Neither is unquestioning allegiance to a Political Party.

Mr. Hackett said Senators Charles E. Schumer of New York and Harry Reid of Nevada, the same party leaders who he said persuaded him last August to enter the Senate race, had pushed him to step aside so that Representative Sherrod Brown, a longtime member of Congress, could take on Senator Mike DeWine, the Republican incumbent.

- NYT

This is profoundly un-democratic, another progressive foul. Instead of leaving the choice up to the people through a primary election, the establishment has made the choice for the people before the process has even begun.

Outrageous? Nah.

Democratic blogosphere reaction was mixed with some such as “Kos” (Markos Moulitsas Zuniga) urging party activists to unite behind Brown.

-"Democratic bloggers abuzz over Hackett exit", MSNBC

Thanks, Kos! Way to crash the gates!

But blogger Bob Brigham, who played a role in Hackett’s House race, had a scathing and obscene reaction. “Schumer has now ***** up beyond all recognition the primaries in both Pennsylvania and Ohio,” Brigham said in an e-mail distributed Tuesday morning. He called Schumer “a complete ******* fool.”

- From the MSNBC article above

But something strange has happened to Brigham's post on the subject today:

This diary was deleted as we all bow down and worship at the alter of the DC Democrats who are so wise.

Did MyDD encourage this self-censorship?

I may be engaging in conspiracy theories about bloggers who are thought of as conspiracy theorists themselves by polite society, but... I'm sensing a sickening trend here.

I think the sentiment motivating Democratic Party Loyalists is the idea that the only way to stop the Bush regime is to elect a majority of Democrats in Congress.

Which, as a practical matter, I agree with but I think it's a dangerous meme. It seems very simple and straightforward, but it implies a bunch of assumptions that are not so reasonable.

Please question some of those assumptions:

- Do the ends justify the means?

- Does Democratic victory require a that lefty bloggers and activists refrain from criticising the party and it's politicians?

- Does it make sense to defer to the judgement of a party establishment that has consistently lost elections in the past 6 years?

- What if the candidates the CW says have a "realistic chance of winning" fail to win? In other words, what if the ends don't even materialize? Hint: it's happened before, many times, recently.

- What if, once elected, Establishment Democratic candidates continue their current behavior of failing to stand up, through concrete action, for progressive values?

- Doesn't loyalty to the party regardless of it's actions encourage it to not represent your opinions and values?

- Who benefits? You? The interests of lower and middle class americans and the worldwide human community? Or the personal interests of career politicians?

- What is the downside of expressing discontent with bad, wrong decisions made by the Democratic Party Establishment? Do prominent bloggers consider it their duty to tamp down the dissatisfaction of Democrat voters who read them? What about trying to influence the decisions of Beltway dems by speaking out for what you believe in rather than kissing up to the establishment?

- What if "outsider" candidates like Howard Dean and Paul Hackett turn out to resonate more with voters than the constantly wrong BCW says they will?

So many questions. So much disgust. Happy Valentine's Day.

UPDATE: I almost forgot. Here's what they think about you:

Assessing bloggers' importance

The negative reaction to Hackett’s exit “will certainly pass, it may even pass before the next news cycle,” remarked Jennifer Duffy, an analyst with the non-partisan Cook Political Report.

“Hackett is the kind of candidate who illustrates that the blogs are loud, but not necessarily representative,” she added. “In this election cycle in particular, people are watching blogs and assigning them enormous importance that isn’t necessarily warranted.”

The Hackett episode showed that party leaders had decided it was worth risking the wrath of pro-Hackett bloggers in order to get the candidate they judged to be the stronger one.

- MSNBC

How bold of the Party Leaders! Especially since some bloggers volunteered to "bow down" all by themselves.

UPDATE 2: Reaction in the Ohio blogosphere here and here.

MyDD discusses a poll showing that Hackett would have done well if the party had put some money behind him to let voters know who he was. Especially among independents:

Among those who identified as themselves independent or other (Ohio has an open primary where independents can vote), Hackett held a 50 percent to 31 percent margin.