His website doesn't even mention that he's a Democrat. At least on the front pages it doesn't. I know it is Nebraska, and that most people there probably know what he is, but it would be nice to see him show people that they shouldn't be afraid of voting for us.
p.s. shorten the subject because it causes an error on replies.
Many PA voters may wind up realizing that while Casey is far from the perfect candidate, he's a hell of a lot better than Santorum. Sometimes beggars can't afford to be choosers, such as when they are part of a 55-44 disadvantage.
It may be that Swann was not consistently good enough to deserve a spot in the Hall of Fame, but Chris, you can do better than this. He's in the Hall of Fame whether you like it or not, and it would be far more productive to focus on the experience he plans to apply for the Gov job with. Specifically the lack of it.
Swann is in the Hall of Fame, so get over it already. And stop picking on Joe Jurevicius! Since his son died tragically it seems wrong to see anything negative about the guy.
This kind of troubles me as well. I've seen the behavior of a lot of Cegelis supporters, and they are of the "Pennachio" variety, where they want a 100% progressive to get elected in a very moderate region, and yet they won't support the primary opposing Democrat for some reason. I'd always held out hope that Cegelis was better than a lot of her supporters. I can understand her being bitter, that she came close to winning last time and yet the DCCC chose to push someone else, but to be so standoffish to Duckworth is ridiculous. We're all on the same team.
Okay, so that's the way it went and lets establish that she's incompetent, just for argument's sake. Cegelis, for arguments sake, was competent, participated in debates, and campaigned non-stop for several years. She STILL lost.
And, if Cegelis couldn't overcome the Democratic establishment with other Democrats, how the HELL would she have overcome the Republican establishment in the general election?
Personally I'm not a fan of Cegelis at all. I think her supporters online have acted foolishly and really put me off from her. Too many people got behind her thinking that they know what is best for IL-06, forgetting that perhaps someone like Duckworth is more in-line with that district's sensibilities. Regardless of Dem establishment involvement, Democrats went to the polls and by a slim margin chose Duckworth over someone who has been campaigning in that district non-stop since 2004.
Any disabled war veteran who shows themselves to be at least competent has a built-in advantage with voters, and to defeat someone like that, Cegelis had to walk a very thin line when it came to questioning Duckworth as a candidate. Now, because of how bitter the primary has become, the Democratic candidate won't get the full support of the netroots the way Dems need support these days.
Flame me all you want. I'm a Dem who bleeds blue, and I know for damn sure that I'd rather have Duckworth than a Republican in IL-06.
I completely agree. I was in high school in oregon when ballot measure 5 was approved in Oregon, and I didn't quite know what it meant. But, even before that, the same problems existed.
Oregon seems to be one of the worst states in the country in terms of fiscal health. They are always running a budget deficit, the schools are underfunded, the infastructure is crumbling and social services are a complete joke. It is sad because Oregon is without a doubt one of the best places to live in terms of natural beauty, but the residents are so vehemently anti-tax that the state will likely never be healthy financially.
I personally witnessed tax measure after tax measure voted down in Oregon. People clearly knew that the money would go to help schools or roads or whatever, but no ballot measure increasing taxes could ever get approved. To me, the only way for this to be turned around is to put a lot of money into a cleverly worded ballot initiative and hope for a miracle.
This is what I'm talking about. People really forget that what works for Democrats in California and New York doesn't exactly go over that well in places like Kentucky and Indiana. There are a lot of nuanced positions out there, and if we just support a narrow field of candidates with a narrow field of views we're going to turn the Democratic party into the Green party. With just as much clout as the Greens have, i.e. zero.
I'm with kydem on this one. ANYone that wins the Democratic nomination in 2008 deserves our support, because the alternative is always a Republican.
Just because I'm capable of being tolerant and even accepting of those who have different views than myself doesn't mean that I should be lumped into some kind of clump with those who approve of people like Zell Miller. DLC-bashers like to point out the Millers and Liebermans of the world while bashing Evan Bayh and Mark Warner, as though everyone is simply guilty by association. You know who REALLY deserves our fury? Republicans. Even Lieberman caucases with the Dems last I checked, which in a lot of ways makes him better than the most left-leaning Republican.
Not everyone believes immediate withdrawal from Iraq is the thing to do. The fact our troops are over there horrifies me, but I personally support a timeline for bringing troops home within the next 18 months, maximum. Even Iraq vet Paul Hackett don't support immediate withdrawal.
Assuming what should be THE Democratic talking point has left you very bitter. You've shown by your diary and your comments that you are thoroughly intolerant of anyone who disagrees with you. You resort to childishly pointing out how few postings someone has made at mydd, forgetting they might just be new here even though they may blog plenty elsewhere. I'm sure you'll have something cute and spiteful to say in reply, so I hope you enjoy it.
I'm not really a big fan of the DLC either, but this kind of commentary is part of the reason Democrats can't get their act together.
Some of us choose to believe that Democrats, no matter where they are from, who their constituents are, or no matter their religion or background, should all fit into the same narrow political mindset. All this stuff about how people like Warner are really DINO's, Republican-lite or whatever is irritating since they are in fact Democrats, and their policies and ideas are far friendlier to progressives than the current status quo, which is Bush, Rove, Delay and Dobson.
Well, it's bullcrap. Fitting everyone into a small tent is the same mistake that the Republicans are making. By not allowing for ideological differences in their own party, Republicans have ignored the political realities in their home districts by supporting only the far-right idealogues, and could face serious consequences in the next election cycle.
I'll probably get flamed for my posting, and I don't care if I do, because I just don't see the point in spending any time trying to call out our most successful Democrats, for the sole reason that they are not amongst the more progressive Democrats out there. I highly doubt that Mark Warner's article was meant to be a comprehensive, all-encompassing blueprint for a Democratic revolution, but we won't all choose to see it that way. Even if we don't totally agree with the Mark Warners and Joe Bidens of the world, we can do better for our party than this diarist has done here.