Rep. Michael Grimm to plead guilty to felony count of tax evasion, sources say

[calimary]

21. Fair enough. But to me, she was the poster child for what's been wrong with the Democratic Party's

Last edited Tue Dec 23, 2014, 02:03 PM - Edit history (1)

"approach". Her campaign which seemed awfully flaccid to me, making excuses for the ACA when she should have been out there with teeth showing and the proverbial boxing gloves laced on and ready to fight for what she believed rather than embracing the enemy talking points and thereby reinforcing them (oh, okay then. I get it. I guess those guys across the aisle are right about "Obamacare." I guess the "Obamacare" thing really IS sucky then) and not asserting - "I'm DAMN PROUD..." of it and spelling out WHY, then all that's accomplished is to verify the lies and distortions of the GOP.

Our poor pathetic party has to STOP doing that!!! She didn't. She was guilty of reinforcing what's come to be perceived as truth about our Dems:

That they don't stand for anything,

That there's no difference between the two parties,

So why vote for the wishy-washy when you at least know where the other team stands and what you're gonna get. Even if it's a hose job. I think that's what happened to Mary Landrieu. A shame we lost a "D". But, really, how reliable a "D" was she? Could she be counted on to stand with what we believe? Most of the time she was problematic. I hate to relinquish a "D" seat to an "R". But in many cases we would have gotten the equivalent of more "R"-slanted voting out of her than reliable "D" votes. At least with an "R" in there, we know what we've got, without a doubt. And it can be counted on to be reliably that way. And it won't be wishy-washy. A solid reliable "R" will always beat a DINO. With both sides. Even the bad guys' side - because they'd rather go with a sure thing every time, too.

Anybody remember the campaign in 2004 - when dubya went around saying "you may not agree with me, but you know where I stand"? Anybody? That was VERY powerful, VERY shrewd, and VERY effective. People go for certitude. That telegraphs as "strength" and "guts" and "power." Why do you think he kept being hailed as a "decisive leader" over and over and over and over again - even when he was as wrong as sin? It worked. It resonated with the public - enough of 'em anyway. It telegraphed "strong" and "decisive." Even when it was just totally wrong and frankly more than a little fucked up. It got the bad guys close enough to steal it - AGAIN. Which, in my opinion, is exactly what they did.

And they'll do it again in two years if we stay wishy-washy and mealy-mouthed and we don't learn a damn thing from what got us to this point.