NYT editorial: The Message From Arkansas
They may not have won, but discontented Democrats sent an important message to the Obama administration on Tuesday by mounting an unexpectedly strong primary challenge to Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. For the White House to minimize the efforts of unions and others who helped support that challenge suggests a tone-deafness to the growing restlessness in the Democratic Party.
After Mrs. Lincoln narrowly defeated Lt. Gov. Bill Halter in the primary runoff, a senior White House official told Politico.com that organized labor had just wasted $10 million in its “pointless” support of Mr. Halter, money that could have been better spent against Republicans in the November general election. David Axelrod, the president’s senior adviser, told The Washington Post that “good progressive candidates around the country” could have benefited from that money.
Within the cocoon of the White House, that sort of pragmatism may make sense, but the unions had every right to spend their money as they saw fit, and the White House should be paying attention to the signals that were sent, not to the ones they wish they had heard.
Some of the anger toward Mrs. Lincoln is anti-incumbent sentiment, which we’ve seen in other races this year. But much of it was more specific. Many on the left were unhappy with her for opposing a public option in the health care law, for opposing bills making it easier to unionize and for being more concerned about deficits than about stimulating the economy and creating jobs.
(Full item here.)
After Mrs. Lincoln narrowly defeated Lt. Gov. Bill Halter in the primary runoff, a senior White House official told Politico.com that organized labor had just wasted $10 million in its “pointless” support of Mr. Halter, money that could have been better spent against Republicans in the November general election. David Axelrod, the president’s senior adviser, told The Washington Post that “good progressive candidates around the country” could have benefited from that money.
Within the cocoon of the White House, that sort of pragmatism may make sense, but the unions had every right to spend their money as they saw fit, and the White House should be paying attention to the signals that were sent, not to the ones they wish they had heard.
Some of the anger toward Mrs. Lincoln is anti-incumbent sentiment, which we’ve seen in other races this year. But much of it was more specific. Many on the left were unhappy with her for opposing a public option in the health care law, for opposing bills making it easier to unionize and for being more concerned about deficits than about stimulating the economy and creating jobs.
(Full item here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home