pageviewsWhen Rick Santorum wrote It Takes a Family, most of us thought he was writing a book about his favorite subjects-- conservatism and/or homosexuality. Unfortunately, we were wrong: "It Takes a Family" is Santorum's new campaign strategy (watch the ad before you read further).
Whether it's desperation, shamelessness, or some combination of the two, Santorum's resorted to buying his kids air time to ressurect his troubled campaign. I guess the new definition of "family values" is throwing your family on TV so they can protect your values?
The not-so-subtle subtext of the ad: Bob Casey hates Rick Santorum's children because he criticizes Rick Santorum for abandoning his Pennsylvania residence. Some might see the ad as a disgusting political ploy, but I take a much more optimismic view. We've entered a brave new world of political advertising, and when Chelsea Clinton debates Jack McCain for the presidency in place of their parents, we'll have Rick Santorum to thank for it. After all, it takes a family.
In other news, Bush gave the most insightful quote of his presidency yesterday night on CBS News:
"One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror."
That is hard. I feel your pain.
Okay, in the back-to-school spirit of things, I’m going to give y’all a little quiz. (Don’t worry, it won’t be graded. This one’s just for fun.)
Who said the following?
“[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”
Rep. Murtha, perhaps? Maybe Carl Levin?
How about this one?
“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today.”
Any thoughts on that one, kiddies? It seems to me to be a rather eloquent attack on a trigger-happy president with a misguided and ill-conceived war on his hands. Pretty much sums up every problem with President Bush’s war in Iraq.
Okay, almost done, I swear. Last question, worth a hundred and ten percent of your grade on this quiz. Who said:
“I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long [U.S. troops] will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”
The answers are a) Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), ex-Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), and… then-Gov. George W. Bush (R-TX), to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on June 5, 1999.
The war they were talking about?
Bosnia, a peacekeeping operation President Clinton entered into with NATO and UN support.
Another little gem for you—Bush, to the Houston Chronicle on April 9, 1999, describing his foreign policy views: “Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
It seems we’ve got a little case of amnesia on our hands…
Let's contast that with the Bush of last week, who said "Still, there are some in our country who insist that the best option in Iraq is to pull out, regardless of the situation on the ground. Many of these folks are sincere and they're patriotic, but they could be -- they could not be more wrong... If America were to pull out before Iraq can defend itself, the consequences would be absolutely predictable -- and absolutely disastrous. We would be handing Iraq over to our worst enemies... Victory still depends on the courage and the patience and the resolve of the American people."
Now y’all already know how I feel about the war in Iraq, so I won’t repeat myself. Instead, I’ll let Tom DeLay do it for me:
“Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly. We must stop giving the appearance that our foreign policy is formulated by the Unabomber.”
Setting a deadline for a conflict with no clear end in sight isn’t surrender. It’s just sanity.
President Bush, in a “well, duh” moment yesterday, traveled to St. Mary’s county in southern Maryland to deliver a speech calling on Americans to decrease their dependence on foreign oil. In his 11-minute remarks, Bush said that our reliance on foreign oil “jeopardizes our capacity to grow. I mean, the problem is, we get oil from some parts of the world, and they simply don’t like us. And so the more dependent we are on that type of energy, the less likely it will be that we are able to compete.” (In the spirit of policy debate, I’m going to exercise some strong restraint and refrain from criticizing President Bush’s rather loose grip on the English language, though seriously, what the hell kind of statement is “we get oil from some parts of the world”? Ya think, Mr. President?)
It’s nice of President Bush to finally catch up to what Democrats have been saying for years. Our dependence on an overwhelmingly unstable and undemocratic area of the world to keep our energy-based economy going is nothing short of insanity.
Bush called on American innovation in decreasing our reliance on foreign oil, and called for exploration of alternative energy sources, including ethanol. Perhaps President Bush has finally recognized that despite our better interests, America is now more dependent on foreign oil than we were before 9/11.
