We start by considering the raw politics, Republicans v. Democrats. According to a Gallup Poll survey last year 36 percent of Maine’s voters identify themselves as conservative, 24 percent as liberal, 40 percent as “moderate.” Ergo, 60 percent our state’s voters may be called “immoderate” if we take these labels seriously. So why is it established wisdom that only “moderate” candidates win in our state?
The question is easily answered, victory comes to the party that keeps its liberal or conservative base and pulls in a sufficient percentage of moderates. The Democrats have the more difficult task, statistically, since part of the liberal base is owned by the Greens and they need more than half the moderates, while the GOP needs less than half.
There are about 1,000,000 registered voters in Maine, but only 270,000 registered Republicans, not 360,000 (36 percent). In short, 90,000 conservatives decline the GOP label.
We can assume that the 240,000 self-identified liberals are almost entirely absorbed into the Green and Democrat rolls – very few Republicans claim that label any more. Registered Democrats and Greens together amount to 366,000. Calculate that the 34,000 Greens are all liberal and you arrive at a total of 204,000 liberals among the Democrats, mixed with 126,000 moderates and conservatives. The lopsided majorities opposed to gay marriage in Democratic mill towns hints at one of the discrepancies.
Thess are crude figures, rounded off, but crude figures are all we have. They are enough to illustrate the parties’ problems in holding the base while attracting moderates. The complication grows still murkier when you find the Greens and Republicans united against LD 1495.
The strategy for pulling moderates to the one party of the other seems to me to rest on two keys. The positive one is to demonstrate competence, the negative to characterize the opposing party as extremist.
Leave aside partisan heat and smoke, neither party can make a case for a record of flawless competence on the national or local level. Not really. Can’t be done. The competence pitch is really up to individual candidates.
The “Ain’t Nobody Here But Us Moderates – but Lookit Them Crazies Over There” ploy works primarily in the Party-vs-Party contest, with the aim of tarring their respective opposing candidates with the party-brush. If either party fields some really wild candidates, then it sometimes works contrariwise, but the major thrust is usually found in the party arena.
The Democrats have a number of handicap in this “assassination by classification” contest. Their candidate in the first district is a member of Democratic Socialists of America, affiliated with the Socialist International. She doesn’t choose to use the “S” word in her campaign pitch, but Google and see for yourself. Worse, the presidential Administration has many “immoderate” associations. Consider Jeremiah Wright, Billy Ayres, Al Sharpton, Von Jones (the self-identified “revolutionary communist), Anita Dunn (an admirer of Mao tse-Tung), Nancy Pelosi, just for a short list.
This is the first thing to keep in mind when you read about the Maine Democrats’ campaign director, Arden Manning, hoisting the pennant of Lord High Admiral of the Mainstream. Mr. Manning may sometimes speak the truth, sometimes not; but bear in mind he is not a moderate. He is a liberal, although he dare not speak the name.
Now let’s consider convention politics. Conventions no longer choose a party’s candidates in Maine. They serve primarily to showcase its candidates. This noisy agita and angst about the insurrectionary platform has diverted press attention from the real substance of the GOP convention.
There were speeches from our two nationally known senators and the last Republican governor. All spoke fluent Republican, without reference to moderation and bi-partisanship, although they praised party unity. Nothing said offended conservative beliefs. They know the Republican base is vital. The most meaningful parts of all their speeches was the warm praise they had for Charlie Webster, chairman of the GOP State Committee. They know Charlie is more conservative than they, but they also know he has animated the party as no chairman has done in living memory.
What I’m saying is that the direction of the GOP is be found in Charlie’s speech, not in Platform 1.0 or Platform 2.0. It sums up thus: Maine is becoming a welfare state, better at creating dependency than employment; LD 1495 is a snare and a fraud; Democrats are the party of government; Republicans are the party of the working man and woman; the state’s economic development is retarded by excessive taxation and regulation.
The speeches of the four legislative candidates chosen by Charlie followed these themes pretty closely. Beth O’Connor’s brought the delegates to their feet. It is not an accident that one of the speakers was a Franco potato farmer from the county, that three of them were women new to campaigning for political office; or that all four grew up in Democratic families. I don’t know whether their common Roman Catholic backgrounds was a coincidence, that might be over-calculating, but I do know that, all things being equal, Charlie has a preference for female campaigners. His theory is that men are more likely to strategize and philosophize, whereas women are more likely to get down to the real business of getting votes. I suspect that he chose two women to organize the convention because of the same consideration.
