Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

N.C.'s Etheridge bows out of running for Senate seat

Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-N.C.) has decided against running for the Senate in 2010, according to informed sources, a choice that hands Democrats another setback in their recruiting efforts against North Carolina's senior senator, Richard Burr (R).

Etheridge
Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-N.C.).
Etheridge, who served as state superintendent of public education before getting elected to Congress in the mid-1990s, has been courted for the race by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. He has repeatedly flirted with running for the Senate earlier this decade, only to decide against a bid.

Etheridge is the second high-profile DSCC recruit in North Carolina to turn down the contest. Earlier this year, state Attorney General Roy Cooper decided against running despite the urgings of Senate Democrats and the White House.

Attorney Cal Cunningham, who also drew some interest from the DSCC, announced earlier this week he also would not run, although it's likely that national party strategists will make another run at him in the wake of the Etheridge decision. Secretary of State Elaine Marshall is also running.

Democrats are convinced that Burr can be beaten -- pointing to his relatively low job-approval numbers in a series of polls. But the unwillingness of people such as Cooper and Etheridge to run suggests that Burr may be stronger than he appears on paper.

Still, Democrats insist they will find someone serious to challenge him and argue that Sen. Kay Hagan, who ousted Elizabeth Dole (R) in 2008, was far from the top choice of the party at the start of that election cycle.

By Chris Cillizza  |  November 13, 2009; 3:00 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Friday Senate Line: Depressed Democrats?
Next: Morning Fix: Biden as fundraiser in chief

Comments

I will defend Senator Burr, who I have been able to email and actually receive letters addressing the issues I was interested in whereas Kay Hagan is not adept at this. Either she sends some preformed data or her answers have nothing to do with the present legislation I am asking her about. She flip flops from one side to the other and right now is supporting David Hamilton's appointment to be a judge and he is a former ACLU attorney who has actually been voted down on his decision that we could pray using the name "Allah" but we could no longer pray in public using the words "Lord" or "Jesus", a direct assualt on our freedom of religion. His reputation as an activist and no love for the constitution, puts him on the back burner for me but she endorses him. I am sorry that Etheridge is stepping down but I am so in hopes of a new voting era in 2010 so that we can regain some semblance of checks and balances back into the house and senate. This is vitally important to our economy and our rights under the constitution and if we don't somehow stop the spending, printing, and borrowing, we will no longer live as Americans-we will be pushed into this "spread the wealth" mess and what we will wind up being is "equal" as the union leader for the SEIU-which means actually that we all live as servants or way below the living we are accomstumed to before this progressive party took control of everything and this leftist agenda that they and the administration are trying to force us into...Americans will rise again if the government will back off and let us recover...God bless America and I hope that Senator Burr retains his seat..

Posted by: noseyten | November 18, 2009 8:22 AM | Report abuse

I will defend Senator Burr, who I have been able to email and actually receive letters addressing the issues I was interested in whereas Kay Hagan is not adept at this. Either she sends some preformed data or her answers have nothing to do with the present legislation I am asking her about. She flip flops from one side to the other and right now is supporting David Hamilton's appointment to be a judge and he is a former ACLU attorney who has actually been voted down on his decision that we could pray using the name "Allah" but we could no longer pray in public using the words "Lord" or "Jesus", a direct assualt on our freedom of religion. His reputation as an activist and no love for the constitution, puts him on the back burner for me but she endorses him. I am sorry that Etheridge is stepping down but I am so in hopes of a new voting era in 2010 so that we can regain some semblance of checks and balances back into the house and senate. This is vitally important to our economy and our rights under the constitution and if we don't somehow stop the spending, printing, and borrowing, we will no longer live as Americans-we will be pushed into this "spread the wealth" mess and what we will wind up being is "equal" as the union leader for the SEIU-which means actually that we all live as servants or way below the living we are accomstumed to before this progressive party took control of everything and this leftist agenda that they and the administration are trying to force us into...Americans will rise again if the government will back off and let us recover...God bless America and I hope that Senator Burr retains his seat..

Posted by: noseyten | November 18, 2009 8:22 AM | Report abuse

I like it. Reminds me of one of my favorite movie quotes:

"From hell's heart, I stab at thee. For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee."

