General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: How about we save the purity tests for blue states? [View all]moriah
(8,312 posts)I lived here during that time. In this very conservative Bible-belt state, having a Senator with a 89% rating from the HRC and a 16% rating from the Christian Coalition, and a 0% from the National Right to Life Committee rocked, and I was proud. She had her issues and I wrote to her myself begging her not to take certain votes near the end, but I also knew how people around me felt about those issues and was aware my voice was probably drowned out among those here like who thought like the lady holding the sign that said "No Pubic Option".
People either took for granted that Arkansas's Democratic base would continue to send up blue senators, or decided that it didn't matter if we lost the seat in the feelings of victory after having a majority in all three branches, and sent a ton of money in to smear her during a vicious primary, damaging Blanche for the general election. Halter didn't win the primary, and couldn't have swung Arkansas anyway. John Boozman, her opponent and my representative at the time, was viciously pro-life, along with every way a teabagger conservative and all it entails. I knew absolutely I did not want him as my Senator. Republicans realized they could gain ground here after we decided to turn on our own, and used it to their advantage. Now the entire fucking state is red after Republicans decided it was worth spending real money here, including all of the people we're sending to Washington.
I continue voting Democrat, and I hope that it can change. Even if my state can not send up Dems like Elizabeth Warren, Pryor and Lincoln were far better than the two who will be answering my letters in January. It's all I can do. But when we eat our own in primary debates -- at the state level and elsewhere -- rather than trying for real discussion and comparison and contrast of beliefs and how we want the party to go, we're screwing up to the other party's advantage.