The candidates’ part in the show was a televised debate and their respective speeches. Their diagnoses of the states’ problems were very similar and their proposed solutions were largely compatible. Mills’ lone support for LD 1495 as an imperfect but necessary measure was the sharpest divergence. My opinion as a LePage partisan is subjective, but two well-known veteran politicians with far more experience than I confided in me that they thought his speech was the most successful. This is a matter of impression, not scientifically verifiable fact. I present it as such. No more.
Finally, we come to platform politics. Charlie is an empiricist, not a philosopher. Her learned politics by doing politics. His conservative beliefs come from watching government as a legislator, from being a businessman and from the common observations of a citizen who pays attention. He is not much interested in ideology or the clash of ideas. He understands that candidates win elections; platforms don’t win elections. His priority was to avoid having “platform agony” overshadow the candidates. The platform committee majority, myself among them, acted in accord with this priority. We simply adopted the previous convention platform and added a few succinct “bullet-points.” The theory here, was that the agonizing had already been done at the previous convention.
Down in Knox County 12 people had a different idea. Infuriated by the health care reform, stimulus spending, the bank bailouts and a lot of other things, this group wished to see the party unite behind a set of core values. So they formed a committee and over the course of weeks the developed their insurrectionary platform. The result bears the marks of committee work. Every member had their own hobby horse. Members of the group known to me do not regard it as a perfect, finished product. They wanted to see the planks discussed and debated.
They take pleasure in the their insurrectionary victory, but found the process irksome. They were looking forward to a discussion and debate. Few delegates had a chance to read the whole document through, fewer still to reflect on it. It’s clear to me that the thing that caught the aye-voters eyes was the dominant theme of Constitutional fidelity. That is, in fact, the unifying theme of Platform 2.0.
Having voted for 1.0 as a committee member, I voted to replace it with Platform 2.0 as a delegate. My motive was identical in both cases, to insure that the gubernatorial candidates would be at the center of the Convention. If the alternative platform had been rejected the debate over the 22 amendments to 1.0 could ended with the candidates giving their major speeches under moonlight.
Practical politicians and political pundits all agree that platforms are never mandates to candidates. Many or most argue that they are entirely meaningless. Prof. Potholm of Bowdoin, Maine’s best-known author, pontificator and consultant, dismisses them a play thing of the politically naive.
In truth they are not central to practical politics, to getting people elected. Of course, practical electoral politics are also suffused with child’s play – sound bites, slogans, posters, pretty pictures, graphics, gimmicks galore and, above all, image-making.
Images may contain a kernel of an idea, but they fall well below the intellectual substance of an actual idea. In the grander scheme of things the Knox County “rebels” are right. Ultimately idea determine the fate of a party, a nation and a civilization.
“Democrats are the party of government; Republicans are the party of the working man and woman”
…. I disagree, John….. I work damn hard everyday at my job and have for the past 25 years….and I AM a Democrat.
Mr. Frary’s startling revelation that Chellie Pingree “is a member of Democratic Socialists of America, affiliated with the Socialist International” certainly ought to be substantiated by reference to a reputable source. Instead he offers only the cavalier suggestion that one “Google and see for yourself.” Google turns up any number of right-wing websites making this allegation but I found none with any supportive evidence. DSA’s website includes no reference to Pingree whatsoever.
Mr. Frary, please provide the best specific evidence you have that this inflammatory allegation is factually accurate.
She’s a member of the Progessive Caucus.
“Democratic Socialist” is a bit redundant these days.
John,
You tell us that you voted for the platform, but disagree with it and say it means nothing. Come on, John. You’ve got to come up with something better than that.
Don’t try to fool us with some spin that 12 people from Knox County did it. This republican hogwash was voted into being in a near unanimous vote.You voted to be part of the problem you rail against.
That’s the same old blame game you and your party love to play. Don’t like the outcome? Hey, it’s somebody else’s fault right John?
You voted for it. It’s your platform. Own up to it. Your hateful words for so many years are coming back to roost.
