Curious thing about the convention: It gathers more of the major Massachusetts Democrats in one place than just about any event in Massachusetts — including the Mass Dems convention. We ran into State Rep. and State Senate candidate Jamie Eldridge at the MA Dems breakfast this morning, and he was gracious enough to talk with us:
I asked Jamie, You're 1,500 miles from your district. [I was wrong — it's over 1,900.] What do you hope to get out of the convention this year? Jamie wants to bring back some of the excitement about Obama, a candidate who wants to end the war in Iraq, and who campaigns on economic justice and access to health care. He points out that activists are coming together here, and they're going to need to continue to pressure a President Obama on those issues.
I asked Jamie, What's in it for us locally if Obama wins the presidency? Jamie expects more help from the federal government in paying for health care, commuter rail, education, and environmental protection. Jamie thinks there's a “direct connection” between these priorities being squeezed, and the $2 trillion war in Iraq. “That's one of the big reasons why I was an early supporter of Senator Obama.”
Speaking of activists keeping pressure on a prospective Obama administration, I asked Jamie what issues he would press. He's concerned about issues of free trade, and would like to make “improvements” to NAFTA, and is concerned about free trade agreements with other Central- and South American countries. He would like to see environmental and worker protections built into these trade agreements. He mentioned Gillette moving 400 jobs to Mexico as a local issue with global resonance.
I asked Jamie what lessons the next President and Congress can learn from our health care law. Jamie notes that most of the newly covered people under the Massachusetts law are under MassHealth — an expansion of the public program. Eldridge points out that that's the way to get people into a system that's more efficient, and with which people tend to be more satisfied.
What's Denver got to do with it? Can anyone really contend that there's no local relevance to what's going on here?
Jamie,
<
p>Don’t worry. Steve Levy will listen to the cares of the district while you’re a Mile High.
<
p>Your Pal,
<
p>EaBo
I see two options – either Levy’s important enough to attend the convention, or he’s a nobody in the party and doesn’t deserve any votes…
He was asked by many in attendance at his caucus to go He felt it was a much better use of his time to campaign for the office he is trying to win. Nothing says I want your vote more than going 1900 miles away during an election season. More like, “I’m taking your vote for granted”.
it looks more like “i’m taking your concerns up to the highest level”. jamie is working for the best interests of massachusetts and his district. can’t do that by spending ALL your time in self-serving door knocking.
…for best attempt at partisan spin.
<
p>Let’s see, door knocking to actually meet the voters you want to represent is “self serving?” Is that only when it’s a Republican, or when Jamie was door-knocking in my neighborhood here in Marlborough (Levy’s hometown) a few weeks back also self-serving?
<
p>If Jamie is so influential, why does he have to go to a convention to meet with all these Democrat leaders? That’s just silly, and I think you know that.
<
p>Jamie made a choice to go to the convention, Levy made a choice to work on his campaign instead of going to the RNC.
<
p>If Jamie was running for re-election, I could see your point, but he’s running for a higher office, and this is just a tad arrogant.
<
p>He’s not running in Amherst.
<
p>But, hey, I’m hoping he stays 1,900 miles away, so what do I care?
<
p>
I wouldn’t be criticizing YOUR candidate if he HAD decided to go to the big national meeting of his party – it’s his party, for frak’s sake, so what the hell is your problem? Or do you just have nothing to critique Jamie on except this? Lame.
<
p>It’s one fraking weekend, a few days away. Get a grip. Yeesh.
…because perhaps the video wasn’t clear enough. As we discussed over at RMG, Jamie isn’t just going to the convention. He’s going door knocking in Colorado for Obama.
<
p>Now, I know, know. Barack is the Secular Messiah to you guys.
<
p>Still, Jamie should be spending his time winning the seat he’s running for.
<
p>Don’t get my wrong, Lynn. I’m delighted Jamie is in Denver. I hope he has a lovely time.
<
p>Outside of the True Believers, Jamie is considered, well, allow me to quote a staunch local Democrat I know. “jamies a d***”
<
p>He’s never worked in the private sector, he’s never owned a home. He’s not married. He has no kids.
