However, here's the thing: it is leadership if damn near everything coming down the pike steers the nation (be it in big steps or corrosive small ones) in a direction you don't fundamentally agree with.
Sure. And yeah, I think lobbyists have a way of getting to either party (*waves DOWN WITH LOBBYISTS* banner*). I just don't think for a second that there are fundamental differences in everydamnthing that comes down the pike.
I also think that while the Massachusetts thing let the Dems know that they had an issue with how they communicated their message (read: not very well), for the most part the problem was that they ran a really sucky candidate who ran a really sucky, overconfident campaign. If I had been eligible to vote, I would have voted for her because she wasn't Scott Brown (who I believe to be a dishonest politician, party notwithstanding), and that's a horrible way to vote.
no subject
Sure. And yeah, I think lobbyists have a way of getting to either party (*waves DOWN WITH LOBBYISTS* banner*). I just don't think for a second that there are fundamental differences in everydamnthing that comes down the pike.
I also think that while the Massachusetts thing let the Dems know that they had an issue with how they communicated their message (read: not very well), for the most part the problem was that they ran a really sucky candidate who ran a really sucky, overconfident campaign. If I had been eligible to vote, I would have voted for her because she wasn't Scott Brown (who I believe to be a dishonest politician, party notwithstanding), and that's a horrible way to vote.