Maine’s hard-working people are sick of it.
since i was there as well, i assure you Dennis that it was not a near unanimous vote. It was however a clear majority.
I believe what the hard working people of Maine clearly showed at this convention is that they are tired of the old moderate establishment (R)epublicans in Maine. the rally around Paul LePage was also a indicator of this, Snowe will go next!
the two phrases that democrats hate the most
Working People and personal responsibility.
The only reason to vote democrat right now is if you actually enjoy 10% unemployment.
Welcome to the Tea Party: The Next Bailout: $165B for Unions introduced by Sen.Bob Casey (D-Pa.)
“the two phrases that democrats hate the most
Working People and personal responsibility.”
Wrong again, Hutch.
I am a working person AND take personal responsibility and AM a Democrat.
Your generalizations are way off base.
“if you actually enjoy 10% unemployment.”…
And don’t forget to add 8 plus years of fighting 2 wars as the cause of this lousy economy….
well hutch, i’ve never been a democrat, but i’m sick and tired of hearing the phrases “working people” and “personal responsibility” being tossed around by republicans, many of whom work far less than i do and insist on squeezing out children that they can’t feed or raise properly.
funny that mr. frary makes mcarthyist attacks and ad hominem connections on ms. pingree while justifying his support for the radical tea-baggers as being part of some kind of noble zeitgeist. good luck with that.
see what i mean! LOL
those phrases to demoRats are worse then calling their mothers names that can’t be mentioned here!
Mr. Frary, interesting as usual. I dont know if pingree is a socialist or not, but hey, if it walks like a duck………………..I know one thing, the left wing liberals here can wail all they want about bush or reagan or whoever. One thing for sure is come this fall,there will be a ton of big gov. democrates and hopefully a few “rinos” kicked out of office. Its gonna look like somebody put their foot thru the fishtank. They will be flopping and flipping all over the place, trying to find a place where they can all swim together in harmony. Can I suggest the enemployment line? All the hate speach about conservatves, insults like” teabaggers”,laying the blame for our troubles on everyone and everyone wont mean squat. You”re spitting at a charging elephant. Good luck with that. See you in november.
now HardWorker you are blaming the 10% unemployment rate on two wars?
i thought we had an 850 Billion dollar stimulus package to stop unemployment rate from rising above 8.5%?
wake up!
Hutch,good point,.. yeah that “stimulus” money did us alot of good huh? We spend a large part of it here in maine paying off our medical debt. What are we gonna do next year or the year after?? The big gov liberals gonna print off some more billions?.Wait! They wont be able to print more money cause they wont be in office come november!!! hooo-ray
steve, you and hutch should wear the teabagger emblem proudly, not take it as an insult. it was, after all, the name originally coined by your movement before feelings were hurt when pundits started mocking you. remember, when we were urged to inundate obama’s mail with tea-bags, effectively “tea-bagging” the president? hence the “tea-bagger” moniker. i don’t see the hate speech in that, unless i’m missing something… and strange that a “conservative” would actually suggest that folks flock to the unemployment line.
affectionately yours,
a pinko commie bleeding-heart radical leftist greenie bedwetter whacko.
and a damn hard working one at that.
CRESTON GAITHER: Try http://www.americansocialistvoter.com the site is entitled American Socialist Voter and does not appear to be right wing.
The http://www.dsa.com cite has become coy about its congressional membership. It used to list them. I think the omission relates to my remarks about raw politics. The DSA is not a criminal organization, unless you assume that there are NO DSA members, not even Bernie Sanders, you should wonder about the omission.
You may wish to check with Pingree’s office. I sent an e-mail inquiry for confirmation or denial. No response. Try it, you might have better luck.
I have done this much work for you. Further investigation is up to you.
HARD WORKER. It’s your fault you are in the wrong party. Don’t go blaming me.
JONBOY: You seem to believe that an allegiance to socialism is so detestable that to point out an affiliation is a vile McCarthyite allegation. I on the other hand am ready to, at least, pay attention to the socialist message without condemning it out of hand. You will find their message at http://www.dsa,com.
I’m prepared to examine it. It has gone through huge alterations since the 1970s and I like to keep up. Never occur to me dismiss it out of hand as you seem to do.
