Swing State Project

« OH-Sen: Decision Coming Soon | Main | Attention College Students »

Friday, August 26, 2005

MT-Sen: John Morrison Can't Win Primary or General Election

Posted by Bob Brigham

Ouch. Membership in the DLC will be the kiss of death for anyone in a Democratic primary. From Kos:

[Jon Tester is] an awesome guy, awesome candidate, the Montana netroots loves him, and he'll win his primary and take out Conrad Burns.

His primary challenger, John Morrison, is, ahem, a DLC rising star. The big knock against Tester? He's a farmer from nowhere in eastern Montana and won't be able to raise the kind of money the slick, polished, Morrison can muster. It's the classic well-connected attorney politician type versus the "real" and "genuine" candidate.

There is no way a DLC lawyer like John Morrison can beat Conrad Burns. There is too much history. Montanans will choose a fake cowboy over a real lawyer any day of the week and twice on Tuesdays.

Posted at 05:45 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Montana, Scandals | Technorati

Comments

We need to organize the effort to take out DLC candidates in the primaries. It's the only way to get rid of them. When their candidates continue to lose, no one will want their sponsorship and they will have to start supporting actual Republicans instead of closeted Republicans.

Posted by: James E. Powell at August 27, 2005 04:24 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Jon Tester seems like a great guy and will probably make a great senator. But John Morrison also looks like he would make a great senator. He has proven that he has statewide appeal, and if you look at the book he wrote (Mavericks: The Lives and Battles of Montana's Political Legends), you can clearly see that his heroes are fearless progressives like Mike Mansfield and Lee Metcalf. To say that he would lose to Burns just because a DLC candidate lost in the anti-democrat wave of 1994 is misleading. And as far as I can see, Morrison hasn't attacked Tester at all. So why can't you guys just treat an opposing democrat with respect?

Posted by: JRyan at August 27, 2005 11:58 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Tester should run a positive campaign because he is running against Burns, not Morrison.

As for me, I feel it is my duty as a good Montanan to ensure Democrats have the best nominee. Morrison is not that person as we learned not just in '94, but also in '98 (which was a Democratic year).

I have made my views on attacking DLC members very clear and I think that Morrison should both be beaten and embarrassed in the process. It is open season on Morrison and I can't wait to see what the blogosphere delivers. My guess is that following the election Morrison will need to leave the state, change his name, get plastic surgery and hope nobody in his new town ever realizes he is "that guy".

There are larger issues at stake than one man's reputation. Taking back the Democratic Party begins with ending the DLC.

Posted by: Bob Brigham at August 27, 2005 12:40 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Yeah, he should run a positive campaign, and yeah, he is running against Burns, not Morrison, but you are attacking Morrison right here.

"It is open season on Morrison and I can't wait to see what the blogosphere delivers"

That is not running a positive campaign.

Maybe other DLC democrats deserve what you are throwing out, but Morrison doesn't. You basically admit as much when you say "There are larger issues at stake than one man's reputation." Making an innocent democrat the object of a vendetta isn't right, especially when you have the gall to claim that Tester should be running a positive campaign.

Posted by: JRyan at August 27, 2005 02:15 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Uh, I am not Jon Tester. I am not part of his campaign. Tester should run a positive campaign, as for independent bloggers, I can only speak as to what I plan to do and I plan to ensure success.

Morrison isn't innocent, and the numerous skeletons in his closest shouldn't wait to come out in a general election campaign.

Morrison is going down and it isn't just going to happen online. It isn't going to be pretty, but it is the same thing that would happen were Morrison to make it out of the primaries. Morrison's skeletons are widely known, that is why multiple Democrats tried to keep him from running.

These are the new rules. Membership in the DLC is a career killer -- just ask John Morrison next summer (he'll have plenty of free time to answer any questions).

Posted by: Bob Brigham at August 27, 2005 02:43 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Okay, so what are Morrison's "skeletons"?

Posted by: JRyan at August 27, 2005 02:52 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

JRyan,

I don't know whether John Morrison has any skeletons in the closet. The metaphor is vivid, but I don't know that it's useful.

His problem from where I sit is that he is associated with an organization that, from my observation, is devoted to working against everything I believe in, and against the candidates I believe in. This organization, the DLC, has published attacks on people like me.

I have suggestion for John Morrison that might make this primary race a go little better for him.

If he calls a press conference and states that he is cutting all ties with the DLC because it no longer works for Democratic candidates or Democratic ideals, and refuses to accept any money or in-kind contributions from the DLC, he would become a hero of sorts to many in the nationwide Democratic Electorate and its associated donor base who find the DLC to be odious.

Posted by: James E. Powell at August 27, 2005 06:20 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Okay, if you don't want to vote for a DLC candidate, that's fine and I respect that. However, that is also no excuse to fulminate against a candidate for being "slick" and "polished". What if the farmer were the DLC candidate instead of the lawyer?

Posted by: JRyan at August 27, 2005 09:20 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

"What if the farmer were the DLC candidate instead of the lawyer?"

I'd be for the lawyer. I don't have any problem with lawyers. I am one.

I didn't make the remarks about 'slick' or 'polished' but I am guessing that they were not criticisms of the person, but rather observations of his limitations.

Remember, this is America. Where knowing things is considered a sign of elitism, a fatal flaw. Where ignorance and bad grammar are considered the hallmarks of a great leader.

Posted by: James E. Powell at August 28, 2005 01:38 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Wow Bob, when did extremist rhetoric become a productive way for the Democratic Party to take back control. I was hoping that netroots could rise about the crap we hear on talk radio. If this site is any indication, it appears I will be disappointed. So since you are following in the radical footsteps of our slandering forefathers on the right, I will now refer to you as Rush Hannity. Rush, why would risk your reputation and integrity by making slanderous remarks about skeletons in the closet, when you have absolutely nothing to back up that comment? Are facts and sources something you gave up when you decided to compromise your integrity? I am apparently not the only one to notice this trend (http://blog.dccc.org/mt/archives/003278.html). Rush, do you really believe that the Montana voters are so dumb that they will pick a candidate solely based on their occupation? Remarks like these reek of desperation. Desperation from a campaign that has floundered thus far. Tester isn't fund raising; all his eggs are in the pearl jam basket. They called a college buddy of mine and told him to write a check for $2100. When your campaign is soliciting $2100 from college students; your campaign is desperate. Rush, do you find it embarrassing that JRyan comes off as being sensible and you(an author on this blog) come off as over emotional radical who believes that people will buy into his slanderous rhetoric because of past accomplishments? Rush, I find all this to be very disappointing; I thought you were better than this. Using irrational rhetoric to defame someone’s character is something I expect the republicans to do, but I guess some of us try to take the moral high ground.

Posted by: Andy_Duphrane at August 28, 2005 05:33 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment