Skip to content

John McCain And Debbie Wasserman Schultz Deserve Wins In Primaries Tuesday

August 29, 2016

As if we have not had enough primary excitement already this year the heat is being turned up again as Arizona and Florida will be the flashpoints on Tuesday as both parties prepare to make some news.  As readers know I am a liberal Democrat in the mold of Ted Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey.   In others words I have strong views on policy that also have a strong pragmatic underpinning.

Pragmatism is far too often set aside by extreme elements in both parties–and it is that very lack of pragmatism which is at the center of why I think the following candidates will win–and why their opponents will fail.

That is why I predict–and truly desire–Arizona Republican Senator John McCain and Florida Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz to win their primaries tomorrow.  In each case there are separate reasons as to why I feel as I do.

There is no doubt I have differences with McCain on many domestic issues such as spending cuts, or his views on judicial appointments.  But it is also true I have been in strong agreement with him, such as his desire for being far tougher on Syrian President Assad.   McCain advocated for a no-fly zone at one point and a military message to Syria that no one would miss in what was being said.  He was right.

There needs to be members of the senate with institutional memory and deep insight into foreign policy–even though we may not always harken to their views.  Having educated and experienced people like that in government allows for a wider debate.   McCain offers that role to this nation and to put it plainly–even at those times when I strongly disagree with him—I want him at the table.

There is absolutely no way I desire in any shape, manner, or form the lightweight challenger to McCain, Kelli Ward, to be anywhere near the seat of power.  She is part of the national problem of angry voices and limited intellect.   Ward has misplaced bombast for reason and that disqualifies her for office.

Meanwhile in Florida Debbie Wasserman Schultz deserves to be re-nominated for congress.   If one takes her votes into account she is a solid liberal Democrat.  And being a Democrat she worked as DNC chair to make sure an actual member of the party was nominated for president.  While Hillary Clinton was a Democrat, Bernie Sanders was not.  Sanders could not prevail for a run for president without attempting a take-over of the party.  Schultz fought back and is now facing a challenge from Bernie Sanders disciple Tim Canova.

I come from the old school of politics that we dance with the one who brought us to the dance.  Bernie never paid his dues at the chicken dinner circuit over the years for Democrats and there was nothing owed to him from the DNC.  Schultz was right and she will not lose her seat because she did the correct thing for her party.

It should be noted that in her congressional district Clinton defeated Sanders 68%-31%.

Staying in Florida I am hoping that Democratic candidate Patrick Murphy prevails over Alan Grayson for the U.S. Senate nomination.   Grayson is a lose tire on a car going too fast.

  1. August 31, 2016 10:41 AM

    I am always pleased when people step up and lend their voice and service for public office. So, yes, from that perspective I applaud Nader. I applaud candidates for their time–even when I differ with their stands on the issues. Nader did not feel at home in the Democratic Party and made his choice how to proceed. I supported Gore.

    But I am also mindful that the invasion of Iraq continues to cause the region great harm, and that was a policy choice by Bush. Nader had choices and he used them. History is the judge.

  2. purplepenquin permalink
    August 31, 2016 9:28 AM

    I think you missed my point about using MY money for YOUR elections. I’m not talking about the candidates and their fundraising, but rather about the fact that the State of Wisconsin pays for the primary elections. You say no-one but long-term party-members should be allowed to run in your primary election (and in fact, the rules your party has enacted stacks the deck to make sure the party-faithful are protected from such “outsiders”), yet you expect each&every taxpayer in the state to pay for your internal selection process. There is no justification for having it both ways.

    I am still curious tho…what were your feelings towards Nader when he ran in 2000? I’m assuming you opposed him, but do you at least respect him for making an independent bid rather than trying to jump into the Democratic Party without having paid decades of “dues”? Please clarify…thanks.

