The Real Test for Progressive Candidates is on Economics

As we survey the desolate landscape of 2014 Kentucky Democratic hopes, let us keep two profound truths in mind:

First, Jonathan Miller is a liar, a fraud and a creep who has nothing useful to contribute to any political discussion. If Ashley Judd really was listening to his advice, then she probably wasn't ready for prime time.

Second, the litmus test for Democratic candidates is not gay marriage or abortion or even global warming. It's income inequality.

David Atkins at Hullabaloo:

Chuck Schumer is a fine Senator. Socially progressive. Fairly economically progressive as well. He's even been making some hay against the financial behemoths. But everyone knows that when push comes to shove, Chuck will likely protect Wall Street from any serious consequences.

And that's the problem. Much as social liberalism is a critically important part of the puzzle, and much as it's amazing that we're just steps away from every LGBT having the right to potentially marry, that isn't enough to be considered a valuable legislator. That should be a baseline.

Back when the Democratic Party depended heavily on legislators from good ol' boy areas of the country, there was a distinct divide on social issues, wherein there was significant division among party leaders on those fronts. But those days are past. Being good on choice, marriage equality and other issues should be a given. It should be square one for any Democratic candidate.

The true test of mettle has to be on economics.

Back when social issues divided Democrats, there was no daylight between them on bread-and-butter issues of protecting the middle class with high taxes on the rich, strong unions, a living wage, good benefits, Social Security and Medicare.

Now that Democrats are moving in tandem on social issues, the new divide is between the protectors of the rich and the defenders of the 99 percent.

It doesn't have to be that way. Real Democratic candidates fight both discrimination and Wall Street. Real Democratic candidates support women's rights and good jobs.

Settling for one or the other is a false choice that feeds the myths of the repugs and the one-percenters.

Bad Endorsement

Got a hit on the site from a Google search for "brook parker kentucky" today. Gee, what could have happened recently in the news that would make someone search for that particular combination of words?

Media Czech asked if Miller's endorsement of Conway would sway anyone who wasn't already behind Conway.

I don't know, but it's about to make this Conway supporter vomit. The only reason I'm not writing a check to Mongiardo right now this minute is because it's - Mongiardo.

Miller is a scumbag, and yeah, MC, I supported him in the '07 primary, too. And I thought it was appropriate that Beshear reward Miller for handing him the primary by appointing Miller state party chair and then Secretary of the Finance Cabinet (which, btw, pays way more than being governor does.)

But once the truth came out that Miller had apparently broken the law regarding promotion and salary increases of merit employees, and Beshear refused to to fire his ass, I knew then that Beshear's administration was doomed, just one month into office. I wrote so at the time, too.

And waddayaknow, everything that's happened since has proven me right.

Conway should have refused Miller's endorsement. It gains him nothing and only makes Conway look bad to us dwindling number of idealistic lefties who actually give a flying fuck about ethics in public service.

Conway is goddamned lucky his opponent is the lying, gay-bashing, corporate stooge Mongiardo, because that means the cowardly apology for cussin' at Fancy Farm was Strike One, and the Miller endorsement is only Strike Two.

Nothing short of Andrew Horne entering the race could stop me from voting for Conway, but right now I don't see me writing another check anytime soon.