Bob Geary on Kay Hagan

I don't think I've ever seen a deeply thoughtful analysis about the pros and cons of Kay Hagan before this morning. Most observers either jump to her defense or sling dirt, depending on their interpretation of her record. Bob Geary threads the needle with an article in Indy Week today.

It's also important to keep in mind that Hagan thinks like a legislator. She carefully weighs each sub-paragraph before taking a stand. On major issues from gay rights to immigration to the Affordable Care Act, she's been slow to embrace the Democratic view, let alone the progressive one. And yet, on each of these issues, she's come to a progressive position—and she was strong from the start on women's rights and gun issues, for which the loonies running the National Rifle Association give her an "F."

For better or worse, we go into elections with the candidates we have, not the candidates we wish we had. And that creates what might be called an enthusiasm deficit, as represented by this comment on the Indy Week article.

The Anti-ACA ads turn my stomach, but I haven't forgiven Hagan for her pre-election immigration position, which prompted me to ask for my contribution back. I had made the false assumption that she would take the human rights position, as a Democrat. I'll vote for her, but I'm done with financial support.

I suspect that many people will reach similar conclusions about this most moderate Senator. They'll vote for Kay, but they won't work for her campaign or donate to the cause.


Geary's article is a study in abject surrender

For better or worse, we go into elections with the candidates we have, not the candidates we wish we had.

Surrender to slow the march of reactionaries don't get any more clear than Geary's article and the quote above.

There are literally 13 candidates (3 Democrats, 8 Republicans, 2 Libertarians) on the May ballot to review, analyze, dissect and discuss.

But we are treated to a grudging acceptance of Hagan's awful record with no review of the other DOZEN candidates in the race.

I reject this abject surrender and the false conclusion that in March 2014 we simply must accept Hagan.


We've analyzed and discussed

most of the Republicans opposing Kay, as well as one of the Libertarians (D'Annunzio), and for the life of me, I can't imagine why you think we should realistically consider any of those individuals to support. Democrats, yes, we should look at each one to see if they would have stronger progressive ideals. I might even (temporarily) ignore the "winnability" of such if the message warrants a good airing. But Republicans? I've yet to see any redeeming qualities in any of them, at least the ones challenging Kay.

Now isn't the time

Let's face it - with a big race for something like a Senate seat, much of the viability of a successful candidate doesn't depend on their ideas as much as their ability to do fundraising and have a "brand" presence. It's a race about names.

In this case, progressives and liberals may need to go with the horse in the race that's "known" and help lay the foundation for a better candidate next time around. A potential candidate needs visibility and name recognition years before the actual race.

Bigger than a Senate seat

with a big race for something like a Senate seat

The control of the US Senate is going to be narrowly held one way or another. Not only will that determine what kind of laws that can pass there in the next term like ENDA or immigration reform, but the advise and consent power is a big one too.

Especially with the whole Supreme Court thing, which could determine marriage equality or the future of reproductive rights or of money in politics. And of course other types of appointments too.

This NC race isn't just a choice between Hagan and Tillis, it's potentially also a choice between McConnell and Reid, and on appointments too.

I have to agree here

If Hagan does win reelection, it will no doubt be close. It will be close because of a lackadaisical effort by those working for her. She has made some enemies within the democratic apparatus. She is less progressive and less liberal than many democrats in NC would like her to be. She has stood on a different side of some issues than the democratic majority in our state.

I agree, however, that she should be our party's candidate if for no other reason than she has a great deal of name recognition and does have campaign experience running for the Senate and has the ability to generate funding beyond the others vying for her seat within the democratic field.

Teddy is right. Right now, we need to keep this seat and we need to have the candidate running for it that has the best chance to win. That would be Hagan despite all of the arguments I'm sure there are against that belief. If she doesn't get squared away, we can work on replacing her next time. With another democrat, of course.


Unfortunately in a post-Citizens United world, money seems to matter more than votes in deciding who wins, regardless of who your candidate of choice is. And Koch money certainly doesn't seem to be sitting this election cycle out in North Carolina.

Hagan is the choice!

Get the hell over it and support Hagan, including money. I could write 15 pages of reasons for rejection, but, we cannot rebuild if we cannot hold onto what we got. And as for Bob Geary, he is done with giving to the Democratic Party as he announced recently, along with a bunch of Malicious Malcontents Caucus of nose in the air DINOs, so his refusal of money to Hagan is just more of his posturing. Right Bob? This Malcontents caucus has been telling folks to not give to the Party, which means we end up with nothing to fight a campaign in 2014 for Candidates. What a lovely bunch, includes Pearce, Mills, ad nauseum.

So don't give ti Kay, and just let her lose Geary. Dumb as crap, but predictable from the Caucus. After it is over and Kay has won, I will recite my issues with Hagan. But until November, I will keep it under my cap, as bad as
it is. I guess my advice to these half warm folks is "grow up".