Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Friday Line: Primary Colors



Key players in five of the most intriguing intra-party contests (clockwise from top left) Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R), New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D), San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (D), Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R), and Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter (D).

The Fix is off today but the Friday Line is very much on!

Friday Line

Below are our ratings of the ten best primaries in the country in 2010. Agree or disagree with our picks? Offer your thoughts in the comments section.

To the Line!

10. Kansas Senate (Republican primary): The stakes are high in the race between Reps. Jerry Moran and Todd Tiahrt. Democrats not only haven't found a top tier candidate but they also haven't won a U.S. Senate seat in the Sunflower State since the 1930s. Needless to say, the Republican nomination is well worth having, and expect Moran and Tiahrt to beat one another senseless in the coming months over a central question: which of the duo is the truer, bluer conservative? (Previous ranking: 8)

9. South Carolina Governor (R): While the collapse of Gov. Mark Sanford is next to impossible to take your eyes off, no matter what he does over the next 18 months there will be a major GOP primary fight to replace him with Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, state Attorney General Henry McMaster, Rep. Gresham Barrett and state Rep. Nikki Haley all in the running. This race drops a few slots on this month's Line because of the possibility that Bauer could ascend to the governorship should Sanford resign; such a development would likely give Bauer something of s leg up next year. (Previous ranking: 5)

8. Utah Senate (R): The problem for any incumbent who represents a state heavily slanted toward one party is that ambitious politicians who want to move up the ranks have no choice but to challenge the old bulls. Witness Sen. Bob Bennett (R) who faces a crowded primary field that includes Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, former Utah Republican Party chairman Tim Bridgewater, businessman James Williams and activist Cherilyn Eagar. The main issue in the race is likely to be Bennett's vote in favor of the first TARP bill last fall -- a sign, say his critics, that he is insufficiently conservative on fiscal issues. Bennett's challenge is doubly difficult due to the state's odd nominating rules -- all of the candidates run in a state convention and, if no candidate receives 60 percent of the vote, the two top vote-getters then face off in a primary. (Previous ranking: N/A)

7. Kentucky Senate (Democratic primary): On one side are Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo and his main backer -- Gov. Steve Beshear. On the other are state Attorney General Jack Conway with support from state Auditor Crit Luallen and Reps. Ben Chandler and John Yarmuth. The prize? The right to take on Sen. Jim Bunning (R) in the fall -- an all-but-certain victory given the myriad problems of the GOP incumbent. Of course, if national Republicans get their way Bunning will retire and Secretary of State Trey Grayson (R) will step in -- making for a much tougher race for either Conway or Mongiardo. (Previous ranking: N/A)

6. Michigan Governor (R): For a state whose economy is in shambles with no signs of improvement, there are sure a lot of Republicans who want to run it. The GOP field is packed with quality candidates from state Attorney General Mike Cox to Rep. Pete Hoekstra to wealthy businessman Rick Snyder to Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard. Bouchard's candidacy got a nice boost Thursday when Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land dropped from the race and endorsed him. This is going to be a great race and with the Democratic field a bit wanting, whoever wins the nomination probably has a better than 50-50 chance of being the next governor of the Wolverine State. (Previous ranking: N/A)

5. Florida Senate (R): Gov. Charlie Crist is the overwhelming favorite to win his primary against former state House Speaker Marco Rubio but that doesn't mean there isn't real drama in this race. Rubio -- and his advisers -- are casting the race as a referendum on the direction of the Republican party nationally, painting Crist as a moderate and their candidate as the true conservative. Several national conservative figures including former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee are backing Rubio while most of the GOP party establishment is behind Crist. (Previous ranking: N/A)

4. New York Senate (D): When Rep. Steve Israel bowed out of the primary against appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, it looked like what could have been a terrific intra-party squabble would pass without a peep. Enter Rep. Carolyn Maloney. Polling suggests Maloney and Gillibrand begin the race essentially tied and Maloney has already shown a willingness to take after her former House colleague in public. (Image: The Fix rubbing his hands together in glee.) Gillibrand still has to be considered the favorite due to her support from the White House and her strong fundraising capacity but Maloney's roots in New York City -- home to a wealth of Democratic primary voters -- keep her in the game. (Previous ranking: 7)

3. California Governor (D): Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's decision not to run in the Democratic gubernatorial primary means there will be a two-man race between state Attorney General Jerry Brown and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom next year. The contrasts between the two -- Brown at 72 is a legend in California politics, Newsom at 42 is a rising star -- are incredibly compelling and will present a stark choice for primary voters. And, given California's Democratic lean, either Brown or Newsom would have to be considered a favorite in the general election for the right to manage the seventh largest economy in the world. (Previous ranking: 3)

2. Pennsylvania Senate (D): In the last Line, we ranked the Pennsylvania primary as the single best intra-party race in the country. Of course, we were writing about the REPUBLICAN primary! Sen. Arlen Specter's (D) party switch in late April fundamentally altered the Senate in a number of ways but one thing stayed constant: the incumbent will almost certainly face a very serious primary fight next year. Rep. Joe Sestak (and the more than $3 million he had in the bank at the end of March) appears ready to run and polling suggests that Democratic voters retain significant doubts about Specter. The newest Democrat has a list of heavy hitters -- the White House, Gov. Ed Rendell, Sen. Bob Casey Jr. -- on his side but will it be enough? (Previous ranking: N/A)

1. Texas Governor (R): Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison don't like each other much. Add to that personal dislike $20 million (or more) on each side of this primary and you start to get a sense for why it holds down the top spot on the Line. By the end of the primary, Perry will be an ineffective and demagogic chief executive while KBH will be a corrupt liberal (if the campaign consultants aligned on each side of the divide have anything to do with it). This race is going to be bloody, nasty and mean. What more could a political junkie ask for! (Previous ranking: 2)

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 26, 2009; 12:06 PM ET
Categories:  The Line  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: (A Quick) Morning Fix!
Next: Mouthpiece Theater: Obama's First Lei-Day

Comments

Sarah Palin didn't get high comments when a liberal blogger for a liberal newspaper in Utah was describing Cherilyn Eagar, who is running for U.S. Senate.

http://blogs.sltrib.com/slcrawler/index.php?p=566&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Glen Warchol, blogger for the Salt Lake Tribune, said Cherilyn Eagar was Utah's Sarah Palin. He was surprisingly nice to Cherilyn Eagar, a conservative republican woman running for U.S. Senate to take Senator Bob Bennett's seat.

Glen was not being nice to Palin when he said: "Proper education: BYU diploma (code-word alert!) means she might have something on dumber-than-a-sack-of-hammers Sarah Palin."

I was not sure Palin was ready to be vice president, but I am much less comfortable with the job Pres. Obama is doing.

Posted by: Utah1 | June 30, 2009 12:41 PM | Report abuse

It took me a bit to track it down, but I feel compelled to comment on the use of the term retarded. In recent usage (as in the last 30 years), I have never heard the term used except as a slur. Chrisfox8 used it with reference to a child with Down Syndrome and knew exactly what he was doing. The use of the term retarded was deliberate and meant as a slight. Venom directed at a child is vicious.

==

You're wrong. "Retard" and "'tard," yes, slurs. "Retarded" can be used to put down a stupid idea as in "completely fricken' retarded" but I've heard "retarded" unpaired with "mentally" used as a clinically neutral designation all my life, including by my own sister back when she worked as an occupational therapist, the same sister who divorced her first husband for his racism.

I've already acknowledged my being out of touch on the new overtone of the word so I can only wonder why you bring this up again.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 29, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Considering the prominence of African-American musicians in the USA and during the DC concert season for decades, MoreAndBetterPolls thinks that chrisfox8's assumption that Justice Roberts is or was a racist because of his disdain for "Jacko" and "Prince" is statistically unwarranted.

After close examination,the only commonality that was shared by them but not generally with other performers was a certain physical androgyny.

I am sure chrisfox8 will agree, upon reflection.

Posted by: MoreAndBetterPolls | June 29, 2009 12:29 AM | Report abuse

It took me a bit to track it down, but I feel compelled to comment on the use of the term retarded. In recent usage (as in the last 30 years), I have never heard the term used except as a slur. Chrisfox8 used it with reference to a child with Down Syndrome and knew exactly what he was doing. The use of the term retarded was deliberate and meant as a slight. Venom directed at a child is vicious.

