a Blue State was holding a Gubernatorial election and Dems were falling all over themselves to support the Republican whose bullying ways were far from unknown.
Don't we have any kind of 'opposition research' teams in the Dem Party? Each time a Dem is targeted by the extreme right, Dems cave and quickly distance themselves from the Dem under attack. The targeted Dems are left to fend for themselves against a well-funded machine whose main goal is to destroy the Democratic Party (see Abramoff and Delay on the shutting out of Dems completely).
Voices were raised during that NJ campaign against the 'image' of Christie as a 'moderate' who demonstrated 'bi-partisan' tendencies. But they went unheard.
Why did Christie tout his 'bi-partisan' tendencies? Easy question if you are not so naive as to believe that ANYONE with Christie's ideology could possibly be viewed as a 'moderat'. HE WAS IN A BLUE STATE. See Giuliani when he needed bi-partisan support in a Blue City. By the end of his last term his approval ratings were in the low 20s after voters got to see him in action. He was 'saved', for a while, by 9/11 but the truth is no Republican should ever be viewed as 'moderate' especially when they have aspirations for the Republican nomination for the WH.
Shame on the Dems who supported him. Shame on those who did it out of 'fear of retribution' because if that was really the case, they KNEW they were endorsing a Right Wing Bully and betraying their own Democratic candidate. The word 'caving' comes to mind.
We have been fighting a losing battle, Dem voters I mean. Our party is either complicit or too scared to fight for us. Either way, we are the losers. Now the question is, what should we do about it?
= new reply since forum marked as read
