Kane versus Murphy: how the 2012 Democratic primary for PA attorney general reminds me of 2008

[illusionofjoy]

There are few things worse in politics than a true believer. I should know, because for too many years I was one of those misguided schmucks who voted for the Democrat under the delusion that I was helping to push my country in a more progressive - nay, liberal - direction. It didn't take long for the overwhelming avalanche of evidence to fall on my head, burying me in the conclusion that, indeed no, that is not how politics works. I completely washed my hands of defending the Democratic Party as an institution when Barack "Barry the DINO" Obama was selected as the nominee for the party's presidential candidate in 2008.

Those who don't dabble in revisionist history will support the fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and should have been the nominee. One takeaway: apparently it is not okay for the Supreme Court to ignore the will of the voters and appoint George W. Bush as president, but it is okay for the Democratic Party to ignore the will of the voters and appoint he who lost the popular vote.

While there hasn't been a sham of a convention in Pennsylvania's race for Democratic nominee for state attorney general, I've gotten a taste of nastiness which reminded me of 2008. The two candidates vying for the nomination are Patrick Murphy and Kathleen Kane. Given that both candidates are evenly matched on the issues, I decided that I'd vote for Kane. It wasn't a difficult decision for me; as far as I'm concerned the political arena is way too much of a sausage party so I've got no qualms about engaging in an act of sexual discrimination (against my own gender, no less) and voting for the woman in the race. When I posted this declaration on my Facebook wall, it didn't take long for someone to remind me that while it is perfectly acceptable to vote for a man merely because he is black (or half-black, as the case may be), voting for someone merely because she is female is a big no-no.

It was only one individual berating me for my statement, but as the comment thread wore on, I began getting flashbacks to four years ago when I had the audacity to support Hillary Clinton's campaign for President. I was told that Kathleen Kane did not have a strong pro-choice record and that if I cared about the issue of a woman's right to choose, I should be voting for Patrick Murphy. I countered that the candidates were equal on the subject. The only difference between Kane and Murphy is that the latter is pandering in his campaign ads while the former is more aware of the job of attorney general in stating the truth in that "one does not get to pick the laws one has to uphold." The Mondale method of stating the hard, unpleasant facts during a campaign will likely lose her this election.

Apparently that wasn't enough for this person who persisted in telling me how foolish I was not to jump on with Murphy who has "a long record of defending woman's right to choose" and who is "endorsed by Planned Parenthood and NOW." I wasn't changing my stance nor was I taking the bait, which led to a slur of insults being hurled my way and an assertion that I "may as well vote for Sarah Palin," every so-called progressive's favourite right-wing punching bag. I finally shut down the conversation by stating that one can disagree with my reasons for voting the way I will, but one does not have the right to "enter my house" and insult and berate me for it. The United States is a nation filled with people who, to one degree or another, are voting for reasons others think are "stupid" or "uninformed." While one is well within his or her right to grouse about the situation within their own forum or engage in a debate to try and change the mind of another by presenting their opinion, a line is crossed when one degenerates into name-calling and attempted shaming and crass manipulation. The conversation - such as it had become - ended and the person hurling the vitriol has since dropped me as a friend on Facebook (good riddance, my friends list on that site is way overdue for a purging anyhow).

Ever since Obama's campaign in 2008, I've really come to believe the one can often glean the character of a candidate by the way his or her strongest supporters comport themselves. In 2008 Obama's most zealous supports were a nasty bunch hurling accusations of racism and flat out telling their opponents how "stupid" they were. While a candidate can not control his or her supporters, they can influence them and the Obama camp did very little - if anything - to reign in the crusade of the true believers.

While I've only encountered one incident of a Murphy supporter berating me for cheering on the opposite team, I wonder if this woman (yes, a woman was berating me for not voting for a man - woman are their own worst enemies at times) represented the exception or the rule. Murphy's early campaign advertisements have been obviously pandering - nothing unexpected there - where he trumpets how pro-choice he is. It's the same teaser that Democratic politicians have been dangling in front of women's faces for the past several decades, purporting to defend a woman's right to dominion over her own body while in actuality, Roe is all but dead. The right-wing culture warriors are winning, namely because they scare women into voting for Democrats who, instead of actually fighting back, rest on the assurance that they can merely promise to fight and in making the promise, that will allow them to maintain elected office. It is lip-service of the worst kind.

But I digress; up until tonight I hadn't seen a Murphy ad which I could qualify as nasty. However, on television this evening Murphy decided to take up a mud ball and launch it as hard as he could at Kathleen Kane. Along with my favourite Murphy-maniac's assertion that Kane isn't pro-choice enough, she's also anti-union and gave money to the campaign of Republican Governor Tom Corbett. I did some digging to try and see if these claims had any substance and have, thus far, come up empty-handed.

It seems to me that Murphy's campaign is getting desperate and is worried that pandering isn't enough, thus it is time to scare registered Democrats into line. All I could think is that I know at least one Murphy supporter who would totally approve of these tactics. Because, hey - politics ain't beanbag and who cares how you win so long as you win?

The disciples of Obama learned well.