PDA

View Full Version : Election Open Thread


Pages : [1] 2

Don Zeko
11-02-2010, 09:51 PM
I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I'm refreshing 538 and the NYT home page every 5 minutes or so. Anyone have any idea what's going on in PA? Are they just counting Philadelphia and its suburbs right now, or is Sestak really beating the polls?

Don Zeko
11-02-2010, 09:53 PM
NYT says that Alan Grayson is toast. Thank god. Now we won't have to listen to conservatives bleat about him every time someone suggests that the Republican Party is becoming more extreme.

Lmaki
11-02-2010, 09:53 PM
I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I'm refreshing 538 and the NYT home page every 5 minutes or so. Anyone have any idea what's going on in PA? Are they just counting Philadelphia and its suburbs right now, or is Sestak really beating the polls?

I dunno but Runyan is up by 22 in NJ against the Dem Incumbant. Man they hate Christe there...not.

Don Zeko
11-02-2010, 09:54 PM
Looks like Tom Perriello is done too. No surprise there, but it's a shame to see him go.

operative
11-02-2010, 09:58 PM
I dunno but Runyan is up by 22 in NJ against the Dem Incumbant. Man they hate Christe there...not.

Yay :D

I unfortunately can not think of a good offensive lineman joke.


NYT says that Alan Grayson is toast. Thank god.

Ah finally something we can agree on. Grayson was an embarrassment.

You guys still have plenty of embarrassing people--Alcee Hastings, Hank "Islands might flip over" Johnson, probably Jim Moran etc.

Don Zeko
11-02-2010, 10:01 PM
The NYT is calling West Virginia for Manchin. Probably the first bit of genuine good news for Democrats all night.

operative
11-02-2010, 10:02 PM
The NYT is calling West Virginia for Manchin. Probably the first bit of genuine good news for Democrats all night.

Silver had it at only a 10% chance of a takeover so Dems shouldn't be celebrating too much. It would've been a big upset had Raese (a weak candidate by any measure) won.

Lmaki
11-02-2010, 10:02 PM
Blanche Lincoln...toast.

Don Zeko
11-02-2010, 10:04 PM
This is interesting. Heath Schuler and Larry Kissell, representing North Carolina's 8th and 11th districts, are easily the most vulnerable Demcrats in the state. Schuler won narrowly in 2006 and 2008, while Kissell barely lost in 2006 and squeaked into the House in 2008. I figured they were both toast, but with 20% and 47% of precincts reporting, they're both up. And yes, I'm definitely cherry-picking the good news.

operative
11-02-2010, 10:06 PM
This is interesting. Heath Schuler and Larry Kissell, representing North Carolina's 8th and 11th districts, are easily the most vulnerable Demcrats in the state. Schuler won narrowly in 2006 and 2008, while Kissell barely lost in 2006 and squeaked into the House in 2008. I figured they were both toast, but with 20% and 47% of precincts reporting, they're both up. And yes, I'm definitely cherry-picking the good news.

Schuler was a bit safer than you think--Geraghty pegged him to get reelected despite saying R+70 (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/251741).

I still think Kissell is going down.

Lmaki
11-02-2010, 10:06 PM
MI Gov. goes Republican (Snyder)

AemJeff
11-02-2010, 10:07 PM
I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I'm refreshing 538 and the NYT home page every 5 minutes or so. Anyone have any idea what's going on in PA? Are they just counting Philadelphia and its suburbs right now, or is Sestak really beating the polls?

It's TCTC.

Don Zeko
11-02-2010, 10:07 PM
10% reporting, and Sestak is still up. What going on?

operative
11-02-2010, 10:09 PM
MI Gov. goes Republican (Snyder)

One Tough Nerd wins, yay :D

Lmaki
11-02-2010, 10:09 PM
NBC just predicted R's take over House by W I D E margin.

operative
11-02-2010, 10:09 PM
10% reporting, and Sestak is still up. What going on?

Philly reports early, I think.

Lmaki
11-02-2010, 10:11 PM
Philly reports early, I think.

They also vote twice there I understand.

operative
11-02-2010, 10:12 PM
They also vote twice there I understand.

You only get one vote if you're dead though.

Don Zeko
11-02-2010, 10:14 PM
You only get one vote if you're dead though.

William Rehnquist is going to be so disappointed.

Lmaki
11-02-2010, 10:14 PM
Rubio not only wins big but wins better than 50% of the Latino vote. There may be bigger things waiting for this guy.

operative
11-02-2010, 10:15 PM
William Rehnquist is going to be so disappointed.

Ronald Reagan, too.

operative
11-02-2010, 10:16 PM
Rubio not only wins big but wins better than 50% of the Latino vote. There may be bigger things waiting for this guy.

If Obama manages to win reelection in 2012 (big if), I imagine 2016 would be his to lose, barring some sort of unexpected scandal etc.

Lmaki
11-02-2010, 10:17 PM
I think I am going to go pour myself a couple fingers of Four Rose's and celebrate the farewell of Speaker Pelosi.

Don Zeko
11-02-2010, 10:17 PM
Ronald Reagan, too.

I dunno. Reagan didn't get to vote twice when he was alive.

operative
11-02-2010, 10:18 PM
I dunno. Reagan didn't get to vote twice when he was alive.

All the more reason to let him vote twice now that he's dead.

AemJeff
11-02-2010, 10:20 PM
They also vote twice there I understand.

Don't be an asshole. I've been an election official for the past several elections in Philly - they've been routine and orderly, and a cop can be summoned easily. And - "New Black Panthers" are conspicuously rare, not to say nonexistent.

Don Zeko
11-02-2010, 10:35 PM
59% reporting and Kissell is up 52-44. Unfortunately, John Spratt looks like he's in trouble on the other side of the border. 49.3-50.7 with 47% reporting. He's a Davidson alum that I was fortunate enough to meet a couple of times, and he struck me as a pretty bright and honest guy. It'll be sad to see him go if he loses.

Lmaki
11-02-2010, 10:55 PM
Don't be an asshole. I've been an election official for the past several elections in Philly - they've been routine and orderly, and a cop can be summoned easily. And - "New Black Panthers" are conspicuously rare, not to say nonexistent.

Is you being an election official suppose to put Republicans at ease?

Don't be a thin-skinned, humorless, nincompoop.

bjkeefe
11-02-2010, 10:56 PM
They also vote twice there I understand.

Wingnuts just love telling themselves the same lies over and over again, until they start to believe them.

This is a perfect example of why AM radio is so successful, but only for conservative programming.

Lmaki
11-02-2010, 11:03 PM
Humorless, h8ers out in full force.

AemJeff
11-02-2010, 11:11 PM
Is you being an election official suppose to put Republicans at ease?

Don't be a thin-skinned, humorless, nincompoop.

Do you think I care about your ease? I have no sense of humor about lies regarding the conduct of politics in my home-town; I'm an eyewitness and a participant in the process. I take it personally. I also don't like crypto-racist bullshit like mandacious New Black Panther fairy-stories cooked up by the mouth breathers at Fox and in the Right-o-Sphere and repeated as Gospel by morons in the tea Party.

operative
11-02-2010, 11:12 PM
Do you think I care about your ease? I have no sense of humor about lies regarding the conduct of politics in my home-town; I'm an eyewitness and a participant in the process. I take it personally. I also don't like crypto-racist bullshit like mandacious New Black Panther fairy-stories cooked up by the mouth breathers at Fox and in the Right-o-Sphere and repeated as Gospel by morons in the tea Party.

Right because a NBP guy didn't show up with a club and shout at white voters. That's all make believe.

Lmaki
11-02-2010, 11:15 PM
Do you think I care about your ease? I have no sense of humor about lies regarding the conduct of politics in my home-town; I'm an eyewitness and a participant in the process. I take it personally. I also don't like crypto-racist bullshit like mandacious New Black Panther fairy-stories cooked up by the mouth breathers at Fox and in the Right-o-Sphere and repeated as Gospel by morons in the tea Party.

Jeff, come on, are you serious?

Oh and by the way Corbett is your Governor. I think your precinct put him over the top. Thanks for your stellar conduct in making that happen. You can be proud.

operative
11-02-2010, 11:16 PM
Speaking of crypto-racist stuff, Sestak is still leading. His campaign was no better than Jesse Helms' last run for the Senate and the Dems should be ashamed of themselves if he wins.

Lmaki
11-02-2010, 11:18 PM
Side Note: Bristol Palin survived on Dancing with the Stars. ;)

bjkeefe
11-02-2010, 11:19 PM
Humorless, h8ers out in full force.

Yep. It's always "just joking" for guys like you, isn't it? And your heroes, like Rush? Always a bunch of big yuks. But that doesn't change the reality of my point -- that the audience for AM hate radio laps this stuff up and repeats it like it's gospel truth.

Lmaki
11-02-2010, 11:21 PM
Guy Benson Tweet:

"Bachmann being interviewed on MSNBC. Sign in background: "How's the tingle, Chris?" Even Olby is laughing."

Lmaki
11-02-2010, 11:31 PM
TX Gov. Rick "Better than Barry" Perry

Friend for Life, Stupak GONE!

operative
11-02-2010, 11:36 PM
Toomey is now slightly ahead. This is the one senate race that I genuinely care about. Sestak ran such a dishonorable campaign and he is utterly undeserving of victory.

bjkeefe
11-02-2010, 11:40 PM
Ding-dong, the witch is dead (http://www.google.com/search?q=o%27donnell+loses&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=nl&source=univ&tbs=nws:1&tbo=u&ei=rcnQTNfHFo21ngfl8eijDA&sa=X&oi=news_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQqAIwAA).

Bets on her being hired by Fox within the month?

Also, Oklahoma passed its ban on Sharia law (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/?story=/politics/war_room/2010/11/02/oklahoma_sharia_law_ban). Hurrah, America is safe for teabagging everywhere!

(And O'Donnell won't have to wear a burqa on Fox!)

operative
11-02-2010, 11:40 PM
Feingold has officially lost. I like the guy on a personal level, but I'm happy to see the GOP get the seat.

Lmaki
11-02-2010, 11:41 PM
Feingold has officially lost. I like the guy on a personal level, but I'm happy to see the GOP get the seat.

Trounced actually...like 15 pts.

operative
11-02-2010, 11:41 PM
Ding-dong, the witch is dead (http://www.google.com/search?q=o%27donnell+loses&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=nl&source=univ&tbs=nws:1&tbo=u&ei=rcnQTNfHFo21ngfl8eijDA&sa=X&oi=news_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQqAIwAA).

Bets on her being hired by Fox within the month?

Not too likely. She can always run for Senate again though.


Also, Oklahoma passed its ban on Sharia law (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/?story=/politics/war_room/2010/11/02/oklahoma_sharia_law_ban). Hurrah, America is safe for teabagging everywhere!

Clearly Oklahomans have their priorities in order.

bjkeefe
11-02-2010, 11:42 PM
... the Founding Fathers (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/11/02/in-victory-speech-rand-paul-misquotes-thomas-jefferson/)?

(Maybe he is certified by a different Thomas Jefferson.)

chiwhisoxx
11-02-2010, 11:42 PM
America is a much, much, much better country now that Charlie Crist is nowhere near the levers of power.

Maybe MSNBC hires Alan Grayson? CNN set the bar pretty low by hiring Eliot Spitzer, but maybe MSNBC could one up them in the slimy awful human being department!

operative
11-02-2010, 11:42 PM
Trounced actually...like 15 pts.

Yeah I'd rather that Sestak was the one getting trounced. Unfortunately "I HATE FOREIGNERS!!!" still gets you a long way.

Lmaki
11-02-2010, 11:43 PM
Early results, I understand, were urban areas. Toomey should be fine.

operative
11-02-2010, 11:44 PM
... the Founding Fathers (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/11/02/in-victory-speech-rand-paul-misquotes-thomas-jefferson/)?

(Maybe he is certified by a different Thomas Jefferson.)

I think that quote is actually a paraphrasing of V for Vendetta...

operative
11-02-2010, 11:45 PM
Early results, I understand, were urban areas. Toomey should be fine.

I've been following it here:
http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/

Toomey was behind by 80,000 up until about 77% was in. Apparently some suburban areas north of Philly were a bit late reporting in and Toomey creamed Sestak there. I was absolutely on pins and needles though--the thought of a Sestak victory just utterly turns my stomach.

operative
11-02-2010, 11:47 PM
America is a much, much, much better country now that Charlie Crist is nowhere near the levers of power.

Indeed. He defines the term "political whore."



Maybe MSNBC hires Alan Grayson? CNN set the bar pretty low by hiring Eliot Spitzer, but maybe MSNBC could one up them in the slimy awful human being department!

I give him six months or under for getting a show on MSNBC.

Also, it's great to see Nikki Haley win in SC. That along with Tim Scott's impending victory in the House will show that SC has moved beyond its ignominious past.

bjkeefe
11-02-2010, 11:48 PM
Important Conservative Intellectual Jonah Goldberg says GOP is already in trouble (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/john-boehner-tea-party-110210):

The coming GOP congressional surge will inevitably lead to a lot of disarray on the right. There will be infighting, bickering and charges of betrayal aplenty. The tea-infused populists will bark — and sometimes bite — the so-called elitists. Many in the Republican establishment will, in turn, show no small amount of ingratitude to the populists who breathed new life into it.

I guess if liberals are the real fascists, then it only makes sense that winning is the new kiss of death.

Lmaki
11-02-2010, 11:49 PM
NM elects first hispanic female Gov. Republican!

bjkeefe
11-02-2010, 11:52 PM
America is a much, much, much better country now that Charlie Crist is nowhere near the levers of power.

We shall see. Rubio seems more corrupt to me, and we know he's more wingnutty.

Maybe MSNBC hires Alan Grayson? CNN set the bar pretty low by hiring ...

Erick Erickson. Correct. In fact, it is not possible for the bar to get any lower than that.

chiwhisoxx
11-02-2010, 11:52 PM
Important Conservative Intellectual Jonah Goldberg says GOP is already in trouble (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/john-boehner-tea-party-110210):



I guess if liberals are the real fascists, then it only makes sense that winning is the new kiss of death.

Did you just want to type pantload because it makes you giggle? Cause that statement doesn't seem terribly controversial.

bjkeefe
11-02-2010, 11:56 PM
Did you just want to type pantload because ...

It's his name (http://www.google.com/search?q=doughy+pantload). Try to keep up.

Lmaki
11-02-2010, 11:56 PM
Did you just want to type pantload because it makes you giggle? Cause that statement doesn't seem terribly controversial.

How about panty load? Or in other words...

Has anyone seen Joy Behar?

chiwhisoxx
11-03-2010, 12:00 AM
It's his name (http://www.google.com/search?q=doughy+pantload). Try to keep up.

i'm aware of the unfunny smear, it still seems like you just linked it so you could repeat the unfunny smear.

I don't like getting this contentious with you, because it rarely leads to good places, but this kind of gets me going. It isn't because my first true love is Jonah Goldberg. It's because you seem to have moments of extreme sensitivity to racism and what you consider to be smears. And then you go around throwing around words like pantload and teabagging. Some consistency would be nice.

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 12:00 AM
Hurrah for the Empire State! Paladino getting trounced (http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/governor), NYT has already called it.

Governor Cuomo. Don't you just love the sound of that? Let's see if Andrew can measure up to his father.

Stand by while furious typing appears about how back then NY was a tyranny with no freedom of speech, from operative, in 5..., 4..., 3...

[Added] At the same link, results for Colorado governor are in. Hickenlooper (D) for the win. Looks like it's UN bicycles for all! (9% for the GOP at this point. Ouch. 36% for that Tancredo guy Palin likes, who hates the foreigns, especially the Messikins.)

operative
11-03-2010, 12:00 AM
Brown wins, California confirms its rank stupidity.

operative
11-03-2010, 12:02 AM
Cuomo beating Paladino means about as much as DeMint beating Greene.

Lmaki
11-03-2010, 12:03 AM
Huge surprise. Thanks for sharing.

John McCain won. BTW.

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 12:05 AM
Huge surprise. Thanks for sharing.

You're welcome.

John McCain won. BTW.

Yeah, but it was fun watching him panic and set the last shreds of his credibility on fire to do so.

Lmaki
11-03-2010, 12:05 AM
Boxer too. Sad state.

operative
11-03-2010, 12:05 AM
Huge surprise. Thanks for sharing.

John McCain won. BTW.

So much for the opera singer.

operative
11-03-2010, 12:06 AM
Boxer too. Sad state.

My reaffirmed message for California: Secede, save us from your stupidity.

Lmaki
11-03-2010, 12:08 AM
I was hoping he might sacrifice his daughter in the final push myself. (someone tell Jeff that I am just kidding)

In another race...Michelle Bachman cruising.

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 12:10 AM
i'm aware of the unfunny smear, it still seems like you just linked it so you could repeat the unfunny smear.

I don't like getting this contentious with you, because it rarely leads to good places, but this kind of gets me going. It isn't because my first true love is Jonah Goldberg. It's because you seem to have moments of extreme sensitivity to racism and what you consider to be smears. And then you go around throwing around words like pantload and teabagging. Some consistency would be nice.

First: never forget that the teabaggers chose that name for themselves (http://images.google.com/images?q=teabag+the+liberals+dems&biw=1311&bih=766). And then the GOP spent quite a while with stunts like sending teabags through their website. Maybe I'd have let them off the hook for their cluelessness had the right not spent the last forty years hammering on the idea that "liberal" was an dirty word.

Second: There's a difference between potty mouth and racist remarks. There's also a difference between talking about an individual whose nicknames are earned by the shit that comes out of his mouth and casting aspersions on huge groups of people whose only commonality is skin tone or ethnic origin.

You better get used to a big uptick in rancor. Your side has the last two years of hate-mongering to answer for, and now that your side has had this big winning day, and thinks it's running the place, you're going to get back what you've been dishing out. In spades.

operative
11-03-2010, 12:12 AM
First: never forget that the teabaggers chose that name for themselves. Maybe I'd have let them off the hook for their cluelessness had the right not spent the last forty years hammering on the idea that "liberal" was an dirty word.

Second: There's a difference between potty mouth and racist remarks. There's also a difference between talking about an individual whose nicknames are earned by the shit that comes out of his mouth and casting aspersions on huge groups of people whose only commonality is skin tone or ethnic origin.

You better get used to a big uptick in rancor. Your side has the last two years to answer for, and now that your side has had this big winning day, and thinks its running the place, you're going to get what you've been dishing out.

As if the left didn't spend the 8 years of the Bush presidency doing the exact same thing. Come on now.

operative
11-03-2010, 12:16 AM
Giannoulias burst out of the gate but now it looks like Kirk is coming back, saving the Senate from having to seat a mob banker after all.

chiwhisoxx
11-03-2010, 12:17 AM
First: never forget that the teabaggers chose that name for themselves (http://images.google.com/images?q=teabag+the+liberals+dems&biw=1311&bih=766). And then the GOP spent quite a while with stunts like sending teabags through their website. Maybe I'd have let them off the hook for their cluelessness had the right not spent the last forty years hammering on the idea that "liberal" was an dirty word.

Second: There's a difference between potty mouth and racist remarks. There's also a difference between talking about an individual whose nicknames are earned by the shit that comes out of his mouth and casting aspersions on huge groups of people whose only commonality is skin tone or ethnic origin.

You better get used to a big uptick in rancor. Your side has the last two years of hate-mongering to answer for, and now that your side has had this big winning day, and thinks it's running the place, you're going to get back what you've been dishing out. In spades.

I thought you got annoyed when we lumped all "liberals" together and assumed they acted and felt the same? I suggest you not do the same with conservatives. Nut-picking a few guys who did the teabagging thing to then claim you can label thousands (millions? I dunno) with a gross/offensive label doesn't really track. You can rationalize it however you want, but it comes off as hypocrisy, and it's annoying.

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 12:19 AM
I was hoping he might sacrifice his daughter in the final push myself.

I could stand never to hear about her again myself.

In another race...Michelle Bachman cruising.

I wouldn't bet against her, but I wouldn't count my chickens too soon there. She's only up 10K votes with 40% reporting.

[Added] Never mind. The NYT has called it for her.

Hard to believe anyone, even a conservative Republican, would be happy about her representing the party for another two years, but I guess the divide is turning into a chasm.

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 12:20 AM
As if the left didn't spend the 8 years of the Bush presidency doing the exact same thing. Come on now.

"The left?" What, a few bloggers, while the MSM tongue-bathed him for three years and the RWNM for six?

Given that he was the worst president of the modern era, by far, he got off easy.

operative
11-03-2010, 12:22 AM
"The left?" What, a few bloggers, while the MSM tongue-bathed him for three years and the RWNM for six?

Given that he was the worst president of the modern era, by far, he got off easy.

Well I say Carter is by far, but I'm sure you knew that already.

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 12:23 AM
I thought you got annoyed when we lumped all "liberals" together and assumed they acted and felt the same? I suggest you not do the same with conservatives. Nut-picking a few guys who did the teabagging thing to then claim you can label thousands (millions? I dunno) with a gross/offensive label doesn't really track. You can rationalize it however you want, but it comes off as hypocrisy, and it's annoying.

That was an especially weak false equivalence. Calling a group of people who call themselves "tea partiers" teabaggers is hardly the same thing as saying all conservatives think alike.

You'll also note, if you have paid attention, that I choose between the two terms, depending on whether I am talking about something crazy or not, just as I chose between "conservatives" and "wingnuts," as appropriate.

chiwhisoxx
11-03-2010, 12:27 AM
That was an especially weak false equivalence. Calling a group of people who call themselves "tea partiers" teabaggers is hardly the same thing as saying all conservatives think alike.

You'll also note, if you have paid attention, that I choose between the two terms, depending on whether I am talking about something crazy or not, just as I chose between "conservatives" and "wingnuts," as appropriate.

I don't think I phrased my point very well. I was going for equivalence, just making a point about painting with a broad brush. Anyways, I'm not sure how heroic you are for occasionally saying wingnut instead of teabagger...I don't think wingnut is a particularly productive term either. But I know I'm not going to talk you out of this, so oh well. You're obviously free to use whatever terms you want.

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 12:35 AM
I don't think I phrased my point very well. I was going for equivalence, just making a point about painting with a broad brush.

Good evening, Dr. Freud. (Emph. added.)

Anyways, I'm not sure how heroic you are for occasionally saying wingnut instead of teabagger...

Can you even read the words that appear on the screen in front of your face (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=186301#post186301)?

I said I choose between tea partier and teabagger, analogously to the way I choose between conservative and wingnut. It depends whether I'm talking about the subgroup of crazies or not.

Spend less time trying to manage my behavior, and more time on proof-reading and reading comprehension, would be my advice.

operative
11-03-2010, 12:36 AM
Good news: You might hang on to Harry Reid.
Bad news: You might be stuck with Harry Reid.

Congrats on having two more years of the moron pugilist as your majority leader.

chiwhisoxx
11-03-2010, 12:37 AM
Good evening, Dr. Freud. (Emph. added.)



Can you even read the words that appear on the screen in front of your face (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=186301#post186301)?

I said I choose between tea partier and teabagger, analogously to the way I choose between conservative and wingnut. It depends whether I'm talking about the subgroup of crazies or not.

Spend less time trying to manage my behavior, and more time on proof-reading and reading comprehension, would be my advice.

Since I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant in both cases, you could spend less time nannying people about minor typing mistakes on the internet. Seems like there are more productive ways to spend time.

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 12:42 AM
Good news: You might hang on to Harry Reid.

You serious? Seems a bit early to be celebrating yet.

But if your early call is right ...

Bad news: You might be stuck with Harry Reid.

... I'll take it, and gladly. Just about anything is better than Sharron Angle, and Harry Reid is at least a bit better than just anything.

Congrats on having two more years of the moron pugilist as your majority leader.

If Reid is a moron, there is no word to describe whatever it is that is between Angle's ears.

AemJeff
11-03-2010, 12:42 AM
I don't think I phrased my point very well, but I'm not sure wingnut is a particularly productive term either.

Meh. It's a sneer, and there are people - Palin, Breibart, Erick Erickson, Michelle Bachmann, Pamela Gellar... - for whom such a sneer seems completely appropriate, even necessary. (I'm really not making a partisan point here I think, "wingnuts" aren't the only species we could talk about.)

operative
11-03-2010, 12:43 AM
You serious? Seems a bit early to be celebrating yet.

But if your early call is right ...



... I'll take it, and gladly. Just about anything is better than Sharron Angle, and Harry Reid is at least a bit better than just anything.



If Reid is a moron, there is no word to describe whatever it is that is between Angle's ears.

The difference is that you guys are stuck with Reid as the leader of your party in the Senate, whereas we would've just shut Angle in a little corner of the floor.

Honestly, given the likely pickups in 12, and the prospect of Schumer likely doing a better job than Reid as majority leader, I'm not too disappointed.

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 12:45 AM
Meh. It's a sneer, and there are people - Palin, Breibart, Erick Erickson, Michelle Bachmann, Pamela Gellar... - for whom such a sneer seems completely appropriate, even necessary. (I'm really not making a partisan point here I think, "wingnuts" aren't the only species we could talk about.)

Correct. There are moonbats and firebaggers and glibertarians and Randroids ... we got all kinds of crazy in this country.

And I really do think it's useful to have these terms. They are far better than saying "the right" or "the left," for sure.

chiwhisoxx
11-03-2010, 12:46 AM
You serious? Seems a bit early to be celebrating yet.

But if your early call is right ...



... I'll take it, and gladly. Just about anything is better than Sharron Angle, and Harry Reid is at least a bit better than just anything.



If Reid is a moron, there is no word to describe whatever it is that is between Angle's ears.

Personally, I think Angle kind of looks like a bat. Anyone else see it?

operative
11-03-2010, 12:49 AM
Personally, I think Angle kind of looks like a bat. Anyone else see it?

I can see it a little.

The other good result of Reid winning is that now the Tea Party will probably get a bit more tactical with their endorsements. No more Angle, no more Paladino, no more O'Donnell. Tea Partiers got behind plenty of great candidates this time around, but hopefully next time around they won't get behind any disasters.

chiwhisoxx
11-03-2010, 12:49 AM
Oh god. For some reason John Boehner started crying on national televsion....something about the American dream.

Who knew oranges had tear ducts!

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 12:52 AM
The difference is that you guys are stuck with Reid as the leader of your party in the Senate, whereas we would've just shut Angle in a little corner of the floor.

Here, I am truly setting aside partisan concerns. Here, I am thinking only of my country. Angle truly frightens me.

There is no shutting a Senator into a corner, as I'm sure a moment's thought about, say, Jim Bunning will remind you. One Senator can stop a bill or an appointment that literally the whole rest of the country wants, and though that scenario is unlikely, it is not an exaggeration.

Honestly, given the likely pickups in 12, and the prospect of Schumer likely doing a better job than Reid as majority leader, I'm not too disappointed.

Eh. I like some things about Chuck -- he's certainly more entertaining on camera and I like his pugnacity. But he's also an easier target for the right (it never failed to amuse me when seeing flyers in my email from the RNC during HCR, trying to gin up outrage about Harry Reid of all people), and one more Senate seat held is one more Senate seat held.

operative
11-03-2010, 12:53 AM
Oh god. For some reason John Boehner started crying on national televsion....something about the American dream.

Who knew oranges had tear ducts!

Yeah the choking up was a bit surprising.

Strickland went down. I'm honestly a bit surprised--I thought that he might pull it off. Happy to see him go though.

AemJeff
11-03-2010, 12:53 AM
Oh god. For some reason John Boehner started crying on national televsion....something about the American dream.

Who knew oranges had tear ducts!

Heh. That seemed transparently corny to me, but I figured I'm just out of touch. I'm glad to hear at least one conrservative thought it was as stupid as I did.

operative
11-03-2010, 12:55 AM
Here, I am truly setting aside partisan concerns. Here, I was thinking only of my country. There is no shutting a Senator into a corner, as I'm sure a moment's thought about, say, Jim Bunning will remind you. One Senator can stop a bill or an appointment that literally the whole rest of the country wants, and though that scenario is unlikely, it is not an exaggeration.

That's true, but I do think Angle would've been a team player, which, ironically enough, Bunning never was.



Eh. I like some things about Chuck -- he's certainly more entertaining on camera and I like his pugnacity. But he's also an easier target for the right (it never failed to amuse me when seeing flyers in my email from the RNC during HCR, trying to gin up outrage about Harry Reid of all people), and one more Senate seat held is one more Senate seat held.

He's more traditionally liberal than Reid for sure. But in spite of this, I think he has better rapport with GOP senators, and certainly better leadership and communication skills.

AemJeff
11-03-2010, 01:06 AM
Did you just want to type pantload because it makes you giggle? Cause that statement doesn't seem terribly controversial.

By the way Chi - I'm not particularly fond of that label, either; but cripes if it isn't true that Jonah earns the ridicule (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/252258/wow-jonah-goldberg) he's subjected to in spades:

I think Boehner is trying valiantly not to cry. It’s really quite touching and humanizing.

Added:

Special bonus K-Lo stupidity! "Wingnut" does not have the necessary scope to contain the utter inanity of this woman (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/252266/re-wow-kathryn-jean-lopez):


There’s an authenticity about the man — you heard it during the health-care fight. You heard it tonight.

Don Zeko
11-03-2010, 01:06 AM
Eh. I like some things about Chuck -- he's certainly more entertaining on camera and I like his pugnacity. But he's also an easier target for the right (it never failed to amuse me when seeing flyers in my email from the RNC during HCR, trying to gin up outrage about Harry Reid of all people), and one more Senate seat held is one more Senate seat held.

I'd much rather have Reid in charge of the caucus than Schumer. I think Reid's done a very good job in extremely tough circumstances, and considering how close he is with Wall Street, I think Schumer already has too much influence within the party.

P.S. Although on second thought, I suppose getting promoted to majority leader might get him out of the Finance committee.

operative
11-03-2010, 01:07 AM
I'd much rather have Reid in charge of the caucus than Schumer. I think Reid's done a very good job in extremely tough circumstances, and considering how close he is with Wall Street, I think Schumer already has too much influence within the party.

What are your thoughts on Durbin?

Don Zeko
11-03-2010, 01:09 AM
What are your thoughts on Durbin?

I don't know a whole lot about him. He seems to be a pretty genuine liberal, but I've got no idea how effective he would be at keeping the caucus together on tough votes.

chiwhisoxx
11-03-2010, 01:11 AM
I don't know a whole lot about him. He seems to be a pretty genuine liberal, but I've got no idea how effective he would be at keeping the caucus together on tough votes.

Personal bias aside, I have some experience with Dick Durbin, being from Illinois and all. You're better off with Schumer. I don't know how they'd be at herding cats, but I find Schumer to come off as considerably more impressive when speaking.

operative
11-03-2010, 01:12 AM
I don't know a whole lot about him. He seems to be a pretty genuine liberal, but I've got no idea how effective he would be at keeping the caucus together on tough votes.

He's another one who I'd rate as a better leader than Reid.

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 01:12 AM
I'd much rather have Reid in charge of the caucus than Schumer. I think Reid's done a very good job in extremely tough circumstances, and considering how close he is with Wall Street, I think Schumer already has too much influence within the party.

I was going to say something more about Reid having done a good job, and I think I did earlier, when you weighed in on this. I agree. I get the sense he might be pretty good at actually doing things in the Senate.

I don't know enough about Schumer to say whether I agree or disagree about his having too much influence. I know he's one of the top dogs, of course, but "too much?" Just don't know.

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 01:15 AM
Oh god. For some reason John Boehner started crying on national televsion....

No one could have predicted.

JonIrenicus
11-03-2010, 01:38 AM
Is Reid so far ahead of Sharron? Those pollsters need to be fired. That or Reid really has alot of goodwill with the casino bosses getting their workers out to vote, among other groups..

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 01:38 AM
... for Wyden (D), by the NYT. Currently 57%-40%, with 61% reporting.

The WTF candidate (?) is third, with 1%. Oh, wait. W dot F dot. Must be Working Families or some nauseating name like that.

The NYT has the Senate score at 49(D)-43(R), with 8 still up in the air.

Don Zeko
11-03-2010, 02:04 AM
Is Reid so far ahead of Sharron? Those pollsters need to be fired. That or Reid really has alot of goodwill with the casino bosses getting their workers out to vote, among other groups..

Beats me, but I'm not arguing with it. I thought that Angle-friendly precincts were getting counted last, but Nate Silver's liveblogging says that the early returns are consistent with a narrow Reid win.

Don Zeko
11-03-2010, 02:05 AM
...and the NYT has called it for Reid. Score 1 for the idiocy of tea party tactical radicalism.

JonIrenicus
11-03-2010, 02:11 AM
...and the NYT has called it for Reid. Score 1 for the idiocy of tea party tactical radicalism.

I don't mind Reid staying as much as Boxer staying. I really wanted Fiorina to win. The totals are damn near even but it's been called for Boxer. Must have a lower % of votes reported in from the more slacker run democrat heavy counties.

I kid the democrats.

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 02:11 AM
Is Reid so far ahead of Sharron? Those pollsters need to be fired. That or Reid really has alot of goodwill with the casino bosses getting their workers out to vote, among other groups..

Once again, it can't be that the Democrat won legitimately, can it? That he has been closing for weeks, and likely not a few people came to their senses in the booth, contemplating making that utter loon Angle their next Senator.

People think Twin and I exaggerate when we bring this up, but it's the first thing (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=186249#post186249) all too many conservatives think.

Yes, yes. I know you're going to claim you're only "joking." Just like Lmaki (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=186258#post186258).

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 02:13 AM
Another victory for decency.

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 02:18 AM
The legalize pot one was defeated, sadly.

Hopeful note: the "only simple majority needed to pass state budget" is leading by 7 points. I don't know any details, but the title of it accords with something I've been hoping for since living there, and continue to, for their sake. Anyone know anything about it?

JonIrenicus
11-03-2010, 02:22 AM
Once again, it can't be that the Democrat won legitimately, can it? That he has been closing for weeks, and likely not a few people came to their senses in the booth, contemplating making that utter loon Angle their next Senator.

People think Twin and I exaggerate when we bring this up, but it's the first thing (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=186249#post186249) all too many conservatives think.

Yes, yes. I know you're going to claim you're only "joking." Just like Lmaki (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=186258#post186258).

Never said any of the turnout was illegitimate. Anymore than poking a bunch of younger people into voting (who tend to align with more liberal views).

But I do have a question for you. Do you think there is such a thing as a "quality of the electorate?"

Is the quality (in terms of political interest, knowledge of issues, etc.) higher or lower when a larger % of the electorate was barely plucked from disinterest and made aware of issues on the fly?

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 02:23 AM
... governor of RI. Always liked him.

Won as an Independent, beating the Rep and the Dem 36.1-33.6-23.0.

Sadly, the ballot initiative to shorten the official state name was defeated in a landslide. The State of Rhode Islands and Providence Plantations it will remain.

CAN WE REALLY AFFORD THAT MUCH EXTRA TONER?

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 02:30 AM
Never said any of the turnout was illegitimate. Anymore than poking a bunch of younger people into voting (who tend to align with more liberal views).

Eh, if you say so. The thing about the "casinos" was pretty heavy-handed, notwithstanding, as was the suggestion that the workers are just a bunch of dummies to be herded.

Which, I notice, you go on to reinforce.

But I do have a question for you. Do you think there is such a thing as a "quality of the electorate?"

Do I think people who get all their news from Fox, Rush, Beck, and Sarah Palin's Facebook and Twitter feeds should be allowed to vote? Is that what you're asking?

Oh, no. I guess not.

Is the quality (in terms of political interest, knowledge of issues, etc.) higher or lower when a larger % of the electorate was barely plucked from disinterest and made aware of issues on the fly?

Why don't you put that back where you pulled it out of? And give your tired bigotry about liberals being dumb/uninformed/apathetic a rest for a change?

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 02:34 AM
NYT says with 28% reporting, Joe Palin-Miller is on the short end of a 39.4-34.2 count, to "Write-ins."

Might get interesting! How many ways can you misspell "Murkowski" and still have made your intent clear?

(McAdams, the Dem, has 25.3% of the vote.)

chiwhisoxx
11-03-2010, 02:48 AM
... governor of RI. Always liked him.

Won as an Independent, beating the Rep and the Dem 36.1-33.6-23.0.

Sadly, the ballot initiative to shorten the official state name was defeated in a landslide. The State of Rhode Islands and Providence Plantations it will remain.

CAN WE REALLY AFFORD THAT MUCH EXTRA TONER?

There was a ballot initiative to shorten the state name? Oy...

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 02:52 AM
There was a ballot initiative to shorten the state name? Oy...

You had to have lived there to begin to understand this one.

nikkibong
11-03-2010, 02:59 AM
You had to have lived there to begin to understand this one.

this.

you're dead wrong, IMO, on Chaffee, but i don't have the energy or inclination to argue about it. the last lincoln (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Almond) didn't work out that great, either.

we can both be happy that my old neighbor, david cicciline, however, won the vacant house seat....

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 03:06 AM
this.

you're dead wrong, IMO, on Chaffee, but i don't have the energy or inclination to argue about it.

Okay, fine, and I'll admit that I don't know him well, but a quick review of his post-Senate activities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Chafee#Post-Senate_activities) and his positions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Chafee#Political_positions) makes him seem as good as I remember.

... the last lincoln (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Almond) didn't work out that great, either.

Worst attempt at guilt by association ever. (Except for: Do you what know Hitler's REAL first name was??? HMMM???)

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 03:11 AM
NYT says with 28% reporting, Joe Palin-Miller is on the short end of a 39.4-34.2 count, to "Write-ins."

Might get interesting! How many ways can you misspell "Murkowski" and still have made your intent clear?

(McAdams, the Dem, has 25.3% of the vote.)

UPDATE: with 40% reporting, it's 39.4-34.6. Joementum!

JonIrenicus
11-03-2010, 03:22 AM
..

Why don't you put that back where you pulled it out of? And give your tired bigotry about liberals being dumb/uninformed/apathetic a rest for a change?

{Q reads the above and declares the writer an obtuse piece of flotsam}



Never said republicans are immune from this, it influenced Angle getting chosen as well as Christine O'Donnell. There is such a thing as liking the result of the way people vote without being particularly proud of how and what got them there.


...(sees Boxer making victory speech..)

guys, need to go take care of this bile forming in my throat.

Don Zeko
11-03-2010, 03:25 AM
Looks like Colorado is shaping up to be a nail-biter. with 70% counted, Buck leads Bennet by just over 4,000 votes.

Don Zeko
11-03-2010, 03:28 AM
Two questions:
1: If Murkowski wins, how will she caucus and vote?
2: If she becomes the Joe Lieberman of the Right, will that make 3 Senate seats that the Tea Partiers cost the Republicans?

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 03:29 AM
The People's Kenyan Republic of Exotic Indonesia has decided to send Daniel Inouye back to the Senate.

nikkibong
11-03-2010, 03:31 AM
Two questions:
1: If Murkowski wins, how will she caucus and vote?
2: If she becomes the Joe Lieberman of the Right, will that make 3 Senate seats that the Tea Partiers cost the Republicans?

isn't she basically a standard issue conservative republican? won't she vote accordingly? or do you suppose she'll pull a lieberman out of personal pique?

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 03:34 AM
Two questions:
1: If Murkowski wins, how will she caucus and vote?
2: If she becomes the Joe Lieberman of the Right, will that make 3 Senate seats that the Tea Partiers cost the Republicans?

No solid idea how she'll vote. I stopped paying much attention soon after the primary, because I thought Sarah's pick was a lock. I'd like to imagine she'll have some resentment, but if I had to bet right now, I'd bet she'll Graciously Accept an invitation to caucus with the Reps. I also think she will be a lot more loyal to them than Holy Joe is to the Dems.

Update: with 51% reporting, "Write-Ins" is leading Joe Miller 39.5-34.7.

There are probably 200 lawyers booking flights as we speak.

Don Zeko
11-03-2010, 03:34 AM
isn't she basically a standard issue conservative republican? won't she vote accordingly? or do you suppose she'll pull a lieberman out of personal pique?

It's possible. I certainly wouldn't want to underestimate the pettiness of Senators, and the fact that she's running a write-in campaign after losing the primary suggests a pretty high level of personal pique is at play here.

P.S.: write-ins lead Miller 39.5%-34.7% with 51% reporting. Senator Merkuwski[sic] is looking like a fact of life at this point.

Don Zeko
11-03-2010, 03:35 AM
Or not. Buck's up by almost 7,000 with 70% reporting.

Don Zeko
11-03-2010, 03:39 AM
Looks like 52-48 Dems in the Senate, barring some recounts or party-switching shenanigans. Any filibuster apologists care to do an over-under on how many federal judges are confirmed by the next Congress? How many major pieces of legislation pass a cloture resolution?

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 03:39 AM
There is such a thing as liking the result of the way people vote without being particularly proud of how and what got them there.

And with that, Captain Obvious withdraws.

...(sees Boxer making victory speech..)

guys, need to go take care of this bile forming in my throat.

After, of course, being unable to restrain himself from confirming what I was saying the whole time.

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 03:41 AM
Looks like 52-48 Dems in the Senate, barring some recounts or party-switching shenanigans. Any filibuster apologists care to do an over-under on how many federal judges are confirmed by the next Congress? How many major pieces of legislation pass a cloture resolution?

One of the Wonkette livebloggers asked earlier if anyone knew of a parliamentary maneuver to bypass the filibuster and the House.

Also, what is taking the people of Washington so long? I'd like to nail that one down, so I can go to bed. (Probably using Microsoft Ballot Counter Pro 98.)

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 04:17 AM
It's possible. I certainly wouldn't want to underestimate the pettiness of Senators, and the fact that she's running a write-in campaign after losing the primary suggests a pretty high level of personal pique is at play here.

That's plausible. Another possibility: She views herself as, "I'm the REAL Republican here, and the write-in was just to put things back how they were meant to be."

P.S.: write-ins lead Miller 39.5%-34.7% with 51% reporting. Senator Merkuwski[sic] is looking like a fact of life at this point.

And now for another update: with 58% reporting, "Write-Ins" leads Miller 39.2-35.5.

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 04:25 AM
And now for another update: with 58% reporting, "Write-Ins" leads Miller 39.2-35.5.

And now for another: with 68% reporting, "Write-Ins" is up 39.3-35.3.

rfrobison
11-03-2010, 04:39 AM
...
[Added] At the same link, results for Colorado governor are in. Hickenlooper (D) for the win. Looks like it's UN bicycles for all! (9% for the GOP at this point. Ouch. 36% for that Tancredo guy Palin likes, who hates the foreigns, especially the Messikins.)

For what it's worth (I didn't receive an absentee ballot this time around for whatever reason) this Colorado Republican is ready to uncork the champagne over Tancredo's loss (and Palin's). I have no clue about Hickenlooper's GOP opponent, and apparently the voters didn't either.

Hickenlooper's a former businessman and strikes me as a pragmatist, though I know nothing about him at all, really.

I can live with it--especially as it looks like Colorado has a few more Republicans in Congress after tonight (today where I am).

TwinSwords
11-03-2010, 07:45 AM
Eh, if you say so. The thing about the "casinos" was pretty heavy-handed, notwithstanding
Let's not overlook the fact that this happens all over corporate America, as well. The Fortune 40 multinational I work for has made it crystal clear to employees since 2008 that it expected employees to vote Republican. My company spent MILLIONS of dollars in this cycle to elect Republicans at every level of government (local, state, federal), in almost every state. Wealth I helped to create is used to undermine my own political interests.

In a similar vein, I have a friend who works for a medium-sized private corporation. He has been getting emails every 3 or 4 months since Obama was inaugurated blaming various layoffs, wage freezes or reductions, benefit cuts, etc., on Obama. The first came immediately after the inauguration -- in January 2008. The company laid off hundreds of its employees and the owner/president of the company sent an email to employees that said the company was "forced" to lay people off because of Obama's policies -- just days after he took office. And it was the first of a series of similar emails. The most recent was last week.

Funny how these things never make the news, and are never the cause of wingut/psychopath fauxrage. In fact, I bet that JonIrenicus would have no trouble at all justifying it.

operative
11-03-2010, 10:25 AM
Another victory for decency.

Nothing says decency like a man whose boyfriend was running a prostitution ring from their apartment. Yeah, Frank's a real standup guy.

operative
11-03-2010, 10:28 AM
One of the Wonkette livebloggers asked earlier if anyone knew of a parliamentary maneuver to bypass the filibuster and the House.

"Democracy? We don't need no stinkin' Democracy. Let them eat cake!"

Don Zeko
11-03-2010, 10:34 AM
Wait, you think the filibuster has anything to do with democracy?

operative
11-03-2010, 10:38 AM
Wait, you think the filibuster has anything to do with democracy?

Yes. It's put in place to be a measure against tyranny of the majority.

Trying to essentially bypass the House and the Filibuster would make the Democrats the first openly dictatorial ruling body in American history. If it wasn't for the damage it would do the country I'd almost hope for it since it would utterly, permanently destroy the party.

chiwhisoxx
11-03-2010, 11:32 AM
Looks like 52-48 Dems in the Senate, barring some recounts or party-switching shenanigans. Any filibuster apologists care to do an over-under on how many federal judges are confirmed by the next Congress? How many major pieces of legislation pass a cloture resolution?

It's looking more like 53 46 right now...with write in candidate whose name I don't dare speak floating somewhere in the nether regions of the senate.

operative
11-03-2010, 11:34 AM
She'll line back up with the GOP and saddle us with her rampant pork barrel spending for another 6 years. The west coast just loves their pork queens apparently--Murray, Boxer, Murkowski.

operative
11-03-2010, 12:24 PM
Democrats can take heart though--they didn't get Joe "I HATE THE CHINESE" Sestak, but they kept Lauretta "I HATE THE VIETNAMESE" Sanchez. That combined with Hank "Soldiers might cause islands to flip" Johnson, Alcee "Threatening my opponent's life is good campaigning" Hastings, etc. means the Democrats in Washington will give us plenty more bigotry, stupidity, and incompetence.

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 12:49 PM
For what it's worth (I didn't receive an absentee ballot this time around for whatever reason) this Colorado Republican is ready to uncork the champagne over Tancredo's loss ...

Always nice to find common ground, isn't it? Tancredo is what's left after you think you're done scraping the bottom of the barrel.

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 12:53 PM
Nothing says decency like a man whose boyfriend was running a prostitution ring from their apartment. Yeah, Frank's a real standup guy.

If you want to get into dubious past associates, from a quarter-century ago, no less none of us is without blemish.

And if that's all you got against Frank, he's way better than most politicians. Thanks for helping to make my point.

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 12:56 PM
It's looking more like 53 46 right now...with write in candidate whose name I don't dare speak floating somewhere in the nether regions of the senate.

Whoa. Late surge in Colorado, huh?

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 12:58 PM
"Democracy? We don't need no stinkin' Democracy. Let them eat cake!"

Ah, so it was fine when your buddies were making jokes about Democrats stealing elections, but when something patently absurd is said, all of the sudden you're not okay with jokes, huh?

graz
11-03-2010, 01:06 PM
Democrats can take heart though--they didn't get Joe "I HATE THE CHINESE" Sestak, but they kept Lauretta "I HATE THE VIETNAMESE" Sanchez. That combined with Hank "Soldiers might cause islands to flip" Johnson, Alcee "Threatening my opponent's life is good campaigning" Hastings, etc. means the Democrats in Washington will give us plenty more bigotry, stupidity, and incompetence.

As a special-blessed-underpants wearin' Morman, at least you can take comfort in the "We hate the Gays" success in Iowa:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/anti-gay_groups_defeat_iowa_supreme_court_justices.php

stephanie
11-03-2010, 01:26 PM
It's possible. I certainly wouldn't want to underestimate the pettiness of Senators, and the fact that she's running a write-in campaign after losing the primary suggests a pretty high level of personal pique is at play here.

She's a standard issue Alaska Republican (which is neither precisely the same thing as a conservative Republican nor a Palin). Assuming she wants to keep the seat longterm, which it appears she does, she'll caucus with the Republicans and generally vote with them.

It's an internal fight in the AK Republican Party, but Murkowski winning this is part of her wing's hope that they will win the whole thing and control the statewide party again.

nikkibong
11-03-2010, 01:44 PM
Okay, fine, and I'll admit that I don't know him well, but a quick review of his post-Senate activities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Chafee#Post-Senate_activities) and his positions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Chafee#Political_positions) makes him seem as good as I remember.



Worst attempt at guilt by association ever. (Except for: Do you what know Hitler's REAL first name was??? HMMM???)

yes, he inherited some good positions from his father. also, all of his jobs. of course, i take issue with chaffee's desire (http://www.projo.com/news/content/chafee_announces_01-05-10_3IH0FE5_v19.3b4095c.html) to slap regressive taxes on medicine, food, and clothes. yes, he wants RI to join beacons of progressivism like Alabama, Tennessee and Mississippi and tax groceries. i'm not surprised that billionaire plutocrat mike bloomberg endorsed him. hopefully, the dem-dominated legislature will smack chaffee down.

were you in RI in the sundlun era? one thing fun about living in providence was constantly running into local pols. i remember one time, when i was a little kid, pulling up at a red light right next to Governor Almond's limo. naturally, i waved at him. he winked at me!

TwinSwords
11-03-2010, 01:46 PM
Democrats can take heart though--they didn't get Joe "I HATE THE CHINESE" Sestak, but they kept Lauretta "I HATE THE VIETNAMESE" Sanchez.
Is there actually any evidence that Sestak hates the Chinese, or are you just lying again?

nikkibong
11-03-2010, 01:51 PM
Is there actually any evidence that Sestak hates the Chinese, or are you just lying again?

er, twin, he produced an ad attacking toomey for having praised the fact that china is being lifted out of third world conditions.

see this jim fallows post:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/the-wrong-way-to-use-the-china-menace/65306/

it takes a special kind of moral idiocy to say that the fact that hundreds of millions out of people are being lifted out of miserable poverty is a bad thing.

let me quote fallows here:

The "smoking gun" quote against Toomey, his having once said "It's great that China is modernizing and growing" -- where do I start? Maybe here and here. It would be worse for the U.S. if China were stagnating and stewing. There are problems from a prospering China, sure. But the problems from a billion people unhappily moving backward would be worse.

stephanie
11-03-2010, 01:53 PM
Is there actually any evidence that Sestak hates the Chinese, or are you just lying again?

Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCtDW12e5oA) the ad in question.

I think the characterization of it is bizarre (and hardly representative of an attitude unique to Dems), but I'm also hoping that the end of these elections means that we won't have to have dumb discussions about campaign rhetoric for a while.

nikkibong
11-03-2010, 01:55 PM
Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCtDW12e5oA) the ad in question.

I think the characterization of it is bizarre (and hardly representative of an attitude unique to Dems), but I'm also hoping that the end of these elections means that we won't have to have dumb discussions about campaign rhetoric for a while.

stephanie, that is not the ad. see my post right above yours.

TwinSwords
11-03-2010, 01:55 PM
It's possible. I certainly wouldn't want to underestimate the pettiness of Senators, and the fact that she's running a write-in campaign after losing the primary suggests a pretty high level of personal pique is at play here.

Certainly it's fair to accuse Murkowski of pique, but you don't need to go there to justify or explain her decision to run as a write-in, especially given that she might actually win. Liebermann vs. Lamont demonstrated that a candidate can still win statewide even if he (or she) can't win among more ideologically zealous primary voters. While I didn't like the Lamont/Lieberman result, I'll be delighted if Murkowski's maneuver keeps an authoritarian pig like Miller out of the US Senate*, and I think she would have been foolish to pass up the chance. Can't really fault her for trying. And she'd be doing the country a great service by beating Miller.

* At least until Begich loses to him in 2014.

TwinSwords
11-03-2010, 01:58 PM
Many thanks to you both for the links. I'm going to lunch now and have meetings all afternoon, but will have a look later.

stephanie
11-03-2010, 02:06 PM
stephanie, that is not the ad. see my post right above yours.

It's both, they are similar ads, making the same point. I forgot that Operative considers the fortune cookie bit the smoking gun, though.

I still consider the characterization of the ads bizarre. They aren't high-minded in their rhetoric, but I don't think ads about trade deals are unfair, whatever side of the issue one is on. I think there should be more open discussion of the underlying concerns (outsourcing, the death of American industry), since this is what the Republicans are supposedly going to make all better with tax cuts.

I don't even agree with Sestak on the underlying issue, probably, but the idea that talking contrary to free trade is some unacceptable campaign tactic just seems an effort to keep off the table issues that people are really concerned about, but on which the leadership of both parties are basically in agreement.

nikkibong
11-03-2010, 02:08 PM
It's both, they are similar ads, making the same point. I forgot that Operative considers the fortune cookie bit the smoking gun, though.



no, they're not.

the one you linked to is entirely legitimate -- it hammers toomey for his support for free trade.

the one i linked to knocks toomey for saying that the modernization of china is a great thing.

they're completely different.

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 02:22 PM
yes, he inherited some good positions from his father. also, all of his jobs.

Hardly unique to our political class. Since this phenomenon -- a troublesome one, I agree -- is so widespread, I think we have to write that off as a significant black mark, in and of itself, and judge the individual by how he or she performed since getting into these positions. And looked at in that light, Lincoln showed by his votes a lot of courage and independence as a Senator.

of course, i take issue with chaffee's desire (http://www.projo.com/news/content/chafee_announces_01-05-10_3IH0FE5_v19.3b4095c.html) to slap regressive taxes on medicine, food, and clothes. yes, he wants RI to join beacons of progressivism like Alabama, Tennessee and Mississippi and tax groceries. i'm not surprised that billionaire plutocrat mike bloomberg endorsed him. hopefully, the dem-dominated legislature will smack chaffee down.

As a rallying cry, the above works, and I see the reporter had no trouble finding an "OMG HE'S TAXING THE POOR!!!1!" quote from someone. However, I am not completely against consumption taxes, even on these items. Most food and clothing items are luxuries, when you come right down to it, and at the necessities level, we do have food stamps and other assistance programs. Same goes for a lot of over-the-counter drugs. (BTW, it was a bit misleading of you to have said "medicine" here -- that word connotes prescription medications to me, and I suspect I'm not alone in this.)

Bear in mind, also, that according to your source, Chafee was talking about a two-tiered system, such that these items would be taxed, yes, but at a lower rate than the standard sales tax rate.

I don't love that the people just above the threshold of eligibility to receive assistance would be disproportionately burdened relative to their means. But no program is perfect, and if a few pennies on the dollar for necessities is really that much of a hit, then maybe we can bump up the cutoff line for assistance, it seems to me. Most people who can afford to buy their own food, clothing, and OTC drugs are not going to be crippled by this. Most of them will hardly even notice it.

The reality is, there's a political limit to how much you can get from income and property taxes, and unless you're willing to make more draconian cuts -- which will likely mean other hits to the lower echelons -- the money has to come from somewhere.

If you don't agree, you don't agree. But a plan like this seems fairly pragmatic to me, not nearly as Dickensian as it can be spun, and is certainly not something that would make me think ill of a gubernatorial candidate.

were you in RI in the sundlun era? one thing fun about living in providence was constantly running into local pols. i remember one time, when i was a little kid, pulling up at a red light right next to Governor Almond's limo. naturally, i waved at him. he winked at me!

Heh. No. I was in CA by then. I was in RI when the big name was Buddy Cianci, and I used to see him around. Somehow, I managed to avoid getting beat up by his henchmen. ;)

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 03:28 PM
How many teabagger darlings won, and how many lost?

In the Senate, I can think of Marco Rubio and Rand Paul who won, and Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle who lost. I won't count Joe Miller as a loss yet, but we can safely say that he was voted against by about two-thirds of Alaskans casting ballots.‡

In gubernatorial races, Paladino lost.

Also, how many Palin endorsees won, and how many lost?

In addition to the teabaggers listed above, I think she endorsed Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman in CA, both of whom lost. I know she endorsed Tom Tancredo in CO, who lost.

She gets a W for Nikki Haley in SC.

I have to think that it didn't go too well for her. Plain numbers (e.g. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vote-2010-election-sarah-palins-endorsements-mixed-bag/story?id=12041219), e.g. (http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/11/palin-awol-on-c.php)) don't much tell the story,* because how many already-sure-thing candidates did she endorse? (We will not discuss her motivations regarding this aspect.)

Given that Texas4Palin already has a post up howling (http://texas4palin.blogspot.com/2010/11/corrupt-media-spins-gov-palins.html), "Corrupt media spins Gov. Palin's endorsements (Updated)," I'd have to say that things did not go as well as Queen Esther's apostles had hoped.

==========
* [Added] Although more comprehensive ones might help jog your memory. This one from the NYDN (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/11/03/2010-11-03_sarah_palins_endorsements_less_than_half_of_the _tea_party_favorites_picks_win_on.html) is pretty good.

[Added2] Looks like this should do it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/palin_tracker/) for the Palin question.

==========
‡ Correction: the closing phrase originally said "counting ballots."

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 03:55 PM
The totals are damn near even but it's been called for Boxer. Must have a lower % of votes reported in from the more slacker run democrat heavy counties.

I kid the democrats.

That was an interesting observation. IIRC, when you put up your post, Boxer was only up by a tenth of a percent or so.

Turns out she won 52-42. I wonder what people who called it knew at the time. Exit polls, maybe?

popcorn_karate
11-03-2010, 05:49 PM
As a rallying cry, the above works, and I see the reporter had no trouble finding an "OMG HE'S TAXING THE POOR!!!1!" quote from someone. However, I am not completely against consumption taxes, even on these items. Most food and clothing items are luxuries, when you come right down to it, and at the necessities level, we do have food stamps and other assistance programs. Same goes for a lot of over-the-counter drugs. (BTW, it was a bit misleading of you to have said "medicine" here -- that word connotes prescription medications to me, and I suspect I'm not alone in this.)

do you favor the flat tax too? the arguments you mount in favor of this regressive taxation scheme could just as easily support that.

chiwhisoxx
11-03-2010, 06:08 PM
That was an interesting observation. IIRC, when you put up your post, Boxer was only up by a tenth of a percent or so.

Turns out she won 52-42. I wonder what people who called it knew at the time. Exit polls, maybe?

I think it probably has more to do with which precincts had already reported, and which precincts are likely to favor which candidates. Although I wouldn't be surprised if exits were part of it too.

handle
11-03-2010, 06:20 PM
-10991 now NikkiB... what a race eh? Think it's gonna be the dem by half a nose..or not.

handle
11-03-2010, 06:23 PM
-10991 now NikkiB... what a race eh? Think it's gonna be the dem by half a nose..or not.

...fingernails gone... moving to toenails.

nikkibong
11-03-2010, 06:24 PM
-10991 now NikkiB... what a race eh? Think it's gonna be the dem by half a nose..or not.

i know!! . . . i suspect my neighbors here in multnomah county will put kitz over the edge. i blame the damn bay area transplants voting Robo-Dem. (shouldnt moderate republicans like dudley be *encouraged?*)

can we institute a five year waiting period before californians get suffrage after moving to oregon? (rhode islanders would have no waiting period?) or a california poll tax? nah, take that back: instituting a tax would only encourage californians to vote. ;)

but hey . . ."we'll always have ron wyden."

nikkibong
11-03-2010, 06:35 PM
If you don't agree, you don't agree. But a plan like this seems fairly pragmatic to me, not nearly as Dickensian as it can be spun, and is certainly not something that would make me think ill of a gubernatorial candidate.



we don't agree. as "pragmatic" as it may look on the state's balance sheet, it strikes me as morally reprehensible to further burden the poorest residents of the state. and, on principle, i'd prefer their money not confiscated in the first place, rather than tax them and return some of the value through food stamps and other social services.

"moderates" and "pragmatic" politicians love to strike a "serious" pose dedicated to taxing the poor. note the sainted "Reasonable Republican" caucus who wants to impose a national sales tax.

handle
11-03-2010, 06:36 PM
LOL but it's been a pretty blue stronghold for a very long time.
No third party con this time and it's a mega squeeker... I'd wish you luck, but I don't want to cause a butterfly effect!

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 06:38 PM
do you favor the flat tax too?

No. On income tax (assuming that's what you mean), I favor a progressive tax, and further, one that is continuous, as opposed to being step-wise (i.e., a system that has income brackets). Generally, I also favor some starting amount of income tax that would not be taxed, so this continuous progressive tax rate wouldn't begin until the first dollar past that point.

... the arguments you mount in favor of this regressive taxation scheme could just as easily support that.

Only if you see things in terms of black and white, I think. Being okay with a small consumption tax (especially one lower than the standard sales tax), along with a possible adjustment of the threshold for eligibility for food stamps and other assistance*, is admittedly mildly regressive, but it is hardly as blunt as favoring a flat income tax. It seems to me a reasonable solution in the face of political and fiscal realities, that's all.

And come to that, it could also be used as a negotiating point if you also wanted to ask for a mild uptick in some other forms of taxes predominately paid by the better-off.

==========

* Or perhaps a debit card with some amount of credit issued each year, that could be used at checkout stands to pay the consumption tax.

nikkibong
11-03-2010, 06:39 PM
LOL but it's been a pretty blue stronghold for a very long time.
No third party con this time and it's a mega squeeker... I'd wish you luck, but I don't want to cause a butterfly effect!

you got it in the bag, i think. unless they "find" some car trunks full of uncounted Dudley votes down in central point or over in beautiful maupin....

handle
11-03-2010, 06:49 PM
you got it in the bag, i think. unless they "find" some car trunks full of uncounted Dudley votes down in central point or over in beautiful maupin....

-10781 holy smokes.

chiwhisoxx
11-03-2010, 07:02 PM
i know!! . . . i suspect my neighbors here in multnomah county will put kitz over the edge. i blame the damn bay area transplants voting Robo-Dem. (shouldnt moderate republicans like dudley be *encouraged?*)

can we institute a five year waiting period before californians get suffrage after moving to oregon? (rhode islanders would have no waiting period?) or a california poll tax? nah, take that back: instituting a tax would only encourage californians to vote. ;)

but hey . . ."we'll always have ron wyden."

Wyden always struck me as one of the more reasonable Democrats in the Senate. It's telling that Ron Wyden was never seriously in trouble in this election cycle, even though in neighboring Washington (which from what I understand, has demographics more favorable to democrats) Patti Murray is still in a dog fight.

popcorn_karate
11-03-2010, 07:10 PM
it strikes me as morally reprehensible to further burden the poorest residents of the state. and, on principle, i'd prefer their money not confiscated in the first place, rather than tax them and return some of the value through food stamps and other social services.

YES!!!!

anytime you are taking money and handing it straight back to the people you got it from you have a needlessly wasteful system. plus, you then encourage more government encroachment into the lives of the poor by vindictive right wingers or overly solicitous lefties.

popcorn_karate
11-03-2010, 07:11 PM
i know!! . . . i suspect my neighbors here in multnomah county will put kitz over the edge. i blame the damn bay area transplants voting Robo-Dem. (shouldnt moderate republicans like dudley be *encouraged?*)

can we institute a five year waiting period before californians get suffrage after moving to oregon? (rhode islanders would have no waiting period?) or a california poll tax? nah, take that back: instituting a tax would only encourage californians to vote. ;)

but hey . . ."we'll always have ron wyden."

old retired californians are the hardcore base of republicanism in southern oregon - so careful what you wish for.

AemJeff
11-03-2010, 07:12 PM
How many teabagger darlings won, and how many lost?

In the Senate, I can think of Marco Rubio and Rand Paul who won, and Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle who lost. I won't count Joe Miller as a loss yet, but we can safely say that he was voted against by about two-thirds of Alaskans counting ballots.

In gubernatorial races, Paladino lost.

Also, how many Palin endorsees won, and how many lost?

In addition to the teabaggers listed above, I think she endorsed Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman in CA, both of whom lost. I know she endorsed Tom Tancredo in CO, who lost.

She gets a W for Nikki Haley in SC.

I have to think that it didn't go too well for her. Plain numbers (e.g. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vote-2010-election-sarah-palins-endorsements-mixed-bag/story?id=12041219), e.g. (http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/11/palin-awol-on-c.php)) don't much tell the story,* because how many already-sure-thing candidates did she endorse? (We will not discuss her motivations regarding this aspect.)

Given that Texas4Palin already has a post up howling (http://texas4palin.blogspot.com/2010/11/corrupt-media-spins-gov-palins.html), "Corrupt media spins Gov. Palin's endorsements (Updated)," I'd have to say that things did not go as well as Queen Esther's apostles had hoped.

==========
* [Added] Although more comprehensive ones might help jog your memory. This one from the NYDN (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/11/03/2010-11-03_sarah_palins_endorsements_less_than_half_of_the _tea_party_favorites_picks_win_on.html) is pretty good.

[Added2] Looks like this should do it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/palin_tracker/) for the Palin question.

Also, the losers two years ago got more votes than the winners last night, across the board.

operative
11-03-2010, 07:28 PM
no, they're not.

the one you linked to is entirely legitimate -- it hammers toomey for his support for free trade.

the one i linked to knocks toomey for saying that the modernization of china is a great thing.

they're completely different.

Yes. While I don't agree with those who are against free trade, I can understand running ads that favor protectionism. That is hugely different than running ads criticizing your opponent for daring to think that Chinese peoples' living standards going up is a bad thing.

Re the fortune cookie, the fortune cookie is not Chinese. It is something that is in American Chinese restaurants. So to me that said one of two things. Either:
1) The Democrats were entirely irresponsible and ignorant and didn't realize or research this, or:
2) The Democrats were intentionally running ads to appeal to people who hate 'foreigners'--both those overseas and those who happen to be newer immigrants to the country.

Given the other contents of Sestak ads, I came to the unfortunate conclusion that #2 was far more likely. Sestak was trying to appeal to white antipathy toward newer immigrants. And I find that to be utterly revolting.

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 07:29 PM
Also, the losers two years ago got more votes than the winners last night, across the board.

Sad reality of midterm elections, in fairness.

operative
11-03-2010, 07:30 PM
How many teabagger darlings won, and how many lost?

In the Senate, I can think of Marco Rubio and Rand Paul who won, and Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle who lost. I won't count Joe Miller as a loss yet, but we can safely say that he was voted against by about two-thirds of Alaskans casting ballots.‡

In gubernatorial races, Paladino lost.

Also, how many Palin endorsees won, and how many lost?

In addition to the teabaggers listed above, I think she endorsed Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman in CA, both of whom lost. I know she endorsed Tom Tancredo in CO, who lost.

She gets a W for Nikki Haley in SC.

I have to think that it didn't go too well for her. Plain numbers (e.g. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vote-2010-election-sarah-palins-endorsements-mixed-bag/story?id=12041219), e.g. (http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/11/palin-awol-on-c.php)) don't much tell the story,* because how many already-sure-thing candidates did she endorse? (We will not discuss her motivations regarding this aspect.)

Given that Texas4Palin already has a post up howling (http://texas4palin.blogspot.com/2010/11/corrupt-media-spins-gov-palins.html), "Corrupt media spins Gov. Palin's endorsements (Updated)," I'd have to say that things did not go as well as Queen Esther's apostles had hoped.

==========
* [Added] Although more comprehensive ones might help jog your memory. This one from the NYDN (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/11/03/2010-11-03_sarah_palins_endorsements_less_than_half_of_the _tea_party_favorites_picks_win_on.html) is pretty good.

[Added2] Looks like this should do it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/palin_tracker/) for the Palin question.

==========
‡ Correction, the closing phrase said "counting ballots."

Good candidates (Haley particularly) won. Bad candidates (Home run Paladino) lost. Not much surprise there. Sometimes Dems pick good candidates (Mark Warner). Sometimes they pick terrible ones (Martha Coakley). Same for non Tea Party Republicans. TPers happened to pick one bafflingly awful candidate (O'Donnell), one loose cannon (Paladino), and one very bad candidate (Angle). Not much different than anyone else.

I think that it's great that two states (and two southern states, no less) have Indian American governors. Even Democrats who disagree with Jindal and Haley on many issues should be able to see that it's a good thing that our political leadership is diversifying.

operative
11-03-2010, 07:36 PM
Ah, so it was fine when your buddies were making jokes about Democrats stealing elections, but when something patently absurd is said, all of the sudden you're not okay with jokes, huh?

The thing is that I don't think it's a joke. Nancy Pelosi seriously floated the idea of deem and pass for the health care bill.

Now I'm sure that you're going to disagree with this, but I nevertheless will say it:
I see a greater acceptance of authoritarian thought on the left than the right. There are several members of Congress are on record praising Fidel Castro. The intellectual left in the country has traditionally been very fond of various lefty tyrants. Etc.

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 07:37 PM
we don't agree.

Fine. But ...

as "pragmatic" as it may look on the state's balance sheet, it strikes me as morally reprehensible to further burden the poorest residents of the state. and, on principle, i'd prefer their money not confiscated in the first place, rather than tax them and return some of the value through food stamps and other social services.

You've misrepresented two of my points. First: I suggested a way to deal with the poorest residents -- by adjusting upward the cutoff point for assistance. (And note elsewhere (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=186461&highlight=debit#post186461) that I proposed another way to help.) Second: people who are eligible for food stamps would not be paying tax on their food purchases. (At least, if I were designing the system.)

As to your brief mention of "other social services," I'd say it deserves a bit more than that glossing over. Suppose the other social services in danger of being cut are police and fire protection, or heating assistance, or keeping medical clinics and emergency rooms open? Wouldn't it be okay with you to tax everyone a little bit to pay for these, if that's the only way you could get the money? Or would you rather just cut those services, which would inevitably happen first in the poorest neighborhoods, instead?

"moderates" and "pragmatic" politicians love to strike a "serious" pose dedicated to taxing the poor. note the sainted "Reasonable Republican" caucus who wants to impose a national sales tax.

Yeah, well, other people like to let loose with a bunch of emotional appeals and an overuse of scare quotes, and I don't see those as universally helpful, either. Particularly when such people blur the original argument with well-worn tropes and attempts at guilt by association.

Bear in mind that we were talking about something quite specific here: a small tax on certain items in one state. Let's not get carried away with extrapolations just because you don't like my original answers.

operative
11-03-2010, 07:39 PM
If you want to get into dubious past associates, from a quarter-century ago, no less none of us is without blemish.

And if that's all you got against Frank, he's way better than most politicians. Thanks for helping to make my point.

I think Frank's a very smart and witty guy, don't get me wrong. I just don't think he's been the most upstanding of members of Congress.

bjkeefe
11-03-2010, 07:43 PM
Wyden always struck me as one of the more reasonable Democrats in the Senate. It's telling that Ron Wyden was never seriously in trouble in this election cycle, even though in neighboring Washington (which from what I understand, has demographics more favorable to democrats) Patti Murray is still in a dog fight.

How sure are you about the part I bolded? I used to know some people who lived there, and they say the eastern part of the state is quite red -- more like Idaho than Seattle. Could be it's changed since then, and in any case, I'm asking, not disputing.

chiwhisoxx
11-03-2010, 07:59 PM
How sure are you about the part I bolded? I used to know some people who lived there, and they say the eastern part of the state is quite red -- more like Idaho than Seattle. Could be it's changed since then, and in any case, I'm asking, not disputing.

Not sure at all; read it somewhere, I don't remember where.

handle
11-03-2010, 08:39 PM
you got it in the bag, i think. unless they "find" some car trunks full of uncounted Dudley votes down in central point or over in beautiful maupin....

No votes "found" in Maupin, sorry Nik. -5454
Between 'em I think it came to around 16 bucks a vote, there's some stimulus right there.

nikkibong
11-03-2010, 09:12 PM
Wyden always struck me as one of the more reasonable Democrats in the Senate. It's telling that Ron Wyden was never seriously in trouble in this election cycle, even though in neighboring Washington (which from what I understand, has demographics more favorable to democrats) Patti Murray is still in a dog fight.

i'm sure he and murray have roughly identical voting records. why is he "reasonable" and she not?

wyden won in a walk because his opponent was an underfunded, uncharismatic dud. paradoxically, my guess is that it was because his opponent was NOT a raving TP favorite that he got no traction. he did nothing to draw attention to himself, a la rand paul.

the fact that wyden is a fine senator had little to do with his win -- look at russ feingold.

nikkibong
11-03-2010, 09:13 PM
How sure are you about the part I bolded? I used to know some people who lived there, and they say the eastern part of the state is quite red -- more like Idaho than Seattle. Could be it's changed since then, and in any case, I'm asking, not disputing.

big time. but nobody lives there. it's becoming near impossible for Republicans to win statewide in WA. kinda like . . . OR.

nikkibong
11-03-2010, 09:16 PM
Yes. While I don't agree with those who are against free trade, I can understand running ads that favor protectionism. That is hugely different than running ads criticizing your opponent for daring to think that Chinese peoples' living standards going up is a bad thing.

Re the fortune cookie, the fortune cookie is not Chinese. It is something that is in American Chinese restaurants. So to me that said one of two things. Either:
1) The Democrats were entirely irresponsible and ignorant and didn't realize or research this, or:
2) The Democrats were intentionally running ads to appeal to people who hate 'foreigners'--both those overseas and those who happen to be newer immigrants to the country.

Given the other contents of Sestak ads, I came to the unfortunate conclusion that #2 was far more likely. Sestak was trying to appeal to white antipathy toward newer immigrants. And I find that to be utterly revolting.

i basically agree with your analysis of sestak, but it's silly to lay the whole mess at the feet of the "democrats."

can you imagine russ feingold or ron wyden engaging in such shameless pandering to bigots and know-nothings?

nikkibong
11-03-2010, 09:20 PM
No votes "found" in Maupin, sorry Nik. -5454
Between 'em I think it came to around 16 bucks a vote, there's some stimulus right there.

damn.

does dr. kitzhaber do assisted suicides? because that's what he's got planned for the state's economy!

;;rim shot;;

oh, burn!

kudos.

operative
11-03-2010, 09:24 PM
i basically agree with your analysis of sestak, but it's silly to lay the whole mess at the feet of the "democrats."

can you imagine russ feingold or ron wyden engaging in such shameless pandering to bigots and know-nothings?

Thankfully not. I just wanted to remind certain folks that while you can find GOPers who run rather unseemly ads and making dumb statements, you can also find Democrats doing the same thing.

handle
11-03-2010, 09:42 PM
damn.

does dr. kitzhaber do assisted suicides? because that's what he's got planned for the state's economy!

;;rim shot;;

oh, burn!

kudos.

LOL.. thanks!

Lmaki
11-03-2010, 10:10 PM
I don't have the desire to go read the whole stream of consciousness (or unconsciousness) above but I wanted to bring up a couple very positive aspects of last nights election that may be even more important than the 60+? house seats and 6 Senate seats obtained. Although, first I wanted to verify something that I am not quite sure about. Is it true that no incumbant Republican Senators lost and only 3 Republican Representatives lost? Amazing.

The point I wanted to bring up (and I realize this will be to the dismay of some here) is that yesterday NINETEEN State Legislatures switched from being run by a Democrat majority to that of a Republican one and NONE went the other way. Unless I am mistaken, before the election Democrats had a 27-14 advantage and this puts things at 33-8, the other way. This alone is significant but what makes it more so is this is the year of the census. Districts are redrawn by these legislatures when they convene next year, pretty much however they see fit. Do you realize what this means? I would like to introduce you to my little friend, Gerald Mander. There is going to be alot of crying about this in the near future, but alls one has to do is look at what the Dems have done in this area and all remorse will be lifted.

I suppose I will not get too many high fives on this one...and please excuse my happy dance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw3rPL0fOFM).

Don Zeko
11-03-2010, 10:57 PM
The thing is that I don't think it's a joke. Nancy Pelosi seriously floated the idea of deem and pass for the health care bill.

You do realize that Deem and Pass would involve a bill that has already passed both houses of congress, correct? I think Deem & Pass was a dumb idea, but the notion that Deem & Pass or eliminating the filibuster constitute authoritarian behavior is just completely absurd. Oh, and it's also laughably hypocritical coming from someone that's comfortable with the Bush (and now the Obama) Administration's claims of executive power.

operative
11-04-2010, 12:26 AM
You do realize that Deem and Pass would involve a bill that has already passed both houses of congress, correct? I think Deem & Pass was a dumb idea, but the notion that Deem & Pass or eliminating the filibuster constitute authoritarian behavior is just completely absurd. Oh, and it's also laughably hypocritical coming from someone that's comfortable with the Bush (and now the Obama) Administration's claims of executive power.

Deem and pass was proposed to be used to get the bill through--while versions of it had passed, an exact copy had not passed both houses of congress, so the fact that other versions passed is fairly immaterial.

TwinSwords
11-04-2010, 12:28 AM
Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCtDW12e5oA) the ad in question.

I think the characterization of it is bizarre (and hardly representative of an attitude unique to Dems), but I'm also hoping that the end of these elections means that we won't have to have dumb discussions about campaign rhetoric for a while.

Thanks again Stephanie and Nikkibong for providing the links. I agree with you, Stephanie: the characterization is bizarre. Operative has been lying about this for a long time; I'm glad I was able to finally see the ads myself: there is nothing in them to support the claim that Sestak hates the Chinese, or that he's a bigot.

TwinSwords
11-04-2010, 12:30 AM
the one i linked to knocks toomey for saying that the modernization of china is a great thing.
True. But not because Sestak is opposed to the modernization of China. He was simply trying to make Toomey appear to be more concerned about jobs in China than jobs in the US. It may not be a position or a tactic you approve of, but it's nothing like "hate" or "bigotry," as operative is well aware.

operative
11-04-2010, 12:31 AM
True. But not because Sestak is opposed to the modernization of China. He was simply trying to make Toomey appear to be more concerned about jobs in China than jobs in the US. It may not be a position or a tactic you approve of, but it's nothing like "hate" or "bigotry," as operative is well aware.

Give me a break.

operative
11-04-2010, 12:33 AM
Thanks again Stephanie and Nikkibong for providing the links. I agree with you, Stephanie: the characterization is bizarre. Operative has been lying about this for a long time; I'm glad I was able to finally see the ads myself: there is nothing in them to support the claim that Sestak hates the Chinese, or that he's a bigot.

Yeah except that Sestak thinks that being happy that living standards have improved for Chinese people is a good thing is bad. And using a completely non Chinese (but definitively Chinese-American) fortune cookie to vilify Toomey. No different than if he used a piece of fried chicken and a watermelon to vilify a black candidate. But then if it was a liberal you'd have no problem with that. Because lefties can do no wrong in your book.

So let's be clear:
Twinswords: "RIGHT WING RACISTS GRRR1"
Joe Sestak: "I HATE DIRTY CHINKS AND THEY SHOULD ALL BE POOR AND STARVING, PAT TOOMEY IS A CHINK LOVER!!"
Twinswords: "Move long, nothing to see. Grr, right wing bigotry!"

TwinSwords
11-04-2010, 12:34 AM
Yes. While I don't agree with those who are against free trade, I can understand running ads that favor protectionism. That is hugely different than running ads criticizing your opponent for daring to think that Chinese peoples' living standards going up is a bad thing.

Re the fortune cookie, the fortune cookie is not Chinese. It is something that is in American Chinese restaurants. So to me that said one of two things. Either:
1) The Democrats were entirely irresponsible and ignorant and didn't realize or research this, or:
2) The Democrats were intentionally running ads to appeal to people who hate 'foreigners'--both those overseas and those who happen to be newer immigrants to the country.

Given the other contents of Sestak ads, I came to the unfortunate conclusion that #2 was far more likely. Sestak was trying to appeal to white antipathy toward newer immigrants. And I find that to be utterly revolting.

ROFL. What hysterical nonsense. You don't even believe this yourself, operative.

TwinSwords
11-04-2010, 12:35 AM
Yeah except that Sestak thinks that being happy that living standards have improved for Chinese people is a good thing is bad. And using a completely non Chinese (but definitively Chinese-American) fortune cookie to vilify Toomey. No different than if he used a piece of fried chicken and a watermelon to vilify a black candidate. But then if it was a liberal you'd have no problem with that. Because lefties can do no wrong in your book.

So let's be clear:
Twinswords: "RIGHT WING RACISTS GRRR1"
Joe Sestak: "I HATE DIRTY CHINKS AND THEY SHOULD ALL BE POOR AND STARVING, PAT TOOMEY IS A CHINK LOVER!!"
Twinswords: "Move long, nothing to see. Grr, right wing bigotry!"

http://www.thecentralword.com/forums/images/smilies/extra/crazy.gif http://www.thecentralword.com/forums/images/smilies/extra/crazy.gif http://www.thecentralword.com/forums/images/smilies/extra/crazy.gif

operative
11-04-2010, 12:35 AM
ROFL. What hysterical nonsense. You don't even believe this yourself, operative.

Blind partisanship is unbecoming.

operative
11-04-2010, 12:36 AM
http://www.thecentralword.com/forums/images/smilies/extra/crazy.gif http://www.thecentralword.com/forums/images/smilies/extra/crazy.gif http://www.thecentralword.com/forums/images/smilies/extra/crazy.gif

It's pretty clear that as long as one represents the far left of the Democrat party, they can run blatantly racist campaigns and you will not object. Which is rather unbecoming of you.

Don Zeko
11-04-2010, 01:13 AM
Deem and pass was proposed to be used to get the bill through--while versions of it had passed, an exact copy had not passed both houses of congress, so the fact that other versions passed is fairly immaterial.

Look, I'm not actually suggesting that Deem & Pass was a good idea; I'll even grant that it would have been pretty dirty pool to pass the ACA in that way. But you described it as "authoritarian behavior." That's crazy. The differences between the House and Senate bills were minor, and they would have been smaller than that if we actually had anything close to majority rule in the Senate. It's not like Pelosi could have gotten away with it if her caucus actually didn't support the bill; they just wanted some silly way to avoid another tough vote for marginal members. There was never any chance of a bill passing that didn't command majority support in the House.

But never mind all that. Let's get back to authoritarian behavior. You seem to think that phrase evokes parliamentary maneuvers in a democratically elected legislature with real policy-making capability. I, on the other hand, think that it might more logically include things like secret extrajudicial imprisonment, torture, and killing of people. It continues to boggle my mind that people who buy into the Cheneyite version of executive power so love to call the other side of the political spectrum fascists and authoritarians nowadays. How on earth does one convince oneself that jailing citizens without any legal recourse indefinitely is a normal and non-threatening part of national defense, but regulating air pollution is part of the Liberal Fascist agenda?

bjkeefe
11-04-2010, 01:44 AM
big time. but nobody lives there. it's becoming near impossible for Republicans to win statewide in WA. kinda like . . . OR.

Okay, thanks.

bjkeefe
11-04-2010, 01:51 AM
Look, I'm not actually suggesting that Deem & Pass was a good idea; I'll even grant that it would have been pretty dirty pool to pass the ACA in that way. But you described it as "authoritarian behavior." That's crazy. The differences between the House and Senate bills were minor, and they would have been smaller than that if we actually had anything close to majority rule in the Senate. It's not like Pelosi could have gotten away with it if her caucus actually didn't support the bill; they just wanted some silly way to avoid another tough vote for marginal members. There was never any chance of a bill passing that didn't command majority support in the House.

If I'm remembering the D&P thing correctly, I saw it as the typical gamesmanship/floating of trial balloon/posturing through the media that any protracted fight in Congress inevitably features. Let us not forget even more strong flamethrower language just a few years back, as uttered by the then-Senate Majority Leader, a Republican, Bill Frist -- "the nuclear option."

But never mind all that. Let's get back to authoritarian behavior. You seem to think that phrase evokes parliamentary maneuvers in a democratically elected legislature with real policy-making capability. I, on the other hand, think that it might more logically include things like secret extrajudicial imprisonment, torture, and killing of people. It continues to boggle my mind that people who buy into the Cheneyite version of executive power so love to call the other side of the political spectrum fascists and authoritarians nowadays. How on earth does one convince oneself that jailing citizens without any legal recourse indefinitely is a normal and non-threatening part of national defense, but regulating air pollution is part of the Liberal Fascist agenda?

Good answer, and better than I would have had the patience to construct. When I read idiotic assertions about "Teh Left likes authoritarian rule more!!!1!," I flash on DenvilleSteve and Donald Douglas and Jonah Goldberg and clowns like that. If it ever applied, it applied many decades ago, and it really more applied to a flirtation with Communism before Stalin and Mao showed how that went in the real world. I think operative sometimes just throws tired old slogans out there when he has no good response to someone else's point.

bjkeefe
11-04-2010, 06:13 AM
How many teabagger darlings won, and how many lost?

[...]

Also, how many Palin endorsees won, and how many lost?

Kind of a surprising (http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=7605) lede from RightPundits.com:

2010 Election Analysis and Post-Mortem

All the vote counting [in] Colorado and Washington State is not done yet but one thing is already clear. The push of Tea Party candidates who were not vetted and clearly not ready for prime time, largely thanks to critical endorsements by Sarah Palin, has cost GOP control of the Senate in 2010. Below is a scorecard race by race.

I do like a schism!

(previously (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2010/10/wingnut-schism-karl-rove-disses-st.html))

==========

[Added] Note that the above lede is a bit out of date: Colorado has been declared won by Bennet (D) over Buck (a "Tea Party Republican (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/11/04/handful_of_results_might_be_weeks_off/)") 47.7-46.8, a margin of ~15,000 votes. Senate now stands at 52-46, with Alaska and Washington still unsettled.

Lmaki
11-04-2010, 08:07 AM
http://www.thecentralword.com/forums/images/smilies/extra/crazy.gif http://www.thecentralword.com/forums/images/smilies/extra/crazy.gif http://www.thecentralword.com/forums/images/smilies/extra/crazy.gif

You don't seem to be able handle defeat nationally or in this case locally very well. It seems your only hope here is to break what I thought were the rules of the forum and misquote another poster and infer his crazyness in cartoon format. Over the last few weeks, I have been generally and largely amazed at what passes for legitimate discussion/arguments from the most vociferous Democrats here. Matter of fact, it has seemed to me, that even with an argument that may have some solidity, its delivery comes with a venom that negates or at least reduces its intended weight.

operative
11-04-2010, 10:58 AM
Look, I'm not actually suggesting that Deem & Pass was a good idea; I'll even grant that it would have been pretty dirty pool to pass the ACA in that way. But you described it as "authoritarian behavior." That's crazy. The differences between the House and Senate bills were minor, and they would have been smaller than that if we actually had anything close to majority rule in the Senate. It's not like Pelosi could have gotten away with it if her caucus actually didn't support the bill; they just wanted some silly way to avoid another tough vote for marginal members. There was never any chance of a bill passing that didn't command majority support in the House.

But never mind all that. Let's get back to authoritarian behavior. You seem to think that phrase evokes parliamentary maneuvers in a democratically elected legislature with real policy-making capability. I, on the other hand, think that it might more logically include things like secret extrajudicial imprisonment, torture, and killing of people. It continues to boggle my mind that people who buy into the Cheneyite version of executive power so love to call the other side of the political spectrum fascists and authoritarians nowadays. How on earth does one convince oneself that jailing citizens without any legal recourse indefinitely is a normal and non-threatening part of national defense, but regulating air pollution is part of the Liberal Fascist agenda?

A somewhat more flexible scope of authority for the executive in time of war is entirely in keeping with the history of executive power in America. It's something every executive has exerted in time of war. So with the past administration it involved holding people (not citizens, except maybe 1) as enemy combatants. These were people who were picked up on the front lines, who did not conduct themselves in a manner that would grant them Geneva Accord protections, etc. so I really don't agree with the characterization or the notion that Dick Cheney was personally having random American citizens abducted and 'tortured'. You can count the number of people who were actually 'tortured' (and I don't consider waterboarding, playing loud music, etc. to be torture) within the digits on your fingers. These were people who were, accurately, believed to be possessing knowledge of eminent terrorist threats.

Barring severe economic downturn (which isn't outside the realm of possibility for a large economy--Argentina was a top 7 global economy before Peron destroyed it with a governing philosophy that reminds me an awful lot of Obama's), we don't have to worry about anything resembling, say, Pinochet. We did not have a significant fascist movement even in the depth of the Great Depression, when virtually all of Europe was struggling with it.

But we do have to worry about the creeping authoritarianism of tutelary despotism, which slowly siphons away our freedoms in the name of letting 'those that know better' tell us how to live. They tell us that we must buy health care, and they will tell us what type of health care to buy. The argument that they use is that the government has the right to regulate people's economic decisions. Well, ALL decisions are economic decisions. The decision to sleep, instead of working overtime, is an economic decision. It is a doctrine of tyranny, plain and simple, and a gateway to the government regulating every aspect of its citizens lives, since they feel that they know better.

TwinSwords
11-04-2010, 12:54 PM
You don't seem to be able handle defeat nationally or in this case locally very well. It seems your only hope here is to break what I thought were the rules of the forum and misquote another poster and infer his crazyness in cartoon format. Over the last few weeks, I have been generally and largely amazed at what passes for legitimate discussion/arguments from the most vociferous Democrats here. Matter of fact, it has seemed to me, that even with an argument that may have some solidity, its delivery comes with a venom that negates or at least reduces its intended weight.

http://www.thecentralword.com/forums/images/smilies/staff/blahblah.gif http://www.thecentralword.com/forums/images/smilies/staff/blahblah.gifhttp://www.thecentralword.com/forums/images/smilies/staff/blahblah.gif

Lmaki
11-04-2010, 01:44 PM
http://www.thecentralword.com/forums/images/smilies/staff/blahblah.gif http://www.thecentralword.com/forums/images/smilies/staff/blahblah.gifhttp://www.thecentralword.com/forums/images/smilies/staff/blahblah.gif

Cool, I wondered if my pointing these things out might get you to come back and make an actual point. It did. You made mine. Thanks!

bjkeefe
11-05-2010, 01:07 AM
A somewhat more flexible scope of authority for the executive in time of war is entirely in keeping with the history of executive power in America.

For all of the major instances I can think of -- Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Johnson, Nixon -- we as a society have generally said, okay, that was wrong. Let's not be too harsh on the guy now (except the latter two, maybe) but let's never make that mistake again.

Among those things we had identified as mistakes were the suspension of habeas corpus and other civil protections, indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations, and the sequestering of people into internment camps. And then Bush, Cheney, and Co. preyed upon the bed-wetters of this nation and all of that "never again" thinking went right out the window, once again, for even less arguable reasons than it had before.

I am not going to argue about this with you, op. I've heard every possible talking point from the imprisonment and torture apologists, and I am well aware that people still making arguments such as the ones you typed out are not open to changing their minds. I merely state for the record that you are in my view sadly mistaken.

bjkeefe
11-05-2010, 01:17 AM
Huh. Earlier today, I thought I saw something about the Senate race in Washington state being anticipated to be unresolved for days. But now the NYT's map (http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/senate) is listing Patty Murray (D) as the winner, 51.3%-48.7%, a margin of about 50,000 votes. Still says only "80% reporting," though.

Looks like (http://www.google.com/search?q=murray+senate+rossi+concedes&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=n&source=univ&tbs=nws:1&tbo=u&ei=8ITTTM6wMYP88AaPrejGAQ&sa=X&oi=news_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCAQqAIwAA) Dino Rossi called her to concede, a few hours ago, when I was AFK. Apologies if you all already knew this.

[Added] Rossi's concession statement here (http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/227302.asp).

operative
11-05-2010, 10:37 AM
...
I am not going to argue about this with you, op. I've heard every possible talking point from the imprisonment and torture apologists, and I am well aware that people still making arguments such as the ones you typed out are not open to changing their minds. I merely state for the record that you are in my view sadly mistaken.

heh fair enough.

badhatharry
11-05-2010, 11:34 AM
You don't seem to be able handle defeat nationally or in this case locally very well. It seems your only hope here is to break what I thought were the rules of the forum and misquote another poster and infer his crazyness in cartoon format. Over the last few weeks, I have been generally and largely amazed at what passes for legitimate discussion/arguments from the most vociferous Democrats here. Matter of fact, it has seemed to me, that even with an argument that may have some solidity, its delivery comes with a venom that negates or at least reduces its intended weight.

That about sums it up. I've tried a lot of things but ignoring seems to be the best course. That is unless, the comment is made in a civilized manner. But then, if you're ignoring, you'll never know. Very confusing, really. I guess that why my mom taught me to be nice.

Don Zeko
11-06-2010, 01:49 AM
These were people who were picked up on the front lines, who did not conduct themselves in a manner that would grant them Geneva Accord protections, etc. so I really don't agree with the characterization or the notion that Dick Cheney was personally having random American citizens abducted and 'tortured'. You can count the number of people who were actually 'tortured' (and I don't consider waterboarding, playing loud music, etc. to be torture) within the digits on your fingers. These were people who were, accurately, believed to be possessing knowledge of eminent terrorist threats.

Like AEMjeff, I don't want to get into the arguments about what legal rights detainees have, whether certain techniques are actually torture, etc. etc.. But your characterization of how many people were were imprisoned, how many were subject to "enhanced interrogation" and whether or not any of these people were detained mistakenly is just wrong. It's contradicted by mountains of excellent reporting. I'm pretty sure that you aren't actually going to watch Taxi to the Dark Side (http://www.amazon.com/Taxi-Dark-Side-Alex-Gibney/dp/B001BEK8FQ/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt) or read The Dark Side (http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Inside-Terror-American/dp/0307456293/ref=pd_sim_b_3), but they both set forward plenty of counterexamples to your basic factual claims, and I'm yet to see any remotely convincing rebuttal from defenders of the administration. There's just no factual dispute around, to pick one of many examples, the fact that Maher Arar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar) was mistakenly arrested and then sent to a Syrian prison where he was tortured. Nor is there any actual dispute around the fact that multiple prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan have died as a result of their treatment by US forces.

You can (wrongly) argue that this was necessary to keep us safe, you can (wrongly) argue that there's no risk that such behavior will seep into larger spheres of American life. What you can't do is just assert that the United States didn't imprison a large number of people, some of whom were American citizens, many of whom were in no way a threat to the United States or linked to Al-Qaeda, without legal recourse. You also can't factually dispute that the US government subjected large numbers of these people to the interrogation techniques that reasonable people consider torture. It's one thing to have this absurd debate about whether or not the President is justified in making a mockery of our Constitution in order to win an undeclared, interminable war. But I won't allow you to have the debate in a fantasy land where the factual record is whatever your argument needs it to be.

Lmaki
11-06-2010, 09:32 AM
I don't have the desire to go read the whole stream of consciousness (or unconsciousness) above but I wanted to bring up a couple very positive aspects of last nights election that may be even more important than the 60+? house seats and 6 Senate seats obtained. Although, first I wanted to verify something that I am not quite sure about. Is it true that no incumbant Republican Senators lost and only 3 Republican Representatives lost? Amazing.

The point I wanted to bring up (and I realize this will be to the dismay of some here) is that yesterday NINETEEN State Legislatures switched from being run by a Democrat majority to that of a Republican one and NONE went the other way. Unless I am mistaken, before the election Democrats had a 27-14 advantage and this puts things at 33-8, the other way. This alone is significant but what makes it more so is this is the year of the census. Districts are redrawn by these legislatures when they convene next year, pretty much however they see fit. Do you realize what this means? I would like to introduce you to my little friend, Gerald Mander. There is going to be alot of crying about this in the near future, but alls one has to do is look at what the Dems have done in this area and all remorse will be lifted.

