The high point of Al Gore’s presidential bid was at the convention when he said
I will fight for you.
Sadly he did not and it was down hill from there.
Today the times call for leaders who will dig in their heels and fight for what is right. That’s you, U.S. Senate race.
What do I mean by a fighter? I do not mean an ideologue, or some romantic quixotic figure who is unable to play the game and has zero impact.
But I do mean someone who takes a strong moral stand — someone who lays down markers for regular people — and by so doing redefines what the game is.
All of you Democratic U.S. Senate aspirants: You have my vote already. All you have to do is win the primary and I am there. After all, consider the alternative.
But if you want more than that vote, if you want me to be excited and active on your behalf, you’ve got to show some guts and grit.
On that basis I do not care about your resume or your humble origins or your “story” or your devotion to family or your fabulous grasp of policy, admirable as those may be. I care about for what, and whom, you will fight.
Furthermore I think other voters do too This priority explains the persistent enthusiasm for Capuano and (Ms.) Warren, despite some obvious defects, and the lack of same for Kahzie and (Mr.) Warren, despite their obvious virtues.
Now: Does this attitude make sense? Shouldn’t I do the inside-baseball thing and calculate who would be best at beating Brown, then work my butt off regardless? Holding my nose if need be?
Maybe. But maybe not. Maybe we voters need to lay down some markers too, if we expect things to change.
And it is honestly how I feel. We have been triangulated, wonked, and Stokey-and-Zeckhausered to death. Time for a fighter. Please.
There is no excuse for a “hold your nose” candidate in Massachusetts. For a conservative Democrat In a R+10 district in Missouri, perhaps so. But in Massachusetts, Representatives and Senators should indeed be progressive fighters. And there will be plenty of legitimate issues to fight about in this election campaign against Scott Brown.
and beating Brown will be no cakewalk.
There is a solid block that will never vote for a Democrat, plus the ongoing romance with the idea of the “moderate Republican.”
But I think someone with clear principles who runs on issues of accountability and sticking up for the public interest has broader appeal than another technocrat.
Part of the problem is the media playbook being employed by the GOP for the last few decades.
You need a candidate who can espouse policy, have a clean background (nothing that will dominate the news cycle for 24+ hours), who can lay out specific ways to enact their policy suggestions, and who can turn the tables on that GOP playbook.
Think about it: The “liberal” media, the “east coast elites”, liberal hatred for “strong, conservative women” etc etc.
If you repeat it enough times, people start to believe it. We need a candidate who knows how to play that game, play it well, but actually mean what they’re saying. Don’t make up lies and mistruths. Put the Republican record out there for all to see, every chance you get, and repeat, repeat, repeat.
I chose my candidate because I trust Bob Massie to keep on fighting for ME – and the future of my children, even behind closed doors, and out of the sight of the public and the media. If I did not trust Bob to be honest, and true to himself, I would not be out there fighting for him.
Just think of Scott Brown with his hand in the Kochtopus’ ppockets. Quite a contrast.
To bad undeclared candidates, still on the sidelines, are sucking up the “fundraising oxygen” while so many wait for the “field to be final.”
Well, that means those who have jumped in have an extended oopportunity to show TRUE GRIT.
…Me too.
But, and this might be just me, I don’t particularly see much difference between Ted Kennedy working with Geo Dubya on NCLB and Obama working with the GOP on the debt ceiling. You had a choice then, as you do now, to see it as incremental progress or rank betrayal.
The cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die.
but it must be incremental progress, and there must be as much progress as possible. Nut just grand bargain for the sake of grand bargain.
The Overton Window must be stretched in the right direction. This requires vision and advocacy.
The difference between Kennedy on NCLB and Obama on nearly everything is this. Ted was a savvy pragmatist, but he (arguably) made a mistake.
Obama by contrast is a peculiar ideologue in thrall to so-called “centrism.” He seems unable to learn any lessons; his ideology prevents him. Sorry to say.
TrickleUp: you are so right on this…people want to get behind someone who they can count on to fight for them, to take their side, to defend them against those who would harm them or their families…it all comes down to that in the end. This week there was an Op-Ed in the NYT that truly hit the mark on why Obama is struggling to lead and it is worth the time to read it (www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html?pagewanted=all%3Fsrc%3Dtp&smid=fb-share) because there is a powerful message in it for anyone who wants to run and serve in office.
Ms. Warren’s appeal for this US Senate race comes from the fact that she had the strength and courage to speak the truth to power in DC…and she was on the people’s side. Obama should have named her to the job she clearly earned, but he would not fight that fight. He missed a great opportunity to show who’s side he is on. Too much compromising can make those lines pretty blurry after a while until people are unsure of what you’re willing to fight for…
We need leaders who actually lead. What is the old expression…I can’t follow you if you won’t lead. Hope you will read that NYT Op-Ed, I’d be interested to know what you think.
Thanks for posting that link. It’s a very fine piece, I am sorry to say.
I’d actually read it last week, and maybe some of it informed my post. I thought it was significant that it seems to have been widely shared in the progressive community.
It’s funny how these comments seem to keep coming around to Obama. I guess that makes sense as we think about who we want to represent us on the national stage.
Sen. Kerry takes a seat on this “Special Committee” to decide what to cut, what to save…in recent months he has seemed overly concentrated on “pleasing the boss”…he seems more than open to cutting into social security and medicare to balance the books…I hope he reads the NYT Op-Ed and sees the message therein…what will Kerry be willing to fight for/ who’s side will he stand on?…it will be very clear…