If not Kerrey, then who? Watching Mike Castle(defeated by the not witch Christine O'Donell in Delaware) explain the difference between ideology and governing on Chris Hayes(worth getting up for every weekend). Was listening to this while I was reading this article
Bob Kerrey bid causes left to lash outhttp://www.politico.com/...
and also saw Markos being quoted. So to Markos(and others), I have a simple question:
How is this any different than what the Republicans did in nominating Christine and others(Nevada). Actually, while I was typing this, Castle goes on to specifically reference Kerrey also.
Representative Steve Cohen then talks about winning that seat in Delaware AND that Reid would not be in the Senate had the Republicans NOT nominated ideologically pure candidates. Let that sink in for a moment. We saw and are seeing what their polarization has done. Are we being naive and following them down the same path?
If the Republicans are moving to the right and conceding part of the middle, are we better of strategerically claiming more and more of that middle to build a longer lasting majority.
IF the goal is to hold the seat in Nebraska(and I sure hope it is), then what is a better option than Kerrey? And if we don't have another option, then before we say Fuck him to Kerrey, we better have another candidate that has at least an equal chance of holding that seat?
Here's the quote from Markos:
“I hope he gets carpet bombed. The more Republicans spend in Nebraska, the less they’ll have to go after Democratic Senate candidates who actually act like Democrats,” said Markos Moulitsas, the founder of the influential blog Daily Kos. “And if it turns out he needs the help, then too bad. F—- him.”BTW, if I was running the Kerrey campaign, I would use this quote to show Nebraska that Kerrey was NOT a candidate from the left. An unintended consequence that may actually help him win. Hey wait a minute..maybe that's what Markos was thinking all along?? Hmmmm.
If you tie this into the warning by Bill Maher that Obama may lose the election(complacency?) which was discussed here http://www.dailykos.com/... I guess my broader point is that we do need to start aligning around the goal. Is it more important to retain that seat or to nominate someone who is purer?
The reports indicate that Kerrey had to be cajoled to run. This is not a defense of Kerrey. Rather, it's to make sure that we stay focused on each specific seat to make sure we take electability into consideration. And what we don't like about Kerrey may be PRECISELY the reason that he may be more electable for that seat. And when it comes time for crucial votes (SCOTUS), we may need that vote a lot more than we realize.
The elections are around the corner folks and it's time for us to start getting focused? We need to start looking at this strategerically(ahhh I miss Bush).