<
p>Then he to talks down to people. It’s arrogance.
<
p>As I said next door on RMG, is Jamie going to the convention a big deal in an of it self? Probably not. But it feeds a perceptions of Jamie as, well, a little too full of himself.
<
p>Just an observation of someone who lives in the district.
<
p>
He worked with Legal Aid and other community groups, so where do you get off? He’s spent more time in true public service in the first few decades of his life than most people would in three lifetimes.
<
p>Not only that, but he’s a damned hard worker. The reason he’s going and knocking on doors in Denver? Because he believes that we have to work to win – at all levels. He was a tireless supporter of Patrick, and did he ask for an appointment in return? No. He just wanted a real Governor for once, someone who would – gasp! – govern.
<
p>You know absolutely shit about Jamie, so forgive me if I think you are full of that same shit.
<
p>You can say Jamie is a lot of things – a strong progressive, someone who will take the time of day to work for other Democrats because he knows the value of grassroots campaigning, and someone who will always stand up for what he believes in. Maybe you disagree with what he believes in, but that’s no reason to attack his character.
<
p>Maybe you feel he’s talking down to you because you can’t use big words?
<
p>And you might want to spell my name right while you’re at it. It’s right there at the end of all my comments. Shouldn’t be hard to copy and paste for a smart guy like you.
…knows what the voters I’m speaking to in the district are saying.
<
p>Jamies never worked hard in his life. He’s never had a real job to work hard at.
<
p>He’s a state legislator as his living. If you think they work hard, especially compare to the average Baystater (you know, Taxpayers) you’re kidding yourself.
<
p>Jamies a good guy because he didn’t take a hack job? That’s your counter argument? That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen written.
<
p>I’ve worked on campaigns at all levels, particularly in the Senate District where Jamie is running. I’m sorry if you’re so unhinged by the idea that Jamie may not be beloved by all as you think he should be, but most people don’t see feeding at the government trough for their entire adult life while they live with mom and dad as a particularly good quality to have in a state legislator.
<
p>Average voters may, just possibly, want an elected official who relates to them.
<
p>Jamie simply doesn’t.
<
p>BTW, all the swearing is really classy.
<
p>
Classy is underrated. And I didn’t say not taking a hack job was the counter argument. I’m saying that he has a history of going out and working on other people’s campaigns.
<
p>In every district there are people who are not going to like one person or another. However, I find it very hard to believe that this is the prevailing world view.
<
p>1) how many people in the rest of the district even know who the hell he is? Seems to me that’s asking a lot. Even after the US Rep race.
<
p>2) “Never worked hard in his life.” OK, you’re falling back on the “being a public elected official is being a hack” argument. Again, wrong, and also silly. And also, wrong. Seeing as Jamie started out working (for very little money) in impoverished areas in nonprofit groups, I don’t see where you think he’s a) never worked hard, and b) doesn’t deserve to be elected, just based on the fact that what, he’s been elected before? (By the way, he was elected like only 6 years ago or something, that’s hardly his whole life as an elected official.)
<
p>I know Jamie from several different political arenas. I’m not stupid – I can judge character as well as any one can. And I do not see Jamie as arrogant or condescending. Passionately progressive, yes. Intelligent, yes. Arrogant? Please, prove it to me, instead of just telling me what you believe.
<
p>Of course, if a lot of the people you talk to are Republicans, of course they hate Jamie. He’s very liberal. But even you can’t admit he hides it, or tricks voters into thinking he’s moderate to get votes. He says what he believes. If people think that’s talking down to them, well, that’s those people’s problems. Maybe they need to gain some self-confidence or something. I don’t know how they could feel threatened by Jamie but I do know they’re wrong.
“can’t say he hides it”
…what has surprised me (ok, shocked) is the level of hostility towards Jamie amongst Dems.
<
p>I’m not hiding the fact that I’m a Republican (hello, my username is a homage to a GOP President from the 1920’s!). This is just a phenomenon I’ve encountered in my travels over the years across the district.
<
p>Allow me to use an example. There are many Democrats who just love Obama.
<
p>At the same time, there are a lot of Democrats who do not (let’s just for the sake of simplicity call them “Hillary Voters”).
<
p>By the same token, there are many Democrats who love Jamie (“He’s Progressive!” “He works hard!” “He’s really tall!”) but at the same time, for whatever reason, there are a lot of Democrats I know who simply, well, dislike him. His attitude. His politics. They hate tall people. Whatever. They just do.
<
p>It’s like asking the 30-50% of Hillary voters who say they’re not voting for Obama why they’re not voting for Obama. It’s impossible to say. They’re just not. I suppose I could do a poll, but, frankly, I wouldn’t share the result with you anyways!
<
p>Now, me, I can’t stand The Jamie. But, again, Republican, so you’d expect that.
<
p>So believe me. Don’t. No skin off my back.
the most even handed thing you’ve said all thread. Not very even handed to be sure, but at least it’s an improvement.
<
p>All the Dems I talk to (and not all of them are “like me” BTW) I have never heard anyone say they do not like working with or voting for Jamie or the fact of his existence being a problem to them. I know a lot of Democrats. A lot of different ones. Everyone I know respects Jamie.
<
p>And I live in a very conservative district, BTW.
<
p>Forgive me if I don’t take the word of a Republican over the words of the Democrats who worked (for Jamie and for the other various candidates) in the US Congressional race. A race, BTW, where I talked to voters in the district and if anything, found people who were impressed by Jamie, even if they didn’t agree with him. People who are themselves HIGHly respected in the Democratic party.
<
p>Also, I saw his performances in debates, I interviewed him on radio, and saw him interacting with the public on several occasions. I never once saw any action that any normal person would construe as arrogant.
<
p>I’ll take my own experience above the perceptions of a Republican any day. Sorry. You must be talking to some damn weird people.
…that what people say to, say, a Progressive Democratic Activist who is a self confessed Jamie fan in regards to how they really feel about Jamie may not be entirely truthful.
<
p>I mean, I said Jamie may be a little arrogant on BMG, and you’d have thought I shot the family dog. All I’m saying.
know him personally, and know I’m right. Duh.
<
p>I have to ask – are you taking us for political novices or something? Of course we can see that you’re a fan of Coolidge – you quote him in your sig line! But at least I can see where you’re coming from – you think the moron who set up the economic conditions that led to the Great Depression is some kind of hero! My parents lived through that depression – they were marked by it, scarred by it. You should pick a new hero – if it has to be a Republican, at least let it be Lincoln, or Teddy Roosevelt. Silent Cal is a poor choice…
…just you.
<
p>I could go on a lengthy dissertation on Silent Cal, but it would be lost on someone who thinks invoking what their parents went through is a economic counter argument.
<
p>You pick your heros, I’ll pick mine.
The entire fucking country went through that depression – and that’s an economic counter argument I’ll take to the bank any day. Lionize Coolidge all you want, but he was a perfectly awfull president, exceeded only by Hoover and the current resident of the WH. The resurrection of his policies under Reagan are what has led the country to this pass.
<
p>Nothing shows class quite like throwing 0s at a person with whom you’re directly debating. Very Cool indeed.
I’ve been zeroed!
<
p>How childish.
…for swearing. Bad Lynne! No Cookie!
Swearing is scary to you? There are children on this blog? There is nothing wrong with swearing, especially when someone is really pissing you off. Which you were.
<
p>Then again, you did make it easy for me. You practically scream “Republican talking points.”
…is a sign of an undisciplined mind. I expect more of you. If you need to ‘scream and swear” your not to be taken seriously.
<
p>Raise the level. You want to berate me, feel free, I’m a big boy, I can take it, but swearing is just immature and childish.
OK, whatever. Like you even know me.
<
p>I am berating you, in lots of big words and good arguments. I like the sound of swears when I am frustrated. It’s catharsis (oh, another big word…) But you can make the argument about me swearing if you can’t find any other way to argue your point, fine by me.