Bush and Republican leaders in the Senate should start by putting their full force behind the Vehicle and Fuel Choices for American Security Act, a bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate by four Democrats and five Republicans. Among other things, the Vehicle and Fuel Choices for American Security Act aims to reduce our dependence on oil by 7 million barrels a day in 20 years. The legislation provides funding for the development and mass marketing of hybrid technologies, including ethanol, and provides tax credits and incentives for businesses like gas stations and car manufacturers to offer hybrid fuel technologies to their customers. Ethanol is a fuel source that can be grown right here at home—from things as common as corn, paper pulp, and agricultural waste. All of this has the side benefit of creating American jobs and stimulating our economy.
America’s dependence on foreign oil is shameful. Thanks to President Bush for—belatedly, but better than never—coming to the party. Democrats have been standing around the punchbowl for years.
(Another interesting sidenote about what didn’t happen at the event: Notably absent from the president’s appearance in the strongly red county of St. Mary’s were Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich and Lt. Gov./GOP Senate candidate Michael Steele. Questioned on the notable absence of the state’s two most senior Republicans, White House adviser Karl Rove said that Ehrlich and Steele could not be at the side of the Commander-in-Chief because “they had existing events of their own.” What kind important event could entice them to ignore a man who has raised them millions, you might ask? They were busy marching in a Labor Day parade in Gaithersburg. Now, I’m from Maryland, and I do love me a good parade, but I’m from one town over, and trust me, the Gaithersburg Labor Day Parade isn’t exactly the must-see political event of the season. The statement released by Steele spokeswoman Melissa Sellers was more telling: “The lieutenant governor is honored to have the support of the president, those in his own party and Democrats and independents alike.” Steele, you might remember, turned out to be the anonymous Senate candidate who, in a Washington Post interview this summer, declared the letter “R” to be a “Scarlet Letter” this election season.)
After my lengthy Senate and White House previews, I'm going to take a look at our chances of taking back the House by starting in the Northeast and then making three subsequent posts about our chances in the Midwest, South, and West.
But first to the Northeast, where Democrats are enormously strong. Except for New Hampshire, every Northeastern state has been won by a Democrat in the last four Presidential elections. The region is much more liberal than the nation as a whole and 15 of the region's 20 Senators are Democrats, with two Republicans on major defense this year. The region hates Bush and Bush has a 30% approval rating in the Northeast, with approval ratings as low as 22% in Rhode Island and as high as 40% in Pennsylvania. With numbers like these, it's no wonder Republican candidates are running away from Bush like he's radioactive.
But enough of the general picture, let's look at specific races. Without further ado, a state-by-state rundown:
Maine - Both Democratic incumbents here are super safe with Tom Allen and Mike Michaud facing extremely weak challengers and piling up huge cash totals. We're safe here.
Vermont - Rep. Bernie Sanders' ascension to the US Senate this year is a given, but his open House seat could be close. Adjutant General Martha Rainville is a strong Republican candidate and is giving State Senate President Pro Tempore and Democrat Peter Welch a surprisingly close race. In a state as liberal and Democratic as Vermont, it's hard to see Rainville winning, especially in a Democratic year, but Welch is not a shoo-in by any amount. This is one of the hardest seats we have to defend this year, but painting Rainville as too close to Bush and national Republicans should finish her off.
New Hampshire - Both GOP incumbents Jeb Bradley and Charlie Bass are facing strong Democratic challenges this year. Charlie Bass is facing Attorney Paul Hodes and Jeb Bradley will likely face State House Minority Leader Jim Craig in what should be two very competitive races. Craig and Hodes are raising money fast and while they will be outspent by the incumbents significantly, the Democratic wave could pull one or both of them in.
Massachusetts- The only state with a congressional delegation in the double digits that is controlled entirely by one party is Massachusetts and it will stay that way. One of the most Democratic states in the country, Massachusetts' ten Democratic incumbents are as safe as a bank vault. We'll keep every one with no sweat.
Rhode Island - Both Patrick Kennedy and Jim Langevin are extremely safe Democratic incumbents who will be easily renominated and reelected, even though Kennedy's run in with drug abuse and Langevin's pro-life position in a pro-choice state make them imperfect candidates.
