Lincolnite

Since empty, fancy words and a pretty face are the only qualifications needed to be a Democrat running for office these days, I’d say Kleeb has the upper hand in the Democratic primary.  Tony ‘Ben Nelson doesn’t need me to be a Republican anymore, and I can’t beat Johanns in a primary but can in the general election’ Raimondo just isn’t quite pretty enough to compete with Kleeb, and his ‘change Washington’ cliche isn’t nearly as inspirational as Obama’s.

And what does it take to be a Republican?  No brains and a mean sprit?

My all time favorite bumper sticker from the 2000 election:

George W., how dumb is too dumb?

I don’t know nearly as much about Kleeb as I’d like, and most of what I know about Raimondo I don’t like. Raimondo has been far more effective at communicating what he stands for in my opinion—I just happen to like it less. I do give him credit for seeming like a much more appealing Democratic candidate than I would’ve ever guessed considering his background. I think I would respect him less if suddenly his positions on issues were conveniently in line with progressives.

I was also trying to figure out what it is that Republicans like so much about Mike Johanns. The guy seems to be about as devoid of life as a sentient creature can be. But then I figured it out—I think the appeal of Mike Johanns is that he essentially guarantees voters he will not have a unique thought or unpredictable policy proposal. He embraces the role of Republican automaton.

Particularly seeing how Republicans reacted to Chuck Hagel once he started thinking for himself, I can understand why this is appealing. It didn’t matter that Chuck was extremely loyal in his voting record—he spoke in words many of his constituents either feared or couldn’t understand. I think it was when they started calling him a “liberal” that this underlying disconnect was most exposed. Johanns won’t give them that problem.

I think all shots of Scott Kleeb should include a photo of his driver alongside him. Just sayin’...

I just wish Scott Kleeb’s eyebrows would move… I think he had botox injections.

I guess if you’re looking for a circus clown (not unlike the last 5 losing Democratic presidential candidates), then Johanns isn’t your guy.  If you’re suggesting that Republicans vote for Johanns because they know what they’re getting with him, then I completely agree.  Imagine that, an electorate that votes for a guy because they know what he’s going to do when in office.  I’m guessing the people dumbfounded by this concept are also those who act with astonishment every time Jon Bruning does something ‘just to pander to his constituents’.  ‘Pander’ is a term used by people to bash conservatives when they do conservative things.  Being ‘bipartisan’ or a ‘maverick’ is used when conservatives do liberal things.  Which brings me to Chuck Hagel.  I’m confused—does he ‘think for himself’, or is he ‘extremely loyal in his voting record’?  Usually people who vote conservative most of the time are called Republican automatons. You must be referring to his thoughts on the Iraq War.  Since you agree with them, he’s ‘thinking for himself’.

Dave, I give you enough credit to believe that you know how you’re oversimplifying the situation. I’m sure you are aware of the fact that speaking one’s opinion and voting with Republicans are not mutually exclusive concepts. It makes for a snappy little blog comment, but if you bother to think about it, nothing more.

Now you have chosen to set up Jon Bruning and Mike Johanns as two candidates that Republicans would like, yet I can’t imagine that you’re unable to see the difference between the two. Jon Bruning may please Republicans with his words, but he’s certainly not without his own unique way of doing things. He’s a stark contrast to Johanns in that respect.

I’m curious—when Bruning was criticizing Johanns, did you consider him a liberal?

Raimondo has been far more effective at communicating what he stands for in my opinion

I have noticed that too, based on what I have seen from both Raimondo and Kleeb. Most of the Kleeb-Obama comparisons are pretty obvious: both are young, both are (relatively) new, both charismatic, and both coming from outside established political circles on a platform of change.

Here is another valid comparison: in terms of communication skills both are pretty lousy conventional politicians. Obama does somewhat poorly compared to hrc when it comes to standard beltway rhetoric like giving canned answers that make good soundbites. Likewise, Kleeb isn’t nearly as polished as Johanns or even Raimondo when it comes to politician-speak.

For both Obama and Kleen, this is both their biggest weakest, and biggest strength.

I haven’t seen any numbers, so I’m basing this solely on perception, but I think Kleeb’s relative floundering shows that one can’t get by solely on pleasing rhetoric and promises of post-partisan cooperation.

The claim that Obama was nothing but cheery words sounded nice as a talking point, but it clearly didn’t hold water for anyone who bothered to educate themselves to the situation.

The same can’t really be said for Kleeb. While he may have specific policy goals in mind, his campaign seemed to be based on emulating the superficial aspects of Obama’s without worrying about communicating the substance.

No, but I know where you’re going with that.  I’ve never called Hagel a liberal, and never will.  Even though his thoughts on the Iraq War align with the anti-American, liberal left, that alone doesn’t shift him into that column.

I love the Democrats.  Kleeb has run an empty campaign based almost entirely on the empty campaign of another. And he’s going to win!