Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Friday Senate Line: Stability Reigns



From left to right: Sen. Dodd, Sen. Reid, Sen. Bunning, Sen. Burr (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters, Karen Bleier/AFP/Getty Images, Ed Reinke/AP, Sergei Chuzavkov/AP)

The Senate playing field has remained remarkably stable of late. That's not to say, however, that both parties don't have opportunities left to turn currently non-competitive races into top 10 affairs over the next few weeks and months.

For Republicans, their best chances of creating new competitive races are in Illinois and Arkansas.

In Illinois, appointed Sen. Roland Burris's (D) continued problems and the possibility of a candidacy by moderate Rep. Mark Kirk (R) could give Republicans a real chance at an upset although if state Attorney General Lisa Madigan (D) decides to run for Senate, which is unlikely, this seat comes off the table.

In Arkansas, Republicans argue that Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) is vulnerable and the strong showing by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the Razorback State in 2008 (59 percent) suggests a conservative electorate. But, the Republican field isn't particularly strong at the moment and while some GOPers have high hopes for wealthy businessman Curtis Coleman, he remains an unproven commodity.

Democrats' best opportunities to broaden the current playing field are in Louisiana and Texas.

In the Pelican State, Sen. David Vitter's (R) past sexual indiscretion would seem to guarantee a serious Democratic challenge but no one has stepped forward to date. Democratic recruiters are optimistic that Rep. Charlie Melancon (D) may run but if they don't get him, the bench of quality candidates is thin.

Texas is a bit more of a longshot although a special election race, which would be triggered by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's (R) resignation to focus full time for governor, would create an unpredictable dynamic where Democrats might have a chance. The party's preferred candidate is Houston Mayor Bill White although former state Comptroller John Sharp is running too. In truth, for Democrats to have a pickup opportunity, Sharp would probably need to step aside.

Keep an eye on those four races over the next few months to see if any (or all) make their way onto the Line.

As always, the top ranked race on the Line is considered the most likely to switch parties in 2010. Kudos and critiques are welcome in the comments section.

To the Line!

Dropping off the Line: Florida
Coming onto the Line: Delaware

10. Delaware (Democratic-controlled): Republican hopes of making this seat competitive rest entirely on Rep. Mike Castle (R). Castle's recent decision to bypass a plum spot in the House affirms what we've heard: he is either running for the Senate or retiring in 2010. Senate Republicans are putting the full court press to get him into an open seat race against (almost certainly) Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden (D). Polling suggests that a Castle-Biden race would be a close one although given Delaware's Democratic leanings, the younger Biden would have to be a slight favorite. (Previous ranking: N/A)

9. North Carolina (Republican-controlled): There's not much reliable polling on this race but Sen. Richard Burr (R) sure is acting nervous. His decision to release fragments of his internal polling the poll was not, in fact, released by Burr's campaign -- including a head to head matchup against Secretary of State Elaine Marshall (D) who has given only the vaguest hints of a candidacy -- seems like an odd move. Democrats, however, still don't have a candidate although Rep. Mike McIntyre appears in interested and would give the party a credible alternative. (Previous ranking: 10)

8. Nevada (D): Nevada Sen. John Ensign's sex scandal will dominate political news in the state for the foreseeable future, further setting back Republican recruiting efforts against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D). Former Rep. Jon Porter (R) officially said no on Thursday and Rep. Dean Heller (R) is also very unlikely to run. Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki (R) is still interested but he may be dogged by an indictment regarding the misuse of state funds. (Previous ranking: 7)

7. Pennsylvania (D): Rep. Joe Sestak (D) shows no signs of backing down from his (sort of) announced primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter (D) next year. We still think Sestak may ultimately not run if he is unable to raise the money he needs to have a chance against Specter but it's all systems go at the moment. Republicans pronounce themselves pleasantly surprised at former Rep. Pat Toomey's (R) performance since Specter switched parties but Toomey has much work to do to moderate himself enough to get elected in Democratic-leaning Pennsylvania. (Previous ranking: 8)

