Skip to main content

View Diary: DE-Sen: Castle launches last-minute robocall character attack (131 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  The only incompetency that matters (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cskendrick

      is during elections. Incompetent governing is not only expected, but intended.

      In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

      by blue aardvark on Tue Sep 14, 2010 at 01:19:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yup. Even incompetently losing money isn't enough (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blue aardvark

        To get a Republican fired.

      •  The Democrats are the exact opposite, though. (4+ / 0-)

        If you are incompetent at politics, you keep getting hired to run bigger and bigger campaigns.

        •  Mark Halperin? Is that you? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          askew

          In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

          by blue aardvark on Tue Sep 14, 2010 at 01:30:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  reference to Bob Shrum I believe (3+ / 0-)

            This guy

            Here is some background:

            In 1986, Shrum began work as a political consultant, designing campaign advertising and message strategy for Democratic candidates at the presidential, congressional, and gubernatorial levels. He worked for the Dick Gephardt  campaign during the 1988 Democratic primaries, including Gephardt's surprise victory in the Iowa caucus, but after Gephardt's defeat, Shrum helped Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis in preparing for his debates against Vice President George Bush. Dukakis lost the general election.

            In 1992, Shrum worked for Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey, who was defeated for the nomination by Bill Clinton.

            In 2000, Shrum helped Al Gore beat back a primary challenge from former New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley, and win the Democratic nomination. Gore would win the popular vote in the November general election versus George W. Bush, only to lose the electoral vote.

            In 2004, Shrum worked on John Kerry's campaign, guiding him to a victory in the crucial Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, and soon after, the Democratic presidential nomination, only for Kerry to be defeated in the general election by George W. Bush.

            Critics often point out a "curse" associated with the presidential campaigns that Shrum has worked on, since he has yet to claim victory for any of his candidates in eight presidential elections.

            The world is kinda cold and the rhythm is your blanket, wrap yourself up in it, if you love it then you'll thank it.

            by Ajax the Greater on Tue Sep 14, 2010 at 01:56:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  In fair races with good voting machines (0+ / 0-)

              adequately provided in Florida and Ohio respectively, both Gore and Kerry would have won. (Ignoring the logical inconsistency that had 2000 been fair, 2004 would have had different candidates.)

              I will agree that the Gore campaign was at times flat footed, but I suspect that was a function of the media loving that meme and giving tons of play to anything that seemed to confirm that. You might also remember how the debates were treated. Little of the commentary dealt with the issues or their answers.

              The fact is that Kerry's primary campaign managed to win with almost no media support and without being the party favorite. In 2003, there were various times when various journalist raved about Dean, Clark and Edwards, while most simply questioned when Kerry would drop out. Dean had far more money as the primaries started. The fact is that Kerry and his team did an exceptional job in the primaries - losing just SC,OK, and VT before he had the delegates needed.

              The playing field was never more unlevel than in 2004. Major parts of the "liberal" media were invested in Iraq and PNAC - including the NYT and the WP. This led to unfair coverage - especially on "softer" articles. For instance, Bush was covered by Brumiller, who spoke of him with the objectivity I might have desplaying writing about Paul McCartney, circa 1964. Kerry was called a "social loner" by Wilgoren, who defended it saying she spoke to 20 close life time friends - how many social loners have at least 20 close life time friends?

              The media also condoned a character assassination - the SBVT. It was not Kerry's version they disputed, but the official record. Yet they were not asked for proof - or why, if they were now telling the truth, why they lied in the 1960s - on official records.

              You also had the Catholic Church doing more than they did in any other election - likely because had he been elected Kerry likely would have appointed 3 Supreme Court Justices. (Rehnquist was for sure and Stevens likely - it was already rumored that O'Connor wanted to step down too.) Replacing Rehnquist, Kerry would move the court to the left - and he would have picked the Chief.) They likely did less in 2008 because there was no longer the chance of as much movement. (The Catholic church was joined in this by many other prolife groups.)

              Throw in the feeling, especially among older Americans who witnessed WWII that you back the President - and do not criticize his actions on the war- and it is remarkable that Kerry with Shrum did as well as he did. I suspect that this was because of Kerry's excellent debates and because for some who were otherwise undecided, Kerry's character and integrity shown over a lifetime did come through.

    •  But she was promptly hired by O'Donnel (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cskendrick, mmacdDE

      I guess asking for references is socialist, or something.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site