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | November 16, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Senator Burr's most recent hypocrisy -Bethlehem Fire Dept, in the foothills of rural NC, was a recipient of two million from the Recovery Act. Burr's picure with the fire dept personnel and a quote about "change" were featured in the local paper. What wasn't reported was any mention of the fact that he voted NO on the stimulus.

Posted by: Deecarda | November 16, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

In 2008 when Dole was defeated, all of the momentum and turnout was in the Democratic corner. Plus, Dole made some drastic gaffes and had a reputation for never being in North Carolina. She was portrayed as representing the national Republican party, not the citizens of North Carolina. Plus the whole RNC chairman in 2006 debacle, where she raised no money, couldn't recruit top quality candidates and lost a ton of seats. Dole had failed the Republican party & North Carolina. Richard Burr is a much different person than Dole. Now, too, the wind is blowing the Republican way and turnout & emotion is going to turn out conservative. Burr has a reputation of taking care of us, his constituents. Even many reliably Democratic black pastors here in NC give Burr his props for caring about their issues. Democratic turnout won't raise against Burr. Republican turnout will be at top levels with the conservative voting record of Burr and his hard work for North Carolinia. Plus, Burr is a great fundraiser and will have the resources he needs to tout his record of voting & service while bashing that of the liberal Elaine Marshall. She is a tax & spend liberal in the mold of Bev Perdue & has close ties to Former Gov. Mike Easley & Sen. Majority ldr. Jim Black. Black went to jail and Easley is in court right now. The tide in North Carolina right now is Republican due to national events, the corruption of the state Democratic party & the Burr's strengths. That's why top Democrats choose not risk their career on a very risky race against Burr.

Posted by: reason5 | November 16, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Regarding the way too much attention a certain cretin in the neighborhood gets, it's like the Simpsons episode where the advertisements come to life and begin rampaging through town. The solution is, "just don't look". Every parent knows that to coddle a tantrum-throwing child is parenting suicide...it is the same with commenters, particularly trolls.
This dim bulb would be just another bigmouth in the tiny little pond of Faux News commenters, so he comes to a place where his screed is somewhat under-represented. However, he has the same modus operendi of all Teabaggers...site no sources, tell no truths, distort everything, claim victimhood, and above all, never take responsibility for anything, no matter how obviously it is your fault.
I grew tired of repeatedly spanking this little wart's buttocks in every way, and you should too. You may as well attempt to convince a rock that it is a rock as try to have civil disagreement with the fomenter in question.
He is a brave little yapper when he doesn't have his own reputation at stake. Were I(or most of you here) to meet him in a public debate or other such forum, I would smash his pathetic arguments as easy as swatting a fly, and he would probably have to move to Bosnia to escape the hoards of people who would stop, point, and laugh hysterically when he walked by.
For this reason, he will never come out from behind his sad and played moniker, but will continue to spit his last breath at us from Hell's heart, otherwise known as his step-mother's basement.
Believe it, Fixers, you'd be a bitter crybaby Teabagger too if you had been rejected by every girl (and guy?) you ever approached and never had a friend who didn't immediately demand your lunch money and then ignore you.
Take pity on the poor sod, Fixers, for every night he fantasizes about going back in time to get revenge on all those people at the Prom he didn't get a date to. His life is sad and meaningless but for the minute pleasure he gets pretending he is our intellectual equal.
Let the baby have his bottle, just don't watch him suck on it.

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | November 16, 2009 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Blade: Some lines have already been crossed, Blade. The Post's legal counsel has been notified.

I might need your help in rounding up past pieces of evidence.

Posted by: drindl | November 16, 2009 12:00 PM | Report abuse

@DDAWD - Indeed, I was referring to snowbama's treating of someone's resume like a Harlequin romance. I also find the constant references to pedophilia irritating. Drindl's a big girl, she can take it. So can Chris Fox. However, I wonder at what point the Post decides that its rules of conduct will be enforced. When someone's home address is published? When social security numbers are printed?

Paul

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | November 16, 2009 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Mommy, someone pointed out what an idiot I am. Make em stop!!

Posted by: snowbama | November 16, 2009 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Chris Cilizza -- you have had several posters point out that one regular poster here is a stalker. This not only violates Washington Post rules, but depending on the level of threat involved, may be illegal. I urge you to have the Post's legal counsel look into this.

