CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › 2010 Midterm Elections
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2010 Midterm Elections - Page 2

post #51 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan "Nordling" Cerny View Post
See, what's going to happen is that a lot of people like me who voted Obama (and I don't regret that at all) will stay home. A lot of us voted the way we did because we wanted to give the Democrats carte blanche to do what they said they wanted to do for years. And in a lot of ways, they've fixed as much as they could. Shit ain't glamorous, but they did it. However, I didn't vote for just that. I wanted universal health care. I was promised that fight. It didn't happen. So yeah, I'm disheartened.
What exactly did they fix? Serious question here. Not being a dick but last I checked all they did was spend a shit ton of money that they didn't have which will put us deeper in economic peril in the very near future.

Gitmo aint' closed.

We're still in Iraq and even deeper in Afghanistan.

Patriot Act? Still going on strong!

The only clear move on health care (not finished mind you) is that everyone will get coverage now however the premium on the citizen is more then it would cost for us to simply GIVE coverage to those who are denied AND insurance companies will get that money regardless and can continue to raise rates at whatever amount they want (then again... I could be wrong about that last part since it isn't clear which health care bill is being passed).

As to the safety of this country? We get a "We screwed up" after Obama waited three fucking days to comment on a terrorist attack on Christmas!? and the solution!? MORE INVASION OF PRIVACY!
post #52 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
What exactly did they fix? Serious question here. Not being a dick but last I checked all they did was spend a shit ton of money that they didn't have which will put us deeper in economic peril in the very near future.

Gitmo aint' closed.

We're still in Iraq and even deeper in Afghanistan.

Patriot Act? Still going on strong!

The only clear move on health care (not finished mind you) is that everyone will get coverage now however the premium on the citizen is more then it would cost for us to simply GIVE coverage to those who are denied AND insurance companies will get that money regardless and can continue to raise rates at whatever amount they want (then again... I could be wrong about that last part since it isn't clear which health care bill is being passed).

As to the safety of this country? We get a "We screwed up" after Obama waited three fucking days to comment on a terrorist attack on Christmas!? and the solution!? MORE INVASION OF PRIVACY!
There's so much wrong and stupid in this post, it's dumbfounding.

Really, I'm starting to wonder who are the ones who expected Obama to be some kind of supernatural deity, liberals or righties. Everytime I read or hear "Gitmo's still open" I just tune out.

Oh, and that faux-anger and indignation you're expressing over Obama waiting "three fucking days"? Go fuck yourself.

Thanks for reminding me why I vote blue!
post #53 of 128
There was a lot of legislation that got signed and some new hirings at the various agencies that caused a quiet storm in the government community. The Justice Department, especially, after the attorney firings. I can't link you or put my finger on any articles right now, but there was a pretty strong but quiet overhaul that - well I say streamlined but you might say otherwise - was authorized by Obama. Economic conservatives may guffaw but I thought Cash for Clunkers was a terrific idea, and good or bad (depending on your view), it might have saved some American car makers from disappearing completely.

Now, the sexy stuff, as I call it? The stuff that gets all the press? Yeah. Not much changed there. I am of the firm belief (and, I feel, proven by history) that when it comes to social issues you have to drag the country kicking and screaming across the line of scrimmage before you gain anything. Nothing like that happened this past year, in my opinion. Obama retreated on gays, no matter how much he may spin it. You're right, the war machine rumbles on. I'm going to call you on the invasion of privacy bit because I didn't see any conservatives complaining about that shit 9 years ago.

As far as that terrorist incident on Christmas, if it were up to me they would have thrown his ass from the plane midair. I would have collected his tears of pain as his testicles burned to use as masturbation lubricant. Yeah, someone fucked up, and someone needs to be fired. What else is there to say? Everyone everywhere remotely involved with it loses their jobs immediately? How does that fix anything except some childish need for retribution?

Honestly, since the whole health care/Lieberman debacle, I've withdrawn from being a political junkie, and hell, I feel a lot better. I suspect there's a lot of people like me right now who are smelling the flowers instead of the newsprint. That's why the Democrats are in real trouble, and so's Obama. They may not have actually let me down, but I sure as hell feel let down, and in the end, there's no difference between the two.
post #54 of 128
I don't understand why "three fucking days" is so important. It seem rather disingenuous in light of Bush's six day wait, but putting that aside, what is it Republicans wanted? "Oh please Mr. President! Tell us it'll all be okay! We're a-feared of terr' again! Help us!"

I imagine most of the people whining about how soon Obama spoke are also very unhappy with what he had to say. Why? He's a Democrat.
post #55 of 128
"I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat."
post #56 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
I don't understand why "three fucking days" is so important.
Ditto. It's funny how many in GOP circles are making this event out to be Obama's fault in some way, shape, or form.

Aside from that, I chuckled at the notion of the election of Obama being the election of an independent.
post #57 of 128
Thread Starter 
He won the majority of votes from "independent" voters, which were--and tend to be--the deciding column in elections. I'd define that as an "independent victory."
post #58 of 128
Well to each their own I guess.
post #59 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan "Nordling" Cerny View Post
There was a lot of legislation that got signed and some new hirings at the various agencies that caused a quiet storm in the government community. The Justice Department, especially, after the attorney firings. I can't link you or put my finger on any articles right now, but there was a pretty strong but quiet overhaul that - well I say streamlined but you might say otherwise - was authorized by Obama. Economic conservatives may guffaw but I thought Cash for Clunkers was a terrific idea, and good or bad (depending on your view), it might have saved some American car makers from disappearing completely.

Now, the sexy stuff, as I call it? The stuff that gets all the press? Yeah. Not much changed there. I am of the firm belief (and, I feel, proven by history) that when it comes to social issues you have to drag the country kicking and screaming across the line of scrimmage before you gain anything. Nothing like that happened this past year, in my opinion. Obama retreated on gays, no matter how much he may spin it. You're right, the war machine rumbles on. I'm going to call you on the invasion of privacy bit because I didn't see any conservatives complaining about that shit 9 years ago.

As far as that terrorist incident on Christmas, if it were up to me they would have thrown his ass from the plane midair. I would have collected his tears of pain as his testicles burned to use as masturbation lubricant. Yeah, someone fucked up, and someone needs to be fired. What else is there to say? Everyone everywhere remotely involved with it loses their jobs immediately? How does that fix anything except some childish need for retribution?

Honestly, since the whole health care/Lieberman debacle, I've withdrawn from being a political junkie, and hell, I feel a lot better. I suspect there's a lot of people like me right now who are smelling the flowers instead of the newsprint. That's why the Democrats are in real trouble, and so's Obama. They may not have actually let me down, but I sure as hell feel let down, and in the end, there's no difference between the two.
If you scroll back at the thread, I was down with the cash for clunkers. I have no problems with that but it was a small piece of the very large cash pie that was 2009 and 2010 is looking to be a lot worse off (fiscally).

I complained about invasion of privacy 9 years ago and people should be complaining about it now and not simply saying "Well, Bush did it!" They're thinking of taking virtually nude pictures of you and storing it in a databse for fucks sake. Not to mention, they're talking about implimenting OTHER machinery that scans your ASS! the shit they have in prisions to prevent inmakes from smuggling in cellphones and stuff. It doesn't get any more invasion and any more private then that.

And my gripe with the incident on christmas is? come out and say something man.. ease the public fears.

I haven't seen anything worth while come out of congress or the administration this year and this was the year they could get anything done... next year it wont' happen because of elections and after that they'll have lost their filibuster majority. I honestly don't know how someone could come out and support the Democrats at this point and kudos to you Alan for your post man. I think we're on the same boat about being disgusted all around. I'm not for Republicans taking those seats, I want some people in there that will get shit done and not at the expense of my retirement or my kids future... great time for a third party but it will never happen, so it seems.

ETA -

next year meaning 2010, this year... I still write 2009 on checks...
post #60 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
They're thinking of taking virtually nude pictures of you and storing it in a databse for fucks sake. Not to mention, they're talking about implimenting OTHER machinery that scans your ASS! the shit they have in prisions to prevent inmakes from smuggling in cellphones and stuff. It doesn't get any more invasion and any more private then that.

Maybe Im alone on this, but someone seeing an outline of my cock and balls > someone getting on the same airplane as me with something unsavory.

Again, perhaps thats just me.
post #61 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
Maybe Im alone on this, but someone seeing an outline of my cock and balls > someone getting on the same airplane as me with something unsavory.

Again, perhaps thats just me.
I have a friend who said that to me... I asked him how he felt about his 15 year old daughter getting scanned or his wife. He had to stop a few minutes to think about if he was still OK with it. Invasion of privacy should extend beyond thinking of yourself and how it affects society. I'm not a terrorist but I have a problem with the patriot act and stereotyping.
post #62 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
I have a friend who said that to me... I asked him how he felt about his 15 year old daughter getting scanned or his wife. He had to stop a few minutes to think about if he was still OK with it. Invasion of privacy should extend beyond thinking of yourself and how it affects society. I'm not a terrorist but I have a problem with the patriot act.
I think everyone has a problem with the patriot act, but I dont see what that has to do with the TSA thinking about putting different (ie more effective) scanners at airports.

Also, I dont have children but they can go ahead and scan my wife away as well.
post #63 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan "Nordling" Cerny View Post
See, what's going to happen is that a lot of people like me who voted Obama (and I don't regret that at all) will stay home. A lot of us voted the way we did because we wanted to give the Democrats carte blanche to do what they said they wanted to do for years. And in a lot of ways, they've fixed as much as they could. Shit ain't glamorous, but they did it. However, I didn't vote for just that. I wanted universal health care. I was promised that fight. It didn't happen. So yeah, I'm disheartened.
So you're just going to give up? Obama was not elected Dictator, and the Democratic party does not march in lockstep. If you want Universal Healthcare you need to get Senators and Representatives who support it.

If you choose to sit out the election you risk the possibility of the fucking TeaBaggers being the most active voting constituency, which guarantees NO universal healthcare, and God knows what else.
post #64 of 128
Will all the talk of the fall races, no one's brought up the big race on January 19th in Massachusetts to fill Ted Kennedy's seat. Coakley is the clear frontrunner, but there are signs that the race is tightening. If there is especially low Democratic turnout and Republicans are motivated, this has some potential to be a game-changing upset. The loss of this seat for the Democrats means they won't have the votes necessary to advance the health care bill through the Senate and would scare the hell out of some "safe" Democrats this fall. But even the most ardent Republicans seem to be saying that the best they can hope for is a closer-than-expected loss for Brown somewhere in the single digits. I don't think the national party is even kicking in any money to support Brown. No one knows him and Coakley enjoys a huge advantage in financing and name recognition.
post #65 of 128
Coakley has to be running one of the worst campaigns of the last few years. Losing to Brown would be a big deal and is looking more and more likely to happen.
post #66 of 128
So if Coakley loses, does Brown become Senator immediately or is there a delay? This could be good or bad. I really am lukewarm to the healthcare bill so maybe killing it won't be the worst thing in the world.

BTW: The only person I am rooting against is Harold Ford Jr. I smell a lieberman in waiting with this guy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgBmQ...layer_embedded

Plus he is a wall street whore. That worked well for Corzine.
post #67 of 128
They need to get rid of the filibuster or lower it to 55 senators (they can do that). I am sick of worrying if Byrd or inouye from Hawaii are going to croak and how that will affect bills.

I am sure republicans didn't like having to worry about the health of Helms, Thurman, or Stevens when they were in office.

The Filibuster is bullshit anyway. The party in power should be able to set the agenda. Democratic or Republican.
post #68 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rourkefan View Post

BTW: The only person I am rooting against is Harold Ford Jr. I smell a lieberman in waiting with this guy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgBmQ...layer_embedded
.
HFJR is a terrible candidate. He's a phony and one of the least inspiring people I've ever seen. Plus, he is a nut who believes the bible literally.

I despise Gillabrand, but Ford Jr is even worse.

BTW there is a thread for the Massachusetts Senate Race I started. Figured you guys would prefer not to clog up the midterm thread with a non midterm election
post #69 of 128
Thread Starter 
At least Coakley's feat of risking the loss of a seat in fucking Massachusetts of all places is forcing Organizing for America to actually, you know, do political organizing. If only they could do that on a regular basis and before it's apparent the race in question is going poorly for us.

And I also hope Ford loses. Fuck the DLC.
post #70 of 128
If Coakley loses, I'll laugh long and hard. Only the democrats could be so limp-dick incompetent that they would spend almost a whole year and their entire political capital on health care, only to see it fail because they couldn't keep Ted Kennedy's seat.

Talk about irony.
post #71 of 128
Plus the health care bill barely has any balls. The loss of the bill would make me lose sleep. Again I hate the 60 seat filibuster rule. It used to be less once apon a time ago.
post #72 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rourkefan View Post
Again I hate the 60 seat filibuster rule. It used to be less once apon a time ago.
In the historical context, I don't think the mid 70's was that long ago.
post #73 of 128
That means to pass medicare LBJ only needed like 55 votes. So that is why no real sweeping legislation has been able to pass since the 60s. They need to lower the filiibuster. And yes, Republican chewers, I would be willing to have it lower when ever the republicans take back the Senate.
post #74 of 128
I think they should keep the 60 seat filibuster for Supreme Court and Cabinent nominees and lower it for regular legislative bills.
post #75 of 128
I think the problem with the filibuster is . . . you don't actually have to filibuster. You just have to say you intend to filibuster and that does the trick, for whatever bizarre reason. If you actually make the bastards get up there and filibuster whatever it is they're trying to block, with the coverage running on C-Span, then you might see a lot less of it as a partisan tactic.
post #76 of 128
Ted Rall is my secret commie guru. Here are his predictions for 2010. Good point about the Dinken's comparison...

From Ralls Blog

Quote:
Obama's job approval rating, which has already fallen faster than any president's in the history of opinion polling, is tied to the unfolding fiscal apocalypse. Unless there's another 9/11, his numbers will plunge toward the Dick Cheney Zone.

It's fair, mostly. Obama could have done a lot to ease the economic pain: direct federal assistance to distressed homeowners, nationalize insolvent banks rather than bail them out, giant New Deal-style federal employment projects, all funded by immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq. Instead, he kept Bush's policies (and personnel). After the voters had rejected them.

Turns out we were wrong about Obama. He's not smart. He's not wise.

He's just calm.
post #77 of 128
Beau's a No Go.

Quote:
Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden won't run for U.S. Senate

For months, Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden has been courted by national Democrats, including his father, Vice President Joe Biden, to run for his dad’s former U.S. Senate seat.

The drumbeat grew so loud that political insiders and pundits in Delaware and beyond said it was a near certainty that Beau Biden would enter the race against Republican Mike Castle, Delaware’s nine-term U.S. representative, in what was shaping up as perhaps the hottest race in America this year.

The contest is not to be. This morning, the younger Biden dashed all those hopes, announcing he would not run.

Instead, he’ll seek re-election to a second term as attorney general.

Castle, who announced his candidacy in October, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a telephone interview, Biden said the “critical reason” for his decision was that running for Senate would take his focus away from the prosecution of Dr. Earl B. Bradley, the alleged pedophile pediatrician from Lewes. Bradley, 56, was charged in December with raping nine female patients from 3 months to 13 months old, and prosecutors have said the number of victims dating back to 1998 could surpass 100.