<
p>And still doesn’t justify the zero.
You chose a zero rather than a “needs work” or even a “worthless.” So, hence, childish. A virtual hissy fit.
How silly of me. He isn’t married and has no kids.
<
p>I guess that only makes me “half” a person since I am married but have no kids myself.
<
p>I didn’t realize it takes being married and having kids to be a good legislator. Forgive me. I must have been out of my mind.
<
p>And I know Jamie well. He’s the last person who is “full of himself.”
<
p>You poor thing. It must be hard to go around life with a chip that big on your shoulder.
<
p>Talks down to people…riiiiiiight. You mean, he says smart things and has high expectations for the people around him. That’s called “leadership” by the way.
A “3” for using the M-word.
I wouldn’t be helping him. I would feel he wasn’t in this to win it. The only job one has when running for office is to run for office. All one’s free time should be spent doing that.
We all know you well enough here to know that there isn’t one thing that will cause you to be critical of any Republican. They could eat live babies on TV and you’d offer up recipes and side dishes…
To go or not to go – that is the question. Personally, I don’t think it’s necessary to second-guess candidate decisions on this one either way. In Jamie’s case he is an ELECTED DELEGATE for Obama. Plus he is spending plenty of time campaigning at home he can afford a few days change of pace. I’ve done some comment rating, but want to in general associate myself with Lynne’s comments in this particular exchange.
…and meeting plenty of voters – he can afford to take a couple of days to attend his party’s national convention. He’s running for state senate as a Democrat, which is more than can be said for Levy – can you provide us with a link to any page on his web site where he states his party affiliation? No, you can’t – no party affiliation, declining to attend the convention – he’s a proud Republican, eh?
What do I get? An anchor chair on Faux Newz?
…along with half of the Republicans in the senate, and countless other Republicans who want to distance themselves from the train wreck that is the McCain campaign. Thanks for clearing that up for me…
30% approval rating. Wouldn’t want to get into the awkward situation of being in a photo with the President.
I assume that if Levy went to the convention there would still be staff and volunteers available to do whatever needs doing back home.
there’s been discussion of this over at rmg. levy didn’t put his hat in the ring to go. was it fear of leaving the district for even a few days? was it fear of being seen at a convention that many don’t want to be seen at? did he know he’d be humiliated by not being elected as a delegate? so many questions, so little time.
Try and find the word “Republican” on Levy’s website.
http://www.stevenlevy.org/
sort of.
<
p>Click on “About Steven” and you’ll find this line near the top:
<
p>
<
p>In my experience at the local level, Republicans love to emphasize that they’re a taxpayer in a thinly-veiled implication that those who are directly paying property taxes are somehow more equal than those who rent.
…that the people who actually pay the bills point it out.
<
p>
That someone might run run run from their own party.
<
p>If I were Republican, I do would be doing it too. I think Levy’s really smart! I mean, who’d want to be tied to Bush/McCain? And all that torture, high gas prices, deficit spending, endless unjustified wars, our diminished status in the world, environmental degradation, and Karl Rove?
Yes they do – every month when they pay their rent check. If the landlord doesn’t charge enough rent to cover the costs of ownership, then he’s a poor businessman, isn’t he? So take your “people who actually pay the bills” and stuff it…
I can’t recall not paying the bills for the first 11 years I lived in apartments. Must have been imagining being broke as hell.
<
p>Hey, we just bought a house last year, John…I must be 3/4 of a person now! I’m married, have a house. But no kids. I cannot be a whole, decent person without having kids. Nuts! And my husband and I are both are afraid to pass down some genetic defects (I have a 50/50 chance of giving any child of mine failing kidneys) but I guess I will have to go have some offspring now, so I can fit the definition of a real person…
<
p>Too bad for them if they get renal failure later on in life like I am facing, eh?
Congrats on home ownership, I’ve owned this place since 1995 and I’ve loved every minute of it, even the tax payments – police and fire protection, roads, bridges, schools, snow plowing and the myriad of other services I get in exchange make it all seem worthwhile. Taxes aren’t a burden – they’re the price we pay for a civilised society.
<
p>Medical difficulties suck, and my heart goes out to you. One of the reasons I’m divorced is because my ex could never seem to find any happiness – there we were in our own house, both gainfully employed with two healthy kids, no one even had so much as hyperactivity, let alone cancer or renal trouble or anything truly serious. In the end, it was just a matter of life being too short to continue it with her – I’ll never understand her attitude as long as I live, and that point is driven home whenever I hear of a friend with problems. Be well…
<
p>I’ve got to crash, my daughter’s first day of junior year is tomorrow and I have to drive her to school – goodnight!
I’ll be fine I’m sure. If it happens, it’ll happen when I’m older, and hopefully by then they can regrow kidneys from stem cells (even if I have to go to Europe to get it done because we are so stupidly far behind in THAT research).
<
p>We just got lucky that we got onto real health care coverage (after 6 years without) just before I found out about it. Though in MA there are protections against health care discrimination of people with preexisting conditions, if’n I recall correctly.
<
p>But certainly in the meanwhile, it provides a lovely excuse I can use with my family why we aren’t having kids. 🙂 LOL “Mom, no grandkids, sorry, I don’t want to give them bad genes.” Heh.
…was more important to getting himself elected?
<
p>could that be it?
<
p>I think it is….
<
p>
That MUST be it! Thanks for pointing it out to us.
…we don’t have elitist “super delegates” unlike the (less than) Democratic party.
<
p>You go to a Caucus, and if you’re a registered Republican, you can run. All there is to it.
<
p>Now, Steven Levy, being an at-large City Councilor I’m sure if he so desired could have easily gotten the votes at his particular caucus, but he chose not to.
<
p>But, being a Democrat, who obviously believes that having anti-democratic Super Delegates is a great idea, you probably can’t understand the idea that a person might actually run for (or not run for) a delegate slot.
Oh, you’re being serious?
<
p>~generous snickers~
<
p>This is from someone of the party of rich oligarchs. I love it!
<
p>(That said, I don’t love the superdelegate rules, but crikey, I do love me some concern trolls!)
….nor do we have delegates based on race, or sex, or other sub-groups.
<
p>Look at the entire mess with the Democratic primaries. The screwed up way they handled Florida and Michigan was embarrassing. They can’t even run a primary!
<
p>No wonder they left you in Lowell…..
Oh wait, I’m talking to someone from a party that ignores whole swaths of the public, and has made no inroads with those minorities because of it. We like to build leadership from all areas, which is why we have a nominee who is a historic one and you just have an old white guy.
<
p>Again, why would I listen to a Concern Troll exactly?
<
p>You are not worth my time anymore.
…it’s a free country.
<
p>BTW, I never claimed to be a Liberal (I thought the Calvin Coolidge quote was a giveaway), nor have I hidden my support for Levy, so I’m not sure how that qualifies as a “concern troll.” But, hey whatever.
<
p>
when you know you could give a crap (and in fact I suspect like to point these fake outrages out to attack our party). That’s concern trolling. You might not be pretending to be any sort of Dem but you are still acting like you actually want to improve things – only, you don’t.
…I was mocking the idea of Super Delegates.
<
p>You’re just not quick enough to figure that out.
You were calling our party a party of elitists. I was pointing out how fricking ironic that was coming from a Republican.
<
p>Pay attention.
…and your special interest group delegates.
<
p>All my party delegates are elected.
<
p>Hillary gets more votes than Obama and she LOSES?? yup. Pretty democratic.
You do realize that more of your delegates are non-proportional right? I mean, if you want non-democratic, you just have to look at the winner-take-all Republican primaries that basically, tied up the nomination for John McCain by edging out his competitors just slightly in half the states he ended up with all the delegates of.
<
p>The only reason YOU guys have had your nominee for so much longer and not a contested primary is the fact that delegates are not, in most states, given proportionately to each candidate in the race in that state.
<
p>Wow, you make this so easy…
Those are “winner takes all.”
