Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Harold Ford Jr: The Most Dangerous Democrat

Now that Joseph Lieberman is out of the picture, I think we should focus on The Most Dangerous Democratic Candidate for the U.S.. Senate--Harold Ford jr.

Here is an excerpt from a TIME magazine article, sent out on the Harold Ford Jr. campaign email list:
Why Harold Ford Has a Shot


The Congressman who is running to replace retiring Bill Frist as Senator from Tennessee has voted to outlaw gay marriage and to repeal the estate tax, and wants to amend the Constitution to ban flag burning. He supports getting rid of the handgun ban in the nation's capital and says the Ten Commandments should be posted in courtrooms around his state. He favors school prayer, argues that more troops should have been sent to Iraq and wants to seal the border with Mexico. He likes to tell a story about the time he campaigned at a bar called the Little Rebel, which had a Confederate flag and a parking lot full of pickup trucks adorned with National Rifle Association bumper stickers. When he went inside, as he tells it, a woman at the bar greeted him with a hug and exclaimed,

"Baby, we've been waiting to see you!" ...

There you have it...Harold Ford Jr. is actually campaigning as a conservative Republican. I'm astonished at the number of gay and progressive Democrats who say they are going to reward this bastard with their vote in November. It should be imperative for progressives who seek to move the Democratic Party back to the left to stop this dangerous politician now. He will do or say anything for political power. It would be a major setback for the struggle for social justice, separation of church and state, economic justice and equal rights to reward this kind of politician with a place in the U.S. Senate.


Ann Coulter: "Harold Ford Jr. is one of my favorite Democrats.."
CNBC's Kudlow & Co


Evil said...

You mean to tell me that he actually talked to voters? I am shocked, shocked I tell you. I wish he would just wall himself in and only talk to true liberals. That way he could get at least 30% of the vote, he might even get 35%. Wow. That would be great!!!

BTW, tell your little Green Party buddies that want to know how low I'm willing to go, that there is a lot worse things than making fun of how they get their funding. I seem to remember Green party activist breaking into Al Gore's headquarters and chaining themselves to the desk in 2000. That wouldn't have been so bad, except for then they decided they needed to piss themselves as well.

That's how you get that 2%, baby!!!

Jim Maynard said...

Evil.. you once again demonstrate you are EVIL.
What do you stand for? Do you have any principles? Do you only vote for who will win elections or who THE PARTY tells you to vote for?

I vote based on the candidates and whether they support equality and social justice.. you know those things called "progressive values", which I guess you don't give a shit about.. especially if you support Ann Coulter's favorite Democrat, Harold Ford Jr...

Are you an Ann Coulter Democrat??
I guess you are.

Evil said...

Things I stand for (in no particular order):

1) I believe that unless our country stops depending on foreign oil we're pretty much screwed and it won't matter whether or not someone can get an abortion or gay people can get married.

2) I believe in living in reality and seeing that voting for anyone besides Ford only helps Corker. Do you believe the a Republican lead Senate is better than a Democratic lead Senate? I guess you do.

3) I believe that no matter how many blogs you write Tennessee is still going to be more conservative than most states.

4) I believe that having Mark Pryor being a conservative Democrat Senator from Arkansas is better than Asa Hutchinson.

5) I believe that we need to have a balanced budget and modernize our government.

6) I believe that we need a Congress that will investigate the Bush administration, and I don't believe that Corker will have any part of that.

7) I don't believe we need to impeach W. Why? Because I've seen who the Vice President is, and because I don't believe W has committed an impeachable act.

8) I believe that winning with a less than perfect candidate is better than losing.

9) I believe that Chuck Berry created Rock n' Roll.

10) I believe in supporting the candidate that wins the Democratic Primary, just as you want Joe Lieberman to do.

11) So, yes I do believe in the Democratic Party. It may not be perfect, but it's getting better. I know that a lot of people want to support this or that party because they are right on this or that issue, what's the point? So, you get two percent of the vote. Who cares? Do you really think it was better for people to vote for Nader than to vote for Gore? Really?

12) I believe in science. Bob Corker does not. Harold Ford does.

13) I believe in a good scotch.

14) I believe Amstel Light is a damn good beer and doesn't give me hangovers.

15) I believe Stones> Beatles.

16) I believe that gay people should be able to get married and serve in the military.

17) I believe that most people in Tennessee don't agree with me on #16 and I wouldn't win a statewide election saying that.

