User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.6376 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
A few years ago in Connecticut William F. Buckley endorsed the Dem over the Repub (for governor) because he felt the Dem was to the right of the Repub...
But the Rush is no Buckley...
No sale. You just don't get it, as usual.
Naw. You're just projecting. Sure, there are a few people like that--on both sides. You just notice the ones who are into the guy you're not into. At some point, maybe 2012, the Repubs will find someone with some Reagan in him/her, and we will be hearing the same crap from Keith Olbermann that we hear from Limbaugh--and from you and Ray and DMN and Joey--now. And you and Joey will be on BTF (I hope) telling us how fukcing cool unnamed Repub pol is.
Right now, nobody likes Specter. Nobody. My bosses have handed him a shitload of money over the last 20-odd years' worth of election cycles, and they gave up on him as a lost cause probably two/three months ago.
Literally everybody in the state except for him knows that he's done.
I'm well aware of that. I think it's really the only solution to the problem, though. State sanctioning of marriage is a vestige of the days when the church WAS (more or less) the state; if you return marriage to the churches and get government out of the business of having to validate the personal choices of individuals, everyone would be better off.
-- MWE
Like I said, though -- there's a difference...
Sestak may be more left than Specter, but I have a hard painting him as a 'liberal'. There are lots of base lefties unhappy with a lot of blue dogs, but no one's calling for a classic Berkeley liberal to run in some rural MS district or NE-SEN or whatever.
Muslims practice some version of Islam.
Christians practice some version of Christianity.
Islamists believe (their personal favorite) tenents of Islam should be instituted as a rules to govern the secular state.
Christianists believe (their personal favorite) tenents of Christianity should be instituted as rules to govern the secular state.
I don't give a flying #### if your panties bunch over the use of the word. It's a very useful term in distinguishing Christians from wingnutters who want to turn the United States into "a Christian nation." And for all of his faults, you'd do yourself better if you listened to Sullivan occasionally.
There is no good faith argument for the continued treatment of gays and lesbians as second class citizens. If the state is going to be in the marriage business it has to be equal access to all. No "seperate but equal" civil union ########. Equal access for everyone. There exists no non-religious argument for continuing our current discriminatory polices, and religious arguments are a non-starter.
So is DADT. (edit) With that said, the 14th guarantees equal protection to all citizens, so it's not just the federal government that needs to get out of the unequal laws business.
And now that you have posted a word in this thread, you're fair game.
No, but the revolt against Miers had very little to do with her "qualifications", it was more, "oh my god, how do we know she's not another Souter!!!!!"
If Obama picks a "stealth" candidate, you'll get some whining from the left, but no serious active opposition.
The far right on the otherhand wants to KNOW (As much as one can know), that any candidate is one of them.
Fine, but a legal, state-sanctioned union has many ramifications, from tax rates, to child custody, to estate taxation and inheritances, distribution of SS survivorship benefits, to hospital and prison visitation, to custodial rights of the dead and/or those in a permanently vegetative state...
I loved it, when they finally found the true power in the Universe, the man actually in charge, was a senile old hermit who didn't understand any of the questions he was asked to answer.
Sigh...
Again...
There's a difference between primarying/taking out a 'Democrat' in state where the electorate is surely to the LEFT of said Democrat (or a 'Republican' in a district where the electorate is to the RIGHT of said Republican) -- and thinking a Bachmann/Kucinich type is appropriate in any and every race.
Plenty of Democrats - including those in the base - got behind Mark Warner... he's surely a conservative Dem. Ditto Sebelius. Ditto John Tester... and Brian Schweitzer...
Joe Lieberman SHOULD have been primaried because he wasn't just "outside the base" -- he took joy in poking his fingers into the eyes of the 'base', not to mention his own party. He's the most useful of useful idiots -- the guy Fox or the GOP could ALWAYS count on to lend a false veneer of 'bipartisanship' to any opposition or issue.
Ben Nelson does not - and will not - get primaried because though he's only a reliable 50/50 Dem vote, he doesn't go out of his way to be a self-important ass. He doesn't have the constant need for attention... and he doesn't gleefully pick fights with his party base.
I'm just glad Lieberman will be gone in 3 years. He's a joke. In 2006, he's pledging how much he supports universal health care - now he's going to filibuster with the GOP?
You wanna talk narcissism -- Holy Joe is the biggest narcissist in the world's most famous club of them.
There was actually some concern from the left about Sotomayor's record of Roberts/Alito-esque deference to authority against the rights of individuals (she always sided on the cause of the police, for example), but she was clearly qualified so it's not something akin to Miers (who's only qualification was that she was a Bushie.)
Eh, maybe the opposition from the far right. I know a lot of lefties who were just as vocal and just as strongly against her, though, purely because she was in so far over her head. Sure, in the abstract it would've been nice if Bush accidentally nominated a centrist, but at some point you have to think of the good of the nation, y'know?
SCHOOLKIDS: Mmm, mmm, mmm. Barack Hussein Obama. He said that all must lend a hand to make this country strong again. Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama. He said we must be fair today, equal work means equal pay. Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama. He said we all must take a stand, to make sure everyone gets a chance. Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama. He said red, yellow, black or white, all are equal in his sight. Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama. Yes! Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama.
Ben Nelson does not - and will not - get primaried because though he's only a reliable 50/50 Dem vote, he doesn't go out of his way to be a self-important ass. He doesn't have the constant need for attention... and he doesn't gleefully pick fights with his party base.
Plus, of course, the fact that Lieberman is significantly to the right of his region's voters, while Nelson is not.
Lieberman had to lie his head off about his intentions in order to win last cycle, and his prospects for 2012 are accordingly pretty grim.
When Rick Strom came to my elementary school for an anti-drug event, we sang a song in his honor, too. That didn't mean that they were inducting us into the Cult of Strom, though (good thing, too - he got cut the next year).
I'm still waiting for him to acknowledge that he may just possibly have been wrong about Pedro Martinez.
What happens if Obama nominates a SCOTUS candidate who is unquestionably qualified in every way, shape and form and a reliably "liberal/moderate" vote on most jurisprudential issues EXCEPT that s/he is on record as believing that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and that the abortion issue is appropriately left to the individual states?
Later on he retracted the endorsement for strategic reasons when he realized what a shitstorm it had kicked up on the right.
But that's okay, because it's not public funds - privately funded indoctrination is always so much more efficient.
he did in a recent thread. maybe some game 2 preview one.
Moreover, the electorate of Connecticut is significantly less liberal than that of the other New England states, NH excepted. Until the '06/'08 wipeout it regularly sent several Republicans to Congress, and at least one of those (Rob Simmons) is strongly favored to take Chris Dodd's Senate seat from him next year (the proper verb for this phenomenon is "to Corzine" someone). It's not a conservative state by any means, but it's one where Lieberman, as an independent liberal-centrist maverick, is well positioned to romp. Hell, he'd get the votes of >75% of the state's REPUBLICANS in 2012 if he runs, to say nothing of the independents and Dems. I'd certainly vote for him over whichever palooka the GOP puts up or Ned Lamont v2.0.
NY-23 hasn't elected a Democrat to Congress since the 19th century, with the exceptions of Mike McNulty, Sam Stratton, Peter Peyser, Jonathan Bingham, Charles Buckley, Jacob Gilbert, Isidore Dollinger, Sidney Fine, Walter Lynch, Frank Oliver, Richard McKiniry, Daniel Oliver, and Joseph Gouldon.
Outside of those 13 that served for 62 years, you are correct.
In that case, I withdraw my comment, except for the needlessly snarky and wastefully inflamatory follow-up observation that "It certainly took him long enough."
OK, it's not particularly a point I want to quibble over -- I remember reading the specific post when it went up, and I got a lot more tongue-in-cheek vibe out of it - but I'm too lazy to go dig it up.
Ultimately, I think the GOP is in a lot of trouble if a Markos Moulitsas post moves the base to that extent...
If I wasn't a horrific godless human being, I would pray, and I mean PRAY that this sort of thing keeps getting slung by the right. Don't ever stop, Joey. I beg you.
To be clear, I agree with you 100% on this. I just don't think the state is going to get out of the business of sanctioning marriages anytime in the near future.
