General discussion

Democrats' notion of fair play

Discussion is locked

Reply to: Democrats' notion of fair play
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Democrats' notion of fair play
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
Is there any doubt a democrat would get the spot anyway?

Sounds like another family dynasty thing such as the Kennedy's have.

- Collapse -
Yes, there is doubt if the Republicans ran a viable

candidate. I don't think the suburbanites in Lipinski's district are going to like nepotism. I sure don't even though I like Lipinski.

- Collapse -
You are talking Tennessee

and they aren't that much different than Kentucky, and they really don't give a hoot about nepotism in either place. Anything other than nepotism would be considered almost against nature there.

- Collapse -
Unless there are some underlying health issues ...

... that developed in the intervening months April-June-present, this is inexcusable. This smells of a calculated effort to get his son elected when he does not have the experience/qualifications to run on his own. Once an encumbant, he might not get a free ride in '06, but he will have an advantage. James, the issue of whether or not that seat would have been competitive, I submit that going up against the son might well have attracted a better Republican candidate as well as some national assistance from the party if the seat was seen as up for grabs. Wouldn't it be great if the voters sent a message and elected his opponent even if just in protest?

This is somewhat different than the recent case of the guy who switched party as he hasn't really changed his politics. Although he had a D after his name, he hasn't been pulling the party line for some time now and the Dems have long known this. With the way the elections run in that state the party could have run another Democrat more in line with their national politics, but they figured they stood a better chance of keeping the seat Democratic (even if in name mostly) by rolling the dice with the (seemingly popular) encumbant. Granted, as said before, it would have "smelled" much better had he switched sooner, but the voters in LA will also have the opportunity to reject him. A vote for person/positions over party gets him re-elected, a vote for party gets him rejected. The other candidates in the race might not be powerhouses, but they seem to be more formidible than Lipinski's opponent is portrayed above.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Re: Democrats' notion of fair play

Hi, KP.

I don't see the parallel to the LA situation at all -- in this case, as there, it's Democrats (particularly other potential Democratic candidates) who have a basis for complaint.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Yep ... Party is the most important thing :(
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) I agree. The Dems win hands down at complaining.

CNET Forums

Forum Info