18) I believe that Bill Clinton was a good President, Al Gore would have been a better one, and yet neither one is perfect.

19)I believe that America could really help out its economy by coming the worlds leading producer of environmentally safe products. That would require us to invest in science and education and to start making things in America. I know it's a crazy idea.

20) I believe the government should stay out of my bedroom... and yours.

21) I believe that if you call yourself a "progressive" you should believe in making "progress" and not just banging your head against a wall.

If you want more I got them, but I imagine that you will continue to support so no name candidate with no chance of winning because it makes you feel better about yourself. Good for you. I'm going to try achieve a little more realistic goal. Neithe is probable, but at least hell isn't required to freeze over Harold to win. Ooops!! I forgot you get upset if someone mentions anything religious and therefore I am clearly not "progressive" enough.

Jim Maynard said...

Well, I don't think Ford even supports many of your beliefs..
Would the Senate be BETTER with republicans in control than Dems?
Nope, but I'm not sure it would be worse off, especially with conservative Democrts like HFJr.

I'm not opposed to religious people or politicians, I do support the Separation of CHurch and State, and oppose theocracy. Another reason to defeat HFJr.

Please quit insulting me and my beliefs just because you are committed to THE PARTY line, and I think more for myself...and vote what I believe rather than THE PARTY.

I would love to support HFJr, and I would love for the Democrats to control congress, but not at the costs of voting for a right-wing Democrat In Name Only, supported by corporate donors and party machinery, but who does not stand up for social justice and equality, or even defend the First Amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. (separation of church and state...)

Once Ford is in the Senate, we will have another Joe Lieberman, or worse.. a patsy for the Republican Party.

Jim Maynard said...

I guess the main difference between us is that I only support candidates who agree with basic progressive values like separation of church and state and social justice and equal rights for everyone.
If a candidate does not support those basic principles, they will not get my vote, and if they are actually opposing those principles I will do all I can to oppose them, even if they have (D) after their name.

Evil said...

So, you're really not sure there would be a difference with Democrats in control of the Senate? Really?

Have you been paying attention?

Say what you want about Joe Leiberamn (and I've said plenty), but if he had won the primary and won re-election he would still be better than any Republican. Why? Because he generally does vote with the Democrats. Because we would be that much closer to a majority and being able to decide what even gets debated on the Senate floor.

Right now Republicans control both houses of Congress and the issues that you care about so much don't even get discussed and they won't as long as Republicans control Congresss.

W's appointees sail through committee because those committees are headed by Republicans and not Democrats.

You say Bill Clinton was terrible for gays becasue he signed DOMA. Well, a Democratic Congress would have never put him in that position. It would have never reached the floor, much like Democratic proposals to raise the minimum wage do now.

I'm sorry for insulting you because I believe in THE PARTY. Why is THE PARTY in all caps by the way?

Evil said...

"I guess the main difference between us is that I only support candidates who agree with basic progressive values like separation of church and state and social justice and equal rights for everyone."

No, the difference is I actually want to achieve those goals and you want to talk about them.

Evil said...

I support candidates who support some of them and actually have a shot of winning and candidates who will make a party that believes those things a MAJORITY party.

When, and only when, that happens things like a living wage and "progressive values" will have an actual shot of passing through the Congress.

You support candidates that get 2% of the vote and therefore will not have any effect on anything. Oh, and by doing so you lower the chances that anything "progressive" happens.

Jim Maynard said...

Wait..you claim to support these "progressive values", but support a candidate who does NOT, and you accuse me of only talking about them???

Chris(?) is it.. how much is Ford paying you for this blog work you are doing??

Jim Maynard said...

I will not support a candidate or a party that does not respect and defend the separtion of church and state or the civil rights of gays and lesbians, or that support corporate welfare and ending estate taxes which will increase the deficit, etc..
You are supporting a sorry ass candidate who WILL LOSE, so if the progressive candidate only gets 1% at least I supported the better candidate, the one who deserved my vote, not the one who panders to the Republican Religious Right.

BTW, I am not a member of the Green Party, and I am not a "Green", I am a democratic socialist.
Democratic Socialists of America

I support candidates who will work toward that vision.

Evil said...

A few things...

1) I'm not Chris. The Cracker and David both know me from the Mulroy campaign. Ford, sadly, is not paying me, although he should be. This Chris guy you speak of sounds like a kick ass guy though.

2) How many Democratic Socialist are in Congress? Wow!!! That is really going do a lot of good.