Connecticut - While John Larson and Rosa DeLauro are extremely safe Democratic incumbents who will get over 70% of the vote, their three Republican colleagues in the House will face enormously strong challenges. Chris Shays is facing off for the second time against Westport First Selectwoman Diane Farrell. Shays's steadfast support of the War in Iraq and recent flip-flop to support a withdrawal timeline have given Farrell a great opportunity to slam Shays on the war. Farrell lost narrowly in 2004, 52% to 48%, and this district voted for John Kerry 52% to 48% as well that year. With Connecticut very unhappy with President Bush, this rich, suburban, NYC metro district should elect Diane Farrell very narrowly. Expect Shays to lose 53%-47%. North of Shays' district is hardline conservative and Republican incumbent Rob Simmons, whose district went for Kerry by eight points in 2004. Simmons is facing off against Joe Courtney for the second time after Courtney lost by eight points in 2002. Courtney is running a great campaign in the most Democratic district for a Republican incumbent in the country. Simmons is running away from his record fast and it looks like Courtney has an excellent shot at a landslide win, but put this one in our column. Finally, in Eastern Connecticut, incumbent Nancy Johnson is facing a really tough challenge from State Senator Chris Murphy in a 50-50 district that voted in nearly equal numbers for Bush and Kerry. Johnson is a good campaigner, not a hardline conservative, and has raised tons of cash, but the environment for the GOP this year is bad enough that she may be narrowly swept up in the tide. I wouldn't bet on this district, but it's close.
New York - With a 20-9 Democrat-Republican composition in the congressional delegation already, New Yorkers are trying to purge the last Republicans in the state. All the Democratic incumbents and open seats are extremely safe here, but at least six of the nine Republicans are very much in danger. The most vulnerable seat is the open seat of retiring incumbent Sherwood Boehlert in a 50-50 district. Oneida County DA Mike Arcuri (D) looks like the frontrunner for this seat against State Senator Ray Meier (R). With Bush unpopular and Democrats looking great this year and Senator Clinton and Eliot Spitzer winning their respective races for Senate and governor by huge margins, expect this seat to be swept up in the tide for Democrats. In the 29th district, freshman Republican incumbent Randy Kuhl is about to lose to Iraq war vet Eric Massa in a very narrowly Republican district. Massa is a great candidate, has raised money, and is targeting Kuhl's hardline record in a moderate district. Expect a win here. In other districts, incumbent Republicans Tom Reynolds, Vito Fossella, Peter King, John Sweeney, Jim Walsh, and Sue Kelly all look vulnerable to their Democratic challengers Jack Davis, Steve Harrison, Kirsten Gillibrand, Dan Maffei, and probably John Hall as they fight back the Democratic wave in a Democratic state in a Democratic year. While none of these incumbents other than Kuhl look headed for defeat, expect at least two of these six to go down. The only GOP incumbent who is safe in New York is John McHugh.
New Jersey - My great home state is a shame, as so many opportunities for Democratic pickups lay waste. While incumbent Republicans Chris Smith, Jim Saxton, and Frank LoBiondo all represent mildly Democratic districts, their challengers, Carol Gay, Rich Sexton, and Viola Thomas-Hughes are not receiving the cash necessary to beat them, even though they are all great candidates. While Tom Wyka is running an admirable race against Rodney Frelinghuysen in the 11th district, Frelinghuysen will easily win in this most Republican district in the state. But two challengers, Paul Aronsohn and Linda Stender, have excellent chances at unseating two hardline conservatives in moderate districts. In my home district, crazy extremist conservative Scott Garrett, who is anti-choice, anti-gun control, anti-gay, anti-environment, anti-education, anti-veteran, and anti-stem cell research in a moderate, socially liberal district, is facing Aronsohn, who is a former State Department official. While Aronsohn still needs more cash to make a race of this, he has a good chance. You can cover this race at my blog here. State Assemblywoman Linda Stender is running a very competitive race against incumbent Mike Ferguson in a district that is narrowly Republican. She is running on Ferguson's opposition to abortion and stem cell research and his steadfast support for the Iraq war, which is very unpopular in this NYC satellite district. Stender is a great candidate, is raising tons of cash, and is one of the top races in the country. Expect her to pull it out and beat Ferguson. All Democrats in New Jersey are 100% safe.