<
p>It’s called Winning the election.
<
p>The winner is the one who get’s the most votes.
<
p>Except in Democrat Primaries. There, the woman with the most votes….loses…
Are going to win this for the Democrats.
<
p>First of all, Hillary lost the vote, fair and square. Just under 50% to be sure, which makes her a formidable loser, but a loser none the less.
<
p>However, you have no counter point for the nonproportional delegate system? Which basically sets it up that the winner of the first few basically cannot be caught up to because their delegate count is so far ahead, despite only receiving just over the majority of the vote?
<
p>Ask Mitt Romney how he likes the so-called “democratic” Republican primary system sometime. It was what caused him to lose so quick.
<
p>Which type are you, Cal?
…the ones who collect government checks, and the ones who want to.
He’s been sucking on the government tit since the moment he was conceived.
Cheating on his injured wife with a rich heiress…
I think cheating on you wife is horrible.
<
p>Unfortunately, you’re about 10 years late on getting morally indignant about spousal infidelity.
That’s point #1.
<
p>And point #2 is that I do not come from a party that spent years and millions of dollars trying to capitalize on the other party’s president’s infidelities, and thousands of pundit hours of red-faced outrage, thereby making them hypocrites when they ignore it in their own party.
<
p>Larry Craig, anyone? Rudy Giuliani? David Vitter?
<
p>You’re the folks that want to promote “traditional family values” but you are quick to forgive your own, aren’t you?
<
p>Me, personally, I actually think it should be a mostly private affair, a scandal to be sure, but I see it as most Europeans see it – a weakness in some, a weakness to be found in the human population as a whole. Not to be encouraged, but certainly not something to get, to get your personal outrage on about.
<
p>But it’s fair game to point it out. You Republicans make it so. Because you’re a bunch of hypocrites.
<
p>Also, I think cheating on your wife who is disabled is particularly telling of one’s character. Yes, that includes John Edwards.
…and they get upset.
<
p>Here, let me try again.
<
p>Craig should have resigned. Rudy has NEVER run on Family Values Platform, so I don’t see you’re point. He’s more pro-abortion that many Democrats (like Sen. Casey, for example).
<
p>My understanding was Vitter wasn’t married at the time he went to the whores, but if he was (and I’m too tired to google it right now) I’m happy to concede he should have stepped down, and at least run in the election for his old seat, earn it back.
<
p>If you want me to defend marital infidelity amongst elected officials, you’re going to be sorely disappointed.
<
p>I just wish more of my Democratic Friends where as concerned 10 years ago. Think of it this way. Al Gore would have been President….
it’s your party that is obsessed with frickin’ infidelity.
<
p>I’m not sure it’s always a “step-down” offense. I think that’s up to the voters and the individuals to decide. I never did. (Except in the case of child molestation – THAT is unconscionable.)
<
p>I DON’T demand the heads of the unfaithful (though it does reflect on their character, IMHO). However, it does not often (except in the case of closeted self-hating Republican gays) affect their policy and decision-making, for the most part. Would you demand that a construction worker step down from his job for cheating on his wife? You might stop hanging out with him because you think he’s a jerk, but what does that have to do with his work performance?
<
p>So, I wasn’t agreeing with you. I was pointing out the rife hypocracy in your party. I was also pointing out that it makes McCain’s past foibles completely fair game. I wasn’t making an actual judgment call, just showing you how you all should judge your own nominee by your own standards. Not mine. Yours.
…than I do my Carpenter, but that;’s just me.
<
p>I guess immorality is OK with Democrats as longs as all Democrats are immoral. That way, no one a “hypocrite.”
<
p>That’s actually kinda sad.
tell me what, exactly, affects the job performance in regards to their personal lives?
<
p>High-level CEOs cheat, they don’t get forced to step down.
<
p>So, you planning on voting for the Libertarian, right? He didn’t cheat on his wife. That I know of. Because by your standard, McCain should be stepping aside, he’s not fit to be president.
..is not “sucking on the government tit.” If you can’t see the difference, I feel sad for you.
