Thursday, January 14, 2010
Phillips / Politics Progressive Bloggers Watch in Awe as Harold Ford Magically Transforms
Posted by Betsy Phillips on Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:00 AM
that to get elected in Tennessee, it wasn't enough that he merely be anti-gay rights, anti-choice, and pro-gun; he also had to emphasize those facts over any of the bread-and-butter issues anytime there was a TV camera or microphone present. It does Democrats back here in Tennessee a huge disservice. There are good Democrats in this state, urban or rural, progressive or not, who are trying to put the focus back where it belongs--on jobs, on healthcare, on education. But Ford, still arguably one of the highest profile Democrats in the state until he changes his driver's license, continues to perpetuate the notion that none of that matters as much as finding a Confederate flag and a camo hat to pose for the cameras with.SamanthaY. over in the comments at Tiny Cat Pants sums it up:
I did read genuine frustration that, time and time again, some of our own worry more about how they can get theirs than how to get things done. By turning around and suddenly adopting the ideals of the same progressive, energized base that worked for him here, after the tactics of the 2006 race (not to mention his voting record), Harold has demonstrated he's more concerned with getting his, all while doing those of us here a disservice with that backhanded, unspoken, "I couldn't be a real Democrat in Tennessee" move. (Again, I say, tell that to his successor in Congress.) Are we not supposed to recognize that sort of thing and call it out when it happens? Because the longer the myth that only Democrats in Republican clothing can get elected here is perpetuated, the more Republicans will be elected. After all, why vote for one of us pretending to be one when you can have the real thing?
Comments (8)
Showing 1-8 of 8
I love your definition of "regular" Democrats. Apparently that lets out everyone in Tennessee except Memphis and Nashville. Regardless, Ford is an opportunist, like every politician. As the Nashville Scene demonstrated rather conclusively in its coverage of the 2006 race (the only coverage worth a damn and Liz's best moment as editor) Ford lost not because of "Call me," or race, but because his last name is Ford. I think it would fun to let New York get a taste of his family--though such corruption is ho hum up there.
like
dislike
Aunt B, I fail to see why anyone in possession of any sophistication at all should be 'dumfounded' or 'outraged' by a politician doing what politicians do. “Positions he used to hold, he now doesn't.” How is that any different now than at any other time? For Harold Ford Jr, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Phil Bredesen; or anyone else who has decided to dip his toe in electoral waters.
And just how has becoming a “regular Democrat” changed beyond what it has always been for Mr. Ford? All he has done now is changed geographic locations and adapted to the new environment. He is doing in Rome what the Romans do because Tennessee politics don't work in the Big Apple. At least that much of what he is up to makes sense politcally. I can't say the same about his blind-sided notion he would magically become a viable Senate candidate in the concrete jungle.
Amazing what politicians will do when their party is changing...
George HW Bush, for example, supported reproductive rights and called the Reagan economic revolution "voodoo economics" prior to being whacked into line (or finding his inner conservative Republican) to become VP to Reagan's P.
"Regular Democrat" = person holding views of the national Democratic Party. Most so-called Democrats in Tennessee are far removed from the views that Party members hold nationally, whereas folks in Nashville and Memphis are more in line with them. That's just fact.
What Betsy's trying to do, IMO, is hold some people to account for putting the TN Democratic Party in line to lose elections over and over and over again, by walking into the lightning-rod social issue traps Republicans set for them. What part of
"All a Republican has to do is call the 'God, guns, gays' tune and we dance. Let's talk about our issues instead of rushing out to reassure folks that we are on the 'right' side of the agenda the Republicans set for us"
do you guys not understand, exactly?
It's just not OK for a politician to change his positions on really important issues - issues that affect hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people - just because that's the way the winds are blowing. It's despicable. And it's partly the reason our state, to say nothing of our country, is in the mess it's in. Or are you folks not reading the headlines about the billion-dollar TN financial crisis, or the bank bailouts, foreclosures, etc.?
It's also the reason, IMO, Democrats are on the downswing in TN. You have people out saying whatever they think will solidify their own personal power base - and it sends the broad message to voters that being a Democrat doesn't stand for anything. I'm tired of saying this over and over on various blogs, but here it is again: If you were going to sell a can of beans, you'd want to tell consumers why your product was better than Brand X. Democrats are failing to do that in Tennessee, and miserably.
Another bona-fide question: Why was Ford on the ballot to begin with? Why do we in TN seem to accept politicians only if "folks have known their daddy" since the beginning of time, which keeps qualified newcomers out of the process? My guess is McWherter isn't the best possibility for the 2010 race, but since his daddy set up the fiefdom - well, the fix was in on this a long time ago. I actually feel a bit sorry for Kim McMillan, Jim Kyle, etc. - they don't have a chance and never did. And yet, I doubt either of them, or anybody else, will ask questions as to why Democratic primaries in TN are usually fixed in the back room and not out in daylight where voters can see what's going on.
Dems are going to continue to lose if they don't offer better candidates, and open up their processes to all - not only a tiny sliver of the state's population.
Frankly, part of TN Dems' problem is they've fought the election of statewide officers (a pet R. Kurita project before she was spiked by the state Executive Committee). Such elections would broaden the Dems' bench, allow their candidates greater name recognition and a way to build experience - but noooooo. We can't have that. Electing our own Lt. Gov. would threaten the power structure of our sitting Governor - and apparently Tennessee Democrats love watching their Party fall apart whenever a popular, term-limited governor leaves office.
Kudos to Betsy, and to Pith generally, for being willing to ask the hard questions. It's a damn sight better than most of the apologism you see hereabouts, day in and day out.
Why do we in TN seem to accept politicians only if "folks have known their daddy" since the beginning of time, which keeps qualified newcomers out of the process? My guess is McWherter isn't the best possibility for the 2010 race, but since his daddy set up the fiefdom - well, the fix was in on this a long time ago. I actually feel a bit sorry for Kim McMillan, Jim Kyle, etc. - they don't have a chance and never did.
This.
And it should say something that an out-of-state race that hasn't even begun yet is drawing more interest and attention locally than the 2010 gubernatorial race.
But this attitude of having to run on "God, guns, and gays" seems to be conventional wisdom among Tennessee Democrats as well. Never mind that it's not working.
And as I pointed out over at Kleinheider's joint, even if you *are* looking to go centrist here to win statewide, our most successful centrist Democrat Bredesen has shown that "God, guns, and gays" don't matter nearly so much as showing some common business sense on the economic side. That's how you win the independents in the middle, and while you do disappoint the base, you at least refrain from deeply offending them.
I am confused as to your goals or vision with this piece. Are you perturbed that the man is a progressive now or are you perturbed that he was a progressive here but had to appear differently during the state wide election in order to have a chance at getting elected?
I am far from being progressive but I just have no problem with the man finally deciding it is okay to express what he may have felt all along. I would have been a lot more upset if he had did this after being elected to represent me and my state.
