Yeah, I thought that was a fairly effective (if somewhat juvenile) ad by Sullivan last time...
Problem was, it opened the door (if it wasn't already opened) for Simmons to shoot back some REALLY juvenile ads that literally turned Sullivan into a fat Irish cartoon. That sucked.
This time, though, we have Joe Courtney taking on Simmons (who ran in 2002 and who the DCCC screwed royally)...i ran into him a few days ago at the CT JJB fundraiser and it just confirmed that he is a GREAT guy who the GOP won't be able to lampoon and who WILL be the next Congressman from the 2nd district, if we all work like dogs.
Jerome, I'm not altogether convinced--based on a very intelligent summary I read in the last chain on the subject--that the Lib Dems have an identifiable niche to fill in the UK party system. Do they?
For all the benefits of proportional rep, the rise of TV-and-personality-based campaigning (largely due to US cross-pollination) seems to have created a 'pro-Blair' and 'anti-Blair' vote instead of votes on clear substantive differences.
The Labourites' Clintonesque shift to 'New Labour' also muddied the ground where the Lib Dems may have rightfully stood: the moderate, internationalist center. Are there real distinctions anymore (putting Iraq aside, which most of Blair's party doesn't really support anyway)?
As I said before, I spent a year in Scotland, grew to like Kennedy quite a bit, but never really figured out what drives his party.
(As a PS, I'll also admit Blair won me over a long time ago...he triangulated his party to great success like Clinton, but unlike Clinton, had no zipper problem and had to defend his triangulations every week in front of a critical and boisterous House of Commons... he may be a little slick, but WHOA the man has skills.)
If we concede that the only 'strong moral position' on the subject of abortion and gay rights is their position, we lose.
Let me repeat for emphasis: If we concede that the only 'strong moral position' on the subject of abortion and gay rights is their position, WE LOSE.
We Democrats need to say at the top of our lungs,
"The institution of marriage is fundamental! In a time of moral uncertainty, we MUST strengthen it, and do so by giving all loving, committed couples an equal chance to honor it in their lives! All couples!
Responsibility comes from education, not restriction. When we do the job of educating ALL our children about the REALITIES of sex, and not just the myths, we can reduce the phenomenon of abortion to utter insignificance, and our country will be a better place. Education, not criminalization, is the answer.
America is about empowerment, freedom, and equality! All of us, created equal, One nation under God!"
After spending a year abroad in Scotland, reading the Guardian pretty much every day, I still can't figure out the LibDem phenomenon.
Ideologically, people tell me they're the 'centrist' party (as opposed to New Labour, who are about two full generations away from socialism these days?), and their main demographic (besides antiwar movement folk) seems to be people who don't 'trust' Blair but wouldn't be dead voting conservative.
Ask the Democratic Party in 2004 how we did building a campaign built on the distrust of a national leader who ended up outpoliticking everyone anyway...
I had the chance to see him up close for a summer as a Page in the House...not impressive.
Sad to say, but whatever spark there is in his generation of the Kennedy line, it missed Patrick (and his cousin KKT). Total "deer in the headlights" syndrome, both of them. At least former Rep. Joe Kennedy had charm.
Now RFK, Jr., HE's the one to watch... he fights for causes, not just soundbites.
The use of 'donor tags' ($20.06, etc.) was something I saw pop up during the primaries (we used it in Generation Dean for a youth fund drive), and it's great!--(but i can't take credit for the idea)...
How do we get Jerome to front-page the two ideas (a 'Join-your-local-committee Drive' and a 'New-Donor-Fund Drive') and what's the next step?