A third party no one had ever heard of? Then you don't know New York State politics.

My bad, I phrased this incorrectly. I meant to say a third party CANDIDATE that nobody had ever heard of. And I'm glad to get the info on Owens from Jesus doesn't want Esoteric for a sunbeam. I'll take a moderate Blue Dog Democrat over a leftist fake Republican any day of the week.

Regarding Virginia, it's known as a contrarian state in gubernatorial elections, with a consistent track record of voting in the party that's out of the White House. Also, McDonnell painted himself as a northern Virginia moderate, but will he be in practice what he is in theory?

Only time will tell on this for sure. The Dems (with the Washington Post leading the charge) tried to paint him as being the Grand Mufti of the American Taliban, and we all saw just how well that strategy worked out for them.

I know that the local interest of northern Virginians, most of whom grew up in another state (or in another country altogether) primarily seems to be "build more roads dammit", but most efforts to raise state and local taxes seem to meet a lot of resistance from the same people. And as far as the rest of the state leeching off the economic engine of northern Virginia, I find this a bit amusing, because NoVa's "economic engine" is almost entirely a leech off the taxpayers of the entire country. Half the people in the D.C. suburbs wouldn't live there if it wasn't for our ever-expanding massive government and its endless contracts.

Oh, and I think that this was the second time in the history of the state that the Republicans swept all three of the big state races. Ticket-splitting is usually common here, but this time it was landslide, landslide, landslide.

Remove the part of Virginia that's north of the Rappahannock River and east of Winchester, and you have in essence a slightly wealthier, saner version of South Carolina.

It's true that there are a lot of independent voters in this state, but by and large they're still mostly libertarian style, small government pro business independents. We're just not down with Obama's agenda of turning the entire economy into state property, bankrupting the country, and destroying the currency.

Ah, for the salad days of 2006. By the way, Joe, you used the wrong pronoun there when referring to independent voters as "we." You're not an independent voter.

Sam H, will Norwood's failure to avoid a runoff doom her? Will the African-American voters coalesce around Reed and defeat her?

My first read of the run-off is that a plurality of "other candidate" supporters will likely fall to Reed, but I'm not sure it will be enough to beat Norwood. She has support from the northern arc neighborhoods, centered (of course) in Buckhead. She also has more credibility in the African American polity than any white candidate in recent (30+) years. She's done a LOT of legwork during her time on City Council actually helping neighborhoods out, and that wins her more support than most would get.

Normally I wouldn't assign much value to a losing candidate's endorsement, but in this case I suspect the run-off will come down to who Lisa Borders endorses. If she endorses Norwood I expect her to win by a few points. If Borders aggressively supports Reed I expect him to take it by a similar margin.

By the way, Joe, you used the wrong pronoun there when referring to independent voters as "we." You're not an independent voter.

"Independent" is just a tag used by people running away from the GOP these days. At least that's my read. Most tea-baggers self-identify as "independent" though it's unlikely 5% of them have voted anything other than straight GOP/Libertarian tickets in their lives. Maybe some Conservative party folks in there, but it's not like they're drawing from multiple political poles.

"Independent" is just a tag used by people running away from the GOP these days. At least that's my read. Most tea-baggers self-identify as "independent" though it's unlikely 5% of them have voted anything other than straight GOP/Libertarian tickets in their lives. Maybe some Conservative party folks in there, but it's not like they're drawing from multiple political poles.

I imagine that this will energize the Conservative party and maybe see some of the radical republicans with typical radical crazy ideas (like believing a word from Rush Limbaugh, Beck or others, and denying evolution etc) splitting off to join the conservative parties.... Most "republicans" I know call themselves libertarians(these are the Republicans I respect, these are the ones that want to stay true to the party, government interference is a bad thing, meaning government has no say on what goes on in the bed room, and tax decrease means spending decrease, type of rational arguments.--mind you I'm still liberal as hell, but I respect these guys, respecting the teabaggers is like respecting bird droppings)

And I'm glad to get the info on Owens from Jesus doesn't want Esoteric for a sunbeam. I'll take a moderate Blue Dog Democrat over a leftist fake Republican any day of the week.

Why is it that I can't slightly alter my username without people forgetting who I am? It's Esoteric. The same right-wing ass that's been posting here for all these years. Does institutional memory count for nothing among Primates?

(My new username comes from a Repoz-ianly obscure song by The Vaselines.)

EDIT: Huh, it turns out Nirvana covered the song on their Unplugged album. Who knew? I never listened to any of their music, I suppose I ought to.

It's Esoteric. The same right-wing ass that's been posting here for all these years.

Well, if it is any consolation, I had no idea you were a right-wing ass, I just think of you as the suffering Nats fan

It's Esoteric

I always just scan the handle for the key word. I note that you leave that in for us slow, dumb leftists. The most surprising thing in this thread was your statement that you used to be overweight.

Why is it that I can't slightly alter my username without people forgetting who I am? It's Esoteric. The same right-wing ass that's been posting here for all these years.

You're not even supposed to exist!

Remove the part of Virginia that's north of the Rappahannock River and east of Winchester, and you have in essence a slightly wealthier, saner version of South Carolina.

people outside the mid-atlantic (and probably many people inside the mid-atlantic) don't seem to realize that most of Virginia is basically indistinguishable from the deep, deep south.

people outside the mid-atlantic (and probably many people inside the mid-atlantic) don't seem to realize that most of Virginia is basically indistinguishable from the deep, deep south.

... which leads me to my second favorite political aphorism, this one being something in the same vein about Pennsylvania: it's Philadelphia in the east, Pittsburgh in the west and Alabama in between!

I'm a little tickled the gravitas anti-Ds have attached to Bill Owens... Bill Owens who is most certainly blue-doggish, and as such, got zero love from the liberal blogosphere and infrastructure (I don't think he even had a Act Blue page up until a few weeks before the election).... Bill Owens who was completely unknown, too -- the guy was an unknown attorney and not even a registered Democrat until he got tabbed for this run.

The Glenn Beck base can only carry the GOP so far -- and given a special election, off-off-cycle -- this has to be about as absolutely well as the Glenn Beck base can hope for. BTW - given that Hoffman himself called Beck a "mentor" on his show, I think it's completely appropriate to tar Hoffman as such.

...and we haven't even gotten into the fact that the RNC/RCCC poured nearly a millions dollars into Dede!

Owens certainly goes to the top of the endangered Dems list in 2010 - but there's plenty of room to trim in the caucus, and I won't be particularly upset if the seat flips back.