  3. August 31, 2016 9:08 AM

    While we know there is too much money in campaigns the reason taxpayers allow money to be used by the nominees was designed to limit the amount spent. With changes in law by courts and the new ways for the ‘water to get through the cracks’ we have far too expensive elections. I am sorry that the candidate you chose to support, while able to carry the small caucus type elections, had problems with diverse voting populations in large states. But in order for ‘my’ party to win in the fall it is necessary that the most capable person be nominated. The importance of making sure the Supreme Court is not loaded with young men with a strict constructionist point of view makes it perfectly clear why the strongest candidate was selected.

    As to anyone who wishes to run for the office of president–all those who have proven worthy of the party’s support are most welcome. The GOP had 17(?) who had worked the GOP trenches over the years. Some were far more bright and able but to a person they all had paid their dues with time and effort.

  4. purplepenquin permalink
    August 31, 2016 5:43 AM

    Political parties control the rules for their nominees, but yet they still expect the tax-payers to pay for their election process…and that ain’t proper. Your party needs to use the caucus system since ya’ll want to stack the deck and make the primary elections unfair.

    That aside, Nader received much scorn for running as an independent rather than trying to work with-in the party. Are you suggesting that those type of negative comments were mis-placed?

  5. August 29, 2016 4:24 PM

    You seem to miss the point that political parties can set the rules as to how nominees will be selected. Why would any party wish to water down their core values with votes cast by those who do not share their principles?

  6. Bob LaSolly permalink
    August 29, 2016 3:40 PM

    Oh, so Bob La Follette was wrong when he and the Progressives created the open primary and adopted the secret ballot! The dumb @ss state of New York rule that you have to choose your party six months before the presidential primary (and before the candidates are even announced and running) is every bit as much a voter suppression technique as is what Scott Wanker and North Carolina are doing. Let the candidates choose their voters! NY disenfranchised millions of voters with that stoopid law. And as someone who advocates against the extremes and is such a John McCain fan, isn’t it strange that McCain did his best in open primary states, where he could draw independents, Democrats and moderate Republicans and did worst where the party machinery could be slanted against him. That’s logic and justice my friend. Artificial barriers against citizen participation to protect the hacks and extremists is bad, veddy veddy bad. AND, if the friggin’ dumbocrat and repugnant parties want to close their nomination process, then the taxpayers shouldn’t pay for the election administration, ballots and pollworkers. By the way, are you a card carrying and dues paying member of the Dane County and Wisconsin Democrat Party? If not, how did you get a ballot?

  7. August 29, 2016 2:43 PM

    Come on, Solly. You have been in poultices as long I have and know better. Political parties control the rules as to how their nominees will be selected. If one is an independent they should not have a role in selecting who the party nominees are. Party regulars and members have that responsibility. Political parties have every right to close their system to allow for the base of the party to make a choice. Perhaps independents just need to read a bit more and get off the fence and stand for something instead of whine from their seats in the national theater.

  8. Solly permalink
    August 29, 2016 1:24 PM

    OMG! No loose wheels but CP has clearly gone off the rails. Hear that message independents? You have NO role in the presidential election. Leave it to the Incumbentcy Party. Has Mr. Political Courage John McCain cut his “Build the dang wall” TV commercial yet to fend off a challenge from his right, a la 2010, when he was willing to settle for a “dang fence?” And has Ms. “solid liberal democrat” finished cashing her campaign checks from the payday load industry that she’s shilling for? I realize that it’s a slim hope, but I hope thems that sleep with the scurrilous payday loan industry receive a political fate similar to Mike Sheridan, the former Wis. Dem Speaker of the Assembly who misunderstood the instructions and literally (with a female lobbyist) AND figuratively slept with the payday loan industry and helped lose the Dem majority in 2010 by watering down an attempt to regulate and reform payday loans. Yuppers, he followed Deke’s advice and “danced with the one who brung him.”

  9. August 29, 2016 1:09 PM

    You can differ with my opinion–that is fine. But you can not claim that my points are from an uninformed position.

  10. john permalink
    August 29, 2016 1:01 PM

    This article is poorly written if reality is added to the pot, Mrs Shultz represents the antithesis of democracy for her action, Hillary Clinton still has alot to answer for as she has been very quiet about alot of heavy information sifting through the public. this entire article is basically you spouting about a heavily uninformed opinion.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: