Saturday, January 19, 2008

Andrew, David, Greg and Michael Who?

The punches have started to fly between Senator wannabes on the Democratic side in Kentucky. But it's a lightweight fight, judging by the national media's response.

As the Washington Post's politics blog comments, "Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has run his typical brutally efficient campaign, scaring away top Democratic challengers . . . ." The Hill.com doesn't even know any Democrats are running against McConnell: "The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) has piled criticism on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who is facing re-election this year, even though a Democratic opponent has yet to emerge." (Emphasis added.) Four -- count 'em, four -- guys announce that they will run against McConnell, and not one of them shows up on the Beltway radar.

Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.

2 comments:

andy42302 said...

I do have to agree with the contents of this post. There's a lot of qualified folks out there that simply know better than to go up against Mitch. Mitch certainly knows how to run a campaign and has deep enough pockets to withstand the wealthiest of challengers. I do understand how Democrats can hope for another Daschle outcome in this off Republican environment but that's a tall order. I do forecast another tsunami that will crush the Republican party for a few years but I don't see it taking Mitch down. Mitch has the power of big oil, pharma, insurance, banks, et al., as they all owe him big time and certainly wouldn't want to lose him. The thing is that Mitch can spend 5 years of his 6 yr term voting for runaway spending, appeasing his contributors, and providing the sweet pork to his constituents. On election year, he dons his conservative hat, spends untold fortunes on bogus TV ads, and toots his horn about all the revenue(pork)that he's brought in to the cities while chastising the opposition for where we're at today. In short, he really hasn't governed, he's been lead by the money. He really isn't solving problems, he is the problem. He really hasn't won the voters, he bought them. This is why I think Mitch needs to go. But, as stated, that doesn't mean he will.

Steve Magruder said...

On the other hand, Mitch may learn this important lesson, one that Bruce Lunsford knows very well: Dollars don't vote.