I'm on the left side of the aisle and found the use of the term as patently offensive. There are two reasons to abandon it. First off, it is not descriptive. I'm a fan of the term special needs, because such children do have needs and can make remarkable progress with the right assistance.

Incidentally, it's Down Syndrome. Not Downs or Down's, Get it right. Given the length to which Messr. Fox has posted, I suspect he can afford an extra syllable.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | June 28, 2009 11:14 PM | Report abuse

The Dem PA Senate primary will be the biggest race in the country, bigger than the TX Gov Primary.

The latter involves two high profile politicians slugging it out with lots of money, but the former is bigger because such high profile politicians (Rendell, Obama, Biden) have already taken sides.

Can you imagine Obama & Biden campaigning for Spector, while Sestak runs a credible grassroots campaign and runs Spector close? It would be amazing.

However, unlike NY Senate, I think the WH will quietly allow Sestak to run, and not provide any substantive support to Spector. It would be too embarassing if they did and he lost.

Posted by: JayPen | June 28, 2009 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Lần này bằng tiếng Anh ...

I thought you guys looked down on the mixing of executive and celebrity. You sure made a big hoot-hoot over it during the campaign.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 28, 2009 7:08 PM | Report abuse

@broadwayjoe: thanks for the support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

the blind leading the ignoRANT.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 28, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Once more for the West Coast and those who may have missed it due to extreme paid-troll blog-mobbing of WaPo political blogs (IMHO)...

***

BULLETIN: U.S. GOVERNMENT CENSORS AND MALICIOUSLY TAMPERS WITH THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS OF U.S. CITIZENS


• Is Team Obama unaware, naive, or misinformed?

Documentation? See the litany of evidence at:

http://blog.aclu.org/2009/01/26/internet-filters-voluntary-ok-not-government-mandate


Posted by: scrivener50 | June 28, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe:

Have you heard the criticism of Obama for not issuing any formal statement about the King of Pop (when even the King of Gabon got one)?

Posted by: JakeD | June 28, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Off-topic a moment: We forgot to pay our respects to Michael Joe Jackson (1958-2009). The greatest there ever was, the greatest there will ever be...

Sadly we have one dissenter, Justice John Roberts. HuffPo reports on his unfortunate hate blasts against the King of Pop. Hard to believe.

==

Sounds like he's jealous.

There are probably dozens of concerts in DC each month, the only other one he names to make his alleged point is "Prince" who had one conspicuous attribute in common with Michael Jackson.

Not a LOT to go on but I bet Roberts is, now whoda thunk it, just another sniveling little gooper racist.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 28, 2009 12:56 AM | Report abuse

@broadwayjoe: thanks for the support. A small correction, I am on the west coast (east coaster by inclination, west by residence). I'm never up past midnight, you must be on the east coast.

Agreed on Rubio, a piston-rod Republican (reference: Howard Beale from Paddy Chayevsky's "Network"), as in interchangeable as. I think that even Florida is over the super-far-right crowd and I hope Rubio ends up temping at a car wash where he belongs, extolling to the GED dropouts how much he hates Democrats.

Good call on the Elian memory. The kid is back in school in Cuba, the metal cap and electrodes back on his head (I bet zouk and jake actually believe that) and growing up with his new mom, while Marisleysis screams for attention and "El Pescador" pines for his fifteen minutes.

Time to normalize relations. Let the teabaggers scream in rage.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 28, 2009 12:50 AM | Report abuse

The W/H via Rahm Emanuel has weighed in and told NYS Dems hands off Sen. Gillibrand, or deal with the President and his aweseome power; since he has her back and does not want a NYS primary for her next year.

I say, what a crock ... that this dirty pool. Mr. Obama says stand with the protestors in Iran and allow them to pick their leaders fairly with an honest vote, yada, yada, yap, yap, etc., yet he tries to kick Dems to the gutter in NYS to save 'his pick' for the Senate?

She was not elected ... she was appointed. There is no reason she can't compete in a Dem primary. And guess what? I might jump in, too, on one big issue: W/H Gestapho tactics... Their approach is un-American to me. How about you?

Join me http://www.danzview.blogspot.com

Posted by: eyepublius | June 27, 2009 11:22 PM | Report abuse

"Fudgepacker," wow, that takes me back like 25 years ...

Posted by: chrisuxcox

"Retard", wow that takes me back like 40 years.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 27, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Ssssshhhhhh

don't tell anyone. the messiah has flipped the biggest flop ever. Gitmo to never close.

Between releasing the news at midnight on Friday and the laziness of the MSM, we may never actually hear this.

But lo and behold, our little boy is growing up.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 27, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

douglaslbarber:

I have to admit that I have voted for both Rendell and Specter previously. But I am looking forward to seeing how well Sestak is able to present himself on a state-wide basis. If he can make his case effectively (and I think he can), he can certainly win the D primary, which would be a slap at both Rendell and BHO. I think his potential campaign attacks putting Specter and W together ("Why vote for a DINO when you can vote for a real D?") will be effective. Rendell will certainly work for Specter, but I'm interested in seeing how much effort BHO will put into it. I think he realizes that Sestak would be a more reliable vote in the Senate.

The dichotomy between eastern and western PA Ds is really striking to me (I'm not a PA native). Usually, you see differences in urban/rural areas of states which are expressed by D/R splits. But Pittsburgh and Philly are pretty different. The Rendell/Casey gubernatorial primary of 2002 was probably best recent indicator of the D demographics. The 2010 gubernatorial general election could be really interesting too if both Corbett (R, AG) and Wagner (D, Auditor General) end up running.

Posted by: mnteng | June 27, 2009 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Off-topic a moment: We forgot to pay our respects to Michael Joe Jackson (1958-2009). The greatest there ever was, the greatest there will ever be...

Sadly we have one dissenter, Justice John Roberts. HuffPo reports on his unfortunate hate blasts against the King of Pop. Hard to believe.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/26/john-roberts-critiqued-mi_n_221725.html

Posted by: broadwayjoe | June 27, 2009 10:36 AM | Report abuse

IChristian, KBH was my classmate UT Law '67 and she is either a month older or younger than I, I forget which. She is not thinking about a stepping stone to national office.

She and Ray adopted a child about eight years ago, and another one, since. She has been pining for Austin because of these two events. She wants to raise them here, not in DC. TXGov is far last demanding than US Senator, btw. If you were the 66 year old mother of two young children you might prefer the less demanding public job, too.

Caveat: All my allegations above are educated guesses EXCEPT that I can make the case for the unstressed governorship, objectively.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 27, 2009 9:43 AM | Report abuse

"My good friend chrisfox can never quite write a post without hurling personal insults. I don't think he could write a polite post if even his life depended on it.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 26, 2009 3:56 PM"
__________
Cut him some slack. CF8, an American patriot IMO, is often fighting off three or four legendary extremist trolls with crisp FACT-BASED commentary, sometimes way into the night (like 2 am). I'd be cranky, too. Keep it going, CF8...

Back on topic, though:
I think Specter has had his run; I think Sestak will take him (the Lieberman type switch-party stunt, won't work for Arlen in Pa.). Sestak is a solid blue collar Dem; Specter, well, isn't. Specter has done some good (can't cite anything offhand, though)...and some bad (single bullet theory). But on balance, it's time for him to go--he's not a reliable vote for BHO.

Kinda like Crist over Rubio in FL. Rubio is part of that irrational (and tiresome) Elian Gonzales crowd (Dude, get over Castro--Cuba has better health care than the US and visiting Cuba would be cool). No one cares about Rubio's issues. Crist seems a Collins/Snowe moderate in the GOP and is not reflexively anti-BHO. He appears to be a little Kenny Chesney-ish...not that there's anything wrong it.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | June 27, 2009 8:40 AM | Report abuse

It's kind of wrong, but its more of a crime for the accused not to have representation at all.

Posted by: DDAWD

==

When the client's guilt is uncertain, yes, ve absolutely should be represented. But in the case of the tobacco companies, or a murderer who tells his lawyer "yeah I did it, now convince the jury I didn't so I can kill more people," what about that?

It's not conjecture that the tobacco companies know they're killing their customers; if you want to split hairs about whether they knew it back in the 50s, knock yourself out but pardon me if my eyes glaze over.

But they certainly know it now, and they go right on luring people into addiction, and a third of them will die. Every executive in the industry should leave the world the same way Mussolini did.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 27, 2009 12:29 AM | Report abuse

"A lawyer who defends a client from prosecution is doing vis job, but a lawyer to knowingly defends a murderer and makes it possible for the client to murder again, and the client does so, well say what you like about the legal profession but I say this is wrong."

