Even though John Barrah is no longer Athens' congressman, his name continues to come up here, and 12th district Democrats should take heed of this: The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (who are neither honorable veterans, nor truthful in any respect), are back, and this time they're taking aim at two congressional Georgia Democrats to "swiftboat".
"The man who helped put up the money to pay for the Swift Boat attacks on Democratic Sen. John Kerry's war record has an new target. Bob J. Perry, a Texas homebuilder with close ties to White House advisor Karl Rove and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, have given $5 million to the Economic Freedom Fund, a newly created California group targeting Democratic candidates.
The Economic Freedom Fund, which is headquartered in California, has paid for TV ads, fliers and telephone messages criticizing Jim Marshall and John Barrow, whose re-election bids are among the hottest races in the country this fall."
Don't you just love that ambiguous, kinda classy name? The "Economic Freedom Fund"? Like they're a bunch of economists sitting around planning economic theory, as opposed to a goon squad of malcontents out to destroy congressional careers.
The problem, as blackfin pointed out in Barrow's ads posted on Youtube, is that Barrow can't really fight back in any meaningful way. While he can "denounce" Perry's tactics, he is still running on the very same "I ain't no Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Cut and Run Democrat" platform that Perry et al are swiftboating him to begin with.
That's why any 12th district Democrats reading this need to do the work for him. As Kerry said recently, capital D Democrats everywhere need to stand up and be prepared to "kick their ass from one end of America to the other."
Or at the very least, back to Texas and out of Georgia's politics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
So, why doesn't Mr. Kerry go ahead and fight back? Why doesn't he get his comments on the record now? What is he waiting for? The charges are out there...
As for Mr. Barrow, he has always been a liar in my view. During his first Congressional campaign, he sent out push poll questions containing "facts" that were demonstratably false and showed he had no grasp of the issues he was discussing. He deserves all the Swift-boating he gets.
Doubledawg is right...the Kerry campaign failed to get out in front of the Swift Boat morons, and by the time the charges were refuted (link below) the damage had been done. The only to beat these people is have a handle of your campaign and hit back, only harder. But as I said, Barrow is running so far to the right anyway, it's almost laughable for the Swifties to be wasting their time.
http://kerrylibrary.invisionzone.com/index.php?s=4eadf708555e37bbf57776010cfcf687&showtopic=7
I am going to elevate the level of discourse by saying Barrow is a tool.
[quote]I am sick and tired of Democrats running to the right as their only hope.[/quote]
I tend to agree actually. Let them show the world the kind of off-the-wall liberal extremists they really are. That way the only places they'll ever get elected are California and New York and the other wackadoodle states.
Insert sound of Chuckie madly flippng through an Ann Coulter book to find some more stinging barbs...
the Dems have lost an awful lot of their base and the gov's mansion, the state house and senate and oh yea, the white house because they are so busy running in response to the republicans. they have allowed the repubs to control the dialogue, instead of sticking up for those of us who 1. were always against the war 2. believe that it's time to get extreme about health care (the u-word) 3. think all kids deserve an equal chance at an education, and 4., think that the planet is in trouble and needs our protection via controlled/measured development. oh, and 5., that government is really by and for the people, and that we should be removing barriers to participation instead of expecting anyone poor to jump thru extra hoops in order to practice their right to vote.
Democrats are going to have to stop voting for the lesser of evils, and begin to hold out our votes against those who would lie to us to get elected and then NEVER act in the way they promised when running. Barrow makes me nauseous. almost 15 years he was the most liberal, right on, hip and cool guy, and then we sent him to congress and he forgot all about his home town supporters except to ask us for the money to run again. He doesn't deserve our support.
i will probably never work on a congressional race again. i'm sticking to local politics.
i sure as hell am not going to pretend to give a damn about him any more. he's going to reap what he's sown, and good riddance to him -the sooner the better.
I agree we need Max Burns back, he was ten times more liberal than that John Barrow. I long for the days when we can have Max Burns back. Let's all work to get him back, he'll lead us to progress in no time.
Barrow is an ass clown. He has always been an assclown and assclowns elected him becuase he pretended to give a crap.
John Barrow wore cufflinks in middle school and not because it was cool back then. It was because he believed himself to be above everyone around him. And now we see it again.
Barrow is about power and self glory and he will do whatever it takes to keep the glory going.
Barrow is not our problem anymore. The problem is whoever our John Barrow is today who is in or aspires to office.
I hope Barrow wins re-election. There are no perfect politicians and we need a Democratic majority in Congress. While I don't agree with all of Barrow's positions on economic issues, his conservative stance on social issues reflect the district's values. A liberal Democrat cannot win in Georgia outside of Atlanta or in most places in the South.