Posted by: drindl | November 16, 2009 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Indeed. Exposing the truth about liberals is typically a sordid affair.

Posted by: snowbama | November 16, 2009 8:04 AM | Report abuse

@ DDAWD:

"And finally, he just resorts to directly asserting his own smartness and how everyone else in the world is And finally, he just resorts to directly asserting his own smartness and how everyone else in the world is dumber than him."

That should be written "...dumber than he."

Mr. Blade was referring to Snowbama's apparent web stalking of drindl. please read the entire thread to understand the depth of the prohibited personal attacks.

Posted by: MoreAndBetterPolls | November 16, 2009 6:57 AM | Report abuse

"Snowbama - your behavior is somewhere between obsessed and stalker. I'm not sure if it's simply to get a rise out of someone or drive someone any in sheer disgust. Regardless, it's simply creepy. Still, if your intent is to make any kind of a point in favor of conservatives, you're as effective as Mark Foley.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade"

No, it's simply because he wants to be acknowledged as smart. That is why he used to plagiarize other people's work as his own. That's why he posts incessantly. But you'll notice he's incapable of actually participating in a discussion on here. He can't respond to points other people make.

And finally, he just resorts to directly asserting his own smartness and how everyone else in the world is dumber than him.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 16, 2009 6:29 AM | Report abuse

Snowbama - your behavior is somewhere between obsessed and stalker. I'm not sure if it's simply to get a rise out of someone or drive someone any in sheer disgust. Regardless, it's simply creepy. Still, if your intent is to make any kind of a point in favor of conservatives, you're as effective as Mark Foley.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | November 15, 2009 10:54 PM | Report abuse

I hope snowy got to the drugstore today. Yesterday was messed up without his meds.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | November 15, 2009 3:55 PM | Report abuse

How many more children will die as a resultif the total incompetence of the flu vaccine situation brought on by the most bumbling executive ever?

When it was bush the big story was poor priorities. Now that there are simply no priorites, what is there to say?

Posted by: snowbama | November 15, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

i see snozouk was here all Saturday evening. Man, what a lonely loser.
"
I did some searchers on “dithering” in the New York Times and Washington Post archives. In the Times, there were eleven uses of the word post-Cheney out of a total of 47 in the past year. In the Post, there were 36 post-Cheney out of a total of 46 in the past 12 months.

Michael Gerson, Jackson Diehl, and David Broder have all accused the president of “dithereing” post-Cheney. Gerson also used the phrase about a week before Cheney’s speech. Ronald Krebs and Dana Milbank also wrote pieces accusing Obama of dithering before Cheney’s speech (Jim Hoagland also wrote a piece, praising the dithering). The phrase seems to have originated with Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation” on October 4.

It’s interesting how these words take off and I think it’s likely that neocons settled on it and that Krebs, Gerson, and Cheney all using it within a week of each other was no accident (Diehl and Broder fall more in the category of useful idiots).

The word “dithering” appeared only once on the NYT’s editorial page, in a Maureen Dowd piece satirizing Cheney.


Update. Halperin fronts Broder channeling Cheney. The circle is complete."

Posted by: drindl | November 15, 2009 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Wow. Hillary admits they Have absolutely no idea what they are doing in Afghanistan on mtp.

Quick hide Barry on a long overseas trip with no access to Fox news until the speechwriters can craft a giant flip flop speech.

Maybe everyone will ignore the ineptitude and concentrate on the next presidents new book instead.

Posted by: snowbama | November 15, 2009 10:49 AM | Report abuse

A resume with no education

Barry is that you again??

Oh darn. Faking it all along.

First job at the village voice. Figures. Loony ever since.

Now busy sweeping peanuts. Lib economics in practice.

Posted by: snowbama | November 14, 2009 11:38 PM | Report abuse

Why no mention of 4-term Chapel Hill Mayor Kevin Foy? Haven't heard whether he's made a decision about entering the race he called "a great opportunity."

The challenge for Dems will be raising money. Burr won the 2004 election by only five percentage points. Bowles and Burr spent over $26 million during the campaign making it one of the most expensive Senate races in the country.