The headline: "NY-23: The most liberal candidate leads (and it's not the Dem)"
Didn't something like this come up with Ginsburg? I think she believed (and still believes) that equal protection provides far stronger support for abortion rights than the penumbral "right to privacy." Though I'm inclined to agree, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a current nominee with the same stated beliefs tarred with "X would overturn Roe v. Wade!!!!!!"
I don't think so...
His approve/disapprove is a wash, at best, his reelect is in the low to mid 40s. His prospects are about those of Dodd - but worse because Dodd has a party and party Senate committee that can dump money and surrogates onto him, while Joe will not.
Bets 3 years out are stupid - but I would bet ANY BBREF sponsorship that if he runs again, he's out in 20<strike>06</strike>12 [Edit: guess I would have lost that bet].
He's most certainly not going to be able to use the "He's with us on everything but the war" BS after the way he's acted the last 3 years... and he's near certain to lose his chair at some point soon - so he won't be able to use his bacon bringing skills, either.
He's a dead senator walking.
EDIT:
Here's his pollster.com fav/unfavorable and his approve/disapprove.
He's negative on fav/unf and barely eeking out a positive (but under 50) approve/disapprove....
... and that's all of his own making. Wait'll we have an opportunity to get Joe's Greatest Hits part II up and running.
Well since the odds of Obama nominating ME are nil, I don't ever see this happening :-)
Hey, if Miers was qualified, so am I.
well I'd vote against using eminent domain power to take property to give to someone else...
so maybe I wouldn't be so reliable
"NY-23" hasn't always been the NY-23 of today. While it's correct that there have been Dems who represented the district which was then designated number 23 in the years since the Civil War, there are large parts of the current NY-23 (generally, the northernmost part of the current district) which were not part of the NY-23s represented by the Dems you listed. In other words, regardless of the numerical designation, much of the current NY-23 has not been represented by a Democrat since the Civil War.
Or GWB/Iraq?
Much as I hate Lieberman, that bet seems like easy money to me...
It was my version of a dog whistle.
And it worked.
He's most certainly not going to be able to use the "He's with us on everything but the war" BS after the way he's acted the last 3 years.
By the DW-NOMINATE guys, Lieberman has been the 31st most-conservative Democratic Senator in the 111th Senate. In the 110th Senate, he was the 11th most-conservative Democratic Senator.
Ummm...yeah... noticed that.
I think it's wishcasting on my part.
If I had to do it over again, I think I'd have happily traded one of the other seats we picked up in 2006 if meant tossing Joe out.
I really cannot stand that #########.
I'm especially incensed about his BS on HCR... he's not a particular expert on it - he doesn't sit on ANY of the committees involved in the legislation. He ran EXACTLY in the other direction in 2006.
He's blustering strictly for two purposes: 1)Like I said, he cannot stand being out of the limelight, and 2)he never passes up an opportunity to pick a fight with the people he feels 'wronged him' in 2006.
I actually don't think he'd dare join a GOP filibuster - he'd lose his chairmanship so fast it wouldn't be funny - he's just being a pain in the ass.
He's nothing but a vindictive #########... I suppose I am/can be, too -- but then, I'm not a Senator and one would hope someone voting on legislation could occasionally put petty vanity aside.
Then perhaps the many proponents of that meme should have made the more accurate, vague claim rather than the impressive-sounding wrong claim.
The fact is, there's been no consistent district that has represented the exact same area as 23, with the areas in the current 23 being chopped and distributed constantly among districts 23-27 all over the place. Certainly not anything that could be used to make such a claim. The fact of the matter is the meme was simply manufactured out of thin air to make it look like more of an accomplishment for the Democrats.
The vote analysis numbers are useful - but they don't tell the whole story, by any stretch of the imagination.
No such thing. Learned that in the Philadelphia, MS thread.
Joey is clearly more obsessed with Obama than virtually any "Obama-adorer" on the left.
EDIT: Or, what Peng said.
Perhaps not, but it's strong evidence against the assertion that Lieberman's become more conservative than 2006 and lied about his political ideology.
Lieberman's usually been a complete pain-in-the-ass. If Connecticut voters truly saw Lieberman as some fall-in-line Democrat, he wouldn't have been primaried out in 2006.
Because God knows Shepherd Fairey's never sold merchandise based on his artwork before.
Personally, I bow down to one of St. Fairey's holy depictions of Andre the Giant and offer up thankful prayers at least three times a day.
Why does Joey hate capitalism?
EDIT: Incidentally, I can't help but notice that the book is sitting at a robust #167,417 on Amazon.com's Bestsellers list, so it's not like this thing is exactly flying off the shelves. I really can't figure out what bothers Joey so much about this.
I never said that he became more conservative - just that he lied about the positions he'd hold and the policies and actions that he'd pursue. Which is pretty indisputably true.
Sure - which is why they're useful... but not all votes are equal - and lots of things don't show up in votes.
We'll what he ultimately ends up doing on the HCR vote... because he's very much doing a 180 on things he said in the 2006 cycle, and not just doing a "I can't vote for it" 180, but a "I'll stop it myself" 180.... which is completely unacceptable.
He's done a ton of things that are nothing more than GOP yak fodder -- his committee is having hearings on Obama's "Czar problem", for example.
I'll say it again... it's not mostly his voting record that pisses me (though - that will change if his vote matches his rhetoric on HCR) -- it's the fact that he's undermining his caucus at every step of the way. It's the fact that he's the first person Fox turns to when they want a nominal 'Democrat' to badmouth some legislation... or Obama... or whatever.
Again, I'll compare him to Ben Nelson... while many on the left are grumbling over Nelson, no one is seriously talking about primarying him or wishing him out of the senate. Nelson's a true centrist, seems to vote and talk his conscience, and that's fine... I don't agree with him, but I've got no real problem with him.
Lieberman has just reached the point where his single vote is no longer worth the annoyance that comes with him.
You have a time machine?
Actually, I agree with Zonk, if you think "Every indication is that Lieberman will cruise to another term if he runs." you are delusional, not in Connecticut, not after the last 3 years.
3 Years is an eternity in politics, but Lieberman really is a deadman walking at this point
People change, in this case Lieberman has been drifting right while the electorate in Conn. has been drifting right. For most of the time he's been in office he has been in tune with that electorate, that time is no more.
First - incumbency is a powerful electoral tool. Once Lieberman decided to run in the general, he still had the benefits of incumbency.
Second - Lamont (and the Dems) completely screwed the pooch after the primary. Ned went on vacation - more or less based on promises from Dodd and others - that they'd convince Holy Joe to bow out. He could have knocked Lieberman out - but he didn't... and he didn't because everyone underestimated Lieberman's enormous ego.
As I've said many, many times in political threads... it's completely wrong to look at bottom line numbers from election night and think the whole story lies in them.
Both Vlad and I posted Liebermans current numbers -- he's got a negative job approval rating and a negative/near negative fav/unfav. Those things may not directly correlate to the electorate's ideology vs. Joe's own, but they certainly have to be considered part of the story.
1) The GOP winning a few governorships does not mean "Obama is toast!". Grip, get one.
2) Hoffman lost because he wasn't a major-party candidate (and kinda goofy looking), not because he was a right-wing lunatic. The district goes bye-bye in a couple of years anyway.
3) Using terms like "Dimocrat", "Rethuglican", "moonbat", etc. pretty much disqualifies you as a serious person.
4) Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are not worth your hatred; they don't know and they don't care. Same story with figures on the left.
5) Being angry does not make you correct, or morally superior. Chill.
6) Yes, people watch Fox News/Keith Olbermann. So? You don't have to.
7) Dems hold Congress in 2010, but Obama loses in 2012.
8) Phillies in seven.
I meant one or the other, but I'm sure there are people who do watch both. I was a huge Olbermann fan when he was on ESPN, and later on his "Big Show" on MSNBC circa 1998. Then he became convinced he was Edward R. Murrow reincarnated, America's last hope against Karl Rove's evil killbots, and I stopped watching. I can't even stand to watch Sunday night football's pre-game show.
Fox News? It's good for a few laughs, I guess, as are CNN and the others. I get most of my news from the Net these days...
To whom? If there's a viable opposition candidate out there, I'm sure not seeing him/her.
See, this is what I'm talking about.