Calling Chellie a socialist IS a kind of ad hominem attack within the meaning of the term, but the point of that observation had to do with the raw politics of the contest, i.e, the “I’m a moderate—he ain’t” ploy. Pingree merely provides a point about the strategies deployed.
I’m not at all clear about the point of your ad hominem attack on Republicans as a collective. Is it that object to personal responsibility? Is that it you don’t like Republicans. Can you explain yourself a little?
I am one of those Maine votes who considers himself a moderate. I am a working person, and have never taken a cent in welfare or other government handouts. I have voted republican and democrat in recent elections, and I vote my conscience on the referendum issues.
I think that maybe I’m missing the part about the Republican message that encourages me to have confidence in the party. I understand the argument that candidates, not platforms, win elections, but for a party to come out with some of the extreme and reactionary positions that I see in this platform, I am much less likely to throw myself in with that group and support a Republican candidate. It isn’t the candidate that I am necessarily opposed to – it is the thought that supporting ANY Republican will empower and embolden those within the party (see Knox County and Hutch) who actually buy in to some of the ignorance, paranoia, and fear-mongering that many, like myself, see in the platform.
You say that the Democrats have the more difficult task statistically in pulling in the moderate voters who determine elections. In this voter’s opinion, the Maine GOP made those odds a little bit better with the passage of their platform.
Go ahead Hutch, I can take it, I’m ready to hear your next rant. One which will only push most moderates further and further from your party…
John,
Did you spend even 30 seconds googling to get these meaningless URL links to try to justify publishing nonsense?
What makes you think Pingree’s office would take your email inquiry seriously, when certainy nobody here would.
Please think before you publish your dribble. You’re not an instructor at Middlesex County College anymore, so your facts should be substantiated before spewing them in public.
Jonboy, you can call me any name in the book, teabagger, rightwing extremist, republican i really don’t care how you label me.
i just wonder why you liberals would rather demonize the tea party rather then defend the actions taken by Washington dc that the tea party movement stands against, like a $165 Billion for the unions. i mean if the bailouts are truly just then you should be able to defend them rather then attack the people questioning them.
John Frary happens to be correct in that DSA and many other Lestist organizations are watching their connections to the Democrat Party. If we look at fec.gov we can see DSA is a PAC, political action committee and does not run its own candidates. While these are left leaning persons, they are mostly shunned by the harder left for being “reformist” in nature. Even Bernie Sanders who has spoken openly at socialist meetings has no single party affiliation. I am an actual socialist and am well known for my opinion. If there is any questions just drop me a email, I am not hard to find.
On a side note, I really liked my days of youth in Waterville, ME where my mother is from; however, the water never seemed to ever warm up!
Mr. Frary: Thank you for your response. But Pingree’s name does not appear on the web page you cite and I can find no mention of her elsewhere on that site. You note that DSA does not publish its congressional membership list. But then how did you ascertain that, as you wrote, she “is a member of Democratic Socialists of America”? Doesn’t it seem odd that an ambitious politician would voluntarily join an organization which is, in your words, “affiliated with the Socialist International”? You suggest that I do further investigation but this inflammatory allegation is yours. And it seems to remain unsubstantiated.
jonboy….of all the guys I know in the unemployment line who are really not looking for a job….it would be nice to see the line full of people who really need one………..like the guys that are going to be kicked out of their job in the state house this fall……………….what a great day that will be. As an aside,,, I have no doubt you are a leftist, wacko, as you have written……..as far as being a bedwetter,…well………some things you really need to keep to yourself…………. Haszco!!! you’re still around??? You’re speaking of dribble are you??….You all, go to the comments written by haszco about Lance Harvells statement he is running for office again, here on the dog……….I have not seen your apology for writing “unsubstantiated dribble ” yet haszco..Come on now…….man up, you got caught in a dribbling fib. Own it. BTW….heres an interesting interview of hanna pingree, the offspring of the socialist……..http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DvpMvYxWf_q0&h=26e57
Moderates have no place in the republican party!
So moderate voter please feel free to do what you feel right to do!
i am not here to try and win your approval!
that is why they lost the election in 2008, we put a moderate against a far left extremist! and he was unable to demonstrate why Obama’s policies will fail, and now i can say have FAILED!
here is a great National Debt Clock, we are now at 90% of GDP!