The other problem would be name recognition, but Foy has built statewide connections through the N.C. Metropolitan Mayors Coalition, a lobbying group for the state's key cities, and through years of teaching at NCCU (the nation’s first public liberal arts institution founded for African-Americans) law school. It's important to remember that the state went blue voting for Obama in 2008.

It won't be a cakewalk for the incumbent. Earlier this year Burr made a remark that seemed to suggest making a run on a bank, a comment that attracted a lot of negative attention.

Posted by: oldmagnolia | November 14, 2009 9:49 PM | Report abuse

Further examination of the resume indicates the poor old bird hasn't worked for three years. Anyone surprised?

Back in the Bush economy this garbage used to sell. But with the new liberal way of doing things it's not so rosy on the Hudson. In fact what we have is simply another envious flop of a liberal blaming her victimhood on anyone else who will listen to her sad pitiful story.

It may be mean to laugh at anothers misfortune, but in this case it is well deserved. Who to blame?

Posted by: snowbama | November 14, 2009 7:30 PM | Report abuse

If you want a really big laugh. Or in moonbat speak. Lol

My greatest strength as a writer/marketer has always been an ability to 'reach out and touch someone' — to relate to a target audience, get inside their heads and address their concerns. With deep experience across a broad range of categories, I can take complex material — technological, financial/insurance, pharmaceutical — and present it in a friendly, informative — and of course — persuasive, manner.

Plead somebody, anybody. Fall for it. Just like Barry.

So in fact there is a lot to know about drivl. All the stuff she makes up about others- another delusion.

Posted by: snowbama | November 14, 2009 7:16 PM | Report abuse

poor snozouk. still no life, other than trolling for boys and rambling incoherently.

Posted by: drindl | November 14, 2009 5:54 PM | Report abuse

I used to say Barry was the worst president since Carter. At this point I think we need to go all the way back to Buchanan. Just as Clinton had a scandel every week, Barry is now making one grave or inept move every week

America. Next time, vote for a guy with at least a week or two experience. It is going to take some doing to wash the stink of utter failure off the good old USA.

Posted by: snowbama | November 14, 2009 5:18 PM | Report abuse

You might as well teach French to mollusk.

Drivl will be busy tonight sweeping up peanut shells. She also gets all the half empty beers she busses.

The career as blogger host did not really work out, to state it gently. Posting big ears on bush wasn't the hit the imbecile thought it would be.

Look for hundreds of posts chastising others for posting too much.

Posted by: snowbama | November 14, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

drindl - you said all New Yorkers are not shivering bed wetting weinees & do not worry about the trial for terriosts being there. No one even suggested that so stop acting like a defensive liberal. The concern is that these terriosts will be given the rights of an American citizen which they do not deserve, cost the tax payers a fortune & will go on for years. I assume you did not loose anybody in the World Trade Center so I think maybe you should think about those that did & the terriosts maybe getting off on a stupid technicallity & them sitting there like the others & laughing at the people who lost loved ones & the devastation they did to the American people & to New York City. This should be tried in a Military Count just like the 5 that bombed the USS Cole. There is no difference between the fact that both are crimes against the United States. You also know that their are more sleeper cells here in the United States & there is no guarantee they won't attack.

Posted by: egw7777 | November 14, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

drindl - you said all New Yorkers are not shivering bed wetting weinees & do not worry about the trial for terriosts being there. No one even suggested that so stop acting like a defensive liberal. The concern is that these terriosts will be given the rights of an American citizen which they do not deserve, cost the tax payers a fortune & will go on for years. I assume you did not loose anybody in the World Trade Center so I think maybe you should think about those that did & the terriosts maybe getting off on a stupid technicallity & them sitting there like the others & laughing at the people who lost loved ones & the devastation they did to the American people & to New York City. This should be tried in a Military Count just like the 5 that bombed the USS Cole. There is no difference between the fact that both are crimes against the United States. You also know that their are more sleeper cells here in the United States & there is no guarantee they won't attack.