Moon believes, in a very real and literal sense, that he is the Messiah. He threw a party, with members of Congress and various dignitaries, where he had himself crowned King of the Universe.
When you talk about Obama as the Messiah often enough, you totally lose the ability to convey exactly how bugfuck crazy someone like Moon really is. Which is important. We as a nation need to maintain some measure of natural resistance to genuine Nazis and Bolsheviks and people with Messianic delusions, or else one will eventually work his way into office and then we'll all be in for it.
How on earth do you misspell "cunnilingus"? It should be right on the tip of your tongue at all times.
Hot dogs and grapes?
As others have pointed out, there were only two races that affect the national debate, both of them House seats. Democrats won both. Since I don't live in Virginia or New Jersey or Maine, I don't see anything that would cause depression. 2 more votes for health care is a good thing, regardless of how the media has been spinning the results of local races.
It means you're acting like a jerk more interested in annoying people than actually having a discussion. Seriously, drop the wingnut-every-third-word thing, it makes you seem paranoid.
Edit: And I mostly advise it because you're a pretty interesting commentator alls and all, the wingnut wingnut wingnut thing is just grating.
Boy, he really pitched great tonight, huh?
Looks like the Yankees are still his f*cking daddy. It's good to know that there are some things in life that will never change.
It depends on who you're talking about. If you're talking about David or Szymborski or whomever such and like, it's best to tailor your slur to a personal level. But if you're talking about a generic person who thinks Sarah Palin is something more than Britney Spears with political handlers, you're safe with just slinging out the generic "wingnut."
I refuse to cater to the craven insanity that we should treat everyone as if they're opinions are perfectly valid, even when they're categorically batshit insane.
by what measure? My problem is that the far right is attributing something to marriage that isn't historically accurate. Marriage has never been about love or any of that feel good stuff that they want to push down your throat, it's selling off of a daughter(with or without her consent didn't matter) into a forced marriage. If you were poor, you didn't get married, being in love meant nothing, and prior to Christianity marriage between male and male happened from time to time. This bs about the sanctity of marriage is full of ignorance of history, basically marriage as we know it didn't stem until there became a legitimate middle class around end of the 15th century. Prior to that, marriage was a hit or miss proposition depending on who was in power at the time.
it's ridiculous to think that the right is doing anything other than trying to force a narrow minded biggoted religious agenda onto a free country, imagine if there was a popular vote to allow equal rights for blacks.
you misspelled Bush in the first word, it's tough to get sometimes, Obama intelligent wants to do what's right. Bush crafty and wants to do what is right for his buddies pocketbooks. I guess it can get confusing, since both of them wanted to run up the deficit.
I went to the Democratic caucus here in Washington (the Republican one all but decided by then.)
The Hillary fans were (to this libertarian) fairly knowledgeable about the major issues and could articulate why they supported her. I didn't agree with them all the time, but they had good reasoning as to why they supported her. I also thought they were fairly pragmatic.
The Obama fans, by contrast, didn't seem to know where he stood on the issues. They just knew he was going to save everyone. I recall one incident where an undecided voter asked the Hillary and Obama supporters where their candidate stood on energy; the Obama supporters literally had no idea of his position - and this on a major issue, with implications on the environment, energy prices, the economy, etc.
I mean, ask the average Obama fan where he stands on gay marriage, and they'll think he endorses it, even though (well, Biden) said Obama was against gay marriage in the VP debates. That doesn't necessarily reflect upon the candidate, but it does reflect upon his supporters.
Anyway, I agree, except of course you mean the left; imagine if there were a popular vote on whether property rights were to be respected.
I refuse to cater to the craven insanity that we should treat everyone as if they're opinions are perfectly valid, even when they're categorically batshit insane.
It also makes it easier for the rest of us; people who really believe stuff like "Britney Spears with political handlers" are not serious people, and thus need not be engaged in a serious conversation. Buh-bye.
The Obama fans, by contrast, didn't seem to know where he stood on the issues. They just knew he was going to save everyone.
You could say this about pretty much any successful politician. Getting elected is hard; getting elected to high office is harder; getting elected President practically requires mass hypnosis. People really didn't care what Obama stood for, as long as he was Not George Bush. The media didn't care to ask. They're finding out now, though.