I think NJ and VA were completely different animals.

In NJ - Corzine's approval numbers were absolutely putrid... he was at what... 30something%? I'm surprised he was as as close as he was. Had I been in Axelrod's political shop - I'd have been screaming at the top of my lungs to stay as far away from the race as humanly possible.

What's more significant in NJ, I think -- the GOP was supposed to flip the NJ state legislature last night, too.... They didn't -- looks like +1 only. In a media that wasn't so stupid and unable/unwilling to grasp anything beyond big shiny objects, that should give the "GOP RESURGENT!" analysts some pause.

VA is another matter -- but even beyond its amazingly consistent post-Presidential history, Deeds was just a terrible, terrible candidate. What's more -- Deeds ran away from Obama as fast as he could. He ran commercials against health care reform, against cap and trade, againstEFCA</i>... Creigh Deeds - the Democrat - essentially ran against Obama... and McDonnell. He got thumped. Color me unshocked. The GOP did do much better downballot in VA than NJ - but then, they were building on already established majorities (and most local watchers think they may have even underperformed a bit).

I think an awful lot of Republicans are gleefully looking at this as "2005" - when the Dems won a string of special elections and foreshadowed 2006.

It's not... if they're lucky, it's 2002/2003. That doesn't mean I think it's a good idea for the left to sit back and guffaw - eventually, someone smart (i.e., not a Dick Armey, Limbaugh, or Beck) is going to seize control and realize that a bunch of Michelle Bachmann clones is a recipe for irrelevance - and find a way to channel an angry base... but I don't see that person yet.

Washington's R-71 doesn't count? It's gay marriage in all respects except the word "marriage".

It barely won, which honestly surprises the hell out of me. The assessment of most poll-wonks I've read (on both sides) is that if a straight "anti-gay marriage" proposition had been on the ballot it would have won by an even larger margin.

Full disclosure: I would have voted in favor of the all-but-marriage proposition had I lived there. As I said, I'm kind of surprised that it was that close.

Either way, it shows the line in the sand as things currently stand: you can win on civil unions/benefits at the ballot box, but you can't win on gay marriage. Not yet, at least.

The most surprising thing in this thread was your statement that you used to be overweight.

I was never Christie-sized, thankfully, but yeah I definitely spent the first 20 or so years of life on the plus-size side of the scales. I'm around 180 lbs now, which is a pretty good weight for 6'2". Now I just have to get ripped!

Either way, it shows the line in the sand as things currently stand: you can win on civil unions/benefits at the ballot box, but you can't win on gay marriage. Not yet, at least.

On the other hand, Chapel Hill elected an openly gay mayor yesterday. One of the two finalists for Houston's mayoral runoff election will be an openly lesbian candidate.

I take Joey's prognostications quite seriously, particularly after his prescient call of the '08 POTUS race. My favorite was the one where he trumpeted the electoral wins of Berlusconi and the rest of the Italian rightwing as a "preview of what's coming in November."

Yeah, but at least he was right about Pedro Martinez.

Either way, it shows the line in the sand as things currently stand: you can win on civil unions/benefits at the ballot box, but you can't win on gay marriage. Not yet, at least.

Yeah, voters just aren't interested in protecting the rights of anyone they can identify as the other. Marriage rights have a long way to go. DADT and DOMA are still relatively popular federal laws. Nothing drums out the Christianist base like a good "keep them queers in their place" anti-marriage referendum. We're making progress in the right direction - equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation - but we're not there yet by any means. (This is one of those issues where the internets are a poor barometer of popular opinion, as the "right wing" of the internet tends to skew libertarian, while the right wing of actual voters tends to skew social conservative/Christianist.)

On the other hand, Chapel Hill elected an openly gay mayor yesterday.

Chapel Hill is about as repesentative of North Carolina as northern Virginia is of Virginia. Kleinschmidt's sexuality was never an issue, as it surely would have been had he run anywhere outside of the I-85 corridor.

-- MWE

Chapel Hill is about as repesentative of North Carolina as northern Virginia is of Virginia.

The most liberal city in the South, easily.

Yeah, voters just aren't interested in protecting the rights of anyone they can identify as the other. Marriage rights have a long way to go. DADT and DOMA are still relatively popular federal laws. Nothing drums out the Christianist base like a good "keep them queers in their place" anti-marriage referendum. We're making progress in the right direction - equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation - but we're not there yet by any means. (This is one of those issues where the internets are a poor barometer of popular opinion, as the "right wing" of the internet tends to skew libertarian, while the right wing of actual voters tends to skew social conservative/Christianist.)

1.) I consider the term "Christianist" to be tantamount to hate speech, like calling someone the n-word. Please refrain from using it on this site again. Go read some Andrew Sullivan if you really can't live without batshit insane foamy-mouthed anti-religious hatemongering -- it has no place among civilized discourse.

2.) The refusal of those on the left to understand that opposition to gay marriage need not stem from bigotry or hatred for homosexuals is infuriating and, at this point, drips of bad faith. One can be wholly in favor of equal legal rights for gay & lesbian partnerships whilst being opposed to calling it marriage without being an evil or misguided person. In fact, it strikes me as a perfectly valid point of view, though I'm not sure how I would vote on such a ballot proposition myself. (As I said above, I would have voted in favor of Washington's R-71 and I applaud its passage.)

3.) DOMA is idiocy, and the FMA was/is an abomination. On that we can agree. Keep the federal government out of this stuff, for chrissakes.

Chapel Hill is about as repesentative of North Carolina as northern Virginia is of Virginia. Kleinschmidt's sexuality was never an issue, as it surely would have been had he run anywhere outside of the I-85 corridor.

-- MWE

Speaking of NC local -- Charlotte flipped to a Dem mayor for the first time in a while last night, too.

I'm not claiming last night was a good night for the Democrats; it certainly wasn't - but if Democrats nationally think that the lesson is to run scared and try to imitate the party the electorate turned away from (massively) in 2 successive elections, they're learning the wrong lesson and only increase their chances of losing more than a dozen or so House seats and 1-3 senate seats.

Just saw Dan's Arlen/Sestak post -- and there's a key difference... Sestak is challenging Specter in a primary, and all things considered, it's been a fairly polite primary. What's more - it's had tangible benefits for the Dems. We haven't had to worry a bit about Specter joining any blue dogs in HCR block efforts, not to mention he's playing nice on a whole host of other legislation.

I saw a conservative post somewhere else comparing the Hoffman/Owens/Dede debacle to the Lamont/Lieberman senate race -- but they miss the point.

CT-SEN is a race where the Democratic base probably should be primarying a putz like Lieberman. CT isn't Berkeley, but it's blue enough, and has a large enough liberal base that running someone more in tune with the electorate than Lieberman is a reasonable proposition.

You'll notice there is ZERO hue and cry to primary Ben Nelson, Gene Taylor, or any number of blue dogs that are in what could be truly called conservative states or districts.

Though NY-23 was a century-long GOP seat (in various forms) - it seems more like a Rockefeller Republican preserve... that's a not a place where a hard-right candidate is going to win.

Just saw Dan's Arlen/Sestak post -- and there's a key difference... Sestak is challenging Specter in a primary, and all things considered, it's been a fairly polite primary. What's more - it's had tangible benefits for the Dems. We haven't had to worry a bit about Specter joining any blue dogs in HCR block efforts, not to mention he's playing nice on a whole host of other legislation.

If Specter wins that primary, then Pat Toomey will be the next Senator from the great state of Pennsylvania. Mark my words now. Sestak is the best hope the Dems have of holding onto that seat -- if he manages to topple Arlen, he will hold it pretty easily.

I actually really like the Toomey-Sestak dynamic. Their shared interest in knocking off Specter has led to them getting to know one another and they clearly have come actually like each other as people. A Toomey/Sestak race has the chance of actually being a good clean issue-based campaign. With Specter involved, though, you know it's going to be gutter-politics all the way to the finish line.

Though NY-23 was a century-long GOP seat (in various forms) - it seems more like a Rockefeller Republican preserve... that's a not a place where a hard-right candidate is going to win.

Your fundamental thesis is exactly right, but your application in this particular instance is actually wrong. NY-23 is quite a bit more conservative (both socially and fiscally) than "Rockefeller Republican," and as I've been saying ad nauseum in this thread, actually aligns pretty well with Hoffman's politics. What sunk him was all the craziness in the race (lack of primary, three-way, running on the Conservative line, nationalization of the race, etc. etc. etc.), plus his own weakness as a candidate.

Nothing drums out the Christianist base like a good "keep them queers in their place" anti-marriage referendum. We're making progress in the right direction - equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation - but we're not there yet by any means. (This is one of those issues where the internets are a poor barometer of popular opinion, as the "right wing" of the internet tends to skew libertarian, while the right wing of actual voters tends to skew social conservative/Christianist.)

I think this is missing the mark on the issue, as I mentioned in my first post. It isn't because of one segment of the population. If there is one issue that appears (from voting results) the country is in complete agreement, it is opposition to gay marriage. As others pointed out, not benefits, visitation rights, fitness for office, etc, but use of the word marriage. 31 for 31, including red states and blue. And in the most recent election, all presidential candidates were also in agreement. I am not saying good or bad, but voting results tell us it is not only the Christian Right and blue-hairs as is often portrayed.

I consider the term "Christianist" to be tantamount to hate speech, like calling someone the n-word. Please refrain from using it on this site again.

I feel the same way about people calling the National League "AAAA" and request similar consideration.

2.) The refusal of those on the left to understand that opposition to gay marriage need not stem from bigotry or hatred for homosexuals is infuriating and, at this point, drips of bad faith. One can be wholly in favor of equal legal rights for gay & lesbian partnerships whilst being opposed to calling it marriage without being an evil or misguided person. In fact, it strikes me as a perfectly valid point of view, though I'm not sure how I would vote on such a ballot proposition myself. (As I said above, I would have voted in favor of Washington's R-71 and I applaud its passage.)

See... Here's the thing, though --

I don't think I've ever heard a single pro-gay marriage advocate that churches recognize or perform gay marriages.

I don't see any logical way around it -- if the "state" can perform marriages, then I have significant problems with anyone claiming they're not bigoted because the support 'civil unions', just not 'gay marriage'.

It's pretty classic separate but equal, to me...

Either "the state" doesn't perform 'marriages' at all, or, the state simply cannot maintain one set of unions for some group, and another set of unions for another group not like the first.

... and yes - I know Obama has (to his discredit and for nakedly political centrist cred, IMHO) been bad on the issue, just to forestall that line of debate.

... and yes - I know Obama has (to his discredit and for nakedly political centrist cred, IMHO) been bad on the issue, just to forestall that line of debate.

My absolute favorite joke of last night came from the guy (at NRO?) who wrote "Hey, sure it's been a terrible night for Obama, but at least he got a big win in Maine!"

EDIT: It was from Ace Of Spades, my favorite political blog (just stay out of the comment section, egads).

Your fundamental thesis is exactly right, but your application in this particular instance is actually wrong. NY-23 is quite a bit more conservative (both socially and fiscally) than "Rockefeller Republican," and as I've been saying ad nauseum in this thread, actually aligns pretty well with Hoffman's politics. What sunk him was all the craziness in the race (lack of primary, three-way, running on the Conservative line, nationalization of the race, etc. etc. etc.), plus his own weakness as a candidate.

You certainly know the district better than I -- I was just napkin-back analyzing the Presidential vs. congressional vote splits.

Also, I love the fact that the White House told the press that Obama decided not to watch election returns in favor of watching a documentary about his own victory in 2008. What a delightfully inadvertent insight into his own narcissicism.

And that documentary was called "V."

Also, I love the fact that the White House told the press that Obama decided not to watch election returns in favor of watching a documentary about his own victory in 2008. What an unwitting window into his own narcissicism.

I was actually at the Chicago premier last Friday... Being selected as a commandant for one of the coming FEMA camps has its privileges.

What an unwitting window into his own narcissicism.

Tell Joey to stop using your account to stick lines of his into your posts.

I don't see any logical way around it -- if the "state" can perform marriages, then I have significant problems with anyone claiming they're not bigoted because the support 'civil unions', just not 'gay marriage'.

Yep. It is sort of like the "intent" arguments we have here from time to time about race issues. I don't know that I would use the term "bigoted" per se, but it's the same type of thing.

Also, I love the fact that the White House told the press that Obama decided not to watch election returns in favor of watching a documentary about his own victory in 2008. What an unwitting insight into his own narcissicism.

Obama frightens me very much in an eerie, detached from reality, believes his own press clippings way. I could see him stumbling into a major war out of sheer naivete and hubris, a la JFK/Cuba.

Tell Joey to stop using your account to stick lines of his into your posts.

I spiced up the language to make it more Esoteric-like. But I genuinely believe that Obama is more narcissistic than your average politician, which is saying something.