Posted by: egw7777 | November 14, 2009 4:49 PM | Report abuse

drindl - you said all New Yorkers are not shivering bed wetting weinees & do not worry about the trial for terriosts being there. No one even suggested that so stop acting like a defensive liberal. The concern is that these terriosts will be given the rights of an American citizen which they do not deserve, cost the tax payers a fortune & will go on for years. I assume you did not loose anybody in the World Trade Center so I think maybe you should think about those that did & the terriosts maybe getting off on a stupid technicallity & them sitting there like the others & laughing at the people who lost loved ones & the devastation they did to the American people & to New York City. This should be tried in a Military Count just like the 5 that bombed the USS Cole. There is no difference between the fact that both are crimes against the United States. You also know that their are more sleeper cells here in the United States & there is no guarantee they won't attack.

Posted by: egw7777 | November 14, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

drindl - you said all New Yorkers are not shivering bed wetting weinees & do not worry about the trial for terriosts being there. No one even suggested that so stop acting like a defensive liberal. The concern is that these terriosts will be given the rights of an American citizen which they do not deserve, cost the tax payers a fortune & will go on for years. I assume you did not loose anybody in the World Trade Center so I think maybe you should think about those that did & the terriosts maybe getting off on a stupid technicallity & them sitting there like the others & laughing at the people who lost loved ones & the devastation they did to the American people & to New York City. This should be tried in a Military Count just like the 5 that bombed the USS Cole. There is no difference between the fact that both are crimes against the United States. You also know that their are more sleeper cells here in the United States & there is no guarantee they won't attack.

Posted by: egw7777 | November 14, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

drindl - you said all New Yorkers are not shivering bed wetting weinees & do not worry about the trial for terriosts being there. No one even suggested that so stop acting like a defensive liberal. The concern is that these terriosts will be given the rights of an American citizen which they do not deserve, cost the tax payers a fortune & will go on for years. I assume you did not loose anybody in the World Trade Center so I think maybe you should think about those that did & the terriosts maybe getting off on a stupid technicallity & them sitting there like the others & laughing at the people who lost loved ones & the devastation they did to the American people & to New York City. This should be tried in a Military Count just like the 5 that bombed the USS Cole. There is no difference between the fact that both are crimes against the United States. You also know that their are more sleeper cells here in the United States & there is no guarantee they won't attack.

Posted by: egw7777 | November 14, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Even the Repulican-owned and operated AP is now fact-checking Palin's book, which can be characterized charitably as nothing more than a fairy tale

And worse, even Fox News is now correcting her, because her lies are just too obvious and embarrassing. Here a number of corrections to factual errors and lies in the book:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/11/fact_check_palins_book_goes_rogue_on_some_facts.php?ref=fpa

Posted by: drindl | November 14, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Trolling for boys online again, snozouk?

Posted by: drindl | November 14, 2009 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Looks like drivl has finally snapped and lost all touch with reality. It was not long trip.

Posted by: snowbama | November 14, 2009 2:54 PM | Report abuse

"There's the lonely pederast. Waiting for a friend. Gonna be a long night staring at the screen. Can't you go over to the swing set and rent a friend as usual? Seems like you have run everyone else off. The story of your life.
Posted by: snowbama"

This story of snowbama's life is pretty grim. No wonder he's on here all the time. It's like he's pleading for help, stop him before he does it again. Too bad someone at the WaPo doesn't call the FBI to trace his computer. God only knows how much kiddie porn is on it.

Posted by: drindl | November 14, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Unlike republicans, we are not shivering, bedwettng weinies In New York:

'Republicans from John McCain to John Boehner are complaining about the grave threats posed to Gotham by the Eric Holder's decision to hold Al Qaeda trials in New York -- but Mayor Mike Bloomberg says the city is ready, willing, able and unafraid.

He said it's "fitting" the trials should take place a few blocks from the site of the attacks.

Bloomberg, in a statement:

“I support the Obama Administration’s decision to prosecute 9/11 terrorists here in New York. It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered. We have hosted terrorism trials before, including the trial of Omar Abdel-Rahman, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. When I spoke to Attorney General Holder earlier today, I told him New York City stands ready to assist the federal court in the administration of justice in any way necessary. I have great confidence that the NYPD, with federal authorities, will handle security expertly. The NYPD is the best police department in the world and it has experience dealing with high-profile terrorism suspects and any logistical issues that may come up during the trials.”

