Jim Himes' Challenge and Opportunity

One other disagreement (4.00 / 1)

Himes' opponent (no square quotes) feels that the differences between them, however minor or abstract, disqualify Jim from serving as the congressman here in the 4th. While his campaign may do differently than I would with regard to the Greens, once a group declares themselves in opposition to you, they pretty much lose their bargaining power.

To use an agriculture metaphor, the Greens marked out a plot and salted the earth on this issue, so now nothing will grow. The election season is barreling along, and I can't imagine Jim taking however many days or weeks that would be necessary to Un-Fuck-Up the perpetual tactical error that is the local Green Party, or (even worse) risk taking a stand that would under any circumstances lead to Duffee's "Fall of Rome" lecture appearing in part or whole underneath a "Jim Himes Announces..." headline.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 22:38:12 PM UTC

Bizarre stance... (4.00 / 1)

You say:

Jim has a Green Party "opponent" who agrees with him on nearly every issue - except impeachment.

Impeachment will be a moot point by the time Jim or the Green Party candidate takes office. So, the CT Green Party candidate "opposes" the Democratic candidate over an irrelevant issue.

Jim Himes is basing his candidacy on a strong desire to reverse the disastrous policies, the criminality, the corruption of the Bush administration -- by defeating an opponent, Chris Shays, who has supported those disastrous policies, and has tolerated and benefited from the criminality and corruption, and who is now campaigning for dimwits like John McCain and Cappiello.

Yet rather than march together with Democrats on a very real fight, the CT Green Party candidate chooses to wage an irrelevant fight of his own.

In this way, the CT Green Party becomes irrelevant.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:54:50 AM UTC

I must respectfully disagree on a couple of points (0.00 / 0)

You suggest that Jim Himes

take a stand on the current Democratic primary - not a black-and-white ( no pun intended ) 'I'm with Obama' or 'I'm with Clinton' . . . . but a well thought out discussion with his supporters would show them his depth and breadth of thought on the issue.

 

I fail to see how endorsing a particular Democratic candidate during this primary season would help Jim Himes' candidacy, or, for that matter, why such an endorsement or discussion would advance the debate about the congressional race.  Himes has made it clear that he will enthusiastically endorse and support the Democratic candidate chosen in the primary process.  That's all he needs say, IMHO.  Why take sides in the process, when he's not running for president himself, but congress.  He is being responsible and prudent by focusing on the issues at hand, and pointing out Chris Shays' repeated endorsement of blatant extremists like George Bush (twice), Newt Gingrich (Shays' "hero"), Tom DeLay ("a great majority leader"), and the ultra-conservative Roy Blunt to take over for DeLay.

I also fail to see that endorsing impeachment at this point would advance either the cause of impeachment, or Himes' candidacy and chances of beating Shays in November.  Bush will not be impeached- it's as simple as that.  It takes too long, the Republicans would not permit him to be convicted in the Senate, and the entire exercise would detract from pressing work in Congress to stop Bush's policies, and might make Democrats look quixotic and irresponsible.  But Bush might very well be held to account after the election when he's out of office.  He can be prosecuted then if it is found that he knowingly ordered the destruction of phone records by the RNC, or knowingly ordered Karl Rove to circumvent federal law by using RNC phones instead of White House phones, or for any number of other criminal actions.  So why push for it now?

I think it behooves the Green Party and the Green Party candidate to get behind Jim Himes because he agrees with the overwhelming portion of what environmentalists desire in this country and this state, and the race is between him and Shays.  One of them will be elected; it won't be the candidate for the Green Party.  Whether or not America would be better off with third-party candidates is really a moot point.  We have a two-party system, and if one wants to get rid of faux-moderates like Shays who enjoy massive financial and logistical backing from the GOP and Karl Rove's organization, we need to back Himes.

---

by: thomashooker @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 14:57:01 PM UTC

. (0.00 / 0)

I fail to see how endorsing a particular Democratic candidate during this primary season would help Jim Himes' candidacy

There will be a lot of disaffected activists in the district after the national convention, one way or another, and even those that won will have precious little reason to spend their energies locally.