<Shrug> What national implications do you think those races have? My take is that the NJ race has almost zero implications nationally. Corzine was incredibly unpopular and lost. I don't think that race had much to do with perceptions of Democrats or Obama generally. I think VA was mostly about a lousy candidate running a lousy race (and about VA's absurd one-term limit), but I agree that it probably has some meaning on a national level. But I don't think that meaning is "voters are rejecting Obama and the Democrats" for being socialists, etc. If anything, the lesson from VA is probably that the much of the leftwing is disillusioned and couldn't work up any enthusiasm for the race because they feel that Obama and the Dems have been too wimpy.
Then perhaps the many proponents of that meme should have made the more accurate, vague claim
rather than the impressive-sounding wrong claim.
The fact is, there's been no consistent district that has represented the exact same area as 23, with the areas in the current 23 being chopped and distributed constantly among districts 23-27 all over the place. Certainly not anything that could be used to make such a claim. The fact of the matter is the meme was simply manufactured out of thin air to make it look like more of an accomplishment for the Democrats.
If anyone is interested (forgive the delay; it took some digging), here's the straight dope on representation of the various parts of the current NY-23. Judge for yourself whether "not since the Civil War" is a "meme []simply manufactured out of thin air to make it look like more of an accomplishment for the Democrats" or a reasonable summary of the historical status of the great majority of the current district which saves inches of column space and spares the reader picayune details:
Well that would have national implications and is bad news for Obama/Dems isn't it?
I agree that NJ is meaningless though.
Maybe that is part of it, but I think there are three major reasons Corzine was unpopular:
1) We came very close to a depression, and New Jersey was hit harder than most while Corzine was governor. You can argue that his tax and spend policies are what made it worse than average for New Jersey, but his policies had a negligible impact on the world recession as a whole. Still, governors get blamed when the economy of their state tanks and Corzine got it worse than any other.
2) There were the same periodic government corruption scandals that New Jersey always has, and Corzine was associated with those involved though I don't remember him ever being directly tied to anything.
2) He was a former chairman of Goldman Sachs. I doubt there is a more unpopular association in the country right now, since many on the left and right believe that Goldman played a major part in causing the recession and then used their ex-employees in the administration to funnel the company billions in bailout money to repay them for their risky investments. If anything, he deserves far more of the blame for the culture of corruption at Goldman than for being a liberal governor, and even there he was just one of many who probably belongs in prison for a long time.
As for Deeds, he ran to the right in the general election and that turned off liberals who are already disappointed with Obama because he hasn't fulfilled as much of his vision as they expected. Of course, Deeds was going to lose anyway because the groups that came out in record numbers for Obama in 2008, minorities and young adults, are groups that traditionally don't vote in great numbers so there was going to be a drop-off in enthusiasm no matter what.
If you want to argue that that has national implications then I would agree, but it's because Obama hasn't been far enough left, not because the populace has been enraged by his hidden communist tendencies. It is very possible this attitude will carry over to the 2010 mid-terms and Dems will lose seats, but I don't think either New Jersey or Virginia were particularly good examples of that, which is why I think the trends that were obviously true the day before the elections there are still just as true now.
Whereas I do think the Congressional races might have some value. Dems won a seat that hadn't been non-Republican since before the Civil War. Democrats are relatively unpopular right now, but it's hard for Republicans to take advantage when everyone outside their base despises them. Look at the numbers for McConnell or Boehner: they're at syphilis levels. Americans as a whole who know who the Republican leaders are despise them, whereas Obama is still in the 50s.
As for an anti-Obama groundswell rising up to destroy Democrats nationwide, it isn't going to happen. I personally don't think it's possible for the tea-partiers to get any more active: they stay enraged about just about everything, so there is no way to really increase that enthusiasm level. And non-partisans who don't get involved in politics generally look at the enthusiasm on both sides and wonder what's wrong with all these people.
