It makes absolutely no sense. One should wish to "knock off" senators (and mayors) because they don't like their politics.

Republicans cheered Daschle's loss because they didn't like the way he performed in Congress.

I doubt Dawn has a beef with the likes of Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Lincoln Chafee because those senators are moderate and therefore are Republicans more likely to be sympathetic to her left-wing views. Republicans prefer a moderate Democrat to a liberal one, any day. Dawn should like Bloomberg because he's essentially a Democrat in Republican clothing.

No wonder you don't understand her argument, yet another incoherent argument from the Left.

She does have a point though, although she's using some bad examples. The GOP in the last few years has gone the hardest after the most conservative democrats, rather then the liberal ones, because they often represent states and districts that are in red states.

An example: In 2002 two of the primary sponsors of the federal marriage amendment in the House were Democrats, and then they were defeated that fall for reelection by Republicans.

Charlie Stenholm, who just got beat last week was a pro-life Democrat. Why go after him, when we could be targeting actual liberal dems? What we're doing is purging the conservatives from the Democratic party. This happened big time in 1994, many of the dem incumbents who were defeated were conservative ones.

Now, this is also the reason we have our majority today, so I'm not entirely opposed. I also have no problem going after Jean Carnahan and Max Cleland and Tom Daschle and people like that who are too liberal for their states. But I'm glad that we left Harry Reid alone for this cycle, because while he was reelected and we might have beat him with a good candidate, now he's the Democratic Leader in Washington. Would we have preferred a radical leftist like Chris Dodd? Because thats who we would have gotten had Reid lost. Instead we have a conservative pro-life Democrat leading their party in Washington. This helps the conservative movement much more than winning one more Senate seat.

I can see why you are still looking for a mentor, Karol. A "moderate" Republican does the Democratic Party no more good than any other kind of Republican, and, since "moderate" Republicans have to contend constantly with the Department of Ideological Purity within their own party, they are inherently politically vulnerable.

The point is to win elections, not just the Presidential election. Great oaks from little acorns grow. As a minority party we have to focus on attainable goals.

In my opinion at least, we BECAME a minority party by focusing too much on electing Presidents since the Reagan years, and not focusing enough on electing anybody else. Starting the campaign against any vulnerable Republican office holder up for re-election in 2006 is Job One right now.

Tip O'Neil was right: All politics are local. Blue state Democrats should be working hard to elect more of themselves in their own State
Assemblies and County Commissions. A healthy party is one that recognizes that, ultimately, a Democratic County Commissioner is as important as a Democratic President. We have not been a truly healthy party in that regard for decades.

The Carnahan Principle is no different from The Law of the Serengeti. When lions hunt their prey, they target the old, the sickly, the weak memebers of the herd.

Dawn is preparing the Northeast US to succeed from the Union.

She wants all the politicians to be Democrats when that happens so that deportation costs will be lower.

Heh. Not just the Northeast, Jake. And not for succession.

Not to worry Dawn! The lawyers are still working. They're uncovering the great election 2004 debacle. I liked the RNC convention in NYC too, just because I got to join 250,000 others in protest of the agenda. Such fun. Yet, I'm not sure about going after the weak. I'm more in the mind to go after the religious conservatives. You knows, those who cast the first stone.

Hmm... I'm split on who I like more...

Karol or Dawn...

Karol, because she says a lot that I can agree with, and very little I can argue with.

Dawn, because she is just sooooo darned cute to pick on. =) Oh, and a wonderful imagination to boot.

In the end, I would most likely go for Karol because it is the down-to-earth logic and reasoning that wins me over. This pretty much echoes my political thinking too. Very little of the extreme play on emotions.

I still wouldn't mind a fling with Dawn, just to see if I can make sense of what she thinks. And to see how far I could wind her up before she comes after me with an axe.

Both? Naw - might be waaaay too risky to be in the same room with both of them - though fun to watch. =) Gotta make sure there are no sharp objects around.