Remaining neutral comes at the cost of convincing a large number of presidential-year activists that the congressional candidate asking for their support was in the trenches with them when it counted. I don't know how significant that is on balance, but surely there's some value to earning the loyalty of these activist camps -- and that's entirely apart from the value in conveying that you are the sort of person who gets into the trenches when there are difficult decisions to be made.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 16:49:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Disagree, Matt (0.00 / 0)

Certainly most of the activists here lean, with varying degress of enthusiasm, towards Obama, yet I doubt if many of us feels that Jim Himes needs to do more to support Obama at this stage. On the other hand, he certainly doesn't need to offend Hillary's supporters.

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 19:22:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, I don't mean the "regulars" (0.00 / 0)

... but the people that presidential campaigns (and only presidential campaigns) draw out of the woodwork. People who are happy to take or leave a congressional candidate. I don't think that it matters so much to people on DTCs or the people who get involved in every cycle, but I do think it could pay off with (one set of) the hardcore Obama / Clinton people.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 22:23:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Impeachment???????? (0.00 / 0)

sorry, David, maybe I could agree with you if Jim's challenger was George W. Bush, but its Chris Shays and Bush will be out of office when Jim takes the oath of office, so it seems rather pointless to me.

I'm a strong Himes supporter and a strong Obama supporter, and in no way would I hold it against Jim for not telling me who he supports.  If there is one thing I understand it's politics and I think Jim is doing the right thing!

After all, it isn't like Jim Himes is the superdelegate that's going to help Obama win....HE'S THE SUPER CANDIDATE THAT NEEDS OUR HELP IN BEATING CHRIS SHAYS and that's good enough for this Obamamama!!!!

---

by: Harriet @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 22:10:56 PM UTC

I disagree (0.00 / 0)

Himes has a great staff (some of whom come from here and I would love to see in DC).

Shays tries to have it both ways (hence the name Both-ways Shays) he votes for Bush/Cheney policies and then says he doesn't support them.

That is Shays failing. The truth.

Himes has one job to do and only one job. Tie Shays to Bush so tight that there is no doubt that a vote for Shays is a vote to continue the Bush-McCain continuum.

A simple flier of Bush hand-in-hand with Shays (thank for the visit George) that says.

He stood with Bush for eight years, and is hand-in-hand with continuing Bush's policies. If you are better off now than you were eight years ago, Shays is the man to vote for. But, if you want change, if you want a better economy, if you want better healthcare, if you want fair taxes, and you want opportunity, Jim Himes is the candidate that will bring that change to Connecticut.

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 22:28:32 PM UTC

The "Irrelevance" Crowd (0.00 / 0)

The "Irrelevance" crowd miss a very important point entirely :

Impeachment is not removal from office.

Impeachment is the process by with the Congress of the United States investigate whether an elected official has committed crimes worthy of a Senate vote for removal.

To investigate those many alleged crimes is not a waste of time or energy. It is not even necessarily directed specifically against the individual or individuals who are at the center of those alleged crimes. The Congress needs to send a clear message to future Presidents about abuses of power - such as executive office spying on American citizens, etc., etc., etc.

If anyone here thinks that this process would be "irrelevant" obviously would have felt even more so prior to the Watergate investigations - which uncovered crimes and cover-ups which were small potatoes compared to what the current administration would be investigated for.

You would have let Richard M. Nixon continue his taking America toward corporatism - including his "corporate medicine" HMO experiment.

Thanks. Nice work.

Any and all of you are a bunch of enablers and obstructionists - and the founders of our nation would pity you and your weaknesses, plain and simple. You have bought into Bushco's "get over it" rationale - lock, stock and barrel.

When a future President goes a step further - does something which makes Bushco's abuses of power seem like small potatoes - make sure you tell your children and grandchildren how you missed the opportunity to do something important . . . . . . because you were more concerned about political expedience than you were about America.

You need to grow a d*mn spine.