I am sure there was some of this; Obama activated a lot of passion and got people involved who were not before, and that is one reason he won. He also symbolizes somthing to a lot of people, which is both good and bad and which most Libertarian/rightist types that I have seen pretty much ignore, mock, deny, and don't get. Hillary's support tended to skew older, more traditional, and, obviously, whiter. But, basically, he said he was going to change health care by getting the government more involved in it, go into Afghanisan/Pakistan, pull the US military out of Iraq within a certain amount of time, develop green energy programs/initiatives, support charters and merit pay in education, and after the econ meltdown, have a huge package to try to stimulate the economy. That was pretty clear from the start, and it is pretty much what he has tried/is trying to do.
**And who, exactly, is the "average Obama fan?" This is sort of like saying, "Ask the average Bob Barr voter where Barr once stood on DOMA, and he won't have a clue."
Sure. But my point is that it's not a rejection of healthcare reform or Dem positions generally.
Bush didn't stumble into anything. He launched a calculated strategy of preventive wars that didn't work out well.
What I fear is that Obama is so weak in responding to provocation, bullying, etc. by Russia/China/Iran that we end up in a shooting war b/c they get the message that they can proceed without our oppositon, and he is then forced by public outcry to fight.
The clearest parallels are 1) Korea - the Truman administration had defined Korea to be outside of our sphere of interest 2) Kuwait - Bush's ambassador sent signals to Iraq that we wouldn't defend Kuwait and by far the most dangerous 3) Cuban Missile Crisis - Khruschev had found JFK to be so weak in their interactions, and in the Bay of Pigs Scenario that he thought he could steamroller him. We almost ended up with a nuclear war.
No one thought they could exploit weakness by Nixon or Reagan. Many people thought they were nuts and would drop the bomb on someone just for shits and grins. The "madman theory", pioneered by RMN, is a very good deterrent.
Exactly.
It's not so much that everyone outside the base despises Republicans, it's that everyone (hyperbole alert) outside the "base" despises the "base".
Seriously, I don't like either party, and frankly I don't quite understand why anyone likes either party. Right now I dislike the Repubs more than the dems, but that's largely because I dislike the Repub's hyperpartisans (and their ideas) more than I dislike the Dems hyperpartisans (and their ideas).
Actually, both parties are shrinking ideologically, the Repub shrinkage (big tent rejectionism) is pretty obvious, but the Dems are shrinking too, as they shrink the overlap between the parties is narrowing, and might actually disappear, I also think the center of gravity in both parties really is moving apart. Now Europeans generally note that the American Left (ie Dem party) and the American Right (ie Repub party) are far closer to eachother than left/right parties in Europe. I think that is less true than it used to be and that of both parties continue to pull apart- a third party (one in the center) might actually be viable.
The other thing that is possible, is that as the Repubs gravitate more and more closely to their right wing base, and the Nat'l Demo party continue to recruit "blue dogs", the Left will have their own hissy fit- and leave and form some "progressive" party- on the left- if it shows signs of life the more liberal dems will join it, and we will ave 3 parties, one Left (progressives), one center (rump Dem party) and one right (Repub).
Just because we have never had an extended 3 party system doesn't mean it can't evolve- it has in other countries- plus I really do think the Left and the Right in this country are pulling apart- the right is insisting on control over the Repub party, the left (for now) is merely whining, but that may change.
• The city of Plattsburgh and Clinton county portions of the modern district were represented only once by a Democrat—in the 42nd Congress (1871 – 1873): John Rogers
• Oswego was represented only once by a Democrat for a single term in the 81st Congress (1949 – 1951): John C. Davies:
Southern and central:
• Portions of Oneida County are now in the district: a Democrat represented a district encompassing Oneida County in 38th Congress (1863 – 1865); 44th Congress (1875 – 1877); 48th Congress (1883 – 1885); 49th (1885 – 1887); 52nd (1891 – 1893); 62nd (1911 – 1913); 63rd (1913 – 1915); 73rd (1933 – 1935); 74th (1935 – 1937)
• All or portions of Hamilton and Fulton counties were represented by a Democrat in the 42nd Congress (1871 – 1873); 48th Congress (1883 – 1885); 52nd (1891 – 1893); 65th (1917 – 1919) ; 86th (1959 – 1961) ; 87th (1961 – 1963)
• Lewis County was held by a Democrat in the 49th Congress (1885 – 1887);
In other words, "NY-23" isn't anything remotely near a cohesive unit of measurement.