But I genuinely believe that Obama is more narcissistic than your average politician, which is saying something.

Is he more or less narcissistic than the average politician who runs for President? I'd have to say he fits comfortably in the middle of that group. It's not like the people he beat out for the job were particularly self-effacing.

Obama frightens me very much in an eerie, detached from reality, believes his own press clippings way. I could see him stumbling into a major war out of sheer naivete and hubris, a la JFK/Cuba.

This is a really good example of something I've pointed out a few times WRT BTF, about the nature of hardcore partisan rhetoric of whoever is out of power.

But I genuinely believe that Obama is more narcissistic than your average politician, which is saying something.

Ok, fine. How about Palin? Her too?

Obama frightens me very much in an eerie, detached from reality, believes his own press clippings way. I could see him stumbling into a major war out of sheer naivete and hubris, a la JFK/Cuba.

As opposed to the well-rounded, consider-every-source natures of guys like Bush, Reagan, Clinton, Carter, the other Bush, Nixon, Kennedy, and almost every other person to hold the role? These guys are all detached from reality by nature of the thousands upon thousands of people around them who all work to insulate them from reality.

As to the stumbling into a war issue, between the Iraq wars, Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Bosnia, and assorted other conflicts, that seems to be a Presidential tradition.

EDIT: I'm agreeing with robin on this. You have to be a really arrogant, self-centered #### to have the balls to hold yourself out there and claim that "I alone am the one capable of leading this nation into a future of peace and prosperity."

Ok, fine. How about Palin? Her too?

Oh yeah. I'm no fan of Palin, rest assured. I see how she could become a positive force for the GOP and politics in general, but I don't think she's inclined to take that path.

The (fairly small) rabid part of the GOP base that still seems to believe Palin is a viable candidate for President disturbs me almost (but not quite) as much as the wacko hard-left Kossites who seem to think that Obama's REAL problem is that he's "governed as a center-right President." (Seriously, there are a lot of people on places like Kos, MyDD and FDL who actually believe this.)

I don't see any logical way around it -- if the "state" can perform marriages, then I have significant problems with anyone claiming they're not bigoted because the support 'civil unions', just not 'gay marriage'.

The state should not perform marriages.

-- MWE

I'm sure all the lefty Virginians and Jerseyites who regularly post here will be by later, once they sleep off their despair-induced hangovers.

Well, the libertarian Jerseyans aren't very thrilled, though we're happy to see Corzine down in flames.

Well, the libertarian Jerseyans aren't very thrilled, though we're happy to see Corzine down in flames.

I take it that this was one of those #### sandwich vs. giant douche decisions for you?

EDIT: I'm agreeing with robin on this. You have to be a really arrogant, self-centered #### to have the balls to hold yourself out there and claim that "I alone am the one capable of leading this nation into a future of peace and prosperity."

Hunter S. Thompson: It is the ultimate power trip.
William Shakespeare: Put not thy trust in princes.

This is a really good example of something I've pointed out a few times WRT BTF, about the nature of hardcore partisan rhetoric of whoever is out of power.

Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, but it expressed a courage that is little seen in this day and age.

Obama frightens me very much in an eerie, detached from reality, believes his own press clippings way. I could see him stumbling into a major war out of sheer naivete and hubris, a la JFK/Cuba.

So you were looking for an arrogant, detached-from-reality President stumbling into a major war out of naivete and hubris, and JFK/Cuba was the first thing that popped into your head? Okaly-Dokaly. (putting aside the fact that Cuba wasn't a major war that we stumbled into, unless I missed something.)

The state should not perform marriages.

This, of course, is the credited response.

Yesterday's elections prove only one thing: that I was, and am, right about everything.

Carry on.

Actually, that's the demographic shift on most issues: Seattle is hyper-left while other parts of the state are mildly right.

Same thing exactly in Oregon but less mildly for the rest of the state, which is more rural, I think. Two anti-gay measures voted up by every other county in the state except for Multnomah, where Portland, is, which carried the vote negative for the state. That was in the 90's and regarding education not marriage, I haven't kept track since then.


Obama frightens me very much in an eerie, detached from reality, believes his own press clippings way. I could see him stumbling into a major war out of sheer naivete and hubris, a la JFK/Cuba.

Utterly ridiculous. Clinton was more like this than Obama ever could come close to being. Obama doesn't have the hard-edged ego that requires this kind of thing.


I'm agreeing with robin on this. You have to be a really arrogant, self-centered #### to have the balls to hold yourself out there and claim that "I alone am the one capable of leading this nation into a future of peace and prosperity."

I'd say this is needlessly cynical. If I think I'm better than the handful of candidates for a job - and really better than only ONE other person who actually matters at the end - I don't see how that turns you into some kind of megalomaniac who borders on mentally ill. Seriously?

I'd say this is needlessly cynical.

I'd say it's fairly realistic.

Over the last several decades in Canada, our most notable leaders have included Trudeau, Mulrooney, Chretien, and Harper. All of them have certainly not suffered from a deficit of self-confidence or arrogance (depending on whether or not you support that candidate).

That's not to say, of course, that some of them didn't do a good job in that role, but rather only that (when you're making decisions that will have significant effects on every one in your country, and on quite a few people outside of your country) if you don't have that level of self-confidence/arrogance, the job will destroy you.

I feel the same way about people calling the National League "AAAA" and request similar consideration.

Never! I will be Leaguist until I die, and you AAAA-types disgust. Don't even get me started on offensive behavior like the Rays-Pirates deal, with its repulsive league-mixing.

I don't think I've ever heard a single pro-gay marriage advocate that churches recognize or perform gay marriages.

I have

The state should not perform marriages.

agree

consider the term "Christianist" to be tantamount to hate speech, like calling someone the n-word. Please refrain from using it on this site again.

Fine, but what term do you want? Personally I consider it extremely offensive that Protestant Evangelicals insist that they ARE and that they get to define what Christians are and Christianity is- so I refuse to call them "Christians" (I haven't called them "Christianist", but I have heard the term and thought it was a good counterpart to "Islamist"...)
or should I just refer to them as conservative protestant evangelicals?

or is that offensive too?

The state should not perform marriages.

That's nice, but it doesn't really deal with reality.

I could see him stumbling into a major war out of sheer naivete and hubris, a la JFK/Cuba.

JFK and Cuba comes to mind first?

Anti-Obama?

I'd say this is needlessly cynical. If I think I'm better than the handful of candidates for a job - and really better than only ONE other person who actually matters at the end - I don't see how that turns you into some kind of megalomaniac who borders on mentally ill. Seriously?

You and I went round on this once before WRT Hillary Clinton. I agree with Ryan in many respects. Anyone doing the job/applying for it needs to believe s/he is superspecial on some level--it is a prerequisite. What I would also suggest is that even if someone hits office being relatively level-headed, the power and the trappings of being POTUS do, in fact, go to everybody's head who lands the gig. That manifests (and affects policy) in different ways, depending on how the guy's personality was when he went in--see Nixon and Clinton for somewhat atypical, sort of, uhh, "personal" examples.

WRT Obama, he strikes me as being a pretty "normal" level-headed guy for a big-time pol, but of course I am biased and ultimately have no idea. Certainly the historical nature of his win from the racial perspective would lend itself to unchecked egoism, but my gut opinion is that righties project a lot of that onto him, as part of their endless need to mock the "Cult of Obama" "Obamania" etc. It is, like some lefties calling Bush a clinical psychopath, etc. just a manifestation of what post 134 demonstrates so well.

As to the larger question--does any of this matter or is it just "meta"-bullshitt--I would argue that it does. Leader Personality does, along with a myriad of other things, affect history.

I've always been curious as to where all these claims of narcissism on Obama's part come from...

While I won't deny I'm very much an Obama supporter, I certainly see him as what he his - a pragmatic progressive with some serious political chops. I've read his books. I've heard most of his speeches - and while I was slow to get on board his bandwagon in the 2008 primaries (primarily because I still had a bad taste in my mouth from 2004 and didn't want to go "all in" again, only to come up short) -- I was an early supporter in his 2004 (really, 2003) Senate primary.... when he WAS considered to be an also-ran.

I won't claim that I'm "close" to him or anything - but back in 2003, you did get to talk to him in a more 'normal' fashion.

Does he come with the standard politicians' ego that "I can do this"? Sure... But I certainly never caught wind of anything like some sort "I and ONLY I can save the country! Follow me or else!"

He seemed pretty grounded to me - at a 2003 event, we talked a fair bit about student loan debt and it was a lot more "I feel ya' - just paid off my own" than it was "give me your devotion and I will fix it".

His blockbuster speeches were and are a lot more "We" than they "I".

I've got a couple theories, but they're just spitball theories...

#1 - It's all the "PUMA"s fault... this whole narcissism bit was heard over and over again from the Hillary dead-enders from Super Tuesday on. Of course - they always used in the context of "How dare this Obama guy try to take what is rightfully Hillary's! How narcissistic is that!" The Beck/Limbaugh right has pretty much been recycling PUMA garbage for a year now, so perhaps they just got to this line of attack.

#2 - Rather than the fault of Obama himself - perhaps its the fault of some of his more rabid supporters? I look at the health care debate - and plenty of lefties have the long knives out for Obama (see Hamsher, Jane and several others). Some progressives seem to think that Obama should just be ramming legislation through, and governing by fiat. In many cases, I'm seeing unreasonable lefties inflating the power the President does (and/or should) have.

#3 - ODS... I mean - let's face it - when you're cheering the US losing the Olympics because in some way, it reflects badly on Obama... when you're throwing a fit because a foreign body likes Obama... well... you tell me -- is that evidence that Obama is singularly narcissistic? Or evidence that his opponents are singularly and irrationally focused?

But I genuinely believe that Obama is more narcissistic than your average politician, which is saying something.

This is what scares me about the right today.

I voted for Reagan, but I could see and understand what his opponents saw in him or thought they saw in him.

I voted for Perot, but otherwise would have voted for Clinton over Bush 1* and Dole, but I could see and understand what Clinton's opponents saw in him or thought they saw in him.

OK, I voted against Bush 2 twice, and understand (and mostly agree with- except for the Hitler comp moonbat stuff), what his opponents saw in him or thought they saw in him.

Obama?
Yes he's a liberal (probably too liberal for my own taste based upon how he voted in the past and his platform) so conservatives don't like him, but, the stuff they project on him? Ummm, no, I don't see it, I think they are projecting their own internal stuff- and rather insistent about it to.

The "messiah" business was amusing at first, the it started to get scary because I realized that a lot of conservatives really did think many/most Obama voters/supporters saw him as a "messiah".

Personally, I just see another politician.


* 20/20 hindsight, You know, Bush 1 wasn't the best communicator, pretty charisma free, but he was better President/leader than the two that followed him, just my humble opinion.

Also, I love the fact that the White House told the press that Obama decided not to watch election returns in favor of watching a documentary about his own victory in 2008. What an unwitting window into his own narcissism.

Yeah, I think yesterday was probably the first day of his presidency in which there were no photo ops and he didn't appear on any television network anywhere. I also heard that he's started working on his third autobiography.

OK, that second sentence was a joke.

The "messiah" business was amusing at first, the it started to get scary because I realized that a lot of conservatives really did think many/most Obama voters/supporters saw him as a "messiah".

All my life I have grown up around liberals and known mostly liberals. You have no idea how many people I know genuinely viewed Obama in quasi-messianic terms. Did they actually think he was a divine being? Of course not. But they definitely viewed him as a "messiah" in the old-fashioned Jewish sense of the word (glorious, almost perfect & righteously-guided leader who will carry our causes to triumph). If you claim not to know of these people (and there were a LOT of them on the activist left), then I don't know what to say. We're meeting different folks.

Note use of past tense here. I don't know whether these folks have since soured on him.

or should I just refer to them as conservative protestant evangelicals?

or is that offensive too?

Nope, that's accurate. That's how they'd describe themselves, actually.

Just a nod to Lassus' post -

I watched V last night -- gotta say, mightily impressed and very much looking forward to future episodes. I wish, rather than 2 four weeks of episode runs, that they had made it into more of a multinight miniseries... but that first episode was really damn good.

That said, I knew... just KNEW... V was gonna come up (I also heard the comparison on WGN this morning).

What a load of poppycock.

We just spent 8 years living in a world where too many people thought a TV series ('24') was a template for governance and parable for society... Now, we're going to live by 'V'?

Can't we just let TV entertainment be TV entertainment?

His blockbuster speeches were and are a lot more "We" than they "I".

That reminds me, Rush is one of those who claims that Obama is narcissistic, and one of his pieces of "evidence" is the claim that Obama uses the word "I" a lot- certainly more than Rush does - or so Rush claims.

Go to Rush's site, go to virtually any transcript of one of his broadcasts, count the "I"s, go find some Obama speech/interview transcripts, count the "I"s- it is not particularly close.

IF Rush ever ran for office, he'd break the politician Narcissism meter.
Obama has nothing on him, Stuart Smalley has nothing on him, hell Bill O'Reilly has nothing on him.

All my life I have grown up around liberals and known mostly liberals. You have no idea how many people I know genuinely viewed Obama in quasi-messianic terms. Did they actually think he was a divine being? Of course not. But they definitely viewed him as a "messiah" in the old-fashioned Jewish sense of the word (glorious, almost perfect & righteously-guided leader who will carry our causes to triumph). If you claim not to know of these people (and there were a LOT of them on the activist left), then I don't know what to say. We're meeting different folks.

OK - so you follow my theory #2?

Because I have a hard time squaring how unreasonable aspersions and expectations cast upon by Obama by his supporters leads to Obama having a problem with narcissism.

Can't we just let TV entertainment be TV entertainment?

Can you imagine if 'Mad Men' had aired during the Clinton Admin?

Just a nod to Lassus' post -

Wait, are you saying you missed my V joke earlier? I thought that was funny, dammit.

Just saw Dan's Arlen/Sestak post -- and there's a key difference... Sestak is challenging Specter in a primary, and all things considered, it's been a fairly polite primary. What's more - it's had tangible benefits for the Dems. We haven't had to worry a bit about Specter joining any blue dogs in HCR block efforts, not to mention he's playing nice on a whole host of other legislation.

The conservatives didn't get to have a primary. It was a completely crony machine nomination, so why wouldn't a substantial portion of the Republican base not be unhappy.

What if the Pennsylvania Democrats simply announced "Primaries? Whatever. Specter is your candidate?" Do you really think the people who favor Sestak would just melt away happily?

Anyway, they're playing nice now because the primaries are most of a year away. We'll see how nice that race is a month before the primary and one of them is down.

IF Rush ever ran for office, he'd break the politician Narcissism meter.
Obama has nothing on him, Stuart Smalley has nothing on him, hell Bill O'Reilly has nothing on him.

Heh...

You must not have watched his interview with noted journalist Chris Wallace on the Fox Sunday yakker...

I thought he made it pretty clear -

Paraphrasing --
If I wanted to, I could look at the Fox News, the Glenn Becks, the conservative blogosphere and say "look what I created!". If I wanted to... If I wanted to - I could take satisfaction in what I have wrought. If I wanted to - I could be a bigger narcissist than Obama by point out that I, I, I am responsible for this. If I wanted to. Only If I wanted to would I be making it clear that I am to thank for all this. Fortunately, I don't want to -- but just so you all know, if I wanted to - I could take all this credit.

All my life I have grown up around liberals and known mostly liberals. You have no idea how many people I know genuinely viewed Obama in quasi-messianic terms. Did they actually think he was a divine being? Of course not. But they definitely viewed him as a "messiah" in the old-fashioned Jewish sense of the word (glorious, almost perfect & righteously-guided leader who will carry our causes to triumph). If you claim not to know of these people (and there were a LOT of them on the activist left), then I don't know what to say. We're meeting different folks.

We're meeting different folks, I grew up around Liberals, know many liberals, and NONE viewed Obama that way (some did view Bill Clinton that way- which scared the hell out of me).
I also know and work with some conservatives, and most thought liberals viewed Obama as the Messiah.

(and there were a LOT of them on the activist left)

My sister used to work for Ralph Nader, how's that for activist left?

Wait, are you saying you missed my V joke earlier? I thought that was funny, dammit.

Yeah - that wasn't bad. NRO's was better.

Obama frightens me very much in an eerie, detached from reality, believes his own press clippings way. I could see him stumbling into a major war out of sheer naivete and hubris, a la JFK/Cuba.

Others beat me to it, but this is astounding! Thanks for playing.

As for "Christianist", I don't see it as *anything* like hate speech or the n-word (and actually find that comparison telling, but whatever). It might not describe anyone here on this site (that I know of), but doesn't it simply describe someone who believes that Christianity is the best and tries to further a conservative/fundamentalist political agenda. Because I also "consider it extremely offensive that Protestant Evangelicals insist that they ARE and that they get to define what Christians are and Christianity is." But, while I disagree with you, I don't wish to offend, so what do I use instead?

We're meeting different folks, I grew up around Liberals, know many liberals, and NONE viewed Obama that way (some did view Bill Clinton that way- which scared the hell out of me).
I also know and work with some conservatives, and most thought liberals viewed Obama as the Messiah.

Ditto. (and ditto about Clinton -- I think many liberals were so excited about a charismatic dem after 12 years of Reagan and Bush that they flipped a bit for Clinton in 1992. In fact, most of the liberals I know were fairly even keeled about Obama in part b/c of their experiences with Clinton.)

Also, Obama is very charismatic, very intelligent, and ran a great campaign. Are his supporters allowed to get excited by his candidacy without being called cultists?

I watched V last night -- gotta say, mightily impressed and very much looking forward to future episodes. I wish, rather than 2 four weeks of episode runs, that they had made it into more of a multinight miniseries... but that first episode was really damn good.

You know I'm down with the politics, but I'll be glad to hijack for science fiction.

I wish I had been more impressed than I actually was. I know it's entertainment, and science-fiction entertainment at that, but it was just too simple for my tastes. I was around for the original, which was hilarious fun even THEN, but now? How on earth they felt like lizard bodies under human skins was just going to remain unquestioned for years and years as no one in sleeper cells got, say, hit by a car is annoying. No one wondering why aliens look just like them? No one asking, well, say, we kind of have the universe mapped out, where did you come from?

Granted, I'm a hard sci-fi guy and have turned into a difficult room for this sort of thing but this pilot strikes me as bad science fiction. An unquestioning rehash of 80's sci-fi and mores set 25 years later with no actual adjusting for context. Again, I'm in the wheelhouse, and I WANT it to be great, but why they couldn't just make a new alien story instead of going back to this stupid thing frustrates me. There's a reason why sci-fi is marginalized: it marginalizes itself.

The conservatives didn't get to have a primary. It was a completely crony machine nomination, so why wouldn't a substantial portion of the Republican base not be unhappy.

What if the Pennsylvania Democrats simply announced "Primaries? Whatever. Specter is your candidate?" Do you really think the people who favor Sestak would just melt away happily?

Anyway, they're playing nice now because the primaries are most of a year away. We'll see how nice that race is a month before the primary and one of them is down.

Oh, come on, Dan...