It's kind of wrong, but its more of a crime for the accused not to have representation at all.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 27, 2009 12:24 AM | Report abuse

dasimon:

Sorry, I have to disagree with you. Constituents can't look over the shoulders of their elected representatives on every piece of legislation that crosses their desks. We want to know what they actually believe in, what their core values are.

What's the best way to do that? Look at their record. Maloney's got a long and extensive one. Gillibrand not so much. And what there is, is unimpressive.

I also disagree with you about her tobacco work. There are a lot of ways to apply a law degree for the public's good, and representing tobacco companies is not one of them. And by her own admission, the main reason she did it was to get close to someone who could help her career.

Everything I've read about her points to one thing: she will do whatever it takes to advance the career of Kirsten Gillibrand. When Paterson called her to offer her the Senate seat, he told her that she had to call a gay-rights activist and tell him that she now supported gay marriage. Her response? "Right away!"

The problem with all of this is that political winds can blow. If she ever perceives it in her best interests to swing right again, she'd do it in a heartbeat.

Maloney spent 10 years in the NYC council and was elected to Congress in '92. In all that time, she's had a pretty consistent liberal voting record. She's paid her dues, and she has my vote.

Posted by: Bondosan | June 27, 2009 12:24 AM | Report abuse

I think the tobacco issue is a non-issue. Lawyers work for clients. They have an ethical obligation to represent them zealously. Such representation does not imply alignment with the the views of the client

==

I disagree. I don't think there is anything professional about being amoral, nor about being immoral. The tobacco companies are in the business of killing people for profit, they sell a product that is lethal when used as directed, so glaring an immorality that it begs correction and stands as the greatest imaginable condemnation of our free-market system, the strongest argument for ending it.

A lawyer who defends a client from prosecution is doing vis job, but a lawyer to knowingly defends a murderer and makes it possible for the client to murder again, and the client does so, well say what you like about the legal profession but I say this is wrong.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 27, 2009 12:11 AM | Report abuse

bondosan:

Again, I see little problem with a representative who represents. If she's now representing the views of most New Yorkers well, what is there to complain about? Isn't that her job? You say we don't know what she believes in. Maybe she believes in representing her state. Why is that so terrible? Should a Democratic candidate from Wyoming say he'll support gun control even though just about all of his constituents take the opposite view? I think there's nothing inappropriate in saying "You send me to Washington to represent you."

I think the tobacco issue is a non-issue. Lawyers work for clients. They have an ethical obligation to represent them zealously. Such representation does not imply alignment with the the views of the client. Otherwise, you'd have to say that public defenders support criminal activity, since they do sometimes represent people who are convicted.

I have heard Gillibrand explain her position on immigration at length on our local NPR station, and she sounded quite reasonable.

I'm not saying there should not be a primary. I have always believed in the right of party voters to choose their candidate. I agree that the White House should not have gotten involved. (It's possible that they're not putting as much pressure on Maloney because they don't want to set a precedent on giving favors to people to get them to drop out. Or perhaps they don't see Maloney as a strong a challenger as Israel might have been.) I am only arguing that Maloney faces a very tough race with the forces already aligned behind Gillibrand. (I don't think the assumptions regarding Schumer's reasons for backing Gillibrand are really very relevant; first, we don't know his reasons, and second his support has weight for those who follow NY politics regardless of his motivations.) Maloney has more experience, but having met both of them I think Gillibrand comes off better both in terms of substance and personality, and she certainly will not lack for resources.

Of course, the majority of NY primary voters may disagree with me. Since most voters still don't know either candidate very well if at all, it's hard to say much about what the results would be that's anything more than rampant speculation.

Posted by: dasimon | June 27, 2009 12:01 AM | Report abuse

Republicans are so deranged, at the moment, that there's no fun to be had arguing with them.

==

I expected them to take their defeat in the same spirit that they did after previous losses, like after the Scopes trial, after Goldwater lost, etc., to hunker down and organize and fight their way back, the same perseverant spirit that had them hit the jackpot with Reagan and later really bring home the poisoned bacon with Bush.

Instead they've gone totally nuts, denying reality along with denying science, enraged past sanity, taking refuge in lies and revisionism and raw red hate. LOTS of hate.

The birth certificate stuff, the gun sales, the black helicopter stuff, the teleprompter BS (what president hasn't used one), they've gone deranged and I'm sure there will be attempts on Obama's life.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 26, 2009 11:43 PM | Report abuse

dasimon:

That seems to be the argument that Gillibrand and her supporters are making: that she "voted her district" and now she represents all of New York.

This is a tough argument to make because, quite simply, no one has a clue as to what she actually believes in, if anything.

If you read the New York magazine article, it also makes clear that she had no qualms about representing big tobacco as a private attorney (at a firm that allowed its lawyers to opt out of cases they found objectionable). Her reason for shilling for the tobacco companies? Because it gave her the chance to work with Robert Fiske, a famous, high-powered attorney who could help her career.

There are very few illegal immigrants in her former Congressional district, yet she supported labeling New York City a "sanctuary city," which would have denied NYC federal funds unless police and other public employees turned in illegals to immigration authorities. If that had passed, if an illegal witnessed a murder, or their sister or daughter was assaulted, they would be too afraid to speak to cops or paramedics because they and their families might be deported.

Yet Gillibrand supported the legislation because it made her look good with some of the wingnuts upstate.

I also think the White House, at the urging of Schumer, has badly blundered on this. Whoever wins the Democratic primary will win the general. Pataki, Giuliani, and King are non-starters.

Schumer likes Gillibrand because she's wet behind the ears and will do whatever he tells her to do. After eight years with HRC as his junior senator, he's thrilled not to be standing in someone's shadow.

Nonetheless, I think the White House is starting to realize that they erred in getting involved, which is why they seem to be laying off Maloney (Biden made a half-hearted attempt to convince her not to run, which doesn't seem to have had much effect).

In any case, Maloney hasn't formally jumped in yet, but I'm hoping she will. I think her margin of victory over Gillibrand will surprise a lot of people.

Posted by: Bondosan | June 26, 2009 11:31 PM | Report abuse

"the" should have been "to"

Posted by: SouthernAWF | June 26, 2009 10:41 PM | Report abuse

@Jake - Well, he is Mark_in_Austin, not Mark_in_Anaheim. :-)

Cheers!

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | June 26, 2009 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Response to Ichristian as to why Kay Bailey Hutchison would want to go from the Senate to the Statehouse:

When Senators run for Governor, it's usually for one of two reasons--either they want to pick up valuable executive experience with an eye to running for President in the future, or they want to continue their political career while returning to their home state. The latter is especially true with older pols in the latter part of their careers; they may be tired of having to spend so much time either in Washington or traveling back and forth. My gut feeling is that that's why she wants to take on Rick Perry. I don't think she has much chance of ever running for President--even if she had the ambition, she's getting a little old to have such a long-term plan for advancement. She also doesn't have much chance of acquiring much more clout in the Senate. She's also in some ways sort of "shadowed" Ann Richards as her career advanced (though KBH doesn't have any of the wit or charisma that Richards did), and she may want to leave her mark on the Governor's office, too.

Posted by: Budikavlan | June 26, 2009 10:41 PM | Report abuse

The Governor's job is the manage the economy? Wow.

Posted by: SouthernAWF | June 26, 2009 10:40 PM | Report abuse

I've met both Gillibrand and Maloney, and I think Gillibrand brings more to the table. I don't think most New Yorkers care one bit about who appointed her (you're offered a Senate seat by the governor and you're supposed to say no?) and will be voting on the merits. And this is assuming Maloney runs at all; she has not yet announced.

It's odd how some people criticize those in Congress for representing their constituencies (after all, "representative" is sometimes a part of the job title). Gillibrand was from a fairly conservative House district; anyone going against majorities that they represent won't be representing them very long. Now that she's representing all New Yorkers, she's entitled to modify her positions accordingly. Ultimate power in a democracy resides with the people, and a representative's job is to take our views to DC. As long as she does that, I really don't see the problem.

I thought Steve Israel would have been the stronger competitor, and even that would have been an uphill battle with much of the Democratic establishment (the White House, the DSCC, Senator Schumer, and more) already committed to Gillibrand. Maloney will have an even tougher road, though that's not to say she couldn't pull it off. Sometimes the establishment-backed candidate doesn't win. But not that often.

