Hey, there! Log in / Register

The quiet anti-war candidate

That would be Phil Dunkelbarger of Westwood, who is running against incumbent U.S. Rep. Steve Lynch largely on an anti-war platform.

How quiet? I live in Lynch's district, and the first I heard Lynch had opposition was this Blue Mass. Group post.

Topics: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Thanks for the post. We absolutely need to hold Lynch accountable; we are working like crazy to get Phil's name out there (it's a big name). Meantime, check this video:

http://www.dunkelbargerdemocrat.org/bnn_240.mov

The hosting service ain't the speediest, but wait and you see (and hear) Phil talking about issues. And all the press releases in teh Press Room, too:

http://www.dunkelbargerdemocrat.org/news.html

If you have other ideas for spreading the word, let us know.

up
Voting closed 0

As a past State Chair of the Libertarian Party, I can tell you that sometimes candidates try like hell to be heard, but the mainstream media will not pick up on the noise unless they feel like it (or need filler.)

Is it the media's job to inform the public of their choices in elections, or is their obligation something less - reporting the "horse race" aspects? I say informing is part of the job, but your mileage may vary.

up
Voting closed 0

If the Globe doesn't cover a candidate, did he really run?

In my mind, the Lynch-Dunkelbarger race is similar to the Lieberman-Lamont race in Connecticut. The difference money, media and polls. The blog Daily Kos took up the Ned Lamont cause and got a steady buzz going that the media picked up on. Lamont, a rich businessman, mounted a big media ad campaign. And then, the polls showed that there was a trend away from the incumbent Lieberman.

Right now, there is a slight buzz going on in the local blogs about Dunkelbarger that started with an article by Adam Reilly in the Phoenix. Has any independent group even polled the 9th to see what's going on? I think Lynch may be worried by results of internal polls judging by his introduction of a faux bill about getting out of Iraq. It basically pretends to be a plan to get out of Iraq when it is determined by a "bi-partisan" committee that the Iraqis are able to take over the military and governmental dutes. The fact that he is even introducing this fraudulent legislation indicates he needs some cover for his consistent support for the Bush "doctrine" of: say anyting in order to rationalize an invasion, create bloody chaos and civil war, and force our soldiers to "stay the course" and to pay the price for these massive strategic failures.

You're doin' a heckuva job, Lynchie.

up
Voting closed 0