gbaji wrote:
And the Republican leadership is? You're kidding, right?
Who said that? I noted that the climate in the party is increasing hostile towards moderates. Varrus tried to draw up comparisons to Pelosi and Reid.
Quote:
Again. Totally false. The Dems capitalized on the media support of the far left anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-everything-conservative movement and fielded candidates who played up to those things. They didn't win by running Bludog's Joph.
Nonsense. The 2006 election strategy revolved around finding moderate Democrats who could compete in red-leaning districts. This isn't even in question by folks who paid attention to it. Here's a few exerpts from a lengthy article the
Chicago Tribune ran about Rahm Emmanuel (architect of the 2006 House power flip) immediately following the election:
Chicago Tribune wrote:
During the past year, the Tribune had exclusive access to the strategy sessions, private fundraisers and other moments that shaped this victory. The newspaper agreed not to print any of the details until after the election. Now that the votes have been counted, the story of how Emanuel helped end an era of Republican rule can be told.
He did it, in large measure, by remaking the Democratic Party in his own image.
[...]
Democrats had a history of appeasing party constituencies. Emanuel tore up the old litmus tests on abortion and other issues. With techniques that would make a Big Ten football coach blush, he recruited candidates who could mount tough challenges in some of the reddest patches of America.
[...]
All of Emanuel's scolding and cajoling would have meant nothing if he fielded weak candidates. After yet another devastating loss in 2004, he and other Democratic leaders quickly determined that the party needed a machismo implant. Emanuel looked for candidates with strong backgrounds, from sheriffs to soldiers, to counteract a Democratic image of softness.
This is why he badly wanted Heath Shuler, a former football star, to run for Congress as a Democrat in North Carolina. An evangelical Christian who opposes abortion, Shuler couldn't easily have his views caricatured by the GOP.
[...]
His goal was to recruit 50 credible challengers. He had one criterion: people who could win. That may sound obvious, but it's not. Many Democrats did not believe in recruiting overly conservative candidates, no matter how promising. In the past, those like Shuler who opposed abortion were not welcome in the party.
"We don't have an ideological purity test," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Emanuel's top lieutenant for recruiting. "If you believe in the basic gut principles of the Democratic Party: –opportunity, fairness for all–, we're not going to hold people to a litmus test."
[...]
But in the election's aftermath, it is clear that Democrats won several races, including Shuler's, that they would have lost if not for Emanuel's tireless recruiting. He had put enough legitimate challengers in place to exploit the unexpected opportunity.
New York Times from October 2006 wrote:
In their push to win back control of the House, Democrats have turned to conservative and moderate candidates who fit the profiles of their districts more closely than the profile of the national party.
[...]
“My guess is that if Democrats are in the majority, it’s going to be because of these New Democrat, Blue Dog candidates out there winning in these competitive swing districts,†Representative Ron Kind of Wisconsin, co-chairman of a caucus of centrist House Democrats, said in an interview.
[...]
While Democratic leaders have gone to great lengths to promote the views of these candidates, some, like Mr. Shuler, have views on issues like gun control and abortion that are far out of step with the prevailing views of the Democrats who control the party. On some issues, they may even be expected to side with Republicans and the Bush White House.
Democratic officials said they did not set out with the intention of finding moderates to run. Instead, as they searched for candidates with the greatest possibility of winning against Republicans, they said, they wound up with a number who reflected more moderate views.
That was especially true in suburban areas and some rural districts, said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “As a group, they are moderate in temperament and reformers in spirit,†Mr. Emanuel said.
Etc, etc... there's a wealth of evidence supporting the reason for the 2006 flip and it doesn't point to "They ran ultra-liberals". Fu
ck, I won't even claim lofty ideals for why they ran it that way. It was realpolitik, plain and simple, based around the notion that a gun-control supporting, abortion opposing Democrat who wins is worth far more than a gan-banning, pro-choicer who loses in those districts.
But, hey, once again I'm fine with the Republicans running their party like this. If you want to believe that it's everyone else who's wrong, I'm fine with that.
Edited, Apr 30th 2009 8:06pm by Jophiel