Pennsylvania - Every Democrat in this state is enormously safe and will be buoyed by Gov. Rendell's reelection and Santorum's landlside defeat to State Treasurer Bob Casey in the Senate race. And while most of the Republicans in this state are safe too, four Republicans face very tough races. Incumbents Mike Fitzpatrick, Jim Gerlach, and Curt Weldon, represent narrowly divided swing districts in suburban Philadelphia. All three are facing excellent challengers with huge amounts of cash. Iraq war vet Patrick Murphy, Attorney Lois Murphy, and Retired Vice Admiral Joe Sestak are very close to knocking off these Bush rubber stamps. Lois Murphy already ran against Gerlach last time and came within two points of knocking him off. Patrick Murphy is a stellar young candidate who is taking Fitzpatrick to task on the Iraq war, with credibility. Joe Sestak is taking on the unhinged Weldon on national security from a personal perspective. In Northeastern Pennsylvania, Don Sherwood is facing a strong challenge from Naval Reserve Officer Chris Carney after Sherwood only received 55% of the vote in his Republican primary after his challenger spent little money. Sherwood is clearly vulnerable, though not as much as the Philly Three. Expect two to four pickups here.
Delaware - Republican Mike Castle shouldn't be safe, but he is because Delaware Democrats can't find a competent challenger with access to cash.
Maryland - All incumbents, six Democrats and two Republicans are very safe here due to redistricting and gerrymandering, which gives each incumbent districts with at least 60% of their party's registrants.
All in all, we look very good for the House this year. The Northeast gives us our best prospects for taking back the House and in the Northeast, I predict 0-1 losses for Democrats, and I predict anywhere from 8-18 GOP losses here. With the Northeast as our anchor, Democrats look poised to pick the House as long as the rest of the country gives us at least 7 other pickups. The Northeast is going to be a bloodbath for Republicans this fall.
Apparently Defense Secretary Rumsfeld made a Iraq war/Nazi comparison last week -- and Harper's called him on Godwin's Law.
And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, citing passivity toward Nazi Germany before World War II, said that "many have still not learned history's lessons" and "believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased." (The Washington Post)
Although Godwin's law simply assesses the probability of eventual Nazi references, what amuses me in this context is the social tradition of Godwin's law: The invoker automatically loses the debate by virtue of his blind smearing of the other side, and the discussion is simply over -- you cannot continue to debate someone rationally who has no rational arguments.
Although Rumsfeld and his handlers were undoubtedly unaware of this law (he'd have never made the reference otherwise; it's a well-known internet trope that people deliberately avoid), the reference makes it incredibly clear to onlookers that the administration has finally reached a point of hysterical desperation; they know they are losing the argument, and they have no ammunition and no logical support.
They've lost the debate; the discussion is over.
Now if only the administration would recognize it. read more...
This country has turned against this war. Just look at the polls. Read the newspaper. Talk to people on the street. The deaths of 2700 American soldiers, sailors, coastguardsmen, marines, and airmen has sickened a frustrated American psyche. The lack of military progress in Iraq and the constant propaganda machine that runs out of the Bush administration has finally clicked with the American people.
In the latest Newsweek poll, 63% of the American people disapprove of the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq. CBS and The New York Times put the number at 65%.
The same poll showed that only 43% of the American people thought that we did the right thing by invading Iraq.
Only 5% think that the U.S.'s efforts in bringing stability to Iraq is going "very well." 62% of the American people think that it is going "somewhat or very badly."
51% of the American people see the War in Iraq as completely separate from the War on Terror. 46% of the American people think the U.S. has spent too much time on Iraq, and not enough on the war on terror; 42% think the division of energies has been proportionate.
In a CNN poll, 61% of the American people say they "oppose the War in Iraq." 55% say the war in Iraq has made the U.S. less safe from terrorists. 52% think the war in Iraq is a "distraction from the War on Terror.
In the ABC News/Washington Post poll, 38% of the American people said that a candidate who supports the Bush administration's policies in Iraq would make them "more likely to oppose" that candidate. Only 23% said it would make them "more likely to support" that candidate.