6. Colorado (D): This race is frozen in time -- Republicans bash appointed Sen. Michael Bennet (D) for not taking a position on the Employee Free Choice Act even as they struggle to find a serious candidate to oppose him. The pieces are all in place for a competitive race in Colorado -- Bennet is virtually unknown statewide and will have to (eventually) take stands on issues like EFCA that will provide fodder for a Republican opponent. But, no such Republican opponent has emerged. The two most likely candidates? Former Rep. Bob Beauprez and/or Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier. (Previous ranking: 6)

5. Ohio (R): The central question in handicapping this race is whether Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner stays in for the long haul in her Democratic primary challenge to Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher. Brunner is clearly the underdog in the race and if she can't put together a better fundraising performance in the second quarter than she did in the first three months of the year, the pressure will ramp up for her to step aside. Republicans have cleared the field for former Rep. Rob Portman and early indications are that he will be one of the party's stronger candidates in 2010. (Previous ranking: 5)

4. Missouri (R): Rep. Roy Blunt (R) finally got some good news in his Senate bid with the decision by Washington University law professor Thomas Schweich to take a pass on the race and endorse the former House leader. And, while former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman continues to insist she is considering the contest, her decision not to formalize an exploratory committee should be worrisome to her allies. Blunt must -- MUST -- put together an impressive June financial report with $1 million raised probably where he needs to be to consolidate his position and keep Steelman out. The Democratic side is entirely undramatic; Secretary of State Robin Carnahan is the nominee and has been very impressive in her early fundraising. (Previous ranking: 4)

3. New Hampshire (R): Republicans have reason for optimism -- finally -- in the open seat race to replace Sen. Judd Gregg (R) with the news that state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, a rising star within the party, may be considering a run. (The Fix is told that the Ayotte rumors are legitimate and that she is genuinely interested in a bid.) Democrats have united behind Rep. Paul Hodes and should have the advantage next fall due to the state's move away from the GOP over the last few elections. (Previous ranking: 3)

2. Connecticut (D): The best thing going for Sen. Chris Dodd (D) is that he and his team of advisers realize how much trouble he is in. Dodd is already on television -- an odd move for a 30 year incumbent -- and his aides are making sure that everyone knows how central he is to President Obama's planned overhauls of the financial and health care systems. Still, Dodd has lots of image rehabilitation to do and the problems that have dogged him over the past few years don't seem likely to disappear any time soon. Republicans seem headed toward a three-way primary with former Rep. Rob Simmons only a slight favorite over former Ambassador Tom Foley. No matter who wins, this is a race that will go down to the wire next fall. (Previous ranking: 2)

1. Kentucky (R): Conventional wisdom among Senate Republicans is that, ultimately, Sen. Jim Bunning (R) will decide not to seek a third term and turn the race over to Secretary of State Trey Grayson (R). That may be wishful thinking since, at least at the moment, the cantankerous senator shows no signs of stepping aside. Bunning's latest endearing move? Banning one of the Louisville Courier-Journal's reporters from his weekly conference call with local journalists. Democrats have a terrific primary on their hands -- a toss up race between Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo and state Attorney General Jack Conway. (Previous ranking: 1)

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 19, 2009; 11:05 AM ET
Categories:  The Line  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Mouthpiece Theater: Lord of the Flies
Next: Morning Fix: The Kennedy Legacy

Comments

So much for "ignoring" me, chrisfox8.

Posted by: JakeD | June 22, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Your opinion is of no value, Jake

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 22, 2009 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Well, for the record, I am on the "right", and I don't believe my post (pointing out that not one word that "timguyen" posted is untrue) qualifies as either "shrill" or "hysterical". As the kids say, however, YMMV.

Posted by: JakeD | June 22, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

timguyen is one shrill hysterical weirdo.

==

When was the last time we heard anyone from the right who was anything else?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 22, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Regardless, not one word that "timguyen" posted is untrue. Burris (and all pro-choice Democrats) should feel ashamed.

Posted by: JakeD | June 22, 2009 12:41 PM | Report abuse

timguyen is one shrill hysterical weirdo.

