Posted on 08/14/2010 8:27:05 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) has some advice for liberal activists upset at the votes of the party’s conservative members: defeat them in primaries — but only in safe Democratic districts.
Frank told liberals at a Congressional Progressive Caucus Foundation event in Los Angeles in April that primaries are the place to push for more liberal Members.
“I said don’t defeat conservative Democrats in November . . . the place to do that is in the primary,” Frank said Friday in an interview. But Frank added his caveat that such a primary challenge should only come in districts where a more liberal candidate would win in November.
bump for later
Couldn't read it NOW?
This idiot needs to be jailed already for the housing BS and subsequent economic and financial-sector crisis that ensued. =.=
Why should anyone pay attention to this PERVERT!
There can’t be many conservative Democrats elected in “safe” Democrat districts.
I think this is a terrible stragedy. The number of "safe" Republican districts (e.g. normally a Republican is guaranteed to win by default) is this nation is extremely small. For all statewide races, it's basically non-existent... even the most heavily Republican states in the union (Wyoming, Oklahoma, Kansas, etc.) elect RATs to statewide office now and then. You'd basically be guaranteeing a liberal majority nationwide, especially if you think it's off limits to challenge RINOs in "lean Republican" and "likely Republican" districts that elect Democrats now and then.
I have no problem giving every RINO official in this country a primary challenge, regardless of how heavily Republican their district is. In a few VERY rare circumstances, like centrist Joesph Cao representing an ultra-liberal marxist district, it's a pipe dream if you expect to elect anyone better. But even here in Illinois, I'm thankful RINOs like Loleta Dickerson and Kirk Dillard were taken out in the primary, no matter how much people whine this is "Obama's state" and that supposedly "only RINOs" can win here.
>> don't oppose them in the general election except under extraordinary circumstances. <<
I agree with that, but it seems you and I have a different definition of "extradoinary circumstances". To me, "extraodinary circumstances" means the "Republican" nominee SO incredibly bad, they're NOT just a squishy RINO or a centrist or an annoying backstabber, but they're as liberal as many Democrats and if you only went by their record, you'd be likely to assume they're a RAT.
Hence, I oppose Mark Kirk in the general election but would hold my nose for Lindsey Graham. For you, Clintonfatigued; the opposite is true.
I was the first to come out against Dede Scozzafava and back in the day (before joining FR) I supported Robert Weygand over Lincoln Chafee. I have a strong record of supporting conservative populists over not only RINO’s, but establishment squishes. Note that I was the first to support Mike Lee in Utah, Joe Miller in Alaksa, Ken Buck in Colorado (though I wavered after some of his gaffes).
If Mark Kirk were being opposed by a pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment ‘Rat, like Glenn Poshard or Dan Lipinski, I’d be open to opposing him in the general election.
You have to take an election-by-election approach to this to be successful.
Nice try, Barney!
Democrats, please form up your circular firing squad around the loud lisping man.
Thanks for sharing.
Weygand over Chafee and Poshard over Ryan are the only cases I can think of in recent memory where the Democrat candidate was clearly more conservative than the Republican nominee. It's very rare. In both cases, it was just a fairly bland moderate & socially conservative pro-life Dem, running against an EXTREMELY far-left "Republican" who agreed with EVERY major issue of the RAT party platform.
>> Note that I was the first to support Mike Lee in Utah, Joe Miller in Alaska, Ken Buck in Colorado (though I wavered after some of his gaffes). <<
You switched from Buck to Norton, as I recall. I wasn't too keen on either of them, but I didn't see it as a "RINO vs. Conservative" race, either. Utah and Alaska are fairly to close to what I'd define as "safe Republican" states -- RATs only win major elections there under very unusual circumstances. Colorado is a more of a swing state with perhaps a very slight GOP lean. I would oppose RINOs running for Congress in all three of those states, and in majority RAT states like New Jersey or California for that matter. An example being when Scott Garrett replaced Marge Roakma, or Tim Walberg replaced Joe Schwaz. Neither is a "safe GOP" district. Walberg's district only has a Cook PVI rating of R+2. I believe both districts voted for Obama. Nevertheless, people like Schwaz should not have been given free reign to govern like a defacto RAT because his district was only moderately Republican.