<
p>I’ll tell you what, you get your Leftist Commie friends to give John McCain those five and a half years of his life back, and the ability to lift his arms above his head again, and I’ll get him to reimburse the Government for his congressional pay.
<
p>Deal?
<
p>
You’re playing the POW card for Jonny Mac, eh? Since you bring it up, maybe you need a refresher on McCain’s military service.
<
p>John McCain got his education at government expense in the Naval Academy, placing 894th out of 899 graduates. Then, due to his family connections, he hop-scotched into pilot training which a graduate with his rank would never have made on his own. A more deserving graduate was passed over for that to happen – what was that, affirmative action for Admiral’s kids/grandkids? Prior to being shot down and ending up a POW, McCain splashed four planes – any other pilot in the program would have washed out after his second splash, but family connections prevented that from happening as well.
<
p>In addition to his senate salary, he currently collects Social Security, the program he likes to refer to as a “disgrace” – yet more sucking on the government tit.
<
p>As far as his heroic stand in that prison camp in Vietnam, I respect him for that – but the problem is that his constant use of that episode in his life to excuse any and all criticism shows that he doesn’t respect it any more, and that’s just pathetic. And now you’ve joined the chorus – you’re demeaning the very service that you think I should show more respect for…
Because I’m sure he’d be happy to trade any “political points” he may have scored over the years in trade for not having been tortured for 5.5 years.
<
p>Frankly, no elected office is worth that.
<
p>I bet he wished he was a better pilot. May not been shot down. That didn’t happen.
<
p>I’d personally take the guy at the bottom of his class in any of the U.S. Military Academies (ok, maybe not the Air Force) over any Ivy Leaguer any day of the week..
<
p>
Um, you do know that just because McCain’s a POW, doesn’t mean we are forced to, I dunno, say NOTHING bad about him. You, and he, are quickly coming to the point of self-parodying…
<
p>So, where were you when the Swift Boaters were attacking Kerry last election? Cheering them on I expect.
<
p>And by the way, personally, I WANT smart people to be President. I mean, look what 8 years of President Dunce Cap has done for us…
2. I never said you couldn’t say mean things about McCain (Would you like me to go on a 3 hour tirade about McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kenendy, or McCain-Leiberman?) I’d be happy too be harsh and critical of McCain. But don’t belittle his service. it’s unbecoming.
3. I actually know a Swift Boat Vet for Truth (I mean, like a guy who was IN the ads) and they prided themselves on everything the actual swift boats for truth said being 100% accurate. That’s why the ads where so effective. Not because they where some GOP attack machines, but because they where Kerry’s own peers criticizing him. If Democrats can never come to terms with that reality, they’re going to have a hard time winning the White House.
<
p>Democrats lose because they freakin’ keep blowing it. I can’t believe it, but they’re going to blow it again! The saving grace the the GOP is the Democrats.
<
p>Now, that’s it. I’m sorry I was so rude as to interrupt you’re little hippy universe. I’ll let you get back to your cult…I mean Obama campaign.
Trust me, if he was, you would know it. No one belittles his service. Except, of course, McCain himself, the way he debases it with every trivial use of it in trying to stave off legitimate criticism.
<
p>However, John was saying that he got a chance to suck quite handily at the Government teat (Keating Five anyone?). A lot of us do, though not as much or as unethically as he has as Senator. I for instance got good government loans (and a few small grants) which got me some higher education.
<
p>But you can’t bitch and moan about the government teat when the log is in your own eye, can you?
At least, not here in Washington State. I mean yeah, there are elections. And then the state party chair appoints people he wants. I have friends active in the WA-GOP, so I know how it works. You dont’ know much about your own party, do you? Or is it just to embarrassing to admit?
Please let us know whom the cast of characters are?
<
p>You, BMGers, are out there in the Mile High City doing a great service!
<
p>
It’s our party’s once-in-four-years convention. What would you expect? Practically the entire party leadership, national and states, are in Denver right now. Hell, I was there until yesterday =p
IOKIYAR.
<
p>Good night.