So you think you have Nothing to HIDE ?

[bvar22]

28. Since you want to place all the blame on Our Congress,

have you ever thought about HOW our Congress became so compliant to the demands of the 1%,
and what happens to those who attempt to change it?

"The Arkansas primary fight illuminates some unpleasant though vital truths about the Democratic establishment "

"So what did the Democratic Party establishment do when a Senator who allegedly impedes their agenda faced a primary challenger who would be more supportive of that agenda? They engaged in full-scale efforts to support Blanche Lincoln. Bill Clinton traveled to Arkansas to urge loyal Democrats to vote for her, bashing liberal groups for good measure. Obama recorded an ad for Lincoln which, among other things, were used to tell African-American primary voters that they should vote for her because she works for their interests. [font size=3]The entire Party infrastructure lent its support and resources to Lincoln — a Senator who supposedly prevents Democrats from doing all sorts of Wonderful, Progressive Things which they so wish they could do but just don’t have the votes for.[/font]

Ordinarily, when Party leaders support horrible incumbents in primaries, they use the “electability” excuse: this is a conservative state, the incumbent has the best chance to win, and the progressive challenger is out-of-step with voters. That excuse is clearly unavailable here. As Public Policy Polling explained yesterday, Lincoln has virtually no chance of winning in November against GOP challenger John Boozman. And while it would have also been difficult for Halter to beat Boozman, polls consistently showed that he had a better chance than Lincoln did. That’s unsurprising, given how much better non-Washington candidates are doing in this incumbent-hating climate than long-term Washington insiders. And it’s rather difficult to claim that Halter is out-of-step with Arkansas given that they elected him their Lt. Governor. Whatever the reasons Washington Democrats had for supporting the deeply unpopular Lincoln, it had nothing whatsoever to do with electability.

What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we’ve been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesn’t have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it’s not Obama’s fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face. Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don’t support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we’ll support a primary challenger against you. Obama’s support for Lincoln did not merely help; it was arguably decisive, as The Washington Post documented today:"

<much more>

http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/

If the above were an anomaly, I could overlook it as just a stupid thing that slipped through the cracks.
But it isn't an anomaly.

Over the last 25 years, the conservative, Big Business, Democratic Leadership has an established track record of abandoning and excommunicating Liberals,
protecting Conservative Democrats,
welcoming Conservatives (most recently Chaffe),
and endorsing and promoting their campaigns for Democratic seats (Specter).



You will know them by their WORKS.