Posted by: dasimon | June 26, 2009 9:16 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8 wrote, "I was so encouraged by the immediate and unequivocal ban on torture that I expected much better than we've gotten."

Me too.

The "national security state" seems to be a juggernaut which wasn't foreseen by the Constitution's authors, and which sucks in anyone who is elected president.

I do sympathize with him, what with all the neocons nipping at his heels as though they'd just come off of a triumphant eight year period during which they ruled.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | June 26, 2009 8:55 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes:

Thanks for the clarification.

mark_in_austin:

Of course, Nixon was never Governor of Texas. I was not aware that you were making such a limitation as to you "least fave gov EVER".

Posted by: JakeD | June 26, 2009 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are so deranged, at the moment, that there's no fun to be had arguing with them.

The game afoot is to clarify what, if anything, the democratic party will stand in favor of.

Posted by: douglaslbarber

==

I for one am massively disappointed.

I didn't expect them to give Israel a drop-dead ultimatum on the settlements but I was so encouraged by the immediate and unequivocal ban on torture that I expected much better than we've gotten. I wish Obama would stop trying to compromise with people who have no intent of doing the nation's business and just go ahead and do it.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 26, 2009 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Zook said this earlier:
“this queer fellow does not get out much, preferring to lodge his face into the pillow, accept domination

==

Actually he has it backwards

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 26, 2009 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are so deranged, at the moment, that there's no fun to be had arguing with them.

The game afoot is to clarify what, if anything, the democratic party will stand in favor of.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | June 26, 2009 8:41 PM | Report abuse

I gotta get out to some DC R cocktail parties. the opportunity for "comedy gold" is just too freakin' irresistible.

Posted by: Ichristian

==

While you're there you might mention that you're in the market for some insurance, then you can watch them trample each other.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 26, 2009 8:35 PM | Report abuse

my favorite so far is the (apparently) neoconservative echo chamber comment that somehow "Barbara Streisand is part of the Dem brain trust."

who other than those guys would even imagine that's even remotely true?

I gotta get out to some DC R cocktail parties. the opportunity for "comedy gold" is just too freakin' irresistible.

Posted by: Ichristian | June 26, 2009 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Anybody doubts that, just read his posts and collect all the mean-spirited names and terms he aims at others (while psychotically denying he does any such thing), and the many off-thread slams at what he considers the “Obamination” and anyone who might for any reason whatsoever support it?

==

Most of what he writes is just infantile wordplay, the kind of stuff a nine-year-old might think is funny.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 26, 2009 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Well, I’m still sitting here reading you other folks, so what the hell…

Two things.

Why does Kay H Bailey want to leave the Senate (a national stage) to be part-time Governor of Texas (power broker in the party for the next presidentials?) Is Gov of TX (even 2 term) looked upon as more prestigious than Senator? Seems to me Senators have a better chance at the national limelight. and how old is she?

And I was going to save this but since someone else just brought up zook the kook:

Zook said this earlier:
“this queer fellow does not get out much, preferring to lodge his face into the pillow, accept domination (a trait he shares with messiah) and then finish by overfeeding his resident feral cat population.
who is surprised that this moron who daily exhibits nothing but nastiness, ignorance, spite and hate has no idea that certain words are insulting. “
Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 26, 2009 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Rather typical of him, I think. And interestingly enough, take the same words, and alter them just slightly, and you’ve got a dead-ringer for zook himself.

this queer fellow does not get out much, preferring to lodge his face into the pillow, accept domination (a trait he shares with messiah) and then finish by [kissing up to R congressional butt, filling websites with party propaganda rather than personal thoughtful analysis, and lovingly stroking and polishing his Porsche.].
who is surprised that this moron who daily exhibits nothing but nastiness, ignorance, spite and hate has no idea that certain words are insulting.

Anybody doubts that, just read his posts and collect all the mean-spirited names and terms he aims at others (while psychotically denying he does any such thing), and the many off-thread slams at what he considers the “Obamination” and anyone who might for any reason whatsoever support it?

Shall we tell him he lost the election?
Do we think he can handle it?

Posted by: Ichristian | June 26, 2009 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Congrats, Chris. You've sent the King of Kook off the deep end. Funny thing is that he actually thinks anti-gay taunts have any currency around here. Most of us graduated high school.

==

gosh thanks .. 'tweren't nothing, zouk was born in the deep end.

JakeD suffers from the same weirdo misapprehension, like I'm supposed to be deeply ashamed of it or something. Not once, not bloody ever.

"Fudgepacker," wow, that takes me back like 25 years ...

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 26, 2009 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Ichristian wrote, "You seem to have it in for PA D’s. Am I reading THAT aright?"

No. I detest Rendell and Specter, both at an individual level. Rendell for being the very definition of a person who's become so "establishment" that he's lost any sense of why he ought to hold office, and Specter for being nothing more than a self-serving man who loves the sound of his own voice.

I'm very fond of Bob Casey Jr and his dad. I did volunteer work for Cyril Wecht in one of his ill-fated campaigns against John Heinz (and I wouldn't admit that to just anyone ).

I guess the bottom line is that I think the PA democratic establishment is a navel-gazing machine which is blowing the opportunity to take a progressive stand in a state with a fairly high percentage of voters who either belong to unions or remember belonging to one.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | June 26, 2009 8:18 PM | Report abuse

I hope Maloney wins. She has a much stronger record than Gillibrand and has stayed true to what she believes in. I could never vote for someone who flip-flops on serious issues the way that Gillibrand has... that just reeks of opportunism.

Posted by: bluewithapassion342 | June 26, 2009 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Congrats, Chris. You've sent the King of Kook off the deep end. Funny thing is that he actually thinks anti-gay taunts have any currency around here. Most of us graduated high school.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | June 26, 2009 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Always glad to remind someone of a favorite food - a place, a person, and a food, that's a three-pronged memory meant to last.

==

Ah, but nothing truly establishes a memory like an odor.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 26, 2009 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Last one for the day:

“Ichristian wrote in Arlen Specter's favor that both he and Rendell were Philly DA's.”

You seem to be misrepresenting and conflating several things that I said. I did write without any approval/disapproval implied that both had been Philly DA (and incidentally, Rendell, mayor as well). And I did write in favor of both of them (but not BECAUSE they were Philly DA; in fact both of them did questionable sh*t as DA). But, yes, I do think both have done some excellent things. I also think (no, I know) both have done some crappy things throughout their decades in public life, along with the good. (we’re not electing saints here, you know. Try the Roman Catholic church, down the street.)

But you seem to think that I support them in all things. I’m not blind and I don’t give them carte-blanche. I never suggested any such thing.

But I will say that on balance, I think both have proven to be worthwhile public officials.

You seem to have it in for PA D’s. Am I reading THAT aright?

Posted by: Ichristian | June 26, 2009 8:07 PM | Report abuse

mnteng, thanks for further info on what I might call "reasons for Specter love" - which seem, happily, to remain within the bounds of marital fidelity in all places where they've been observed.

I'm an expatriate of Western PA where I was politically active for many years and am glad to have the benefit of your insights.

Always glad to remind someone of a favorite food - a place, a person, and a food, that's a three-pronged memory meant to last.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | June 26, 2009 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Ichristian wrote in Arlen Specter's favor that both he and Rendell were Philly DA's.

Rendell is about as worthless, "pure establishment" Democrat as I've seen.

Here's his accomplishment today, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "Hospitals and doctors who treat the poor, universities and college students seeking grants would all feel the pinch of Gov. Ed Rendell's newly revised budget."

I don't mind a democrat cutting aid to "universities and college students seeking grants" during a fierce, state budget-busting recession, but cuts to "hospitals and doctors who treat the poor" is just a little too much of "Rendell's vision of the democratic party" for my liking.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | June 26, 2009 7:50 PM | Report abuse

"("... but just screw ONE GOAT ...")"

exactly.

and it's not like the goat didn't have a good time too...

Posted by: Ichristian | June 26, 2009 7:43 PM | Report abuse

“I'm just happy to tipped the Senate scales to a potentially filibuster-proof majority, as soon as Coleman faces reality anyway.”

Yes, and you can argue (probably speciously) that it was the right thing, but it certainly was damn useful.

“ Yeah I remember Single Bullet. The bullet that went back in time or something. “

Who knew such things were possible? We really have to thank them for that.

