussion about how big the Democratic tent is, or should be.
What is DISHEARTENING is to read comments on this blog and others bashing "Blue Dog Democrats." Have we learned nothing from the purge of moderates and the rabid taunts of "RINO!" coming out of the GOP? As Democrats, we should be doing all we can to broaden the base of our party, not narrow it. So-called "progressives" who are arrogant enough to claim that it is their right alone to define what constitutes a Democrat are engaging in both arrogance and political naivete. Regardless of who wins the Barber-Heinz primary, I am likely to disagree with some of their votes while backing the vast majority of votes they cast. Primary debates should be focused on a substantive discussion of issues and philosophies, but I am turned off to anyone who thinks they can win by spouting the "more Democrat than thou" line. We've had enough of that rhetoric from the likes of Jesse Kelly and Rick Santorum!
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think a lot of this discussion is besides the point. David’s focus was the contempt vote, which really was not a vote that should be based on where one stands in the political spectrum. It had nothing to do with progressive vs. conservative policy. There’s no logical reason why a Blue Dog should have been any more likely to go along with Darrel Issa’s kangaroo court tactics than a progressive. So, I don’t think it’s fair to characterize the criticism of Ron on this vote as “Blue Dog bashing.” Issa’s actions were so cynical that the majority of Democrats did not merely vote agaisnt him, they walked out of the House chamber. Ron’s vote has to be viewed through that lens. Why did a rep in his third week in office vote to take the extreme step of holding an attorney general in contempt of Congress when most members of his caucus, including the entire leadership, were openly disgusted with Issa’s actions? There are several possible explanations, but none have anything to do with Blue Dog vs. Progressive policy.
I appreciate the comments from both AZ Territory and BajaDemocrats. They both raise valid points. Excessive partisanship and the feeling that ideologues who demand lockstep agreement run the two parties has (along with gerrymandering) led to the sharp rise in the number of independents. Primaries are also the time to raise differences on the few issues that usually divide candidates in those races, as well as to talk about who can wage the best fight in the general election.
The attacks I referred to in my original post usually occur outside of the election cycle. We saw them lobbed at Giffords when she voted to maintain funding for the war in Iraq and the same line is now being used against Barber. How can two votes convince anyone to vote for or against someone who will cast hundreds of votes over a two-year period? Frankly, I haven’t heard much from Heinz about why he is a better choice than Barber and he doesn’t have much of a legislative record to discuss. The time I heard the most about him was when he was tied in with the Babeu scandal and it was mentioned that he was the only Democrat to vote for border “protection” funds that Babeu wanted for Pinal County. Should we cherry-pick that one vote out of hundreds he cast in Phoenix and say that makes him unfit to serve in Congress, as some of his supporters are now saying about Barber’s two votes?
I disagree with BOTH Heinz and Barber on the votes cited above, but I’ll be deciding who to vote for on August 28th on issues of substance after I get a better sense of the leadership styles, values and philosophies of the two candidates. Frankly, I will also be thinking hard about who has the best chance to keep the seat in Democrat hands. Despite the percentages cited by BajaDemocrats, members of both parties tend to vote with their leadership well over 80% of the time. That makes whoever emerges from the primary a “good Democrat” and also exposes the DINO/RINO charges for the elitist rhetoric they represent.
Well, I consider myself pretty liberal/progressive but I subscribe fully to the “I’d rather have someone who votes with us 50-60% of the time instead of someone who will vote against us 100% of the time” line of thought. If I lived in Indiana I’d be working to get Blue Dog Joe Donnelly elected to the Senate, even though he voted for Contempt of Congress against Holder, because he would still be much, much better than Mourdock, the nut job who beat Dick Lugar. But fortunately I don’t live in Indiana, I live in AZ CD02, and I don’t have to settle for a Joe Donnelly. Matt Heinz is very electable in the new CD02, and I think he’s a much better choice than Ron Barber.
So no, I don’t agree with bashing or “purging” Blue Dogs. But I also don’t think we should settle for one when we can do better.
Well said sir. Anyone wondering why almost a third of AZ voters have registered as Independents can find some of the reasons in your post. The circular firing squads just got old.