Posted by: drindl | November 14, 2009 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Going lynch mob in VA:

'BLAIRS - In a move sure to spark controversy, the Danville TEA Party will close their "Fired Up for Freedom" rally by burning Rep. Tom Perriello and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in effigy in response to the passage of landmark healthcare legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives."

How long before yet another of these goons opens fire on a crowd of innocent people?

Posted by: drindl | November 14, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuse

In defense of CC...I guess:

On Page A13 of the print version of the Post today, a letter to the editor (in the "Free for All" section) criticizes CC for referring to Senator Dianne Fienstein as "Di-Fi." The writer asks why the Fix doesn't refer to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison as "Kay-Bay."

Not a bad idea. Let it be so. KBH is now "Kay-Bay." That solves the problem.

But I refuse to call Tim Pawlenty "T-Paw," a nickname pushed here that never caught on anywhere but here. And I refuse to call the Bengals wide receiver whose first name is "Chad," "Ochocinco." His mom named him Chad Johnson so he's Chad Johnson.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | November 14, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Black turnout in 2010 will be strong. Obama isn't on the ticket but he will be campaigning for House and Senate candidates.

Posted by: blasmaic | November 14, 2009 10:36 AM | Report abuse

I wish everyone would stop holding up these "Blue Dogs" as some sort of political monkey wrench. Calling a Democrat fiscally conservative is like calling a prostitute celibate. Heck, truly fiscally conservative Republicans are even a minority in their own party!

Posted by: signof4 | November 14, 2009 10:22 AM | Report abuse

The Democrats could lose in 2010 if they continue to insist on accommodating Right Wing Neo-Nazi type of people like Lieberman. I really do not understand this defeatist attitude by the Democrats. It is better NOT to pass a very weak health reform plan than accommodating someone like Lieberman. This guy should be stripped of any special position he holds, he is certainly unfit for any type of home land security position since he was part of the propaganda of lies about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that after all were NOT found. With all respect to the Democrat who ran against Lieberman in the last election, the Democrats should choose someone else this time, and should organize a well-thought campaign to end the political existence of Lieberman as a senator for good. This would be good for the US and the human race.

Posted by: farid-f | November 14, 2009 7:38 AM | Report abuse

To Mr. Cillizza and my fellow readers, please make note that Ken Lewis is actively in the race for the Democratic nomination. He has made an excellent first impression within our state, has a track record of hard work and he will be a force to be reckoned with. Please remember to keep his name in the conversations about this upcoming Senate race.

Posted by: bobclarklaw | November 14, 2009 7:37 AM | Report abuse

Why should a Blue Dog Democrat run when not only is going to be savaged by the Republicans as some socialist but be attacked by Move-on. Move-on with its purity standard are trying to be the Rush Limbaugh of the left.

Posted by: bradcpa | November 14, 2009 7:29 AM | Report abuse

The reason prominent Democrats in NC don't want to run against Burr is because they're afraid they'll lose.

The reason Kay Hagan beat Elizabeth Dole last year was because of an enormous black turnout that voted a straight Democratic ticket. Black turnout in 2010 will be maybe half of what it was in 2008. Politicians aren't stupid and they know that once you lose there's a 90% chance your political career is over.

Posted by: corco02az | November 14, 2009 6:21 AM | Report abuse

This is the most interesting discussion I have seen here in a long time.


Not one stooge. Simple cause and effect. One of them will wander along to drag us into the slime soon enough.

Posted by: snowbama | November 13, 2009 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Melissa for Senate!

Posted by: RossPhx | November 13, 2009 9:41 PM | Report abuse

In my previous post mentioning the 8 democrats convicted recently, I forgot that our governor the past 8 yrs, a democrat, has just gone before the elections board for campaign violations and it has been referred to the DA. Coupled with the soon to be decided case of John Edwards using campaign money to "pay off" his girlfriend, this is not a good year for Dems to be moving to higher offices. Richard Burr is being underestimated. He is smooth and is good on his feet and debates very well.