Posted by: Ichristian | June 26, 2009 7:35 PM | Report abuse

To Chrisfox8

(Geez, I can’t believe I’m still sitting here.)

==

Well I'm at work and everyone knows I have nothing to do till Monday, yet they're OK with me sitting here reading the bug-tracking database *cough*blogging*cough* and putting in hours.

==

"But Specter has also been pro-choice, and stood up for a lot of other sanity. He’s proven he’ll do the right thing, most of the time. (how many of you can say the same thing?)"

==

I'm just happy to tipped the Senate scales to a potentially filibuster-proof majority, as soon as Coleman faces reality anyway.

Yeah I remember Single Bullet. The bullet that went back in time or something.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 26, 2009 7:19 PM | Report abuse

To Chrisfox8

(Geez, I can’t believe I’m still sitting here.)

I never got why he let himself be made point man and used so badly on that one.

And that ain’t the half of it.

He’s one of the guys on (get this) the Warren Commission and, for those of you who don’t remember, actually argued for the pristine magic/single bullet theory. There’s no way to explain some of his many (and wacky) lapses and inconsistencies. But I’ll take him any day over many of the alternatives. (AND he’s got Fast Eddie in his corner. You know, the guy who delivered teetering PA to Obama by what was it 10 points or sum-pin?)

But Specter has also been pro-choice, and stood up for a lot of other sanity. He’s proven he’ll do the right thing, most of the time. (how many of you can say the same thing?)

Posted by: Ichristian | June 26, 2009 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Ichristian: unfortunately we live in a shallow political universe in the USA ("... but just screw ONE GOAT ..."), and Specter's years of good service are overshadowed by his savage treatment of Anita Hill for a lot of people. And I really need to wonder what he must have been thinking, so reflexively loyal a Republican as to attack her when it really seemed to so many concerned that what she was saying was authentic.

(Thomas certainly has turned out to be an awesomely lousy justice, driven much more by self-pity than by legal integrity. Calling him an "originalist" sidesteps the fact that he seems driven by a few long-ago snubs).

I do agree with you though about the treatment of Republican moderates, beginning with Gov. Weld. That their extremity has cost them dearly in two elections now just seems to intensify it.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 26, 2009 6:59 PM | Report abuse

kind of late chiming in, but...

someone said: "Is there such a thing as an "enthusiastic Specter supporter"? If so, what could possibly motivate that curious behavior?" -- Posted by: douglaslbarber | June 26, 2009 3:44 PM


Actually, respect for the long history of Specter’s many moderate-Republican stands, especially in the face of the neofascist Republican stampede of the Bush years. And his respect for Law (with a capital L). And a long history of good service to Philadelphia and Pennsylvania. (I’m not going to go into all the details here; it’s late on the east coast. I’m going home. Look it up yourselves.)

I’m an ex-Philly-ite and typically registered D or I. Even so, I voted for him in the past, and I’d vote for him for him if I could (as I say, ex-Philly-ite). I can contribute to his campaign and fully intend to. I think you guys hear the blather from pissed-off R’s and the suspicions of newly arrived D’s. But he’s better than either of these groups would have you believe. (Did you know both he and Ed Rendell served as Philly DA, one of the main springboard’s to PA statewide office?)

Posted by: Ichristian | June 26, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse

After his showing in the last election primaries I would be shocked if anyone seriously considered Giuliani for office again. Over a few weeks he degenerated from a two-dimensional caricature of a craven politician shoehorning a reference to 9/11 into every utterance .. into little more than a collection of canned recitations walking around on two legs.

After a while the phrases came out in one piece, with no breaks between the words:

"secureiraqinnamericasintrests" (click)
"secureiraqinnamericasintrests" (click)
"secureiraqinnamericasintrests" (click)
"secureiraqinnamericasintrests" (click)

In one interview he was repeating himself after a mere thirty seconds and suddenly his handlers were hustling him away, smile smile smile.

You can't possibly be serious.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 26, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

douglaslbarber:

That was a sort of tongue-in-cheek reply to you. But there are underlying reasons for my comment.

Specter was a DA in Philly before he was elected to the Senate, so some people in that area may remember him as tough on crime from 30 years ago.

Specter is actually pro-choice. He has been a friend to biomedical sciences and one of the biggest backers of the NIH budget since he got to the Senate in the '80s. Academic biomedical researchers (those that are funded through the NIH) typically lean left-of-center. But Specter's former seniority on Appropriations meant that biomedical science had a powerful friend during the budget process. If the Ds don't restore that seniority, then he loses a potent argument for re-election.

Specter did indeed lose a lot of women voters because of his "aggressive interrogation" of Anita Hill. And some women have very long memories.

And thanks a lot for reminding me about cheesesteaks. Haven't had one in ages and now I have a taste for good "Whiz wit".

Posted by: mnteng | June 26, 2009 6:20 PM | Report abuse

whatever you say fudgepacker.

Posted by: king_of_zouk

==

All my regular bottoms have shower doüches

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 26, 2009 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Dude, if you were a public employee, you would be forced to go to the dreaded "Diversity Training".

Calling people retarded might be offensive is news to you?

==

I have to go through "diversity training" every few years anyway, even when I keep my mouth shut. So does everyone who doesn't use reinforced gloves to do his job.

Maybe it's a coastal difference or something.

I've heard and used "that's retarded" to describe a dumb idea and never seen any reaction that would indicate anyone had been offended.

To call anyone a "tard" or "retard" is clearly an offense.

One reason I have zip to do with the gay culture is its enthusiastic embrace (called "reclaiming") of notions like "queer." Yay, we're queer. Excuse me this is where I get off. Them's fightin' words.

I stopped watching TV back when Reagan was in office, maybe that's where people get their vernacular sense, 'cause all this is news to me.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 26, 2009 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Aaack, I meant "pro-choice Republican women" in my previous comment. NOT "pro-life"....

Posted by: douglaslbarber | June 26, 2009 5:58 PM | Report abuse

mnteng wrote, in answer to my question where to find enthusiastic Specter supporters, "They are a rare breed, but they can be found. It helps to hunt for them near Philly; look for the few remaining moderate PA Rs, particularly those in the biomedical field."

Interesting detail, thanks for that. I would have thought, "pro-life Republican women", but if any of them have long memories, he lost their enthusiasm if not their votes with his aggressive interrogation of Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.

I presume that the folks in the biomedical field (who no doubt limit themselves to one cheese steak per year despite the ready availability of good ones near to hand) might support him due to his consistent stand against "pro-life" regulations which, from their point of view, interfere with research. And as high earners many would have somewhat of a Republican proclivity.

If I'm reading you wrong, I'd be curious for more detail. Thanks again for the interesting thought.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | June 26, 2009 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Although I will personally vote for Carolyn Maloney over Gillibrand (if these are indeed the choices in the primary that is a big 15 months away!), I do not believe she has a chance. Gillibrand will win narrowly, based on the fact that the White House, Schumer and the remnants of the Hillary machine are behind her. If she's smart, she'll develop an acute Type IV hypersensitivity contact dermatitis to David Patterson's physical presence, especially when cameras are around. On the Republican side, Giuliani has a chance but his penchant for self-destruction is so immense-- he ruined his own promising Senate and Presidency races. Pataki-- enough is enough. Even the New York Republican Party is not dumb enough to run him again. Odds are it's going to be some bland sacrificial lamb, like Rick Lazio or some such.

Posted by: mattfugazi | June 26, 2009 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Calling people retarded might be offensive is news to you?

this queer fellow does not get out much, preferring to lodge his face into the pillow, accept domination (a trait he shares with messiah) and then finish by overfeeding his resident feral cat population.

who is surprised that this moron who daily exhibits nothing but nastiness, ignorance, spite and hate has no idea that certain words are insulting.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 26, 2009 5:24 PM | Report abuse

But "retarded?" Not in my experience.

Posted by: chrisuxcox

It is because most people are polite enough not to call you that to your face.

you really have no clue what everyone thinks about you, do you?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 26, 2009 5:18 PM | Report abuse

The idea that "retarded" is offensive is news to me.

Posted by: chrisuxcox

whatever you say fudgepacker.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 26, 2009 5:16 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes and drindl:

The last Rasmussen poll on the NY Gov. race has Guiliani and Pataki handily beating Paterson, but losing by just as much to Cuomo.

As for favorability ratings:

"Cuomo is viewed favorably by 65% of New York voters, Giuliani by 57%, Pataki by 51%, and Paterson by 33%.