>> If Mark Kirk were being opposed by a pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment ‘Rat, like Glenn Poshard or Dan Lipinski, I’d be open to opposing him in the general election. <<
That's just silly. You'd prefer endorsing a candidate who would caucus with the RATs over Stufflebeam who would caucus with the Republicans? Illogical and a certain way to ensure a RAT majority. Would you have opposed James Buckley's third party bid against Charles Goodell and argued we needed to support socialists "Republicans" like Goodell and Jacob K. Javits simply because they're running in a majority RAT state? Following your logic, we should have all held our nose for Goodell.
>> You have to take an election-by-election approach to this to be successful. <<
I do. I always support the most conservative VIABLE candidate I can in a primary. In some cases that means someone who agrees with me 95% of the time, in some cases it means someone who agrees with me 70% of the time (like Dr. Friedman running in Kirk's 10th CD, or Steve Laffey running in Rhode Island against Linc Chafee)
In the general election, one has to be pragmatic and deal with the cards we were dealt. That means I hold my nose for the Republican, even if there's a backstabbing jerk (i.e. McCain) or a moderate squish (i.e. Mike DeWine), except in ex ordinary circumstances where the Republican is some kind of national embarrassment that can't get elected dog catcher (David Duke), or the "Republican" is defacto Democrat (example: Kirk, Chafee).
You seem to have it backwards in some cases, showing a willingness to have RATs defeat imperfect Republican incumbents who agree with you 80% of the time, while willing to elect so-called "Republicans" who agree with you 20% of the time. All that does is move the overall direction of the GOP caucus (and Congress itself) leftward. And if you do it on this ridiculous "we must have purity in 'red' states, but accept any marxist that gets nominated in 'blue' states" logic, you've guranteed a liberal majority nationwide for the foreseeable future. Any quick check the number of "Obama states" to "McCain states" in America would verify that.
Despite what Barney Frank rambles on about, notice the Dems don't embrace this logic the GOP uses of running RINOs in majority Dem areas. The RATs have such a huge stranglehold over government now, precisely because they ran and elected moonbats rather than DINOs and GOP-lite candidates in Republican states. Melissa Bean didn't run as a pro-life, pro-gun, pro-limited government, anti-illegal candidate because she was running in a huge GOP district. Democrat state parties in the Dakotas didn't constantly force DINOs down the grassroots throats, arguing that since the state gave 2/3rds of its vote to Bush, a Democrat who agrees with him on everything is "the best we can get in this state". Kathleen Selibus wasn't challenged in the primary by a DINO who argued that liberals are "unelectable" in Kansas.
Yet the GOP constantly argues for this strategy. And right now it's being proven wrong once again, since "electable" RINO Mark Kirk is in a dead heat with the most crooked Dem Senate nominee out there, while the "unelectable" unapologetic scary social conservative marches with tea party groups (Bill Brady) and is ahead of our RAT governor by double digits.
Democrat-lite candidates simply aren't "more electable". Anyone who agrees with Kirk's nonstop "green" tree hugger ads and constant calls for taxpayer funding for embroynic stem cells is already in the tank for Alexi. Kirk is gaining no new voters, while alienating the voters he needs to win.
'Demand 100% purity in Bush states, accept socialists RINOs in Obama states' is a failed strategy. All it got us in the 90s was Senate Majority Leader Dasshole.
What did Frank tell liberal Dems who are running as conservatives? Is that okay with him? /s
Frank tells liberal activists to upset the votes of the party’s conservative members.
Big deal two guy’s.
I look at every race case by case.
I have no trouble opposing RINO incumbents in GOP-leaning swing or rat-leaning districts. Or conservative but too establishment people in safe districts (like for example John Boehner). I’d seize any good chance to “upgrade”.
I wouldn’t oppose as good as we can get Joe Cao in heavily rat NOLA.
But if Mark Kirk in his slightly rat seat had serious primary opposition in his recent house primaries I certainly would have opposed him.
2 Senators come to mind. Specter and Chaffee. I sure as hell opposed them in their final GOP primaries. And I oppose Mark Castle in his current primary. I think it’s well worth the ‘risk’ in that case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.