---

by: David A Stevenson GRI @ Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:09:43 AM UTC

you're missing the point (0.00 / 0)

Bush won't be in office when the next Congress takes office. So, how can our next Congressman -- Democrat, Republican, or Green -- impeach Bush if he's not in office?

If your gripe is with the current Congress for not impeaching Bush, then your gripe is with Chris Shays.

Also, when you see George Bush and Chris Shays raising money for CT Republicans like Cappiello, you realize how important it is for all of us progressives to work together to get people in office who want to end the disastrous policies of the Bush administration.

And that's exactly what the Himes campaign is doing. Although you criticize Jim Himes for not choosing between Obama or Clinton, you fail to mention that the Himes campaign led a district-wide volunteer-signup drive on Super Tuesday that will not only help either of the Democratic Presidential candidates this November, but it will also help get state and local Democrats elected as well.

The next president, whether it's Hillary or Obama, will need the support of a Democratic Congress and progressives at every level of government to get effective legislation passed. The kinds of grassroots efforts by the Himes campaign are precisely the kind of party-building our state and country needs to begin moving in a positive direction.

I find it interesting that the Green Party, on the one hand, opposes Jim Himes based on impeachment, yet on the other, insists that he show his support  for one or another Presidential candidate despite the fact that neither of those candidates has called for impeachment.  

There's "growing a spine"  but there's also having common sense and working together with progressives who share common values and common goals. As the Green Party continues to work against the very issues -- like the environment, good government, etc. -- that it claims to support, it will continue to lose supporters. I would strongly encourage Green Party leaders to look at the issues that will really matter in 2009, and base their decisions on who will be best able to deliver the kind of change they want.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:08:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Enabling. (0.00 / 0)

Enabling Bush is a de facto enabling of Shays - since Shays has tied himself to Bush with so many of his more disgusting votes.

Play it safe - it worked so well for Diane Farrell, didn't it ?

---

by: David A Stevenson GRI @ Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:16:01 AM UTC

Enablers and Obstructionists (0.00 / 0)

That's what we all are. Because we think it's too late for impeachment.  Because we won't get behind a candidate who is willing to split the progresive vote and is willing to help elect a real enabler and obstructionist in pursuit of an impossible goal.

Who is the real enabler and obstructionist Mr. Stevenson?  

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:28:40 AM UTC

I answered that question. (0.00 / 0)

I answered that question fully, Mr. Kantrowitz (if you prefer to be so formal).

No truth will ever divide our Progressive coalition - even if you wish it to or pretend it will.

---

by: David A Stevenson GRI @ Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:51:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

When I'm Called An Enabler and Obstructionist (4.00 / 2)

I do tend to get a little formal.

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 13:05:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Through the 4th CD Looking-Glass (0.00 / 0)

I like a reasonable give-and-take as much as anyone, but being dismissed as being guilty of inadvertently helping Chris Shays get re-elected by Tweedle-dee, Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dumber really avoids honest discussion of my original premise :

A strong and bold Himes campaign is a unifying campaign.

---

by: David A Stevenson GRI @ Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:44:23 AM UTC

the drawing up of arms (0.00 / 0)

Any and all of you are a bunch of enablers and obstructionists - and the founders of our nation would pity you and your weaknesses, plain and simple. You have bought into Bushco's "get over it" rationale - lock, stock and barrel.

Sure gives me the warm fuzzies.

I disagreed in the first post, laying out the reasons why rapprochement with the Greens over impeachment would not only be bad politics, but also a dismaying show of weakness on Himes' part to a gang of insipid, bad-faith political actors. You chose to argue with the people that offended you, not with those that wanted a give and take. That's your choice, but don't wig out that people didn't address your premise while you ignore those that did.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:36:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hello Matt (0.00 / 0)

I do appreciate your replying to my premise. No prob with us agreeing to disagree. I continue to be a strong Himes supporter. My choices in candidates are always about substance rather than style - and I know you well enough to know that you use the same criteria.

---

by: David A Stevenson GRI @ Thu May 01, 2008 at 16:49:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]