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Welcome to the Tea Party!
Just for the record, “affiliated with the Socialist International” is real easy to clear up. The Socialist International has no affiliated members from the USA which can be verified by going to their website at http://socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticlePageID=931
I didn’t know the republican party was for ultraconservatives only – so thanks Hutch for setting that straight. As far as running a moderate against Obama in ’08, I think he would have won if he had chosen a conventional, established running mate. By choosing Sarah Palin, the republican base may have been energized, but a lot of reasonable people were (and are) appalled by the thought of Palin-types taking control of the party, let alone the country.
Maybe you’re right Hutch, maybe there isn’t a place for me in this Republincan party. I’m all for fiscal and personal responsibility. But I’m not for things like the anti-immigration rhetoric, climate change denial, and paranoia about “one world government.” I want to see a party – either one – really get its priorities in line with what needs to get done. Maybe a Republican candidate will address the things that matter right now (jobs, taxes, etc…) in a more effective way than a Democrat, but I’m not sure if willing to accept some of the other baggage that could go along with empowering the talking-heads that seem to dominate the airwaves and clearly are gaining power within the Republican party with their fear-mongering and incivility.
Maybe someone more reasonable than Hutch can set me at ease… or tell me to vote Democrat.
Voter, you act like the democrat party doesn’t use scare tactics! isn’t this administrations motto “don’t let a good crisis go to waste.”
and if you are for open borders, and still believe Al Gore’s totally debunked movie, well i got more information then you can handle.
you could start here.
http://climatedepot.com/
mr. frary: let me see if i can clarify my point a little better. you’ve made a spurious assertion concerning ms. pingrie’s socialist affiliation. i understand that your point was meant to illustrate the concept of the other (with a capital “o”) in the realm of party politics, and the disadvantages of a candidate or party ideologue that leans too far into the margins of the “crazy,” id est your socialists and your libertarians. but i’m sure you’re not oblivious to the subtext in your statement, that some of the democrats might be socialists, and a socialist is practically a communist, and a communist is practically a nazi. at least, this is the connection that your twitchier readers are sure to make.
meanwhile you defend your support of the republican party’s new platform as being necessary for the sake of expediency. never mind that the tea party movement has welcomed elements representing racial supremacists, birthers, neo-mcarthyists and would-be theocrats wholeheartedly and without any appeal for subtlety, tact or rationality. should we now assume that maine’s traditionally sober republicans share the same distorted ideals? my point was this: i would be careful about throwing ad-hominem stones while living in big glass tents.
i had expected that a man with your sensibilities would be more careful to distance himself from such rabble, and perhaps, while supporting and reinforcing your principles, offer some denunciation of the party’s newfound radical direction (relatively speaking.) instead we get lukewarm excuses and a sort of good ol’ boys will be good ol’ boys attitude. excuse me if i’ve read too far into the lines here.
steve: my bedwetter comment was in response to your perceived persecution at the hands of “insults” like “tea-bagger,” which i reminded you was a term coined by those within the movement itself. the string of epithets that preceded it are all things that i have been called because of my political beliefs. so, cry me a river. you folks can dish it out, but you sure can’t take it.
sure , sure jonboy…………we all believe you…………
furthermore i don’t sleep in a bed. i sleep on the floor. easier to clean up that way.
Go to http://www.americansocialistvoter.com. You are on the home page. Go down the column on the right until you arrive at Democratic Socialists of America. Tap it once. The list is there.
Here is the list (credited to the Progressive Caucus). Go down the list alphabetically until the reach the P’s. Look for Pingree.
A: See the listing below
Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)
House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)
Mr. Frary: The website page you suggest is part of the website you start from and NOT part of DSA’s site. It recites the same list you provide, along with the same assertion of DSA membership, citing “Congressional Progressive Caucus” and “Tysk News” as sources. The latter repeats both the list and the DSA assertion and then cites the former. The former OMITS the DSA assertion and says that this is the membership list for the Progressive Caucus of the Congress of the United States!!! It is NOT a DSA membership list, and the notion that it is was concocted by “Tysk News,” a/k/a tysknews.com, a rather weird little right-wing website, without the slightest hint of substantiation!
and silence from the red schoolhouse road…