Joe Lance is following the news on a possible independent candidate discussed this morning.
Today's Washington Post contains an eyebrow-raising story by David Broder (which, as I write this, Bob Schieffer is also mentioning on CBS) about a bipartisan group that will meet at the University of Oklahoma next week, to discuss the possibility of an independent candidacy.
At the head of the table, as it were, is New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a former Democrat, and a former Republican, and now an independent. Other names that we've seen circulated before in terms of a bipartisan candidacy (such as that sought by Unity08): former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn, a socially conservative Democrat who has worked in earnest to reduce global nuclear armaments; former New Jersey Governor and EPA chief Christie Todd Whitman; and former Sen. David Boren, who is now president of the host university.
He also says this, which I agree:
If the 2 major parties end up nominating polarizing or ineffective candidates, this Oklahoma meeting could be the start of one of the biggest political stories of 2008.
Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 12/30/2007 - 17:59.
The kicker to this is that any Democratic candidate will be considered "polarizing or ineffective" while any Republican candidate will always be viewed as the unifier and the doer. Funny how that works, huh? The middle has moved so far to the right that the left barely exists any longer.
Meanwhile, idiots like David Broder eat it up in a spirit of "bipartisanship" -- that same "bipartisanship" that has resulted in Bush continuing to get everything he wants and the Democrats get bubkus.
Submitted by lovable liberal on Sun, 12/30/2007 - 23:08.
... combining the worst of the Republicans with the worst of the Democrats. We don't need bipartisanship until both parties are responsible, and today's Republicans don't qualify. What we need is a polarizing Democrat to hold the Republicans and the Broderists accountable for the destruction they have wrought across every aspect of government.
The kicker to this is that any Democratic candidate will be considered "polarizing or ineffective" while any Republican candidate will always be viewed as the unifier and the doer. Funny how that works, huh? The middle has moved so far to the right that the left barely exists any longer.
Meanwhile, idiots like David Broder eat it up in a spirit of "bipartisanship" -- that same "bipartisanship" that has resulted in Bush continuing to get everything he wants and the Democrats get bubkus.
Digby has an excellent post up about this. Read it and learn.
So if they want to run a third party candidate, I say go ahead. It's always worked so well in the past, right?
... combining the worst of the Republicans with the worst of the Democrats. We don't need bipartisanship until both parties are responsible, and today's Republicans don't qualify. What we need is a polarizing Democrat to hold the Republicans and the Broderists accountable for the destruction they have wrought across every aspect of government.
Liberty and justice for all.
My new home
Post new comment