“It became very crystal clear over the last several weeks that it was simply impossible to continue to focus my intention, which is like a laser on the case in Lewes, and at the same time mount a Senate campaign,” the 40-year-old Biden said.
More at the link.
post #78 of 128
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ay_100030.html

Quote:
Likely Republican (R+2)
Delaware (Open): If Attorney General Beau Biden chooses to run, this will probably slide down a few notches. Castle has held statewide office in Delaware since I was in elementary school, and while he runs competitively with Biden, he’s below 50%. But Biden hasn’t been making any movement toward a race just yet. If Biden ends up not running, you can probably move this over to safe.
I think that's probably more fallout from Mass. I think all the smart candidates who already have a job are going to hold off this year, if they can.
post #79 of 128
I'm very glad to see that Biden is out. I'm a big fan of Castle.
post #80 of 128
It's clear that a lot can change in the next 10 months. The political winds may very well shift back towards the Democrats by then. But what is happening now will have the biggest impact on what will happen in the fall. The Democrats are seeing lots of Blue Dogs retire and their preferred candidates deciding to sit it out this time. Republicans are, for the most part, having a much easier time recruiting the candidates they want to run. The last time this happened was 16 years ago. While the conditions aren't exactly the same, it's looking more and more like '94 every day.
post #81 of 128
I was alot more confident when Delaware and Connecticut weren't up for grabs. I definitely can see the Senate going republican now. I am not even confident in Spector retaining his seat now. I can see the Senate going 52-48 republican (Plus Lieberman and Baucus).

I don't mind losing the election, I mind the fact that nothing good got passed when Obama had Congress.

-Clinton at least cut the deficit, got some gun control passed, and made some effort to getting gays in the military.
-Obama has grown the deficit, bailed out corporations, sat on his ass on health care and gay rights.
post #82 of 128
Evan Bayh's seat in Indiana has been considered about as safe as it gets. According to Rasmussen's new poll he only has a 3 point lead over John Hostettler. If the more popular Mike Pence jumps into the race, Bayh trails by 3 points. In both polls, Bayh is only claiming 44% support. That's pretty scary for him.

In Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln is only polling around 40%, regardless of who her opponent is. Reid's ceiling right now isn't much better at 42%. Specter is also stuck in the mid- to low-40s and is down by 9 to Toomey in the latest polls. Anytime an incumbent is polling under 50%, the incumbent has cause for concern. Polling in the low 40s is cause for panic.

Connecticut may likely be back in the D column now that Dodd is out and Blumenthal is in. But I want to see a poll not done by R2000/Daily Kos before I would consider the race to be safe for the Democrats.
post #83 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvc View Post
Evan Bayh's seat in Indiana has been considered about as safe as it gets. According to Rasmussen's new poll he only has a 3 point lead over John Hostettler. If the more popular Mike Pence jumps into the race, Bayh trails by 3 points. In both polls, Bayh is only claiming 44% support. That's pretty scary for him.

In Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln is only polling around 40%, regardless of who her opponent is. Reid's ceiling right now isn't much better at 42%. Specter is also stuck in the mid- to low-40s and is down by 9 to Toomey in the latest polls. Anytime an incumbent is polling under 50%, the incumbent has cause for concern. Polling in the low 40s is cause for panic.

Connecticut may likely be back in the D column now that Dodd is out and Blumenthal is in. But I want to see a poll not done by R2000/Daily Kos before I would consider the race to be safe for the Democrats.
Being from PA, I know a lot about their politics. The polls may show Specter losing ground, but I highly doubt people will actually vote for Toomey. Toomey is still very unknown in the west and for the most part, Specter is somewhat popular. We've learned that a crazy senator in our state is kinda bad, so voting in Toomey would just be Santorum redux.

The Dems shouldn't be concerned about Connecticut. The only reason why the GOP was doing so well was because of Dodd's poisonous campaign. Now that he's out and Blumenthal is in, I'd be utterly shocked if he lost this seat.

That Indiana number should be frightening for Dems though. That's really telling of the environment.
post #84 of 128
I'm okay with losing if some of the dead weight like Bayh and Lincoln are forced out. Look the democrats deserve to be losing ground.

1. They ignore their base. Say what you want about republicans, but they listen to the tea partiers and Rush Limbaugh wing once in a while.

2. They run stereotypically "elitist liberal" candidates like Coakley who won't even shake peoples hands and expect to win.

3. Any strong democratic candidate is running for the hills. See Beau Biden.
post #85 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rourkefan View Post
I'm okay with losing if some of the dead weight like Bayh and Lincoln are forced out. Look the democrats deserve to be losing ground.

1. They ignore their base. Say what you want about republicans, but they listen to the tea partiers and Rush Limbaugh wing once in a while.

2. They run stereotypically "elitist liberal" candidates like Coakley who won't even shake peoples hands and expect to win.

3. Any strong democratic candidate is running for the hills. See Beau Biden.
They ignore the base because they can't win with the base. The biggest reason why Obama won was because of the public's disdain with the GOP, the GOP voters' disdain for McCain and Obama successfully catering to Independents as well as Republicans. If Obama went hard left, I don't think he would have won as big as he did.

For the most part, this country is still very hostile to many liberal ideas. Just look at the gay marriage referendums. The country is still very supportive of capital punishment among other generally conservative ideals.

That's not to say that the public is entirely against liberalism. I don't think that's the case. However, I do think that the public is really hostile or weary of the liberalism spouted off by Pelosi-like officials. The country seems to support politicians who are perceived to be moderate or who actually practice moderation.
post #86 of 128
^I think the reason the country at large is "against Liberalism" is because no one of the Left has articulated their positions in a way that palatable to most people. The stereotype of the snobby elite Ivory Tower Liberal is true.

Also the Democrats could have given a hearing to GOP concerns like the explosion of litigation against doctors, etc. But no, they felt entitled by the 2006 and 2008 elections, and they are in the pockets of the Trial Lawyers, so no discussion at all.

So there is no compromise or pretense of same, and no attempt to explain simply and clearly how people will benefit under the new system, and crucially, how it can be paid for, and how costs can be contained.
post #87 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompoussory Estoppel View Post
They ignore the base because they can't win with the base. .
There is a key difference: the Republicans can win with their base, the Democrats can't.
post #88 of 128
It's fabulous that after eight years of the nastiest, most unpleasant, most stubborn presidency in history, Republicans are now chiding the Democrats for not playing nice. And what's despressing is that the public seem to be buying into it. I hate so much about America right now.
post #89 of 128

People on welfare = stray animals (in SC)

Yes, my sorta home state just keeps on contributing to the national discourse:

By SEANNA ADCOX, Associated Press Writer Seanna Adcox, Associated Press Writer – Mon Jan 25, 10:47 pm ET

COLUMBIA, S.C. – When things looked their darkest for Gov. Mark Sanford — when he was in danger of being impeached for running off to Argentina to see his mistress — his best insurance policy may well have been South Carolina's lieutenant governor, Andre Bauer.

Lawmakers knew if they removed Sanford, they would end up with Bauer, a fiercely ambitious Republican with a reputation for reckless and immature behavior.

Now Bauer has folks shaking their heads again, after he likened government assistance to the poor to feeding stray animals.

At a town hall meeting Thursday, Bauer, who is running for governor in his own right now that Sanford is term-limited, said: "My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed! You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that."

Democrats and others railed at him.

"I am disgusted by these comments. They show an unbelievable lack of compassion toward the unemployed workers in our state who are hurting during these hard times," said state Sen. Vincent Sheheen, a Democrat who is also running for governor. "His comments were immoral and out of line."

South Carolina schools Superintendent Jim Rex, another Democratic candidate for governor, called Bauer's comments "reprehensible" and said he should apologize.

Bauer said Monday that he regrets his choice of words but that government should expect welfare recipients to try to better themselves. He wants to require them to take drug tests and attend parent-teacher conferences if they have children in school.

A child of divorce who benefited from free lunches himself, Bauer insisted he wasn't bad-mouthing people laid off from work in the recession or advocating taking food from children, but rather emphasizing the need to break the cycle of dependency.

"Do I wish I'd used a different metaphor? Of course I do," the 40-year-old said. "I didn't intend to offend anyone."

Bauer has long been a love-him-or-hate-him figure in South Carolina politics. A nonstop campaigner and self-described workaholic, he was the youngest elected lieutenant governor in the country when he first won the No. 2 spot in 2002 at age 33.

Before his 2006 re-election, he shattered his heel when the single-engine plane he was piloting ran into power lines, crashed and caught fire. Bauer's office said the maintenance company that overhauled the engine botched the job. Court records show that a federal administrative law judge in June fined the company for returning the plane with incorrect bolts.

During the campaign, it was also disclosed that Bauer had been stopped for speeding twice, but not ticketed, even though in one instance he was going 101 mph in a 70 mph zone. He said he didn't realize how fast he was going and never asked for preferential treatment.

Bauer twice ran on a separate ticket from Sanford and the two have never been chums. In 2006, Sanford's now-estranged wife, Jenny, supported Bauer's primary opponent.

Bauer almost ascended to the top office last summer, after Sanford disappeared from the state for five days to be with his mistress. But the Legislature stopped short of impeachment.

Politicians who had gubernatorial ambitions of their own, or were backing other candidates, knew that replacing Sanford with Bauer would have given the lieutenant governor a year-and-a-half tryout for the job and the benefit of running as an incumbent.

At least three other Republicans and five Democrats have said they are running for governor.

Neal Thigpen, a political scientist at Francis Marion University, said Bauer tends to speak so fast and enthusiastically ("It's almost like a Gatling gun") that he sometimes "gets his mouth in place quicker than his head." Thigpen said the lieutenant governor's latest remarks could hurt him in the general election in the fall by allowing Democrats to portray him as "insensitive and downright cruel."

But as for the June Republican primary, "don't count him out. The kid's got a fanatical following," Thigpen said. "They're going to forgive him almost anything and stick to him like glue."

Similarly, Winthrop University political scientist Scott Huffmon said Bauer's words "came out as condescending and insulting," but his overall message about government dependency and personal responsibility will appeal to his evangelical Republican base.

State GOP Chairwoman Karen Floyd, who is not taking sides in the race for the nomination, said the flap should be a lesson to everyone to "choose our words more carefully."
post #90 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriweather View Post
It's fabulous that after eight years of the nastiest, most unpleasant, most stubborn presidency in history, Republicans are now chiding the Democrats for not playing nice. And what's despressing is that the public seem to be buying into it. I hate so much about America right now.

I think the public is disgusted with both sides, but ironically, a lot of them respond by wishing for "principled" leadership. Meaning leadership that won't compromise. Too bad we're a democracy, which requires compromise

When the Republicans put an amendment in the Healthcare bill that essentially outlaws abortion, that's ideology and simple spanner throwing.

When the Democrats refuse to even consider changes that would reduce frivolous law suits, that undermines their creditability (the Democratic party gets enormous financial supports from the Trial lawyers who benefit from the current system)
post #91 of 128
And the Republicans get no kind of support from the anti=abortion Fundies whom their amendment would cater to?
post #92 of 128
Blanch Lincoln is toast. Ouch. I wonder if she'll pull a Dodd and opt out. But there's no really popular Arkansas Democrat who can step in for her and win, is there?

Quote:
John Boozman will enter the Arkansas Senate race this weekend as the frontrunner. He leads incumbent Blanche Lincoln by an amazing 56-33 margin in our first poll of the race.

Lincoln's approval rating has sunk to just 27%, with 62% of voters in the state disapproving of her. She's at a middling 51% even within her own party and just 17% of independents and 9% of Republicans are happy with how she's doing.

A look inside the health care issue gives a good indication of how Lincoln has managed now to get it from all sides. 61% of voters in the state oppose the President's plan, and among those folks Lincoln's approval rating is just 8% with 79% of them expressing the belief that she's too liberal. But she's managed to antagonize a lot of the people who support the Democratic health care plan as well- 36% of them think she's too conservative and her approval with them is just 57%. Barack Obama's at 95% with that same group of voters.

What it all adds up to is Boozman winning 89% of the Republican vote while Lincoln's at just 68% with Democrats. And Boozman has a 66-20 lead with independents as well.