Thirty-three percent (33%) have a Very Favorable opinion of Giuliani, balanced out by 29% who have a Very Unfavorable view.

For Cuomo, those numbers are 26% Very Favorable and just 11% Very Unfavorable.

Pataki doesn’t generate such strong opinions—just 11% say they have a Very Favorable opinion of him and 12% Very Unfavorable.

But, Paterson ends up weaker than all the others in this category as well. Just 7% have a Very Favorable opinion of the Governor and 33% have a Very Unfavorable view."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/new_york/election_2010_new_york_governor_election

Posted by: mnteng | June 26, 2009 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Dude, if you were a public employee, you would be forced to go to the dreaded "Diversity Training".

Calling people retarded might be offensive is news to you?

Do you really think the gay/queer analogy holds up? Every homosexual I know is thrilled to be, but maybe that is an artifact of PDX. I know happy retarded people, my half-sister is 43 and she is a lot happier than I will ever be, she with her 20 word vocabulary, she is blind and deaf too.

But look, if "retarded baby" was not intended to cause hurt, why say it? Truth is, the reason this endless Fix exchange between a handful of people goes on is the slam, or in the African American tradition, Yo Mama jokes.

Posted by: shrink2 | June 26, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse

BULLETIN: U.S. GOVERNMENT CENSORS AND MALICIOUSLY TAMPERS WITH THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS OF U.S. CITIZENS

• Is Team Obama unaware, naive, or misinformed?

Documentation? See the litany of evidence at:

http://blog.aclu.org/2009/01/26/internet-filters-voluntary-ok-not-government-mandate


Posted by: scrivener50 | June 26, 2009 5:05 PM | Report abuse

BULLETIN: U.S. GOVERNMENT CENSORS AND MALICIOUS TAMPERS WITH THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS OF U.S. CITIZENS

• Is Team Obama unaware, naive, or misinformed?

Documentation? See the litany of evidence at:

http://blog.aclu.org/2009/01/26/internet-filters-voluntary-ok-not-government-mandate

Posted by: scrivener50 | June 26, 2009 5:02 PM | Report abuse

douglaslbarber writes:
"Is there such a thing as an "enthusiastic Specter supporter"?"

They are a rare breed, but they can be found. It helps to hunt for them near Philly; look for the few remaining moderate PA Rs, particularly those in the biomedical field.

Posted by: mnteng | June 26, 2009 5:02 PM | Report abuse

But "'tard" or "retard" is clearly pejorative.

So perhaps "retarded baby" could be construed to be deliberately offensive and generally, we leave the innocents out of our contempt for their parents. Does that seem fair?

==

I would never in my life refer to a genuinely retarded person in either of those ways.

The fact that the kid is MR is germane, not a gratuitous dig, and figures prominently in the hysteria around the blogger's photoshopping. "How dare she make fun of a 'special needs' child."

One of the reasons I like parrots is that they don't use euphemisms.

The idea that "retarded" is offensive is news to me.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 26, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

From the gallery, I'll let you know that the PC term nowadays is MRDD, stands for Mentally Retarded/Developmentally Disabled. So "MR" for short is how we talk about these kids in clinical settings.

But "'tard" or "retard" is clearly pejorative.

So perhaps "retarded baby" could be construed to be deliberately offensive and generally, we leave the innocents out of our contempt for their parents. Does that seem fair?

Posted by: shrink2 | June 26, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of Palin, are all her followers planning on not filling out Census forms? Hope that strategy pays off when electoral votes are reallocated.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 26, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

I'm willing to bet it's that you called the baby retarded. Yeah, its literally true, but, you know, it's an offensive word and despite what you think of Palin choosing to have the baby or parading the baby on stage, you can hardly blame Trig for any of that stuff.

Posted by: DDAWD

==

Never meant anything like that to me, it's a clinically descriptive term. The kid has Down's. He's retarded.

I know some gays who object to being called homosexual. They prefer "queer." We're both offended at the other's usage. I'm homosexual, and "queer" is a request to get punched in the teeth for me.

(*shrug*)

How histrionic.

Perhaps it was unnecessary, perhaps she has no other infant it might have been confused with (I don't keep "Track" of her kids' names and ages), but offensive? Ridiculous.

When I lived in Spain people would refer to a guy in a wheelchair as a "cripple." I found that a little jarring. But "retarded?" Not in my experience.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 26, 2009 4:40 PM | Report abuse

"You'll have to connect the dots for me. Was it the saranwrap wordplay? I'm lost."

I'm willing to bet it's that you called the baby retarded. Yeah, its literally true, but, you know, it's an offensive word and despite what you think of Palin choosing to have the baby or parading the baby on stage, you can hardly blame Trig for any of that stuff.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 26, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

efore this moment I'd have sworn that it would require a frontal lobotomy, months of electroshock therapy and at least 35 rounds of waterboarding to get me to take Sarah Palin's side on anything, but Chrisfox8, your comment is offensive, to no good end.

Posted by: douglaslbarber

==

You'll have to connect the dots for me. Was it the saranwrap wordplay? I'm lost.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 26, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Vicious, opportunistic, and dumb as a bag of hair, Posted by: chrisuxcox

Gazing fondly in the mirror again nutjob???

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 26, 2009 4:01 PM | Report abuse

My good friend chrisfox can never quite write a post without hurling personal insults. I don't think he could write a polite post if even his life depended on it.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 26, 2009 3:56 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8 wrote, "Some blogger in Alaska doctors a photo of Sarah Saranwrap with her retarded baby and she's demanding an apology..."

Before this moment I'd have sworn that it would require a frontal lobotomy, months of electroshock therapy and at least 35 rounds of waterboarding to get me to take Sarah Palin's side on anything, but Chrisfox8, your comment is offensive, to no good end.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | June 26, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Is there such a thing as an "enthusiastic Specter supporter"? If so, what could possibly motivate that curious behavior?

Posted by: douglaslbarber | June 26, 2009 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Palin's found another excuse to scream for attention and pity:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/25/palin-hits-back-at-malicious-photo/

Some blogger in Alaska doctors a photo of Sarah Saranwrap with her retarded baby and she's demanding an apology from THE PRESIDENT.

Vicious, opportunistic, and dumb as a bag of hair, almost as dumb as her supporters.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 26, 2009 3:43 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD, I guess the fact that she was talking to a room full of troops at the time escapes you dimwits.

Is this worse than "America is a muslim nation". Hardly. Yet you don't find the teleprompt reader of that idiotic claim to be stupid. Why is that?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 26, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse

These guys did fine. What makes you think Palin would suffer any consequences for her attempts at character assassination? Was it because she failed at it?

Posted by: DDAWD

==

My parrots make more sense than Sarah Palin.

Outside the 19-percenters like JakeD she's nothing more than a punch line. The best thing the Democrats can hope for is more publicity for Palin, with regular onscreen reminders that she's a Republican.

"pry-vit secter"

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 26, 2009 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Palin and Sanford have one thing in common, they pimp their children.

I've always thought Chelsea Clinton to be the only victim of her father's issue.

But Palin and Sanford are doing things to their kids that are really sickening. Apart from the lies about her marrying, Bristol is on a "don't be like me" chastity tour. Eeeeeew.


Posted by: shrink2 | June 26, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

The next GOP president will not only not be Sarah Palin, if the GOP keeps shooting itself in the foot the next GOP president might not even be born yet.

Posted by: koolkat_1960

==

The GOP's figurative feet are little more than bloody splinters of bone at this point. Now they're aiming between their eyes.

"Not even born yet" made my day, thanks!

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 26, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

"Despite the most unprofessional, unethical, and unrelenting character assassination in modern U.S. political history, not only is she still standing tall, but still retains that “it” factor."

Meh, a lot of Republicans stand tall after character assassination. Palin assailed Obama's character by calling him a terrorist. Bush performed character assassination on Kerry by hiring people to say his war injuries were just scratched. Saxby Chambliss did the character assassination on Max Cleland (you know, the guy who lost three limbs in Vietnam) by comparing him to Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.

These guys did fine. What makes you think Palin would suffer any consequences for her attempts at character assassination? Was it because she failed at it?

Posted by: DDAWD | June 26, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

""Attributes that tens of millions of Americans believe actually qualifies someone to be president."

god bless their braindead little hearts. answer our prayers and run her for president!"