Posted by: gsms69 | November 13, 2009 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Campaign Finance Reform or a dead American political system,
_________________

We have two party crony capitalism and the people we get to choose between are embedded crony capitalists. The Supreme Court of the United States decided this question. But we can survive. We are not dead yet.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 13, 2009 9:13 PM | Report abuse

This is the most interesting discussion I have seen here in a long time.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 13, 2009 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Congressman Ethridge and I went to undergraduate school together. He is a nice guy but in NC the time is not right to risk his safe Congressmans district. In the last 6 years we have had about 8 Democrats sentenced to jail for bribery and campaign violations, some still there. Next time is the right time for Ethridge. Marshall is a terrible option. She has trouble in public speaking and would be a risk in any debate. Burr is a better choice for now.

Posted by: gsms69 | November 13, 2009 7:58 PM | Report abuse

"Given that Kay Hagan was given no chance to beat Elizabeth Dole, perhaps too many people over-analyze too many minor events a year before an election. Perhaps we should focus more on policy and less on predictions?

Posted by: jrc1234"

Well, this is a politics blog. If you want policy, there's a whole rest of the newspaper.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 13, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Given that Kay Hagan was given no chance to beat Elizabeth Dole, perhaps too many people over-analyze too many minor events a year before an election. Perhaps we should focus more on policy and less on predictions?

Posted by: jrc1234 | November 13, 2009 7:10 PM | Report abuse

No matter how much people would like to get rid of Burr, the NC Dems have NOBODY to run. Dems office holders and prior office holders all over NC, from the former Gov on down are now under US DOJ investigation and nearing indictment. The NC Dems just don't have a viable candidate. NC,which has been under TOTAL Dem control for the last 150 years, even though it HAS gone Repub in Federal elections, is one of the most corrupt states in the USA. The Dems just don't have anyone that can pass the smell test. Including Marshall.

Posted by: PercyKution | November 13, 2009 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Chris Cillizza also missed the power Kay Hagan had to run for all but the last months of that race, dismissing her as a weak candidate with little chance. So once again Chris is ignoring the purple-turning-blue nature of this once proud-to-be-both-independently-populist-and-Democratic state, and also following the often wrong Conventional Washington wisdom by not seeing the power of Elaine Marshall to win. Voters EVERYWHERE in the USA are sick and tired of politicians like Burr!

Posted by: TruthInBlogging | November 13, 2009 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Chris Cillizza also missed the power Kay Hagan had to run for all but the last months of that race, dismissing her as a weak candidate with little chance. So once again Chris is ignoring the purple-turning-blue nature of this once proud-to-be-both-independently-populist-and-Democratic state, and also following the often wrong Conventional Washington wisdom by not seeing the power of Elaine Marshall to win. Voters EVERYWHERE in the USA are sick and tired of politicians like Burr!

Posted by: TruthInBlogging | November 13, 2009 6:50 PM | Report abuse

I don't know why house or senate republicans should pay at the polls in an anti-incumbent election. They've been spectators policy wise since January of 2007. Sorry folks, democrats own this.

Posted by: ADNova | November 13, 2009 6:25 PM | Report abuse

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/13/AR2009111301266.html?hpid=topnews

William Jefferson (the guy that Joseph Cao defeated, the cash-in-the-freezer guy) gets 13 years.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 13, 2009 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Burr's war chest is HUGE, filled up by all the right industrial lobbyists (http://bit.ly/3SPNA0), most of whom are all that are wrong for We the People. Defeating BurrCo. will require a very strong candidate willing to endure what is sure to be a deluge of mean-spirited, very personal (and perhaps blatantly false) negative TV ads. Campaign Finance Reform or a dead American political system - Choose wisely.

Posted by: d3r3k | November 13, 2009 5:56 PM | Report abuse

penniless_taxpayer
'They spent a TRILLION deficit dollars' on tax cuts for the rich, on the medicare drug benefit and on an unnecessary war in Iraq. And, by ignoring their corporate friends, allowed them destroy the World economy.

Is that why you're so mad ... at Republicans?

Posted by: thebobbob | November 13, 2009 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Unemployment is 11 in NC, and by next year it will be over 15%. You might think that would redound negatively to Burr as the incumbent. The problem with that logic is that everyone knows the democrats have commanding majorities in Congress. They spent a TRILLION deficit dollars in stimulus and still no jobs. That makes people angry ... at democrats. I would say that congressmen like Bob Etheridge and Brad Miller stand to lose their seats in 2010, provided the republicans offer candidates that are both fiscally and socially conservative.

