Breaking News From 2006
"The authenticity problem: It’s becoming harder for red-state Dems to say what they really believe," Josh Kraushaar writes at the National Journal. (Link safe; goes to Hot Air):
But the details in it illustrate the dilemma for Democrats running in conservative states, whose true beliefs probably run counter to a majority of their constituents. That’s been a running theme this election with first-time Senate candidates, such as Nunn and Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky, who have assiduously avoided offering policy specifics in favor of bland generalities. Staying on message is akin to lacking any type of message.
When Grimes struggles repeatedly to articulate her views on border security, it’s clear she’s caught between exciting the Democratic base, the source for her impressive fundraising, and winning over moderate voters in Kentucky. When Nunn says she would have voted against Obama’s health care law but avoids talking about any changes she’d make to it, it’s easy to assume she’s trying to do everything she can to have it both ways. Unless Democrats have a clear record otherwise (see: Manchin, Joe), it’s going to be hard for voters to find them believable.
Yes, having lied through their teeth to pose and "conservative" "Blue Dog" Democrats in order to win back the Senate and House in 2006 only to become -- as Kevin McCullough of Townhall accurately predicted at the time -- "Nancy Pelosi's crash test dummies," why would any voter trust a Democrat who says he or she is against the policies of Obama, Pelosi and Reid?
For example, Natalie Tennant, running in West Virginia for Jay Rockefeller's soon-to-be-former seat, pretends to "stand up for coal jobs," but why should anyone trust when it's far more likely that if elected to office, she'll cheerfully vote for the anti-energy policies of fellow Democrats Pelosi, Reid, Obama, or if she's elected in 2016, Hillary?
[jwplayer player="1" mediaid="74742" width="375"]
Oh, and regarding the Joe Manchin reference above...