If the interest was honesty, then the meme would be "Some parts of the current NY-23, when mixed with some parts of other districts that sometimes were in the same congressional district as the arbitrarily chosen parts of NY-23 in order to make this claim and sometimes not, haven't elected a Democrat since the 19th century."
If the interest had been honesty, we'd see the actual partisan voting for the counties in question (boundaries that haven't changed, as far as I know) rather than using boundaries that have been chewed up, blended, cut, pasted more than Michael Moore quoting others.
Personally I think the Dems are toast in 2010 if they don't pass something/anything that at least looks like major healthcare reform.
The opposition is going to go out and vote anti-dem whether the Dems pass something or not- in fact if the Dems don't pass something they will be emboldened- they will smell blood in the water so to speak- and the lefties will stay home and pout.
Once the Dems pass Something, the opposition will scream and wail, they will claim that the "people" are enraged and won't stand for it, not true, even if the "reform" is a spectacular ########### that will drag down the economy- no one will notice until 2012 or so. The Dems will be able to announce, we did it, we got something done, see we really can run things.
I agree.
If the interest was honesty on your part, it would be more accurate to say that no part of the current NY-23 has elected a Democrat since 1961. That is still longer than most Americans have been alive.
I agree with pretty much your whole post, and agree that it is possible, but isn't historically American political parties are like rubber bands in that they stretch for a bit for a while then it's pulled back, closer to the center. From my experience the far left is usually savvy enough to realize that they won't have a voice unless they stick with the democrat party(extremist are different, but the sane ones will almost always vote dem because it's the only way they'll get a voice) and historically the far right knew to do the same thing with the repubs, the sane groups stick with the reps because that is what they had a chance of getting a voice heard. Of course both party leaders knew this and only had to throw a few bones to the extreme to keep them in line, but never having to take an extreme idea too far. This schism in the Republicans if it lasts(which I don't think it will) and splinters into two parties will at least short term be very detrimental to the Republican base. (in the end, I imagine that the far right will pull the Repubs a little further to the right and the Dems if smart grab the middle ground a little more---of course the dems haven't really proven themselves smart in taking advantage of a situation, so my guess is their response will be to go more left, giving a Libertarian party a chance to gain ground. )
Creigh Deeds wouldn't have lost by 18 points if he hadn't run such a shitty race, but the electorate that turned out in Virginia was an electorate which is not happy with the national Democratic party and if the national 2010 electorate resembles this one, Democrats are in trouble.
New Jersey voters actually like Obama and the Democrats, but hate Corzine. There's no there there.
NY-23 voters dislike outsiders who know nothing about the district - this story harmed Hoffman far more than the third-tier national Republicans he foolishly allowed to fly into the district for him. I think there's a small message here, though, about nominating Tea Party ideologues - a normal conservative might well have won even with much of Hoffman's baggage, but a guy who says "acorn" every third sentence is not going to get traction outside of very safe, mostly Southern Republican districts.
But GWB2 didn't have any more success at "controlling" North Korea or Iran than Obama is now, in fact, assuming a military attack on Iran is off the table, Obama is likely to be more effective at getting Europe (including Russia) to actually DO SOMETHING than GWB would have been.
At this point, barring a late regime change (internally driven), I would regard a nuclear Iran as a fait accompli, the question now is (just as it is with North Korea), well now what?
WRT North Korea it turns out that having Nukes is kind of a let down, "Yes we now have nukes and the capitalist dogs will tremble at our might, and and... well what do we do now comnrade? I dunno, hold another parade?"
The Iranian regimes #1 concern is it's own survival, and nukes to that end would ensure they don't go the way of Sadaam's regime, but beyond that? The prior South African regime wanted nukes to ensure it's won survival, it actually assembled a few, and... found they were utterly worthless, who were they going to use them on and why? Eventually the PWTB, came up with a hairbrained scheme, if threatened with regime change they would publicly detonate one, then threaten to use the others on... gee, oh, our own country, that's the ticket, and we'll do it unless you, ummm, help us repress our won people? :-), oh screw it, let's disassemble the ####### things and give them to the UN Nuke watchdogs...
Unless the Iranian regime wants to commit suicide, their nuke swill be useless, beyond their existence having the ability to deter an invasion.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main