But a bitter debate over abortion would probably be a bad thing. There is a non-trivial chance that Casey will win the nomination, but an abortion-centric primary will probably create an anybody-but-Casey faction among Pennsylvania Democrats who might stupidly stay home if he wins the nomination.
Since then, there has been a largely apologist movement that has followed Casey 2 and tagged him hard with the anti-abortion label.
Interesting, given he made his own name as being tough on fraud. Go figure.
Such is the downside of name recognition.
"Voter contact" work? We're not all political operatives. The fact that phrase exists at all bothers me.
I do one better. I live among a load of Republicans. One of my better friends from college was a genuine Clinton-hater in his mid-50s. I used to have a neighbor who the IRS refused to serve a warrant because they were afraid of what might happen if they tried.
I've spent tireless hours trying to explain to most of my friends and neighors exactly why and how America needs to get thing right.
And, frankly, I've had a lot of them spend years trying to explain to me why the Democrats are a bunch of sissies who can't talk straight.
It's actually a nice political environment to live in, ecause folks are very open to discussion.
He would help put #s 1 and 2 in the bag and would probablly help with 3. I haven't found any quotes from him on labor, but my guess, given his stances on a number of other issues, would be a balance between labor and business groups.
I also think that his gruff and tough personality would help with the male vote. And his military credentials would help, I would hope, with married women.
Think about what it means to be a Democrat, what issues we stand for and what issues the Repthugs stand for.
Think about why people choose to vote Republican and not Democrat. And figure out if those reasons can be changed.
Think about what we need to do to win back a majority in this country.
And think about what we need to do to save our country from the nuts that are runnign it right now.
Whenever you see that R next to someone's name and automatically dismiss them, you're not thinking, at least not rationally, you're relying on a heuristic. And while this heurstic can be helpful at times, at otehr times it can make you act in ways that are against your own interests. In the case of Anthony Zinni, Wes Clark, and all the other people who vote primarilly on Security issues, that heuristic is misleading both you and them. These people vote Republican because they see the Dems as weak-kneed spoiled brats, who can't handle the often horrid task of protecting our nation, and we reject them because they vote Republican.
But there is no reason to believe that the coupling of Republicans and National Security will remain forever, and we can expect more folks like Clark to come back to the Democratic Party, espescially if we move aggressively to recruit them.
Think about whether you'd like to welcome these folks into our big tent, and even have them run for office as people who convey strength and character, or whether you'd prefer to stick with candidates who make us "feel good" or who agree with 100% of you stances.
Yes, choosing Zinni to run for office requires people to abandon many of their heuristics and think, but if we can't seperate security voters from the Republican Party, then I think that we are doomed as a party, at least nationaly.
And I didn't just come up with this idea over night. I put a lot of thought and research into it. So if you want to see why I think that Zinni would be the perfect candidate, then check out the piece I wrote over at Young Philly Politics.
Does this sound like a right-winger to you?
Is the perception of Dems as "soft" and "blame America" something you feel alright with? Is it somethign you feel that we should fight? How do you think we should deal with this?
