Reply #153: Yeah. Well if the establishment Dems were so damn good at winning...

[Merlin]

we wouldn't be in this hellacious fix to begin with. I'm a little tired of all the prognostications of the veterans. All the party "Pros" seem to insist:
--Dean can't win
--Only Lieberman can win. Or maybe Gephardt.
--Dean and Kerry are too far to the Left.
--Iraq was a good idea.
--It was right to give our pResident a blank check to invade.
--The tax cuts were a good idea.
--We just need to be more like Republicans so maybe we can attract some of their votes.
--Anybody who didn't support the war can't win.

To which we're now supposed to believe:
--Only Joe Hoeffel can win against Specter.
--Hoeffel is correct to relinquish his House seat, because maybe he might lose it this time.

Well, I don't buy a word of it. The so called "Pros" have proven to me they don't know what they hell they're talking about. We're sitting here surrounded by not just Republicans, but a lexicon of rabid, right wing fanatics who are in power now because of the "guidance" of the current crop of Democratic "Pros."

I still want a good answer to the simple question:

WHY IS IT A SMART IDEA FOR HOEFFEL TO GIVE UP ON TRYING TO WIN ANOTHER TERM AS CONGRESSMAN. HE'S A GODAM INCUMBENT!!! WHY VOLUNTARILY GIVE UP THAT SEAT TO TAKE ON A 6-TERM INCUMBENT SENATOR?

Will somebody please tell me why he's being encouraged by the "Pros" to make this probably futile run against Specter and let his House seat probably go to a Republican. Where in the hell is the political logic in that move? I'd really, really like to know.