I suppose I will not get too many high fives on this one...and please excuse my happy dance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw3rPL0fOFM).

Some additions on this subject from Michael Barone. (http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelBarone/2010/11/06/gop_poised_to_reap_redistricting_rewards/page/2)

bjkeefe
11-06-2010, 11:29 PM
Like AEMjeff, I don't want to get into the arguments about what legal rights detainees have, whether certain techniques are actually torture, etc. etc.. But your characterization of how many people were were imprisoned, how many were subject to "enhanced interrogation" and whether or not any of these people were detained mistakenly is just wrong. It's contradicted by mountains of excellent reporting. I'm pretty sure that you aren't actually going to watch Taxi to the Dark Side (http://www.amazon.com/Taxi-Dark-Side-Alex-Gibney/dp/B001BEK8FQ/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt) or read The Dark Side (http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Inside-Terror-American/dp/0307456293/ref=pd_sim_b_3), but they both set forward plenty of counterexamples to your basic factual claims, and I'm yet to see any remotely convincing rebuttal from defenders of the administration. There's just no factual dispute around, to pick one of many examples, the fact that Maher Arar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar) was mistakenly arrested and then sent to a Syrian prison where he was tortured. Nor is there any actual dispute around the fact that multiple prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan have died as a result of their treatment by US forces.

For those new to the site: if you didn't already know, Alex Gibney (director of Taxi To the Dark Side) was interviewed by David Edelstein, right here on Bh.tv (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/8914).

I'd like to add another recommendation, and this one can also be heard for free: Daniel Zwerdling's two (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4170152)-part (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4173701) series on Homeland Security going insane on immigrant detainees, right here in these United States.

It's been six years since I caught those, live on the radio, and not that many days have gone by since that I haven't thought about them.

I'll just blockquote the rest of Zeke's post, because it deserves it.

You can (wrongly) argue that this was necessary to keep us safe, you can (wrongly) argue that there's no risk that such behavior will seep into larger spheres of American life. What you can't do is just assert that the United States didn't imprison a large number of people, some of whom were American citizens, many of whom were in no way a threat to the United States or linked to Al-Qaeda, without legal recourse. You also can't factually dispute that the US government subjected large numbers of these people to the interrogation techniques that reasonable people consider torture. It's one thing to have this absurd debate about whether or not the President is justified in making a mockery of our Constitution in order to win an undeclared, interminable war. But I won't allow you to have the debate in a fantasy land where the factual record is whatever your argument needs it to be.

operative
11-07-2010, 12:06 AM
Like AEMjeff, I don't want to get into the arguments about what legal rights detainees have, whether certain techniques are actually torture, etc. etc.. But your characterization of how many people were were imprisoned, how many were subject to "enhanced interrogation" and whether or not any of these people were detained mistakenly is just wrong. It's contradicted by mountains of excellent reporting. I'm pretty sure that you aren't actually going to watch Taxi to the Dark Side (http://www.amazon.com/Taxi-Dark-Side-Alex-Gibney/dp/B001BEK8FQ/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt) or read The Dark Side (http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Inside-Terror-American/dp/0307456293/ref=pd_sim_b_3), but they both set forward plenty of counterexamples to your basic factual claims, and I'm yet to see any remotely convincing rebuttal from defenders of the administration. There's just no factual dispute around, to pick one of many examples, the fact that Maher Arar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar) was mistakenly arrested and then sent to a Syrian prison where he was tortured. Nor is there any actual dispute around the fact that multiple prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan have died as a result of their treatment by US forces.

I think there's reason to suspect that at least one inmate died while at Abu Ghirab, but here's my issue with assigning these to the Bush administration:
There are prisoners who die each year while in US custody domestically. Some commit suicide. Some died of entirely natural causes. Some die due to neglect. Etc. do we take these to make some sort of indictment against the US legal system or the President? I don't think so.

Kind of like civilian casualties in war, we have to accept that there are going to be some unfortunate incidents in the process of capturing terrorists. If you look at the overall body of persons captured, these are statistical anomalies.

This is in keeping with every sustained conflict--in fact, I think it likely happened at a much higher rate during WW2 (though I have no quantitative analysis of this sort). As an example, I remember a documentary on the Holocaust--I believe it was The Last Days, but I might be wrong--which interviewed various soldiers. One spoke of liberating a camp and turning over the most vicious of the guards to the prisoners, who proceeded to kill him (or them--not quite sure).

Now, this is just the type of thing that folks like the crew behind "Taxi to the Dark Side" would probably have been howling about. But I must admit that I'm not terribly moved.


You can (wrongly) argue that this was necessary to keep us safe, you can (wrongly) argue that there's no risk that such behavior will seep into larger spheres of American life. What you can't do is just assert that the United States didn't imprison a large number of people, some of whom were American citizens, many of whom were in no way a threat to the United States or linked to Al-Qaeda, without legal recourse. You also can't factually dispute that the US government subjected large numbers of these people to the interrogation techniques that reasonable people consider torture. It's one thing to have this absurd debate about whether or not the President is justified in making a mockery of our Constitution in order to win an undeclared, interminable war. But I won't allow you to have the debate in a fantasy land where the factual record is whatever your argument needs it to be.

Some reasonable people consider them torture, some don't. I sympathize with those that don't. That means disagreeing with some people who I have a tremendous amount of respect for, including John McCain. But I do.

While you can claim that it will somehow 'seep into America' but I think this simply ignores the historical precedent, as does the criticisms of Bush's (and now Obama's) use of executive power. This is absolutely nothing new--in fact, it is far, far more restrained than previous examples in American history. This didn't seep into American culture. So the fears are unfounded.

Fluffy Foo Foo
11-07-2010, 01:40 AM
When Dachau was liberated... U.S. soldiers and some of the just liberated camp prisoners committed all kind of atrocities. Just about all the guards and personnel running the camp were murdered. There are even photographs (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Dachau_execution_coalyard_1945-04-29.jpg) of executed German soldiers piled up against a wall where U.S. soldiers murdered them.

Much worse than Abu Ghraib or any other place in Iraq or Afghanistan ever was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_massacre

Don Zeko
11-07-2010, 03:36 AM
I think there's reason to suspect that at least one inmate died while at Abu Ghirab, but here's my issue with assigning these to the Bush administration:
There are prisoners who die each year while in US custody domestically. Some commit suicide. Some died of entirely natural causes. Some die due to neglect. Etc. do we take these to make some sort of indictment against the US legal system or the President? I don't think so.

This is the only thing you said that was responsive to my argument. I've had these discussions about whether waterboarding is really torture, how much intelligence Abu Zubaydah produced before and after his waterboarding, whether this is analogous to US actions in previous wars or whatever before. I've heard all of the talking points and rationalizations before, and I don't want to rehash them here. But these arguments, when they are made, need to be made with reference to the facts that are available - and what you say here most certainly isn't.

So let me pick just one well-publicized example that contradicts your characterization: Dilawar, the Afghan taxi driver that Taxi to the Dark Side's title refers to. It's simply a matter of fact that there was no evidence that he was connected to Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, but that he was arrested, then chained to the ceiling of his cell and beaten. According to the leaked Army autopsy report, his death was a homicide. If we're going to have a realistic debate about this, you can't just ignore this incident or the other similar cases we have on record. Nor can you continue to pretend that things like the arrest, rendition, and torture of Maher Arar that I referred to in my previous post didn't happen. These are facts. If you don't address them in your reply you'll be wasting my time and yours.

bjkeefe
11-07-2010, 03:55 AM
Shorter Fluffy Foo Foo (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=187058#post187058):

Y'know, it's surprising how often two wrongs do make a right.

(Disclaimer: Applicability of this thesis outside the scope of the US military will require further research.)

operative
11-07-2010, 09:50 AM
This is the only thing you said that was responsive to my argument. I've had these discussions about whether waterboarding is really torture, how much intelligence Abu Zubaydah produced before and after his waterboarding, whether this is analogous to US actions in previous wars or whatever before. I've heard all of the talking points and rationalizations before, and I don't want to rehash them here. But these arguments, when they are made, need to be made with reference to the facts that are available - and what you say here most certainly isn't.

So let me pick just one well-publicized example that contradicts your characterization: Dilawar, the Afghan taxi driver that Taxi to the Dark Side's title refers to. It's simply a matter of fact that there was no evidence that he was connected to Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, but that he was arrested, then chained to the ceiling of his cell and beaten. According to the leaked Army autopsy report, his death was a homicide. If we're going to have a realistic debate about this, you can't just ignore this incident or the other similar cases we have on record. Nor can you continue to pretend that things like the arrest, rendition, and torture of Maher Arar that I referred to in my previous post didn't happen. These are facts. If you don't address them in your reply you'll be wasting my time and yours.

I'm not familiar with the case, but how's that any different than if some overzealous sheriff (eg Joe Aracpo or whatever his name is in Arizona) does something? Does that reflect on the President? I don't think so.

Fluffy Foo Foo
11-07-2010, 01:43 PM
No, no... it has nothing to do with two wrongs making a right. It's to show that the United States has behaved much better in Iraq and Afghanistan then it ever did in Europe or the Pacific during WWII. Which was a point operative was trying to make, but couldn't recall a specific matter from that time. The massacre at Dachau is just one example.

The rules and laws are more sophisticated now, and better enforced by us today.

bjkeefe
11-07-2010, 02:26 PM
No, no... it has nothing to do with two wrongs making a right. It's to show that the United States has behaved much better in Iraq and Afghanistan then it ever did in Europe or the Pacific during WWII. Which was a point operative was trying to make, but couldn't recall a specific matter from that time. The massacre at Dachau is just one example.

The rules and laws are more sophisticated now, and better enforced by us today.

Granted, at least for the sake of argument. (I don't want to get into the myriad of differences between WWII and our more recent invasions.) Still, it's worth reminding ourselves that because we may not be as bad as we once were does not mean that what we are doing now is therefore excused.

operative
11-07-2010, 05:35 PM
Granted, at least for the sake of argument. (I don't want to get into the myriad of differences between WWII and our more recent invasions.) Still, it's worth reminding ourselves that because we may not be as bad as we once were does not mean that what we are doing now is therefore excused.

We're not talking about excusing those incidents that clearly crossed the line--the idiots who committed the abuses at Abu Ghirab absolutely deserved prosecution. Let's just keep a proper historical perspective in mind.

bjkeefe
11-07-2010, 05:54 PM
We're not talking about excusing those incidents that clearly crossed the line--the idiots who committed the abuses at Abu Ghirab absolutely deserved prosecution.

Glad you acknowledge that much, at least. However ...

Let's just keep a proper historical perspective in mind.

... that is exactly what I am arguing against, this tendency to say "Eh, not as bad as we used to be, therefore okay." You might not be saying quite that, FFF might not be saying quite that, but you're both close, and in any case, the tendency is all too prevalent in the US.*

And not only is it morally dubious, it's bad for pragmatic reasons, such as reinforcing the belief that we can solve more problems militarily than we actually can, or that we should cut all government spending, but only the non-military spending (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=186962#post186962), or that it's not worth putting time into understanding situations and dealing with them before they get to the point where we think we've got no choice but to use military force.

==========
* And elsewhere, of course, but let's clean up our own house first.

operative
11-07-2010, 06:07 PM
... that is exactly what I am arguing against, this tendency to say "Eh, not as bad as we used to be, therefore okay." You might not be saying quite that, FFF might not be saying quite that, but you're both close, and in any case, the tendency is all too prevalent in the US.*

I can understand how you'd arrive at that conclusion, but that's not what I mean to say. When people commit egregious abuses, they need punished. One of my issues is exporting that to "we," because I don't think those Abu Ghirab morons represent the US at all--not the leadership, and not the people.



And not only is it morally dubious, it's bad for pragmatic reasons, such as reinforcing the belief that we can solve more problems militarily than we actually can, or that we should cut all government spending, but only the non-military spending, or that it's not worth putting time into understanding situations and dealing with them before they get to the point where we think we've got no choice but to use military force.


i like the idea of a 5% cut across the board--that would include military spending, as well as every other area. Some conservatives are advocating that, and I think it'd be a good idea. There's always waste to trim.

bjkeefe
11-07-2010, 06:37 PM
I can understand how you'd arrive at that conclusion, but that's not what I mean to say. When people commit egregious abuses, they need punished. One of my issues is exporting that to "we," because I don't think those Abu Ghirab morons represent the US at all--not the leadership, and not the people.

Nor do I. Unfortunately, our ability to make this distinction is not globally shared. Nor is it completely unreasonable for many outside the US to see it as more representative than we might like to think, given our near-decade-long occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention our hegemonic military presence worldwide.

I am also dubious about the way you keep harping on this one specific example, for two reasons. First, it's awfully close to the "just a few bad apples" fallback position the RWNM went to after "just like fraternity pranks" did not fly. What resulted in the specific acts that were punished was part of a larger environment that led to them. Just because only a couple of people at the bottom were the only ones punished does not mean there aren't a lot of others who bear some responsibility. Just to name one specific: it does not seem reasonable to me to expect that the problem begins and ends with a couple of prison guards in light of an indiscriminate policy of rounding up large numbers of people and tossing them in cells, combined with inadequate staffing, lack of relevant training, insufficient supervision, and non-stop pressure from above to "get results" and "don't be afraid to take the gloves off."

Second, talking only about this one thing ignores all of the other things I have in mind when I speak of this tendency to excuse ourselves on the grounds that we're not as bad as we used to be. The Abu Ghraib abuses are far from the only black spot on our military's record, even considering just the past few years.

i like the idea of a 5% cut across the board--that would include military spending, as well as every other area. Some conservatives are advocating that, and I think it'd be a good idea. There's always waste to trim.

There is some emotional appeal in this, I'll grant. I used to think much the same way -- rather than wrangling endlessly, let's just give everyone 95 cents instead of a buck, and let the individuals figure out how best to adjust.

I no longer think it's an especially good idea, because some programs have a lot more fat in them than others, and some programs, even if fairly efficient, do not accord with my own sense of priorities. I'd like to cut the military budget by whole lot more, for example, and not cut basic R&D spending at all, for another.

But, if my choices were limited to "cut everything except the military" or "cut everything 5%, including the military," I'd probably take (b).

==========

P.S. Administrivia: I added a link to my previous post after you responded to it. Since it does not at all change what I was saying (it just offers an illustration of one point, from another thread on this site), I felt that would be okay. But in case you're wondering why my earlier post's timestamp is later than your response's, there it is.

operative
11-07-2010, 06:47 PM
Nor do I. Unfortunately, our ability to make this distinction is not globally shared. Nor is it completely unreasonable for many outside the US to see it as more representative than we might like to think, given our near-decade-long occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention our hegemonic military presence worldwide.

Yeah, I don't disagree with this.


I am also dubious about the way you keep harping on this one specific example, for two reasons. First, it's awfully close to the "just a few bad apples" fallback position the RWNM went to after "just like fraternity pranks" did not fly. What resulted in the specific acts that were punished was part of a larger environment that led to them. Just because only a couple of people at the bottom were the only ones punished does not mean there aren't a lot of others who bear some responsibility. Just to name one specific: it does not seem reasonable to me to expect that the problem begins and ends with a couple of prison guards in light of an indiscriminate policy of rounding up large numbers of people and tossing them in cells, combined with inadequate staffing, lack of relevant training, insufficient supervision, and non-stop pressure from above to "get results" and "don't be afraid to take the gloves off."

There were other problems re: Abu Ghirab--inadequate supervision, a failure to communicate instructions and procedures clear enough that those bonheads wouldn't feel they could get away with what they were doing, etc.

That's a bit of a separate matter though--I wouldn't disagree that there was a general lack of competency in much of the early days of handling post-war Iraq. This obviously had some profound consequences. But that's an issue of competency, not fundamental humanity.


Second, talking only about this one thing ignores all of the other things I have in mind when I speak of this tendency to excuse ourselves on the grounds that we're not as bad as we used to be. The Abu Ghraib abuses are far from the only black spot on our military's record, even considering just the past few years.