59% think the war was "not worth fighting." 85% think that Iraq is either embroiled in civil war or close to a civil war. 64% do not think the Bush administration has a clear plan for succeeding in Iraq.
But here's where it gets interesting. 52% think we should completely leave Iraq within the next year. 41% of the American people think a continued presence in Iraq will bring less stability to the Middle East versus 25% who think it will bring more stability. 69% of the U.S. thinks that the war in Iraq is making the U.S.'s diplomatic efforts in the region more difficult. 72% think the war in Iraq has made America's image in the world worse.
56% of the American people support a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq.
You'd think with these numbers that Democrats running for Congress would focus like a laser on the war and criticize their Republican opponents constantly about this failed policy and a stubborn refusal to change course. With 28% of the American putting Iraq at the top of their list of issues in this election, this war is the key to Democrats' chances of taking back the House.
So why then are Democrats so stubborn in calling for and supporting the Kerry-Feingold-Boxer-Murtha-Edwards plan for beginning a withdrawal of combat forces that will lead to the eventual elimination of all combat troops by summer 2007, while leaving troops for training, counterterrorism, logistics, and intelligence and helping Iraq rebuild and reconcile politically, diplomatically, and economically? The only answer I can surmise is that Democratic consultants, and I know the type all too well, think that the American people will view Democrats as weak on terror and defense and the military if they call for strategic redeployment. Well, say hello to the same people who lost elections in 2000, 2002, and 2004 because of their "advice." The reason people think Democrats are weak on defense is because Democrats don't stand up for anything, think smartly about strategic situations, and have a genuine interest in national security issues.
Not only is withdrawing from Iraq militarily the right thing to do, it is the politically smart thing to do. Demcorats should heed this advice and run with it. They should run ad after ad about it. And especially in liberal, Democratic areas like the Northeast where as many as 20 of the closest congressional races this year are located, Democrats should run strongly against the President and against the war. Just look at this ad from Democrat Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, who is running against wingnut Rick Santorum and crushing him in the polls.
Nowhere in this ad does Casey even mention the war in Iraq and Casey does not run ads against Santorum on the war even though it is the top issue on voters' minds and they clearly oppose it. This is not the way to win elections.
Elections and campaigns are opportunities. Opportunities to define the debate, frame the issues, and persuade voters on key points between candidates that should fundamentally disagree on the majority of the issues. On the war, there is a fundamental difference between most Democrats and most Republicans and Democrats should highlight it.
Diane Farrell, who is running against Huge War Supporter and Flip-Flopper Chris Shays in CT in the NYC suburbs, is running a new, great ad on the war that will most certainly convince the 70% of the voters in her district who heavily oppose the war to vote for her against rubber stamp Shays. Watch the ad here.
In this ad, you see that a strong Democrat can win on this war by connecting all of the other issues of the day to it. She talks about the costs and explains that her opponent's philosophy is damaging the country. She points out that we need fresh blood to tackle this issue and it's effective. She doesn't propose the Strategic Redeployment plan, which I think is a winner politically, but it is the best ad on Iraq out there.
Democrats should replicate this strategy everywhere.
The fall 2006 semester officially starts next week, and all of us here at Georgetown Dems HQ are getting ready for another busy election season. Before we move on, though, I'd be honored if you would join me for a walk down memory lane with my favorite political clips of summer 2006. Without further ado...
4) Ted Stevens' A Series of Unfortunate Tubes. In all fairness, I don't see why it's such a big deal that Ted Stevens doesn't understand how the internets work. Republicans have never been on the cutting edge of hip, and back when Senator Stevens was our age (circa 1835), the only way to communicate probably was through a series of tubes (though dump trucks weren't introduced until the 20th century). Nevertheless, it's a pretty damn stupid statement, and the remix is one of this summer's classics. (The original is funny, too, if rambling old Republicans are your kind of thing.)
2) Brad Miller's Fiesta. Think nobody can put immigration, gay marriage, flag burning, and 
(Note: All Colbert Report and Daily Show clips are automatically disqualified, since there are just too many good ones for me to post here.)
What other clips did I miss? Let me know in the comments.
