- WHERE ARE THEY NOW?: Tim Tagaris, the Lamont campaign's top blogger, is taking a trip to New Orleans for MyDD.
- DID HE REALLY SAY THAT?: Glenn Beck to first muslim congressman: 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies'.
What's the future of the CT "blogosphere" look like?
13 comments:
I'm with cgg. No one is communicating with the unaffiliated voters...the state's most important voting block.
Who are the unaffiliated voters? What do they think? Are they really Democratic or Republican leaners who regularly vote that way, but just don't want to be associated with an organized party because they don't like all the party stands for (in their mind). Or are they disaffected from politicians and government generally? They've bothered to register, but don't want to take a side. Are they the Ross Perot voters? Are they all moderates or centrists, or are they actually extreme in a different direction?
When I did canvassing, I got all of the above as responses. I think the politician who can find answers to these questions would be able to put together a winning coalition.
Joe, My experience leads me to believe that most U's who regularly vote (and that’s the key) do lean to the left or right but don't have the courage to show their hand.
For those who don't routinely vote and are registered as a U...does it really matter which way they lean?
Does anyone know who Courtney & Murphy voted for majority leader. I really hope it was not John Murtha. TO vote for someone with a cloud of corruption following him around would be quite ironic...especially coming from a state hat so many Democrats have coined as Corrputicut.
I don't know who they voted for yet, but I am pretty sure Steny Hoyer campaigned for Joe Courtney.
Glenn Beck is just another 'reformed' drunk and drug abuser who 'found religion' (Mormonism)... he's a total waste of airspace.
Shoot, my blind cat could run a better talk show than him, AND he's more photogenic and cuddly.
> My experience leads me to believe that most U's who regularly vote (and that’s
> the key) do lean to the left or right but don't have the courage to show their hand.
>
> For those who don't routinely vote and are registered as a U...does
> it really matter which way they lean?
Excellent point, I totally concur. As important as reaching out to the middle is, the one thing that's more decisive in elections is TURNING OUT the base (whether they're registered with your party or independents who mostly vote that way); if the previous elections cycles didn't prove that, this one surely did. Hopefully, for the sake of a good '08 election, the Democrats will finally take note and run a Presidential candidate that appeals to and inspires their base, unlike the candidates they ran the last two times.
As it regards to the Murtha vote, he does have ethics issues, however Hoyer is part of the corporatist DLC crowd that works for some of the same interests as the Republicans, and I think the lack of an opposition party in a democracy is an even bigger ethical issue. Plus, when Murtha became a national figure over a year ago, I never even heard the word ABSCAM; all the Republicans fired at him with was cut and run. It'll be more difficult for them to make a case about ethics issues from years ago when they already ignored it.
Shadow, I'm not talking about Republicans going after Murtha regarding ethics...I'm talking about Democrats. To their credit Democrats made ethics a major issue, to turn around and now support someone who is ethically challenged seems to me as inconsistent.
Seems like the Danbury News-Times dropped the ball on their "sore loser" law story.
The SoS never proposed a sore loser law, just to fix a loophole that was created when the primary was moved from September to August.
I broke the whole mixup down and included on my post, video of the SoS clearly stating that she's not proposing a sore loser law. I don't know what the reporter was thinking but the article published was completetly wrong and picked up by several sites.
Shadow I miss you..
Joe Courtney is on record in today's Journal Inquirer as supporting Jack Murtha.
Unsure about Murphy's choice.
http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17475248&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=6
> To their credit Democrats made ethics a major issue, to turn around and now
> support someone who is ethically challenged seems to me as inconsistent.
That's a valid point, it would be outstanding to have someone squeaky clean and independent like Dennis Kucinich as majority leader, but that's not going to happen.
As it stands, the vote is between two guys who each have certain issues (I already explained why I think Hoyer's ethics are an even bigger problem than Murtha's). There aren't any other real options being considered aside from those two guys, so House members are in effect restricted to choosing the better of the two. Your argument is similar to saying that every simgle person who voted in a Presidential election where both major candidates have ethics issues should have voted third party. A wonderful idea, and an ideal I strongly support, but there ARE also situations in politics where you have to be practical and pick the lesser of two evils.
I always like to use the Nader example; I voted for him in 2000 and 2004, and have not an ounce of regret for those votes. But if I lived in Florida or Ohio, I would NEVER have done such a thing. There are places for idealism and places for practicality. This House Majority Leader vote is one of practicality.
> Anonymous said: Shadow I miss you..
May I ask who this is?
Post a Comment