This was a special election to fill out 1 year of a two year congressional seat.

While I defer to Esoteric on the district, and sure - it seems like Dede is much more than just a RINO/moderate - she apparently IS a sitting GOP state legislature representative... even if she got tabbed by being someone's BFF, it would seem to me she probably would have been a shortlist for the seat anyway.

I guess I have a hard time understanding how this was such a visceral reaction by the district against Schozzafava - considering Hoffman was a district import.

I think it was more a national conservative freakout than a local GOP/conservative reaction.

It's oddly ironic -- while it may be true that the original selection stank to high heaven of 'machinery', I would think it's ALSO true that the local party organization knows the district better than does Dick Armey or the movement that got behind Hoffman.

Are his supporters allowed to get excited by his candidacy without being called cultists?

Apparently not.

But if they get to call Obama supporters cultists the I get to refer to the hard core of Palin supporters (Palinistas? Rogues?) as cultists too.

Are his supporters allowed to get excited by his candidacy without being called cultists?

Besides, did you see who the Blue Team ran out there in 2000 and 2004? Forgive me for being excited at the prospect of having a major party candidate to vote for who wasn't John Freaking Kerry.

I'm unfamiliar with the term "Christianist". What is offensive about it?

You have no idea how many people I know genuinely viewed Obama in quasi-messianic terms. Did they actually think he was a divine being? Of course not. But they definitely viewed him as a "messiah" in the old-fashioned Jewish sense of the word (glorious, almost perfect & righteously-guided leader who will carry our causes to triumph)

By the same token, the exact tone of leader worship was going on in the early 2000s, after 9/11 on through the first part of the Iraq invasion. A modern holy war, lead by a born-again evangelical who openly believed that it was God's will that he was in office and that he was doing God's work in Iraq. Yet for some reason, the same people who now sneer at Obama-as-Messiah were strangely quiet about their own guy back in the day.

"Yeah, McDonnell winning was a given, but I had no idea that it was going to be this big a landslide, and any leftie who implies that he did is simply lying through his teeth."

Depends what you mean by landslide, I guess. The Great Orange Satan has been saying for months that Deeds was going to get pancaked, and his pre-election prediction was "Bob McDonnell (R) +11. Gets called seconds after the polls close.". That translates to 55.5% - 44.5%, against an actual result of 58.7% - 41.3%.

Deeds was a terrible candidate who ran a terrible campaign, and most lefties have seen him as a dead man walking for quite a while now.

It's oddly ironic -- while it may be true that the original selection stank to high heaven of 'machinery', I would think it's ALSO true that the local party organization knows the district better than does Dick Armey or the movement that got behind Hoffman.

That was my assumption, also the "freakout" against her wasn't "we're not tolerating this corrupt machine anymore" it was more ideological, what I kept hearing over and over again, was that she was pro-Choice/ pro-Gay Marriage, and that was why her opponents found her unacceptable.

Those are not entirely unusual positions for North Eastern Republicans (see Mayor Giuliani) (BTW I've heard that during last years election season the moderator of FREEP banned Giuliani supporters from the site).

Granted I don't live in NY-23, but I've lived in NY State my whole Life, Long Island (Republican), NYC (Liberal), Buffalo (mix), Binghamton (mix), and I just don't see New York Republicans revolting en masse against a liberal Republican on those grounds.

Depends what you mean by landslide, I guess.

18% in a State with 8 million people?
If that's not a landslide it's close.

Deeds was a terrible candidate who ran a terrible campaign, and most lefties have seen him as a dead man walking for quite a while now.

Worst Democratic campaign in a long time, really.

I'm still trying to figure exactly who Deeds thought he was appealing to. It's as if he thought he could win by peeling off the hardest of hard core McDonnell supporters.... meanwhile, McDonnell seized the centrist ground pretty early and pretty easily (and Deeds made virtually ZERO effort to knock him from it), and Deeds was utterly uninterested in any lefties/NOVA Dems.

Maybe he thought the turnout would be REALLY low and he could win by nipping off a few dozen confused McDonnell supporters that thought the (D) and (R) on the ballots were misprints + his own family.

You have no idea how many people I know genuinely viewed Obama in quasi-messianic terms. Did they actually think he was a divine being? Of course not. But they definitely viewed him as a "messiah" in the old-fashioned Jewish sense of the word (glorious, almost perfect & righteously-guided leader who will carry our causes to triumph)

An actual recorded conversation between a reporter and a particularly crazed Obama-worshipping maniac named Peggy Joseph:

Reporter: "Peggy Joseph took her daughter out of school early Wednesday for this. Her emotions ran high following Obama's speech."
Peggy Joseph: "It was the most memorable time of my life. It was a touching moment."
Reporter: "Why?"
Peggy Joseph: "Because I never thought this day would ever happen. I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know. If I help him, he's gonna help me." [Bold emphasis mine]


Ummmm, yeah. No messiah worship going on there at all!

I guess I have a hard time understanding how this was such a visceral reaction by the district against Schozzafava - considering Hoffman was a district import.


Do a lot of Republicans get endorsed by Kos or have strong ties to ACORN?

Let's reverse it. Let's say that Pennsylvania decides that Specter is the candidate and #### Sestak. Specter is then seen arguably more to the right than the (unnamed for this purpose) Republican candidate, a former Democrat. Rush Limbaugh and the Club for Growth endorse the Democrat over the liberal Republican.

Now, let's say that Pennsylvania actually had a viable 3rd party and call it the Progressive Party. Can you honestly say that given this situation above, progressives would not seriously explore running a 3rd party against Specter? That if the Progressive candidate was viable in an election, there wouldn't be national support thrown in for the progressive?

BTW I've heard that during last years election season the moderator of FREEP banned Giuliani supporters from the site

Yes. This is true.

Redstate - among many (most?) others - purged the P4VLbots.

On the Dem side, there were no bannings -- but the PUMAs certainly ran off in a huff.

"Anyway, they're playing nice now because the primaries are most of a year away. We'll see how nice that race is a month before the primary and one of them is down."

By a month before the election, Specter's going to be so far underwater he'll be able to run his campaign from the Lusitania. He's already dead - he just hasn't stopped moving yet.

[183] "Look, I cherrypicked a single example of a idiot/nutjob who is all over YouTube and the blogosphere. Therefore, the sweeping generalization I made earlier is correct."

"Let's reverse it. Let's say that Pennsylvania decides that Specter is the candidate and #### Sestak. Specter is then seen arguably more to the right than the (unnamed for this purpose) than the Republican candidate, a former Democrat. Rush Limbaugh and the Club for Growth endorse the Democrat over the liberal Republican.

