Reply #54: a little reality check against Margot's rank [View All]

[onenote]

First, a campaign to "ax max"? He was elected one year ago. He's not up for reelection for five more years. Talk about throwing money and time down a rathole.
Second, some numbers: Montana may have a Democratic governor and two Democratic Senators, but anyone who thinks its Vermont is sadly out of touch with reality. Here's a dose of reality: Obama lost to McCain in Montana by 10,000 votes. Baucus got over 100,000 more votes than McCain did. Tell you something?
Third, Margot suggests that going after Baucus (and others) will "soften them up for the blows of the more polished, and hopefully, progressive politicians who will remove them from office."
Oh, Margot, let's take a look at the folks Montanans have elected in recent years: Conrad Burns, Max Baucus, Jon Tester. You think Montanans have a secret hankering for "more polished" politicians? And "hopefully" more progressive replacements? Fat chance.

I would love to see more progressive Democrats elected. But you have to pick your battles wisely. I supported Lamont over Lieberman because I thought he had a very good chance to win; my mistake was that I didn't foresee Lieberman running and winning as a third party candidate. I'd still do exactly what I did then, but anyone who thinks knocking off a Democratic incumbent means that a more progressive Democrat will take his or her place ought to keep that example in mind. If there weren't enough progressive voters to take out Lieberman and a weak repub opponent in Connecticut, why in heavens name would anyone think the results would be better in a state like Montana or Nebraska?