Again I don't really disagree--Abu Ghirab was the highest profile but I'm sure it wasn't the only one.


There is some emotional appeal in this, I'll grant. I used to think much the same way -- rather than wrangling endlessly, let's just give everyone 95 cents instead of a buck, and let the individuals figure out how best to adjust.

I no longer think it's an especially good idea, because some programs have a lot more fat in them than others, and some programs, even if fairly efficient, do not accord with my own sense of priorities. I'd like to cut the military budget by whole lot more, for example, and not cut basic R&D spending at all, for another.

But, if my choices were limited to "cut everything except the military" or "cut everything 5%, including the military," I'd probably take (b).

Oh that's not to say we can't go back and cut more from places, but I think this is something that many corporations regularly do during budgetary cutbacks. It's not perfect, but it at least accomplishes some of the squabbling and actually making a dent in spending. Because outside of that, getting enough politicians to agree to do anything that in any way reduces defense spending is a pretty hard sell.

chiwhisoxx
11-07-2010, 07:12 PM
Glad you acknowledge that much, at least. However ...



... that is exactly what I am arguing against, this tendency to say "Eh, not as bad as we used to be, therefore okay." You might not be saying quite that, FFF might not be saying quite that, but you're both close, and in any case, the tendency is all too prevalent in the US.*

And not only is it morally dubious, it's bad for pragmatic reasons, such as reinforcing the belief that we can solve more problems militarily than we actually can, or that we should cut all government spending, but only the non-military spending (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=186962#post186962), or that it's not worth putting time into understanding situations and dealing with them before they get to the point where we think we've got no choice but to use military force.

==========
* And elsewhere, of course, but let's clean up our own house first.

I agree that it's logically and morally problematic to trot out the old "We've done worse argument!" It doesn't excuse anything, and has no place in the debate. However, it is a worthy rebuttal when some people either implicitly or explicitly claim that the civil rights abuses under the Bush administration were unprecedented, and far worse than anything in our history. You clearly aren't making that argument, but I think it's annoyingly prevalent.

bjkeefe
11-09-2010, 05:24 PM
i like the idea of a 5% cut across the board--that would include military spending, as well as every other area. Some conservatives are advocating that, and I think it'd be a good idea. There's always waste to trim.

There is some emotional appeal in this, I'll grant. I used to think much the same way -- rather than wrangling endlessly, let's just give everyone 95 cents instead of a buck, and let the individuals figure out how best to adjust.

I no longer think it's an especially good idea, because some programs have a lot more fat in them than others, and some programs, even if fairly efficient, do not accord with my own sense of priorities. I'd like to cut the military budget by whole lot more, for example, and not cut basic R&D spending at all, for another.

But, if my choices were limited to "cut everything except the military" or "cut everything 5%, including the military," I'd probably take (b).

Related: "Welcome, America's New Fiscally Prudent Overlords! (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/welcoming-our-new-fiscal-overlords)"

Well, this didn't take long. Exactly one day after the elections, the Navy was in Congress asking for permission to buy 10 new warships (http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/127595-navy-seeks-congressional-backing-for-new-combat-ship-strategy), at a cost of $5 billion. These are the littoral (a fancy word for "coastal") ships that are supposed to bring us dominance over the legions of guys in speedboats who allegedly threaten the American way of life, but who mostly threaten littoral warships. It's a nice circularity, and that hard-nosed enemy of government spending, Republican senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, loves the plan:

"I believe that this is a good strategy, and I will strongly support it," said Sessions, a senior defense authorizer. "The LCS vessels are a critical part of the Navy’s goal for a 313-ship Navy."

That's funny — a 2.5-million-dollar-a-year government job is a critical part of my goal of owning a 313-room house. I thought about aiming for a mere 210 rooms, and listen, in my heart of hearts I know that 150 would be more than enough (you can imagine the cleaning bills!), but then I realized I would feel inadequate next to the Chinese and Russian mansion-builders, who, while well behind me for now, could conceivably match my square footage in a century or two if I don't double-down pronto. So, a $2.5-million-dollar-a-year job it must be, and if I lived in southern Alabama, I might stand a chance of getting one: The proposed project would bring up to 2,000 temporary jobs to the region, at a cost of — yep — $2.5 mil apiece.

<strike>Change You Can Believe In!</strike> IOKIYAR.

(? (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=187475#post187475))

bjkeefe
11-09-2010, 06:37 PM
... America is already feeling buyer's remorse (http://www.gallup.com/poll/144347/Obama-Approval-Advances-Pre-Election.aspx) about their new Republican House?

Obama Approval Advances to 47%, Up From 43% Pre-Election

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/0dyqrftc_kmphbpt7hokkq.gif

[...]

While the increase in Obama's job approval rating since the election is small in absolute terms, the fact that it is up at all after his party's major congressional and gubernatorial losses is notable. According to Gallup trends, former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush saw their job approval ratings decline after their parties' midterm election losses in 1994 and 2006, respectively.

Bush's approval fell from 38% in Gallup polling conducted Nov. 2-5, 2006, to 33% in less than a week.

(h/t: Jim Newell (http://gawker.com/5685471/obamas-popularity-jumps-for-some-reason))

handle
11-09-2010, 07:28 PM
Not only that, but all post-midterm hand wringing aside (by both parties), here, IMO, is the real story behind the "will of the people":
Based on CBS News' preliminary national exit polling, Republicans are poised for significant gains in Congress. The youth vote--18-to-29-year-olds--who helped catapult President Obama into office makes up an estimated 9 percent of voters this year, compared to 18 percent in 2008. About 58 percent of the youth vote favors Democratic candidates.

More.. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021551-503544.html)

Frankly, I was shocked in '08 when they actually turned out for Obama. Not to take anything away from the President, but I think Bush was the great motivator then. As much as the repubs wanna make fun of it, "Hope and change" was just as much code for "not Bush", as some idealistic promise. Kinda like how "small government" is repub dog whistle for "government we control".

bjkeefe
11-09-2010, 07:56 PM
Not only that, but all post-midterm hand wringing aside (by both parties), here, IMO, is the real story behind the "will of the people": [...]

It's a perennial problem, isn't it? The Dems have never managed to figure out how to rally a big part of their base in any consistent fashion.

Probably has something to do with not actually serving a big part of their base in any consistent fashion, as well as not making the choice clear enough when voting time rolls around.

bjkeefe
11-10-2010, 02:26 PM
[...]

Also, how many Palin endorsees won, and how many lost?

In addition to the teabaggers listed above, I think she endorsed Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman in CA, both of whom lost. I know she endorsed Tom Tancredo in CO, who lost. [...]

Ken Layne (http://wonkette.com/429763/gop-congressman-who-blames-sarah-palin-for-everything-now-sort-of-sorry):

Sarah Palin, the most perfect living human being since Jesus, made absolutely perfect Senate picks — all of them lost. In several cases, her vain and idiotic intrusions cost the GOP perfectly safe races. Just to bring back the sweet memories of Election Day 2010, here are the Senate candidates “helped” by Palin: Sharron Angle in Nevada, John Raese in West Virginia, Carly Fiorina in California, Joe Miller in Alaska and Christine O’Donnell in Delaware. Those last two spectacular failures can be blamed on a specific kind of moronic meddling that should be trademarked by Palin: Her support of Joe Miller was nothing more than the latest rotten fruit of her longstanding grudge against popular Alaskan Republican Lisa Murkowski, and her backing of loony lightweight Christine O’Donnell seemed to be based on nothing beyond Palin seeing a reflection of her vapid self in the empty eyes of a Delaware never-was.

But! It's not just (http://www.shelbycountyreporter.com/2010/11/07/spencer-bachus-sarah-palin-cost-gop-control-of-u-s-senate/) liberal warbloggers who say this, as Ken's links lead us to discover.

Shelby County’s congressman, U.S. Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., said former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin likely cost the Republican Party control of the U.S. Senate.

Bachus made his remarks on Nov. 4 at the monthly luncheon meeting of the South Shelby Chamber of Commerce, held at the Columbiana United Methodist Church.

“The Senate would be Republican today except for states (in which Palin endorsed candidates) like Christine O’Donnell in Delaware,” Bachus said. “Sarah Palin cost us control of the Senate.”

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/1756/thepalinpout.jpg

Of course, he is now nervously back-pedaling (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20022286-503544.html).

chiwhisoxx
11-10-2010, 03:33 PM
Sarah Palin, the most perfect living human being since Jesus, made absolutely perfect Senate picks — all of them lost.

John McCain, John Boozman, Rand Paul, Pat Toomey, Kelly Ayotte, and Marco Rubio all lost? News to me.

Lmaki
11-10-2010, 03:50 PM
John McCain, John Boozman, Rand Paul, Pat Toomey, Kelly Ayotte, and Marco Rubio all lost? News to me.

Who had Pelosi endorsed in the house races?

bjkeefe
11-11-2010, 06:52 PM
Welcome to our new permanent Republican Majority (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11/11/poll-americans-less-enthusiastic-about-midterm-outcome-than-pas/) in our glorious Center-Right Nation™!

Poll: Americans Less Enthusiastic About Midterm Outcome Than Past Political Turnovers

While Republicans steamrolled to a big victory in the House and made significant gains in the Senate in last week's election, there is less enthusiasm this year for the GOP win and its plans for the future than there was for the Democrats' takeover of Congress in 2006 and the Republican capture of the House in 1994, according to a Pew Research Center poll (http://people-press.org/report/675/) conducted Nov. 4-7.

Forty-eight percent of Americans describe themselves as happy about the Republican victory compared to 34 percent who are not. By contrast, in 2006, 60 percent were happy about the Democrats' success compared to 24 percent who were not. In the big Republican year of 1994, 57 percent were happy about the result compared to 31 percent who were not.
When it comes to the public's view of Republican policies and plans for the future, 41 percent approve of them compared to 37 percent who do not. (The margin of error is 4 points). In 2006, Americans approved of Democratic policies and plans by a 50 percent to 21 percent margin. In 1994, they approved of Republican policies and plans by 52 percent to 28 percent.

These kinds of findings, coupled with the fact that nearly all polls in the past year showed voter disapproval of both parties, have fueled analyses that the so-called "wave" election does not necessarily signal a massive or long-lasting political realignment.

But just wait'll Agent Orange takes over!

The election has resulted in somewhat increased visibility for Republican Minority Leader John Boehner, who is expected to become House Speaker when the GOP takes over next year. He tops the list of national figures when those surveyed are asked who they regard as the leader of the Republican party, although the numbers are hardly overwhelming given that 51 percent answered "don't know" and another 14 percent said "nobody is." Boehner scored 10 percent with Sarah Palin next at 6 percent.

Hat tip to Jack Stuef, who found the real golden nugget (http://wonkette.com/429978/silly-american-public-kind-of-wants-new-republican-majority-to-compromise).

operative
11-11-2010, 09:03 PM
That's because it wasn't an embrace of the GOP. It was just an utter, historic rejection of the Democrats.

bjkeefe
11-11-2010, 09:08 PM
That's because it wasn't an embrace of the GOP. It was just an utter, historic rejection of the Democrats.

Notice red letters (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=187512&highlight=ideology+prevents+rational+discussion#po st187512).

operative
11-11-2010, 09:28 PM
notice red letters (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=187512&highlight=ideology+prevents+rational+discussion#po st187512).

你的论点是什么?

bjkeefe
11-11-2010, 09:40 PM
你的论点是什么?

Maybe you should spend more time learning English if you can't understand what my point was there.

operative
11-11-2010, 09:46 PM
Maybe you should spend more time learning English if you can't understand what my point was there.

我偏爱中文。

Either you're trying to ignore the significance of the Democrat losses (even a panel of liberal historans on the PBS News Hour agreed that they were historic), or you're saying that the GOP is just going to end up just as unpopular or something of the sort. That's why making the 巨大的 effort to create a new post instead of simply linking to an old one is usually advisable.

bjkeefe
11-11-2010, 09:53 PM
[...] That's why making the 巨大的 effort to create a new post instead of simply linking to an old one is usually advisable.

Correct. Key word: usually. As in, not worth it with you.

operative
11-11-2010, 09:55 PM
Correct. Key word: usually. As in, not worth it with you.

Well I can understand not wanting to do so when you know that your point will be defeated, in a 绝对的 way, but still, it's rather boring.

The sad thing is that when "Democrat" and "Republican" are separated from the discussion, you're quite capable of engaging in a worthwhile talk. Unfortunately, when party identification in any way enters in, you morph into Alan Grayson mode.

bjkeefe
11-11-2010, 10:46 PM
... rather boring.

Couldn't have described dealing with you any better than that.

... you morph into Alan Grayson mode.

Sucks having your own tactics turned back against you, huh?

Maybe you'll learn something from it. Someday. Doubtful. But maybe.

operative
11-11-2010, 10:51 PM
Couldn't have described dealing with you any better than that.

I know you are but what am I.



Sucks having your own tactics turned back against you, huh?


Bush derangement syndrome has given way to Operative derangement syndrome.

bjkeefe
11-11-2010, 10:53 PM
Bush derangement syndrome has given way to Operative derangement syndrome.

A cliché, and a sad attempt to flatter yourself. I am not deranged about you, op. I just don't think you're someone who is capable of rational discussion (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=187512&highlight=ideology+prevents+rational+discussion#po st187512). Thus, I mock you or ignore you. There's nothing else to do with you.

operative
11-11-2010, 10:58 PM
A cliché, and a sad attempt to flatter yourself. I am not deranged about you, op. I just don't think you're someone interested in rational discussion.

Sadly that merely means that I am not interested in obsequiously lavishing praise on Barack Obama and all Democrats while flogging my side of the political aisle. Sorry but I'm not David Brooks, so you'll have to do something better than an ersatz Alan Grayson to really be of note to me.也许下一次。

bjkeefe
11-11-2010, 10:59 PM
Sadly that merely means that I am not interested in obsequiously lavishing praise on Barack Obama ...

See what I mean (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=187512&highlight=ideology+prevents+rational+discussion#po st187512)?

operative
11-11-2010, 11:17 PM
See what I mean (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=187512&highlight=ideology+prevents+rational+discussion#po st187512)?

未能的。

bjkeefe
11-11-2010, 11:21 PM
未能的。

You are indeed.

graz
11-11-2010, 11:23 PM
未能的。
我的氣墊船充滿了鱔魚
Translation: (My hovercraft is overflowing with eels)

operative
11-11-2010, 11:24 PM
You are indeed.

I think in the future I'll start responding to your posts with a concluding quote of what your next reply will be. I'd say that I saw that one a mile a way, but really, it was much more than a metaphorical mile.

bjkeefe
11-11-2010, 11:27 PM
I think in the future I'll start responding to your posts with a concluding quote of what your next reply will be. I'd say that I saw that one a mile a way, but really, it was much more than a metaphorical mile.

If you can predict my response that easily, it doesn't say very much about the originality of what you're planning to say, does it?

operative
11-11-2010, 11:27 PM
我的氣墊船充滿了鱔魚
Translation: (My hovercraft is overflowing with eels)

哎呀坏了!

operative
11-11-2010, 11:28 PM
If you can predict my response that easily, it doesn't say very much about the originality of what you're planning to say, does it?

More about responses, because there's a fairly limited range of 你的 responses to a fairly 无限 supply of my remarks.

bjkeefe
11-13-2010, 06:38 AM
From last week:

Senate Candidates Who Received Fewer Votes Than Alvin Greene Yesterday (http://wonkette.com/429299/senate-candidates-who-received-fewer-votes-than-alvin-greene-yesterday)

(h/t: Scocca (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/scocca/archive/2010/11/04/lessons-of-election-2010-alvin-greene-is-a-natural-politician.aspx), whose earlier election summary should have been (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/scocca/archive/2010/11/03/lessons-of-election-2010-welcome-back-red-and-blue-america.aspx) all that was said, but sadly, he discovered, was not (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/scocca/archive/2010/11/03/election-2010-a-rough-day-for-metaphors.aspx).)