I've never said that Barrow wasn't a douchebag now. My argument is that he's better than Burns.
[quote]A liberal Democrat cannot win in Georgia outside of Atlanta or in most places in the South.[/quote]
Exactly. Which is why I agree with Anonymous Al, our fair city's first man, and the other extremes-of-the-extremes on here. They're already going to lose a Senate seat in Connecticut because of their unwillingness to compromise, why not continue the trend by running extreme-of-the-extreme candidates down here?
If you are really interested in retaking control of Congress, which is probably a lost cause to begin with, then you should focus on running ELECTABLE candidates.
Does anyone else find it a bit ironic that Chuck is giving a lecture about electable candidates?
Does anyone else find it a bit ironic that Chuck is giving a lecture about electable candidates?
Any fool could tell that the lecture is about Democrats running so far to the left that they marginalize their impact nationwide.
Oh wait.. any fool could have seen that. I now understand that this is too high a standard to hold you to, Al. My apologies.
Al signs his name, so be sure you're firing at the right person first off.
Second, why do you think Democrats won't hold on to the seat in Connecticut? If Lamont wins, as I think will ultimately happen, then the more liberal wing takes a slot. If Lieberman holds on to the seat, than a pretty conservative Democrat - though one which votes against the Bush Administration on domestic issues considerably more than he gets credit for - holds on.
If anything, it's status quo with psuedo-Democrat Lieberman.
I think Democrats will pick up seats in Congress, but completely overtaking it is a daunting challenge because of the sheer number of seats they must capture ... particularly in difficult places like Tennessee and Montana (though I think Jon Tester takes down Conrad Burns there).
jmac writes: "I think Democrats will pick up seats in Congress, but completely overtaking it is a daunting challenge because of the sheer number of seats they must capture ... particularly in difficult places like Tennessee and Montana (though I think Jon Tester takes down Conrad Burns there)."
I think I read the other day that Harold Ford is either in the lead or has widened his lead in the Tenn. Senate race. But your point is still accurate...it's a daunting challenge.
I agree also about Conn. The rejection of Lieberman is the rejection of the type of Democratic politics that Barrow and Taylor are running as well. Nationally, you can't out right the right, so to speak, and the more you try as a Democrat, the sillier you look.
However, Al's larger point is right about the south. A Lamont type of Democrat would get killed here (outside an urban area like Athens, Atlanta, etc.). Bill Shipp, the dean of political journalism in Georgia, supposedly wrote a column recently saying the Democratic party, as far as state-wide offices goes, is dead for a generation. Maybe longer.
I didn't realize that voting with the Democrats 90% of the time makes one a "pseudo Democrat."
I guess that makes the Democratic Party a "thought police" type establishment where you're not really a member unless you slavishly follow in 100% lockstep the decrees of people like Ted Kennedy and Hitlery Clinton.
Another reason why the Democratic Party will never succeed on a large scale outside of their own little cluster of quiche-eating states. Because that's what "Democrat" has come to mean, a Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi type extremist.
(Regarding Connecticut, I'm sure Lieberman will be re-elected, and when he is, I can't imagine he will look as favorably on the establishment that tossed him overboard as he did before.
Chuck writes: "Regarding Connecticut, I'm sure Lieberman will be re-elected, and when he is, I can't imagine he will look as favorably on the establishment that tossed him overboard as he did before."
I'm not sure the Democratic "establishment" will much care what Joe Lieberman thinks if they retake the Senate (or even if they don't). Especially "Hitlery" Clinton, whoever that is.
I also think your analysis of the Democrats not winning "outside of their own little cluster of quiche-eating states" is silly. Since they are poised to take the House and possibly the Senate as well, there must be a lot "quiche eating clusters" out there in the country.
Mmmm....*quiche*
The most humorous thing I can picture is Chuck leaving the confines of this blog and calling a group of blue-collar union members in New York City 'quiche-eaters' ... but no matter.
Second, I think this villification of Hillary Clinton is really bizarre. Apparently she's some closet uber-liberal ... so secretive even liberals don't know about it as she is one of the most chastized members of the Democratic Party for her moderate positions on a wide range of issues. I can see you disliking Nancy Pelosi (I mean she is a liberal), but Hillary really isn't.
Third, it's a bit more than a tad hypocritical to lobby accusations of the Democrats being the 'thought-police' when Republicans are the ones who have tried to oust moderates like Lincoln Chafee and Arlen Specter, attempted to character assasinate John McCain in 2000 and forcibly booted James Webb, Christine Todd Whitman and Paul O'Neill from the party ... all because they didn't march lock-step in line with 100 percent of the today's Republican ideology.
Post a Comment