Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Another 'Independent Democrat'

Daniel Cody of Left on the Lake points out that there are at least two "independent Democrats" we know of -- Joe Lieberman and David Clarke. Cody says:
There's no such thing as an "Independant Democract" anymore than there's such a thing as "Independant Republican". It doesn't matter if you're a United States Senator or a Milwaukee County Sheriff running for re-election, you're either a Democrat or a Republican or an Independant.

If you have to intermingle the words to try to get support that you wouldn't otherwise deserve, you're lying to yourself and the voters you're trying to confuse.
Brewtown Politico Scott Stearns says it's time for Joe to go.


At 3:40 PM, Blogger proletariat said...

The only 'Independent Democrat' that I know of is Russ Feingold.

At 5:54 PM, Blogger XOut said...

I find it fascinating that you, a supposedly seasoned Democratic strategist, have fallen for this.

This election is evidence of a national Democrat trend towards obsolescence. It was easy enough to lob the anti-war rhetoric for the last few years, but the American people will reject your party’ s move to radical insanity.

What appeared to be a likely Dem takeover of the house and senate is all but over now. The left-wing has taken over and they have no real connection to the average citizen.

I am elated by Lieberman’s primary defeat. He will beat the tar out of Lamont in the general and your party will have a strong movement of moderates desperate to take it back from you radical nuts.

Here in Wisconsin the stakes are not nearly as great – we are not facing the risk of having Milwaukee taken over by angry militant terrorists – so it is possible that Plale and Clarke will be defeated by extremely-liberal challengers. The problem for you Democrats is that such an outcome will also put legislative control even further out of your reach.


You really are out on a limb here Bill… you are about ready to become a genuine third-rate political hack in Wisconsin for embracing the lunacy of a lefty from Connecticut.

At 6:02 PM, Blogger Xoff said...

You could be right, I suppose.

But I don't think so:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sixty percent of Americans oppose the U.S. war in Iraq, the highest number since polling on the subject began with the commencement of the war in March 2003, according to poll results and trends released Wednesday.

And a majority of poll respondents said they would support the withdrawal of at least some U.S. troops by the end of the year, according to results from the Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted last week on behalf of CNN. The corporation polled 1,047 adult Americans by telephone.

At 8:54 PM, Blogger Daniel Cody said...

And who knew Connecticut had been taken over by angry militant terrorists?!

Your whole argument - and the argument you're echoing of he RNC - is that because Ned Lamont is against the war, he's from the "extreme left". As Bill points out above, that puts nearly 2/3rd's of the nation in the 'extreme left' category by your rational. Hardly the kind of numbers that are going to hurt Democrats this Fall.

More than likely, you and the GOP as a whole are finally realizing that the tactics of the past two elections which were successfull in the goal of subduing and marginalizing Democrats by playing the "they're for the terrorists if they're against the war/Bush" line isn't going to work this time around. And in my opinion, it's like a crutch that the GOP had so long that now that it's gone, they've forgotten what to run on.

After all, if you can't scare voters anymore into voting Republican, what are you going to point to? Your stellar record on the budget? The huge success of Bush's forgeign policy? How in five years you've cut the size of the bloated federal government?


Post a Comment

<< Home