Now, let's say that Pennsylvania actually had a viable 3rd party and call it the Progressive Party. Can you honestly say that given this situation above, progressives would not seriously explore running a 3rd party against Specter?"

Words can not describe how unlikely any given part of this scenario is, much less the entire package. There's a better chance that moon ponies will invade and sieze power in a coup.

18% in a State with 8 million people?
If that's not a landslide it's close.

I think Vlad's basic point was that most lefties were assuming that Deeds would lose by 10+ points, so the claim that the left is shocked! by an 18 point loss is a bit silly. I guess I could understand the argument if Deeds lost 75-25 or something, but 59-41 wasn't particularly surprising.

Reporter: "Peggy Joseph took her daughter out of school early Wednesday for this. Her emotions ran high following Obama's speech."
Peggy Joseph: "It was the most memorable time of my life. It was a touching moment."
Reporter: "Why?"
Peggy Joseph: "Because I never thought this day would ever happen. I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know. If I help him, he's gonna help me." [Bold emphasis mine]


Ummmm, yeah. No messiah worship going on there at all!

Yes, yes...

I really curse the day we appointed "Peggy Joseph" spokesperson for Obama nation.

That was our worst mistake since we sent that press release to Glenn Reynolds announcing that Ward Churchill had been appointed grand high spokesperson for all 9/11 response.

There's a better chance that moon ponies will invade and sieze power in a coup.

The moon ponies' leader is even more narcissistic than Obama. He spends all of his time combing his turquoise mane.

Words can not describe how unlikely any given part of this scenario is, much less the entire package. There's a better chance that moon ponies will invade and sieze power in a coup.

So, then, given that it's an unlikely scenario, I'm sure the lefties will stop treating NY-23 as some typical happenstance that will bring TEH DOOM~! to Republicans. This scenario did just happen in NY-23 and if the exact reverse happened, progressives would act in the same manner that conservatives did.

The fact is, both parties have substantial portions that want to "take out" their moderates. It's nothing uniquely Republican.

"No messiah worship going on there at all!"

This is, for me, one of the most unfortunate consequences of recent wingnuttery: Terms like "fascist" and "socialist" and "messianic" are losing their meaning. If a genuinely messianic political figure (Sun Myung Moon, say) decided to run for office in 2012, how would we describe him without people sighing and turning the page?

Or, as another example: now that the right wing's been beating the "Obama is a Socialist" drum, what's the result? They've greatly improved public perceptions of socialism. St. Ronnie must be rolling in his grave...

Joey discovers certain people say bizarre things when emotional. Welcome to the human race, Joey.

Anyone can find a particularly crazed maniac supporter for the other guy. It takes something special to find that crazed maniac supporter to be himself:

One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."

A man who believes the president to be a prophet with a direct line to God? Joey must be enraged!

"[George W. Bush] is one of those men God and fate somehow lead to the fore in times of challenge." — George Pataki

"Why is this man in the White House? The majority of America did not vote for him. He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this." — Gen. William "Jerry" Boykin

"God speaks through me." — George W. Bush

I could do this for a very long time.

"I think Vlad's basic point was that most lefties were assuming that Deeds would lose by 10+ points, so the claim that the left is shocked! by an 18 point loss is a bit silly."

Yeah, pretty much. I wouldn't have been surprised by anything between 10 and 20 points. Less than 10 would've been almost as surprising as more than 20.

If he was banking on a low-turnout election, he got it half-right: Exit polling indicates that Democrats stayed home in droves.

They've greatly improved public perceptions of socialism.

In the old days of primer I could have posted a response as Nelson Muntz.

Should all Florida Republicans just get in line behind Crist because he's governor already, never mind that Rubio has been the top guy in the state house for awhile now? Dude, seriously, WTF?

I assume, based on the principles expressed, that the people spouting the OMG SCOZZA COUP D'ETAT, are also shocked and appalled that Sestak is challenging the more moderate Specter.

Presumably, they were also attacking the moonbats of the left for running Ned Lamont against Joe Lieberman in 2006.

Do a lot of Republicans get endorsed by Kos or have strong ties to ACORN?

You're morphing a bit, Dan... the ACORN boogeyman? Really?

I would note, too, Schozzafava was hardly "endorsed" by Kos - I believe the post simply said he was 'rooting' for her. There was no link to her campaign site, a donate link, etc.

I suspect there was more a little tongue-in-cheek briar rabbit in that -- but it was also simply a matter of another blue dog not really doing the house caucus much good.

I find myself more and more in disagreement with Markos on plenty - but strategically speaking, he's pretty solid... He's desperately pushing the "Crist-Obama hug", hoping the conservatives adopt it in the same way Dems dogged Holy Joe with the "kiss".

The fact is, both parties have substantial portions that want to "take out" their moderates. It's nothing uniquely Republican.

So far the moonbats just whine and talk about it (LGM has been ranting against Lieberman for quite some time)
The wingnuts are SERIOUS about it.

This scenario did just happen in NY-23 and if the exact reverse happened, progressives would act in the same manner that conservatives did.

That's just it, I don;'t see them doing it, at least not nearly to the same extent.

I don't see any Obama SCOTUS nominee facing a base revolt the way Miers did.

I could be wrong (wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last).

The wingnuts have moved past the whining stage and are now in active fist pounding temper tantrum take my ball and go home territory, the moonbats just whine and whine.

But then again being a centrist (more or less) leaves me pretty puzzled as to why some people (left and right) get so hopping mad at moderates. It's the wingnuts and moonbats that I get mad at.

"So, then, given that it's an unlikely scenario, I'm sure the lefties will stop treating NY-23 as some typical happenstance that will bring TEH DOOM~! to Republicans."

The unlikely parts, listed in order of appearance:

1) That any group of Pennsylvanians would prefer Specter to Sestak as a candidate.
2) That the PA Republicans would nominate a former Democrat.
3) That Rush Limbaugh or the Club for Growth would endorse anyone with any connection, past or present, with the Democratic Party.
4) That a third party could run a viable candidate in PA for an office of any prominence whatsoever.

Mostly, it just seems like an ill-fitting comparison.

That any group of Pennsylvanians would prefer Specter to Sestak as a candidate.

The Scottish ones might.

"I don't see any Obama SCOTUS nominee facing a base revolt the way Miers did."

In part because it's hard to imagine Obama nominating someone so spectacularly unqualified for the job.