This reminds me of something from Weingarten's chat. (He's also leaving the Post. Took the buyout.)

----------------------------------------
Piling on Pal, IN: Disingenuous... what about her "acceptance" of Letterman's apology....?

"Of course it's accepted on behalf of young women, like my daughters, who hope men who 'joke' about public displays of sexual exploitation of girls will soon evolve. Letterman certainly has the right to 'joke' about whatever he wants to, and thankfully we have the right to express our reaction. And this is all thanks to our U.S. military women and men putting their lives on the line for us to secure America's right to free speech -- in this case, may that right be used to promote equality and respect."

Her mention of the troops? WHAT?!?!

Gene Weingarten: I continue to contend that she is stupid. This is SO heavy-handed no smart person would try it. This declares: I am a shameless opportunist, and I think you are all gullible idiots who won't understand what I am doing here.
------------------------------------------

How true. She's an incredibly stupid person. For anyone to take her shoutout to the military as an honest display of patriotism has a similar lack of judgment. Perhaps that's why she's willing to treat people like gullible idiots. It's because there are a lot of them out there.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 26, 2009 3:13 PM | Report abuse

For JakeD.

Governors of TX since I was of voting age:

39 John Connally Jan 15, 1963 Jan 21, 1969
40 Preston Smith Jan 21, 1969 Jan 16, 1973
41 Dolph Briscoe Jan 16, 1973 Jan 16, 1979
42 Bill Clements Jan 16, 1979 Jan 18, 1983
43 Mark White Jan 18, 1983 Jan 20, 1987
44 Bill Clements Jan 20, 1987 Jan 15, 1991
45 Ann Richards Jan 15, 1991 Jan 17, 1995
46 G. W. Bush Jan 17, 1995 Dec 21, 2000
47 Rick Perry Dec 21, 2000 Incumbent

Every one of them did some good for TX until Goodhair. He campaigned one year saying he could fix the school budget and announced the day after he was inaugurated that no one could fix the school budget. He campaigned last time for super toll roads owned by a Spanish company and won with 38% of the vote in a four way race. I voted for the Indie R in that one but was trying to vote for the strongest non-Goodhair candidate and trying to get everyone to do that. Unfortunately, all 62% of us guessed wrong and we split our votes.

Nixon was never Gov of TX, of course.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 26, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

show me links, bhoomes. i'ved lived in NY for 30 years.

Posted by: drindl | June 26, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse

The whole NY-DC crowd seem to be infected with Palin Derangement Syndrome.

Posted by: vbhoomes


they are being discredited day by day. all you have to do is let those fools get their message out.

Prattle on drivl and chrissuxcox. you and your messiah are steadily being revealed for the charlatans and poltroons you are.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 26, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Polling on Pataki and Rudy in New York do not support your thesis Drindl, that they are widely hated. It suggests the exact opposite. I just hope one of them enters to prove how wrong you are. JakeD, I was just refering to the chattering class from DC to NY, not the actual voters.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 26, 2009 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Cherilyn Eagar for US Senate (Utah 2010) to Replace Senator Bennett is impressive. I think Senator Bennett will be done after 18 years. I realize 76 is pretty young to retire from the Senate.

Cherilyn Eagar's last two main statements are at:

http://www.heraldextra.com/article_dc4fb5dc-5773-11de-93b4-001cc4c002e0.html

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=122249770238

Posted by: Utah1 | June 26, 2009 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Uh-oh...scriverner50 is off his or her meds today!

Posted by: pumor | June 26, 2009 2:52 PM | Report abuse

The next GOP president will not only not be Sarah Palin, if the GOP keeps shooting itself in the foot the next GOP president might not even be born yet.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | June 26, 2009 2:49 PM | Report abuse

The next GOP president will not only not be Sarah Palin, if the GOP keeps shooting itself in the foot the next GOP president might not even be born yet.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | June 26, 2009 2:49 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes:

The next GOP President (whether that's Sarah Palin or not) will most likely NOT win either New York or the District of Columbia ...

Posted by: JakeD | June 26, 2009 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you naughty political junkie, you!

This is a lineup I'd come back from the grave to witness! FL, NY, PA., CA., and TX! In a way, this will be better than the Presidential race! AMAZING!!!

Salivatingly yours,

sverigegrabb

Posted by: sverigegrabb | June 26, 2009 2:36 PM | Report abuse

SPECTER WON'T RUN, WILL WRITE 'TELL-ALL' POLTICAL BIO?


Let me repeat the prediction:

Specter won't run. He'll throw his support behind Sestak and begin writing his memoirs, attacted by a multi- million-dollar publisher payday if he reveals as yet-unknown or unconfirmed facts about what he knew as a primary Warren Commission JFK assassination investigator.

***

MORE APPARENT BLATANT CENSORSHIP OF INTERNET POLITICAL SPEECH BY GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS:

NOW, LINKS TO POLITICO BLOGS ARE MISSING FROM THE SPLASH SPAGE OF POLITICO.COM -- AT LEAST, ON THIS JOURNALIST'S COMPUTER!


The ham-fisted, draconian apparent censorship and/or prior restraint of political speech in America continues unabated.

Today's affront to the Constitution has the links to all of the Politico.com blogs disappearing from the site's main page -- as delivered over my internet connection.

I believe this is a case of so-called "spoofed pages" being inserted into the data stream by government "fusion center" surveillance operatives who are not just spying -- but are CENSORING the telecommunications of unjustly "targeted" and electronically-harassed and censored citizens.

I'm still blocked from posting comments to Politico full articles; I get no response to my emails asking why this is.

CONGRESS, ACLU: What are you going to do about apparent government censorship of telecommunications wrapped in the false flag of "national security"? Stand by and let the Constitution continue to be shredded by the authoritarians within?

For a running account of this journalist's attempt to exercise his right to unfettered access to mass communications -- and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures -- please link here:

http://blog.aclu.org/2009/01/26/internet-filters-voluntary-ok-not-government-mandate

Posted by: scrivener50 | June 26, 2009 2:26 PM | Report abuse

"Attributes that tens of millions of Americans believe actually qualifies someone to be president."

god bless their braindead little hearts. answer our prayers and run her for president!

Posted by: drindl | June 26, 2009 2:15 PM | Report abuse

you dondd't understand anything about new york, bhoomes. both pataki and guiliani are widely hated here. once everything came out about how rudy screwed the city, and then how he treated our cops and firefighter heros like crap, that was it.

mahoney will be our new senator.

Posted by: drindl | June 26, 2009 2:13 PM | Report abuse

I agree KOZ, people should not underestimate her, she can rev up a crowd better than anybody I have seen. My only fear is that she's been so severely trashed by the MSM, she would have a hard time winning it all. The whole NY-DC crowd seem to be infected with Palin Derangement Syndrome.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 26, 2009 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Learn something new everyday, I did not know the John Birch Society still existed. I believe the NY Dem primary is very interesting. that Gillibrand was appointed by a now very unpopular Governor and is in a tough contest should leave the winner vulnerable in the Fall. If NY Republican Party can get Pataki or Rudy to get in, the seat will be a pickup for the GOP.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 26, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Now, while the left, their handmaidens in the media, alleged feminists, and various late-night comics will flat out tell you that it’s over for Sarah Palin, I would beg to differ. Despite the most unprofessional, unethical, and unrelenting character assassination in modern U.S. political history, not only is she still standing tall, but still retains that “it” factor. She is very comfortable in her own skin, believes what she believes, and is not afraid to challenge the tenets of political correctness or speak-up for traditional values when needed. Attributes that tens of millions of Americans believe actually qualifies someone to be president.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 26, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

I read a lot of this kind of stuff on rightwing websites, and you get smatters of it here. What a loony country we live in.

"Yet for others, the John Birch Society is urgently relevant to the matters of today, in its support of secure borders and limited government, its distrust of the Federal Reserve and the United Nations, and its belief in a conspiracy to merge Mexico, Canada and the United States.

This so-called North American Union, it asserts, is part of a larger plot by an amorphous, amoral group of powerful elite — including but not limited to the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and the Rockefellers — to take over planet Earth. Call it the New World Order.

Some of these theories may sound like cable television chatter, or the synopsis of a Dan Brown bestseller. But Birch leaders say this plot is real, with roots going back more than 200 years to a secret, insidious brotherhood called the Illuminati, and with most American presidents among its many dupes and abettors.

“We’ve always referred to it as a Satanic conspiracy,” said Arthur Thompson, the society’s chief executive, sitting beside an American flag.