3) You may not believe that promoting alternative fuels is a progressive issue, but I believe it ties into a lot of issues dear to progressives. Namely, the environment, our foreign policy, and our economy. You may think gay marriage is more important than that, but most Tennesseans don't.

4) My reference to the Green Party was because of a post you made on the 'Cue attaching a threat to sue from someone in the Green party. I will no longer accuse you of being a Green. You are trying to grow your party to the size of the greens.

5) If you will define "progressive values" I would appreciate it. I know Harold has made some crappy votes, but I'm pretty sure he's not against all "progressive values". He is not against equality, he's against gay marriage. Define "social justice." It's easy to say these things, but what do they mean and how are you going to get someone who believes everything on this list elected?

My point in all of this is that by switching parties every election you will never build a progressive movement. There will always be a candidate that is more liberal than the Democrat. You know why? Becasue they aren't worried about trying to win. When you don't care about getting votes it's a lot easier to say things. Harold Ford cares more about progressive issues than Bob Corker. Bob Corker doesn't even believe there should be a minimum wage!! He may not agree with me on everything, but he sure as hell comes a lot closer than Bob Corker. He also is the key to having Democrats take control of the Senate, which would be more progressive than a Republican Senate I assure you.

Jim Maynard said...

YOu realize, of course, that Harold Ford Jr. was one of about 34 Democrats to vote for the REPUBLICAN minimum wage bill which attached to it the ELIMINATION OF ESTATE TAXES...

Most Democrats, those who oppose the economic policies of the Republcians, especially the irresponsible and deficit=causing tax cuts for the rich, voted AGAINST that bill...

Another example of how Ford Jr. has, and WILL, vote with the Republicans most of the time...

Jim Maynard said...

How many democratic socialists are there in Congress.. well there's Rep. Bernie Sanders (Independevt VT) who is probably going to win the Senate seat this year, and Sen. Ted Kennedy, and several members of the Progressive Caucus..

DSA is not a political party, it has worked mainly in the "Democratic Left" of the Democratic Party...

LeftWingCracker said...

Evil, I've got a real bone to pick with you.

How DARE you suggest that Chuck berry invented Rock & roll when we ALL know Ike Turner did right in Sam Phillips' studio.

You're a Memphian, you know better!

Evil said...

Cracker, that is up to debate. I will give Ike credit where credit is due, but I think we all know Chuck Berry is king. Just ask Keith Richards.

As far as Harold Ford voting with Republicans MOST of the time... as they say in Missouri show me. Yes he voted for the minimum wage increase that had the estate tax reduction included. He's for lower taxes and for a minimum wage increase. He also is running for Seanate in a Republican state, that may have something to do with it.

Now, you can have Bernie Saunders, but Ted Kennedy is a Democrat. Not anthing else he's a Democrat. If you asked him if he supported Harold in the Senate race he'd ask you if you'd lost your mind. As a matter of fact I bet you Bernie Saunders supports him too.

Riddle me this... how many "progressive" Senators from the South are currently in the Senate?

Why do you think that is?

Jim Maynard said...

Evil dude, as I said, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are mostly DEMOCRATS, very left ones. Edward Kennedy has been a speaker at DSA conferences, and was very close to Michael Harrington, one of the founding co-chairs of DSA. (Harrington wrote the classic The Other America, about poverty, in the 1960s that helped inspire the "war on poverty", it was a strong influence on John Kennedy...)
There aren't many "progressive Democrats" in the south.. so does that mean we should just throw up our hands and support conservative Democrats?
come one..

Nothing will change as long as we follow your strategy of supporting the conservative dixie crats.

The Democratic Party has been influenced by "third parties" throughout its history... Socialists and populists inspired the New Deal, the Democratic Party "borrowed" Social Security and the Great Society themes from "socialists"... The Socialist Party (remember Eugene Debbs and Norman thomas) once got over a million votes. But it made a difference as the Democratic Party responded to the populist themes of the democratic left parties..

I want to see the Democratic Party either become a "democratic socialist"/labor party or work within it to build a movement for a new party that will represent labor and the working class more than the current Democratic Party does... but I agree that we are stuck with working in the Democratic Party, but that means we (the Democratic Left) have to challenge the Democratic Party. We should support progressive Democrats, but we should not and cannot support conservative Democrats.

I'm a Democratic Socialist first, a "democrat" second. The Democratic Party is only a tool...
and so is the Green Party, etc...