Who Killed the Electric Car? hasn't gotten nearly the amount of hype as Gore's 'glorified powerpoint presentation', but I saw it this weekend and I want to recommend it. The film is about an hour and a half and explores the 5 years in which the United States manufactured high-quality electric cars (that could reach over 80 mph and were the same size as normal cars) and then destroyed them all. It also explains the massive limitations of the types of fuel-efficiency in which we are currently investing - hydrogren and hybrids.
The film impressed me and stressed the importance of enviromental sustainability (something that I sometimes forget amidst other important issues...). A popular website (www.ev1.org) highlights some of the issues, but I definitely suggest checking out the film. Not only is it narrarated by our favorite President, Martin Sheen, but there are a few clips of Mr. Ralph Nader discussing green stuff (not to mention quite a bit of healthy, Bush-environmental-policy bashing).
I know there will be a lot of pontificating on this race. Certainly the media has no idea what they're talking about when they cover this race, since most report on it from Washngton, DC, not Darien or Norwalk.
I spent the last 48 hours in Fairfield County, CT. I worked on the Lamont campaign. I went door-to-door, I sat for hours in the phone bank, I stood in front of Joe Lieberman's synagogue, Agudath Sholom, from 5:30 am till 1:00 pm, and got a sunburn to boot. Through all of this, I met a lot of Connecticut voters, and what I found was phenomenal.
First, those who supported Senator Lieberman were very angry and obnoxious to me. Many of his supporters came up to me and started yelling at me for supporting Ned Lamont. One supporter even told me that "you left-wing Democrats are what's bad for this country." Yes, that's right, not pollution, poverty, war, terrorism, or intolerance, but "left-wing Democrats" are what's worst for this country. I was appalled. I was disappointed in these Democrats. But I courteously tried to convince people that Ned Lamont was the right man for the job. And for Ned's supporters, including a whole bunch of very nice old ladies who adored me, Ned was the right man. One 84-year old woman from Stamford came up to me and told me she had never missed a school board, primary, or general election since 1944. She told me that while she didn't hate Joe, she really like that Ned Lamont, a fresh face, was getting into politics to change things.
Another woman I met, from Fairfield, told me that she hadn't seen Joe Lieberman since 1996. She told me shen hadn't heard of an event or a meeting with Joe Lieberman since then, ten years ago. This wasn't a nobody either. She was a Democratic committeewoman from Fairfield and has been very active in Fairfield and Connecticut Democratic politics since 1990. She said that most people she knew were never crazy about Joe Lieberman, especially because in his first election to the Senate in 1988, Joe Lieberman won by running to the right of Republican Senator Lowell Weicker. This woman told me she was thrilled to have a candidate who actually challenged Joe Lieberman for the first time in his career.
I met several hundred Nutmeggers during my time in CT. What I found was that people want change. It's not just "left-wing Democrats." People are tired of the cynical politics of division, fear, and half-measures. It's not left vs. center vs. right. It's about people who want to make this a better country by changing the way we do things vs. those who want to keep things the way they are.
Put me in the camp that supports change. I think Joe Lieberman has done a lot of good in his time in the Senate. But Ned Lamont won last night to change things. For the good of the party and the good of the country, Joe should accept that choice and support Ned as we work to change the system. Joe can choose to be a force for change or he can continue a quest to hold on to power. I hope he makes the right choice.
As soon as I got into the office this morning, I logged onto the Dems blog to see that Ben beat me to the punch. I can’t say much beyond Ben’s (very true) analysis, so I’ll keep it short.
Just a friendly reminder not to overanalyze the Amazing Race. A lot of pundits and bloggers have been using the Lieberman-Lamont primary showdown as bellwhether of events to come, so it seems prudent to remember that Connecticut is an overwhelmingly blue state—Joementum or not—and is in no way indicative of the nation as a whole. I would argue that it isn’t even representative of the national party, since moderate elements like the DLC aren’t going away any time soon, no matter what Markos Moulitsas might hope.
In the end, Nutmeg State politics are certainly interesting. But my advice? Don’t get caught up in the overblown netroots hype and draw conclusions from this (fairly unique) incident.
