There is perhaps a more active dis-satisfaction with Congressman Ron Barber’s voting record than is reported in the public press. Some of that is due to the congressman’s recent vote with his Republican colleagues to tie the funding of the government with a delay of penalties for those who do not enroll in an insurance plan.
The one year delay was viewed by Democratic loyalists as nothing more than part of the Republican attack on the Affordable Care Act.(Good Lord! What if people really liked and wanted “Obamacare”–as it turned out they did.)
I have an idea that the advocacy of a Democratic congressional primary is viewed as some sort of dreadful apostasy. But why? Such contests serve to define the direction of the party, and settle the thrust and intention of party policy in the future.
An argument you frequently hear for electing a not-too-popular congressman is that he (or she) will, if elected, at least cast a vote to organize the House of Representatives and elect the Speaker of the House.True enough in some broad sense, but will control of the house depend on one vote? Surely you jest.
Political reporting of the “finger on the pulse” sort is sometime pretty sketchy, but the financial support pulse of the Barber campaign strikes us as just a tad weak; with financial support holding back for a more vigorous Democratic position.
Finally, it is not that the Democrats lack a supply of possible candidates. The district is characterized by its fiercely competent and politically savvy potential candidates…many of them women cast in the Emily’s List mold.
It all remains to be seen.