Reply #74: This is just what the corporatists want, and we should all oppose it, even if you love Obama.

[Liberty Belle]

I find this extremely disturbing! It doesn’t matter whether you think Obama is the best candidate or not, you should be dismayed at this effort to undermine the democratic process. If the party succeeds in destroying the progressive caucus because it called for a primary challenger, it’s basically saying that no matter how terrible an incumbent is, we should all line up to support that incumbent and not allow voters to have a choice. Of course that will mean more pro-corporatists winning reelection and moving to the right, since there will be absolutely ZERO incentive for them to do anything else.

While I seriously doubt if any primary challenger would be likely to beat Obama, I believe primary challenges are often healthy, raising issues that would otherwise not be discussed, and keeping candidates in touch with the party’s base. It also means more than one candidate stumping the country spreading the Democratic message and denouncing the Republican policies. Now I don’t like to see very nasty and divisive primaries. But as long as candidates in the same party focus their criticism on the Repubilcans, and merely state the differences in their positions on issues without personally attacked a Democratic opponent or their record, then it can actually be an effective tactic to have multiple candidates in the primary.

Think about it. If a candidate has no primary challenger, but the other side has numerous candidates, who gets all the media attention? Last time, with 8 Dems in the primary they had the limelight. Right now with a pack of nit-wits in the GOP competing against each other they are all over every TV station. What if Obama had a challenger? There would be more coverage of Democratic views.

Again, I’m not saying I support a challenge to this particular President – but I absolutely believe Democrats should have a right to support any Democrat they want in a PRIMARY election with no fear of reprisal by the party, as long as they line up behind whoever the party endorses in the general election. If we do away with that right, we are essentially dooming any candidate who isn’t an incumbent and silencing all dissent. Why bother to even have a primary, if party insiders aren’t allowed to vote their conscience?

That sounds like a Republican tactic to me – line up behind your leaders, do as you’re told, don’t think for yourselves, and don’t dare speak your mind. Their leaders control the nomination process and assure that no serious challengers can get support. Look what that’s done to their party – brought extremist wackos into leadership roles.

Even if you disagree with this primary challenge, isn’t it wrong to get rid progressive caucus? That is, of course, exactly what the pro-corporate wing of the party wants.