Boozman is not all that well known- a 43% plurality of the state's voters have no opinion about him one way or the other. Among those who do 32% view him favorably to 25% unfavorably.
That last part is incredible to me. The challenger is pulling 56% support where 68% of voters either have no opinion or a negative opinion about him. That's when the incumbent really knows she is losing.
post #93 of 128
Looks like Patty Murray's seat in Washington is in play if Dino Rossi decides to jump in. He leads 45-43 in a Moore Info poll. It's one poll, it's early, and it presumes that the strongest Republican candidate will make the decision to join the race. But with the recent polls showing potentially competitive races in formerly Safe D seats in Indiana, New York, Illinois, California, Delaware, and Wisconsin if the right Republican jumps in, the Democrats will be spending money in places they thought they wouldn't really have to defend.
post #94 of 128
Are there any really good progressives running for any of these seats, does anyone know? I'm so behind on this but I need to get up to speed...
post #95 of 128
I just saw Harold Ford Jr. on Colbert. Fuck. that. guy.

The Democrats are toast. Will this be good or bad for the party that alot of the democrats losing are "bluedogs?" This might lead the party to actually appoint a pro-choice leader who actually has balls as senate minority leader?

Or will Evan Bayh or Max Baucus get appointed to the post when Reed is defeated?
post #96 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvc View Post
Blanch Lincoln is toast. Ouch. I wonder if she'll pull a Dodd and opt out. But there's no really popular Arkansas Democrat who can step in for her and win, is there?
Clinton campaigned behind the scenes for his wife's seat when she was appointed Secretary of State. Part of the reason that they are so pissed at Governor Paterson is that Kennedy was even in consideration--after she was the person who was largely responsible for getting Obama the Kennedy "passing of the torch" he had so desired during his presidency--and he wasn't. If she does the smart thing and withdraws, I would not be surprised to see Clinton go for it.
post #97 of 128
I am for the first time hoping that Sarah Palin succeeds at something. Mainly, getting Rahm "Ari Gold" Emanuel fired...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl1101
Quote:
Dating back to the time he worked in the Clinton administration, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has developed an almost notorious reputation in Washington for being a brash personality with a penchant for profanity-laced diatribes. Conversely, his intense nature, in addition to his sharp mind, are what many attribute to his success and effectiveness as a Washington power player. But a recently revealed remark he made in a closed-door meeting attended by White House aides and leaders of liberal special-interest groups has irked many, prompting him to issue an apology.

Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Emanuel, exasperated upon learning that liberal special-interest groups were planning to run ads against conservative Democrats not supportive of health care reform, blasted the plan as "f------ retarded" over the summer. Naturally, some outrage ensued after Emanuel's words came to light, with former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin taking to her Facebook page to call on President Obama to fire him for what she saw as the equivalent of a racial slur.

Palin, whose son Trig is afflicted with Down syndrome, said she was informed of Emanuel's comment by a fellow parent of a special-needs child and pleaded with the president to "show decency" to the political process by "eliminating" the Chicago native from his inner circle.

In a post titled "Are You Capable of Decency, Rahm Emanuel?," Palin wrote, "Just as we’d be appalled if any public figure of Rahm’s stature ever used the 'N-word' or other such inappropriate language, Rahm’s slur on all God’s children with cognitive and developmental disabilities — and the people who love them — is unacceptable," adding, "it's heartbreaking."
post #98 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rourkefan View Post
I am for the first time hoping that Sarah Palin succeeds at something. Mainly, getting Rahm "Ari Gold" Emanuel fired...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl1101
Ari is based on his brother, Ari Emmanuel, not him. Also, Palin backing the progressive play to go after Emmanuel is going to be what saves him. It's like the Catholics calling for the head of Thomas Cromwell.
post #99 of 128
Its also because Rahm is such a corporate whore and is a huge backer of banks, Bernake, and killing the public option.

I bet if Al Franken said "The R Word" the mainstream media would call for his head.
post #100 of 128
Evan Bayh just got a big-name challenger. Howey Politics Indiana is reporting that Dan Coats will announce today that he is running for the Republican nomination to challenge Evan Bayh for his Senate seat. What's interesting is that Dan Coats was the last person to hold Bayh's seat. Coats retired rather than face Bayh in the 1998 election. Bayh was the governor at the time and incredibly popular. It says a lot about the political climate that Coats is finally ready for the fight that he ran from 12 years ago.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › 2010 Midterm Elections