is his name 'evil trig'?

Democrat Guy Doesn’t Know Name of Democrat Running For Alaska Senate Seat


So here is DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse on ABC’s Web show “Top Line,” not knowing the name of whatever lame dude the Democrats managed to scrape together to run against Teabag Arctic Fox Joe Miller, and so the NRSC is spreading this around to show how much cooler they are. “Democrats are the real extremists,” they say in the YouTube description. What? Democrats are basically MUSLIN TERRORISTS because they don’t know the name of their Alaska Senate nominee? But this may all be moot, and the generic Democrat may win, because Lisa Murkowski’s campaign is looking into an independent run to keep her seat, and thus VOTES MAY BE SPLIT.

Best course of action?

The other possibility: the Alaska Independence Party. Former Governor Wally Hickel lost the Republican primary in 1990, but won in the general by being on the Alaskan Independence Party (AIP) ticket. A third-party run could work for Murkowski as the Democrat’s candidate is largely unknown Sitka mayor Scott McAdams, but she would have to overcome the main reason the AIP exists in the Last Frontier: They are a secessionist party calling for Alaska to leave the United States.

Oh, just like Todd Palin! It’s about time we had secessionists in our Senate again. [Daily Beast / via Newell]

Related

About the author

Jack Stuef is your loyal editor and a freelance satirist or something like that. He is a contributing writer for The Onion. E-mail him or whatever.

View all articles by Jack Stuef

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.

17 comments

  1. JMP

    It’s not that important to know the Senate candidate in a state where, unless running against an incumbent currently under indictment, the Democratic candidate real name is always S. Lamb. But maybe Scott McAdams could drop the Mc and get some votes from people who think he’s the Dilbert guy.

  2. GOPCrusher

    Honestly, until Bible Spice hit the scene, other than people that have been there, did any one know where Alaska even was?

  3. Jukesgrrl

    I’ll bet they don’t know the names of any Democrats running for office in Arizona either. Yet that doesn’t stop them from E-mailing me every week to beg for money to help them elect Democrats to national office. Representing what … Mars? What would be my motivation, you losers?

  4. SayItWithWookies

    The Republicans don’t need to know the names of their candidates because whoever they are, they always do one thing: exactly what they’re told.
    The Democrats don’t need to know the names of their candidates because whoever they are, they always do one thing: whatever the hell they want.

  5. user-of-owls

    I’m guessing ‘retail politics’ in Alaska bears a striking resemblance to Deadliest Catch.

  6. DustBowlBlues

    [re=645694]SayItWithWookies[/re]: Excellent.

    I’m sure this isn’t going to happen and I think it’s cruel to suggest anything this great could happen, just to let us down. Quick: Tell all the Democrats to act as if this would be a BAD thing. I’m sure they read wonket:

    Assholes–This would be a BAD thing to happen to Democrats. Stop her! stop her now!

    (Pssst–think it will work?)

  7. bago

    Whoever is on right-wing emailing lists or has a freeper account needs to report that “Secret Muslims will be invading the rally. You will be ABLE TO KNOW WHO THEY ARE BECAUSE THEY WILL BE WEARING WHITE SHOES. the Koran specifically says muslims have to wear WHITE SHOES after Ramadan.”

  8. weejee

    [re=645680]Rentboy.gov[/re]: In many ways it is. Actually, it is a rather cool spot. A major step up from say Cold Bay.

  9. Enslave the Whales

    You know, it is actually kind of sad that someone with the title “DNC communications director” doesn’t know the name of a current Democratic Senate candidate. I mean, there are only 37 seats being contested, and in 12 of those, the Democratic candidate is the incumbent (hopefully he knows their names. So, twenty-five “new” names. And the outcome of these elections will largely determine whether or not the Democratic Party will be able to do anything on the national level for at least the next two years.

    So, maybe a fucking note card?

  10. Weeping Jesus

    [re=645767]Enslave the Whales[/re]: “And the outcome of these elections will largely determine whether or not the Democratic Party will be able to do anything on the national level for at least the next two years.”

    I did a bit of an LOL on that one. This shapes up to be a repeat of 1994 in terms of an increased Republican proportion in Congress and further crippling of the president’s agenda. As far as I know, no one in my family has ever voted for a Republican, but none of them think there’s even a glimmer of hope that the current Democrats have a clue how to salvage the wrecked economy, narrow the trade imbalance, bring the deficit under control, manage immigration, or promote stability or predictability in our international relations. Regardless of the fall election results, the next two years will be notable for only one thing: positioning for the 2012 campaigns.

Comments are closed.