Posted by: penniless_taxpayer | November 13, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

There is sure to be a strong anti-incumbent backlash in 2010. I expect that more incumbents than usual, from both parties, will be defeated in 2010---certainly more than conventional wisdom suggests. Of course much of the problem is that some of the most odious and least effective Senators come from right-wing-oriented states. I'd personally love to see a real Democrat who is not so beholden to special interests challenge the special-interest-oriented Lincoln in the Arkansas Primary, but I doubt that will happen.

There are some incumbent Senators who are not regarded as particularly vulnerable, or as having top-shelf challengers who may lose. I also think some incumbent Governors from both parties could lose due to the poor economy and the fact that Governors have to make tough decisions during tough economic times.

We need more Senators who will challenge the special interests like the big banks, health insurance companies, and K-Street corporate lobbyists. Too many Senators and House members are in bed with the corporate special interests.

Posted by: OHIOCITIZEN | November 13, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse

irby, please ignore the flak.

No one here can say she isn't serious and you can't assume CC knows what he is talking about. Please, feel free to make your case
(beating 'The King' is exhibit A, we even noticed that up here in the Oregon territory).

Posted by: shrink2 | November 13, 2009 4:57 PM | Report abuse

I agree with EBurkeDisciple. 2010 is not 2008. Kay Hagan won because of the anti-GOP backlash, and because Liddy Dole was an atrocious candidate. Remember that Burr won in 2004 against Erskine Bowles - a race most predicted that he'd lose. Elaine Marhshall, despite her statewide run, hasn't really had much competition. Richard Petty, God bless him, was an even more terrible candidate than Dole. Burr, on the other hand, is probably going to give Marshall a very good fight.

Posted by: slack-jawed_yokel | November 13, 2009 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Elaine Marshall is running for Burr's seat. Chris notes in the third paragraph that she's running and then states in the final paragraph that "[s]till, Democrats insist they will find someone serious to challenge him." This begs the question, why is Elaine Marshall something other than a serious candidate.

Posted by: irby | November 13, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Why does former President Clinton REALLY help the Party and run. They tend to be carpet-baggers and he is so proud of his being liked in the South.

Posted by: david26 | November 13, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse
-------------------------------------------
Or better yet he could be raised in Connecticut and go to Ivy League schools and then move to Texas and say "bidness" and "I like pork rinds" or "I went to San Jacinto Junior High" when he REALLY went to the same Ivy League schools that his phony his dad and grandpa did, or buy a phony ranch to cut brush on and then.....oh, never mind.

That act's been done before and we've all seen how well THAT worked out for us.

Besides, asshat, we'd rather be carpetbaggers than TEABAGGERS.

Posted by: dennissuper | November 13, 2009 4:45 PM | Report abuse

irby writes
"I don't see why Elaine Marshall is something other than a "serious" candidate."

irby, has Marshall interest in the race, or are you merely mentioning a D with prior statewide successes that could plausibly run?

Posted by: bsimon1 | November 13, 2009 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Irby, welcome, and thanks for the insight.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 13, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

With the exception of that retard Jesse Helms over the last six to eight election cycles no one has served more than one term in the Senate. I can't see what Richard Burr has done positively or negatively to help this state. To me he is just there. He literally rode in on George Bush's coat tail in 2004 and has been there every since. But what has he done to help North Carolina?

Posted by: jjohnblack53 | November 13, 2009 3:38 PM | Report abuse

First time commenter here, writing from Raleigh. Chris, I don't see why Elaine Marshall is something other than a "serious" candidate. She's been in statewide office since 1997, and has consistently done well in her races. Kay Hagan ran in just her own district before last year's Senate race and only served since 1998. Marhsall was a state senator herself beginning in 1992. And Marshall beat Richard Petty of all people in NASCAR-crazed NC. We're not talking about a fringe candidate here, and, unlike some of the other names that have been floated about, she has proven herself in statewide elections.

Posted by: irby | November 13, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Why does former President Clinton REALLY help the Party and run. They tend to be carpet-baggers and he is so proud of his being liked in the South.

Posted by: david26 | November 13, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Burr is not Dole and times are different. Perhaps some sanity is returning and Democrats will run for the hills instead of Congress.

Posted by: EBurkeDisciple | November 13, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company