Why is Kirk Dillard getting criticized for helping Barack in a primary?
I don't get it.
Now, I'm certainly not qualified to advise the Republican Party on anything related to 'how to be a good Republican' but I really don't understand the blowback against Senator Dillard appearing in a Barack Obama television commercial for a primary election.
First, I think Senator Dillard has made it clear that he prefers a Republican candidate to Barack Obama in November.
Second, wouldn't we all benefit in Illinois if an Illinois resident were the President of the United States? Doesn't it make sense -- from the perspective of helping out the people of Illinois -- to prefer that the only Illinois candidate in either party primary get a nomination?
Third, if there's a Democratic candidate who has made a habit of reaching out to Republican colleagues and forging good, bipartisan solutions, wouldn't Republicans prefer that type of a Democratic President instead of one who governs like George W. Bush and essentially steamrolls the other side?
All of those good reasons for a former Republican colleague of one of the leading presidential candidates to appear in a primary campaign ad are apparently outweighed because, perhaps, in October or November (16 long months from now), if Barack is the Democratic nominee, then perhaps Senator Dillard's comments could be used to undercut the Republican nominee's chances, particularly if that Republican nominee doesn't have a history of forging bipartisan solutions.
Except, Senator Dillard's preferred nominee, Senator John McCain, does have such a history.
And to a certain extent, so do the other leading GOP candidates (Rommey who worked in an overwhelmingly Democratic state and Giuliani who worked in an overwhelmingly Democratic city).
If some New York City Democratic politician appeared in a Giuliani ad in Iowa or New Hampshire congratulating him for working well with the Democratic City Council (assuming that he did), who cares? Or if Senator Feingold appeared in an ad for McCain congratulating him for trying to lessen the clout of big business in political campaigns, so what? People deserve to get credit for their good work and if it means the politicians who work to reach consensus end up winning primary elections, that's a good thing.
I can understand why Republicans would be upset if Senator Dillard supported Obama's presidential campaign in the November general election. But to support the best candidate with a record of building consensus who is from Illinois and understands state legislatures in a primary election seems like smart politics rather than a partisan betrayal to me.
6 comments:
I have a feeling Obama's going to get the nomination brokered away from him. (Gore will get it...)
At that point, the largest and most loyal (and I'd argue forsaken) block of Democratic voters is going to wonder what happened.
The GOP can resurrect Dillard's kind words at that point and say see, one of George Bush's closest confidants was an African Amercian woman; no token but a critical and trusted advisor.
Look at how your Party's treated Sen Obama. We even had kind words for him back in June and did ads for him.
Just a thought on what might unfold.
On the consensus note, one of the most inexplicable things Obama's said recently was the talk to the United Church of Christ on hijacking faith.
Clinton's 1997 Welfare Reform was one of the greatest consenseus moments in recent years. It was Rev Jim Wallis and the Liberal Church who came out strongly against it as unchristian, etc...
Liberal Religion (as a guy who belongs to one, contributes to one, and has been a leader in one) is very much withering from within.
It hasn't been hijacked but betrayed and one only need look at Rev. Wallis to see why.
Obama should know this. It was hardly a consensus building comment on his part.
Kirk Dillard would do or say anything to see his name in the paper or get his puss on t.v. It's revolting.
You are correct, however, Dan. You are not qualified to speak or write on the subject. If only Eugene Debs was still around, but you might be too liberal for that.
Debs fared better with Republicans than Democrats,
In 1920, the Socialist Party again nominated him as their presidential candidate and over 915,000 voted for prisoner #9653. President Wilson vigorously denied a request for Deb's pardon in 1921. Finally, Warren G. Harding released Debs under a general amnesty on Christmas Day 1921. Harding asked the old socialist to stop by the White House. "I have heard so damned much about you, Mr Debs, that I am very glad to meet you personally" Harding remarked at their meeting. Debs died in 1926.
"A Democratic candidate who has made a habit of reaching out to Republican colleagues and forging good, bipartisan solutions"
At last count Obama was the #4 most partisan Senator based on his voting tendencies. One of his few bipartisan votes was for the Bridge to Nowhere, where his profilgate spending trumped his partisanship.
Obama also has disavowed any interest in Illinois issues. Other than endorsing Todd Stroger for County Board President, has he really been a leader for Illinois?
JBP
Because Barack is Trouble with a capital T.
So far I have seen so NO loyalty out of this guy Berry Hussian. Kirk Dillard will get nothing from his friend Berry.
The only thing, Mr. Dillard will procure from this is grief from his Republican supporters.
Dr. Goldblatt has had a liver transplant and is a drunk; and a man who hates children including his own, cats, and women, unless they are hot and easy.
Shalom,
--- Prof. Leland Milton Goldblatt, Ph.D
Post a Comment