Jim Maynard said...

And I can assure you that Bernie Sanders does NOT support conservative Democrats like Harold ford Jr. That's why he is a "Independent", he usually votes with the Democrats and works closely with them, but since he is a "socialist" he is NOT a Democrat, and he is one of my political heros. (You should listen to his weekly chat with Thom Hartman on Air America). He is one of the most respected members of Congress, and he is probably going to win Jeffries seat in the Senate. (Agan, he is NOT a Democrat, he is a socialist).

We are stuck with the Democratic Party as the "best choice" in a two-party system, but that needs to change. I'd like to see a European style political system (proportional representation) where more than two parties have a chance to win seats in government and it is not "winner takes all". That would solve our problem...then we would have socialist, greens, labor, libertarian, democratic and republicans in the government.

Mike said...


I'm with you all the way in that there needs to be some option for progressives to vote their disapproval of both Republicans (Corker) and Republican-lites (Ford, who's actually more conservative on some social issues than McCain & other Reps).

But what is it? Practically speaking, what do you suggest? How can dissent be galvanized into some kind of constructive effort within the next few months? Even a "none of the above" option would be something.

Maybe we should leave the Senate seat to Ford and focus on something a tad more likely at this point -- wresting CD-7 from Marsha Blackburn? That, I think, is a campaign that has time for a progressive victory (Bill Morrison).

Jim Maynard said...

Mike you have a good point, we should focus on the Morrison/Mashburn race as well as Cohen's Congressional race. (Although Morrison's chances are pretty slim too..)

We can't stop Jr., but I still think it is important to make sure it is known that he does not have 100 percent support among Democrats, and some of us are not supporting him for good reasons.

Evil said...

I think we all know that Ford does not have 100% support among Democrats. The point is that Ford would give more of a voice to the issues you care about than Corker. The fact is that labor will get a seat at the table with Ford, they won't with Corker. I'm not saying he'll always vote the way we would like, but there is a better shot.

As far as you wanting to change how we elect people in this country. Good luck with that, it's the Constitution's fault. So, if you want to blame the founding fathers that is fine with me, but again, I think you'll just end up banging your head against a wall or shouting at people on a street corner.

Evil said...


Just wanted to let you know that I checked out Chris Lugo for Senate campaign website. Very interesting. I would vote for him except a few things.

1) He claims to be for a nuclear free future. First, I don't believe the U.S. should unilaterally disarm. Second, I believe that people need to realize that part of us changing our energy policy will involve us using more, not less, nuclear energy.

2) He supports eliminating funding for Israel. I don't know that that is a very good idea given the current state of affairs over there.

3) He supports creating a Department of Peace. Well, he doesn't state what they would actually do except talk about peace. I imagine it would end up doing much of what the STATE DEPARTMENT does.

4) He supports eliminating the Department of Hameland Security. While, I don't agree with how President Bush has run Homeland Security, I think it is probably a good idea to have one.

5)While I agree with ending America's addiction to oil. I believe Harold Ford actually has a better shot at doing something about it.

6) At the end of the day I don't think being a peace activist qualifies you for the U.S. Senate. Maybe he should run for a State Rep. position or something. Senate seems a little silly for someone with NO LEGISLATIVE EXPERIENCE. I mean compare him to Steve Cohen who is running for our House seat.

In the end I believe in competence. I believe that the biggest problem with our current President is that he is not competent. I don't agree with his policy ideas, but if he carried them out effectively this country wouldn't be in as bad of shape. Chris Lugo has shown no ability to be a U.S. Senator and I cannot vote for him.

Thanks though. Are there any other fringe candidates I should look at?

Jim Maynard said...

You make some good points Evil,
Sorry for my tone earlier (I thought you were that Chris Jackson dude who is trolling the blogs for Ford :)
(I wish bloggers would just use their real names like me!)

Our political situation is very complex in the U.S. right now, especially for those us to the LEFT of the two-party system..
I know the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) have been arguing amongst themselves for decades now about whether to support Democrats or not... I think that argument continues at each annual conference.

I think we need people working within and outside the Democratic Party, so I see a place for progressives within the Democratic Party (and I support them), but also in "third partie" like the Greens to apply pressure from the outside. Its a catch-22 situation.

I guess I'm the street corner protest type (see the pic??)

Evil said...

True that.

Good little run we had here. Come over to the Evilblog and pick on me sometime.