The society, which was established in 1958, says its membership has doubled in recent years, thanks to rising interest in these beliefs and, lately, to the policies of the Obama administration."

Posted by: drindl | June 26, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

mikedow-- rubio is attracting so much attention because this race is a battle for the heart and soul [such as they are] of the republican party. the cons have drawn a line in the sand now and they are going to fight hard in every primary where there is a rightwinger and a moderate. they have made it clear that they would rather lose than move to any sort of middle. they are instead moving very quickly toward john birch society terrority, and have in fact adopted much of their rhetoric.

Posted by: drindl | June 26, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

If Charlie Crist gets elected to the Senate, what are the odds that he and Rep. John Boehner will attempt to bring back the "George Hamilton Biathlon (golf and tanning) made popular by Zonker Harris in the 1970s?

Posted by: thephd | June 26, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

I thought your "least fave gov EVER" would be Richard Nixon (did Perry tap your phones too?!).

Posted by: JakeD | June 26, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

"(Unfortunately, at the end, she states that Greta Van Susteren is her favorite journalist--that assertion alone just might destroy her chances of winning the primary!)"

Did it for me. Van Sustern a jounalist? omigod. I knew there was something deeply wrong with Gillibrand. Bad enough that she is the pick of Paterson - whom most New Yorkers quickly learned to loathe -- but this. Plus the flipflopping. Carolyn Maloney on the other hand, is great.

If she runs, I will volunteer for her. I already gave my rep Nita Lowey, whom I have campaigned for, a heads-up that the whole dem contingent in our westchester town is totally behind Carolyn.

Posted by: drindl | June 26, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

"The reality of the open primary is, at long last, going to remove my least fave gov EVER" mark_in_austin

Good point about the Republican contest being an open primary Mark, but I still see Perry having the advantage. Having said that though, I hope you are right and that Dems and Indies put an end to Perry's political career before the General.

Posted by: claffiteau | June 26, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

The problem with Gillibrand can be summed up as: Guns, Gays, and 'Gration.

Within about 24 hours after her appointment as Senator, she flipped her positions on gun control, Gay marriage, and immigration.

She's dancing as fast as she can to the left, but she's got a bit of a Mitt Romney problem. No one knows what she actually believes in, other than the political advancement of Kirsten Gillibrand.

New York magazine has a pretty good profile of her at http://nymag.com/news/politics/57197/

(Unfortunately, at the end, she states that Greta Van Susteren is her favorite journalist--that assertion alone just might destroy her chances of winning the primary!)

This whole episode is fascinating for a political junkie: Gov. David Paterson thought he could win some love upstate by appointing her, and in the process, he might just have destroyed both his and Gillibrand's careers.

Oh, well. If Maloney runs and wins (and I'm hoping she does), I'm sure the Obama Administration could give Gillibrand an ambassadorship somewhere (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, perhaps?)

Posted by: Bondosan | June 26, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade, pls eml me at

mark_in_austin@operamail.com

claffiteau, KBH can afford to run toward the center-right and let Goodhair outsmart himself over on the seccessionist fringe. We have open primaries in TX. Schieffer has cred as a conservative D and will glide to the D nomination but no one is going to be voting in the D Primary. The young activists in the cities will not be excited about him.

The action for the 30% of TX voters who are Indies, and even for many Ds, will be the dumping of Goodhair in the R Primary. I think Goodhair would not beat KBH in a closed primary, but that would be close. The reality of the open primary is, at long last, going to remove my least fave gov EVER.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 26, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

10. Kansas Senate (Republican primary): ...Democrats not only haven't found ...

A double negative?? Really?!?

Posted by: fernan25 | June 26, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Ah, The Line is always my favorite Fix post of the week and this one is no exception. It is interesting that the bigger states are represented at the top of the Line. A function of the contest itself, the outpouring of campaign money sure to follow, or a little big state bias by CC?

Personally, I can't wait to see the Sestak/Specter battle here in PA, but any and all of the 10 will be fun to watch.

And I enjoy reading reason5's analyses as well.

Posted by: mnteng | June 26, 2009 1:07 PM | Report abuse

"By the end of the primary, Perry will be an ineffective and demagogic chief executive while KBH will be a corrupt liberal." Great assessment of this race. KBH has the better shot at winning the General election but Perry is a better bet for the Republican primary since he has staked out a position so far to the right (including raising the possibility of Texas seceding from the United States as a reaction to Obama's policies) that KBH, who is also a conservative, has no hope of outflanking him there. Democrats have a real shot in the General due to the centrist credentials of Fort Worth lawyer Tom Schieffer who's only Democratic opposition is going to be Kinky Friedman. Still it is possible that Democratic activists will succeed in nominating Kinky which would be just what the Republican nominee is praying for. Both primaries and the General will make for an interesting set of electoral contests.

Posted by: claffiteau | June 26, 2009 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Sestak vs Tooney would be a barn burner. Surely a Fixista Top 5! (Stop calling me Shirley)

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | June 26, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Illinois
We have most of our top seats up for grabs.
The governor is new -- after Blago was impeached -- and has to expect challenges.
The Senator already has challengers, including the current treasurer.
The current Attorney General is running for one of those two slots.
We should be among the top ten.

Posted by: F_L_Palmer | June 26, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I think Kristen Gillbrand has a leg up on Malony in the NY senate race. In my view, the Republican nomination for Gov. of California will be more competitive than the NY senate primary in the end. You have Whitman vs. Poizner vs. Cambell. Whitman & Poizner are both billionares while Cambell was budget cheif for Gov. Scwhartzanegger and will have an establishment backing from that standpoint. All 3 of them should be able to raise large amounts of money. Obviously, Piozner & Whitman can spend millions & millions on this primary. People look at this and give the edge to Whitman, but I say not so fast. Poizner is the current insurance commissioner, he won a statewide contest in Cali. in 2006...a disastrous year for Republicans. He's also an established success in business, already has statewide name recognition from the 2006 race & has millions & millions of dollars to spend to win the primary. I think Steve Poizner is overlooked in this race and all 3 will stay in and this will be a primary to watch.

The other analysis on this list is very, very good. Not sure if Florida will become really competitive or not. A big question I have is will Jeb Bush step up and actually endorse Rubio or not? If so, Rubio's chances skyrocket. If he doesn't, Rubio will put up a great primary but I doubt he will beat Crist. I think a Jeb Bush endorsement of Rubio will determine in the late stages of this contest whether this race goes up the list or dows the list. The Texas Gov. primary...wow, a true political junkies dream! I think Perry will win the primary & general election, don't underestimate him! The Cali. dem primary is also a fascinating one: an old guard in Brown vs. a young gay liberal's liberal. I wouldn't write Newsome off and think Brown is in command as some polls i've seen suggest. Moran vs. Tiaht...it will all be left on the table as this race will decide the next Senator from Kansas. It's grassroots (Tiahrt) vs. Washington favorite (Moran). A good one there. Michigan, I believe, will eventually become a 2 way race: Atty. General Cox vs. US Rep. Hoekstra. I'm surprised Land dropped out. She wouldn't have won anyhow, perhaps she's looking to challenge Stebenow in 2012. Utah & SC seem very unsettled & very interesting primaries. Good line CC!

Posted by: reason5 | June 26, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I’m not sure I get the Florida race. Crist has astronomical poll numbers as governor, and Rubio is not known statewide. I cannot understand why Rubio is attracting this much attention. As a Democrat, I’m pulling for Rubio because that will put the seat in play. Kendrick Meek is the most likely candidate for the Democrats. As a state legislator, he led the fight for an amendment to the state constitution that limits class size.

Posted by: mikedow2 | June 26, 2009 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Even if Specter lost, PA would be a long shot for the GOP. Remember, 600,000 voters switched allegiance last election, making PA a quite blue state. And Specter ain't such a hot commodity with voters right now. I'd still call him a favorite in a general election, but I don't think he's stronger then Sestak or even a generic democrat. Specter can probably run a very strong campaign because his record isn't too bad, but his polls are low and his negatives are high. My money is on Sestak.

Posted by: theamazingjex | June 26, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if a real GOP challenger will arise to go for the nod in the hopes that Sestak wins the primary. They GOP could steal that seat if the cards fall the right way (ie Specter loses to Sestak and the GOP doesn't nominate a redmeat republican)

Posted by: AndyR3 | June 26, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company