Posted by: drindl | June 22, 2009 7:36 AM | Report abuse

SHAMELESS ROLAND BURRIS POLLUTES THE WHOLE SENATE !!!
SHAMELESS ROLAND BURRIS IS THE ONLY ONE BENEFITTED FROM ILLINOIS SCANDAL OF GOVERNOR ROD BLAGOJEVICH; AS A FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ILLINOIS, HE FAILED TO CLEAN UP HIS CORRUPT STATE GOVERNMENT; HE ATTEMPTED AND WAS REPEATEDLY DEFEATED FOR HIS BIDS FOR MAYOR OF CHICAGO AND GOVERNOR OF IILINOIS. IRRONICALLY ENOUGH, AS AN ADVOCATE FOR A NATIONAL HANGUN BAN, HE KEPT A HANDGUN IN HIS HOME AND "FORGOT" TO TURN IT INTO POLICE AS HE HAD URGED OTHERS TO DO. AND NOW, HE IS UNDER INVESTIGATION BY STATE ILLINOIS' ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AS WELL AS THE SENATE ETHICS COMMITTEE FOR POSSIBLE PERJURY CHARGES CONNECTED TO HIS TESTIMONY TO THE PANEL OF THE ILLINOIS HOUSES OF REPRESENTATIVES INVESTIGATING THE GOVERNOR'S IMPEACHMENT.

Posted by: TIMNGUYEN1 | June 22, 2009 7:20 AM | Report abuse

Did you mean to say that McCain-Palin got more than 10% of the Democratic vote last year? Probably not. You and "drindl" will simply dismiss that as "racists".

Posted by: JakeD | June 22, 2009 2:27 AM | Report abuse

OK you know what I MEANT to say ..

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 22, 2009 12:40 AM | Report abuse

A quarter of Republicans believe that the Democrats have a better chance of pulling off an economic recovery than the Democrats.

Yeah, their esteem really is that low. Do you wonder?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 22, 2009 12:39 AM | Report abuse

'The overall popularity of the Republican Party has now dropped below even the abysmal level of approval enjoyed by Dick Cheney.

The WSJ poll found that 26% of respondents have a somewhat positive view of Cheney. Meanwhile, it found that the GOP overall is viewed very or somewhat positively by only 25%, down four points from April.'

Low water mark keeps dropping all the time

Posted by: drindl | June 22, 2009 12:07 AM | Report abuse

'compassionate' conservatism--

In her June newsletter, State Rep. Cynthia Davis (R-MO) provided several “commentaries” to a press release from the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services on a summer food program. The program provides “food during the summer for thousands of low-income Missouri children who rely on the school cafeteria for free or reduced-price meals during the regular school year.” Davis, who serves as the chairwoman of the Missouri House Special Standing Committee on Children and Families, questioned whether the program is “warranted,” and extolled the hidden benefits of child hunger:

Who’s buying dinner? Who is getting paid to serve the meal? Churches and other non-profits can do this at no cost to the taxpayer if it is warranted. [...] Bigger governmental programs take away our connectedness to the human family, our brotherhood and our need for one another. [...] Anyone under 18 can be eligible? Can’t they get a job during the summer by the time they are 16? Hunger can be a positive motivator. What is wrong with the idea of getting a job so you can get better meals? Tip: If you work for McDonald’s, they will feed you for free during your break. [...] It really is all about increasing government spending, which means an increase in taxes for us to buy more free lunches and breakfasts.

A report by Feeding America found that one in five Missouri children currently lives with hunger. Taking apart Davis’ other arguments, a St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial noted that most of the summer feeding program sites are actually hosted by churches and that the program, which is funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, fed 3.7 million meals at a total cost of less than $9.5 million last summer — “a pretty good use of federal money.”

Posted by: drindl | June 22, 2009 12:04 AM | Report abuse

Maybe the Senate can pass a resolution wishing the Iranian people "good luck."

It's only Israel that actually gets support.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 22, 2009 12:03 AM | Report abuse

Or the Iraqi Kurds

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 21, 2009 10:47 PM | Report abuse

"The Iranians need to know its their fight but we stand in Solidarity with them."

Tell that to the Hungarian people, circa 1956. Hollow words uttered by little people are of little value.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | June 21, 2009 10:22 PM | Report abuse

give it up, zouk, you're not even a competent troll

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 21, 2009 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Racked, flayed and nipped? Can we stop talking about your libidinous proclivities? Why do libs love bragging about what they like when naked?

Eeeewwwwwww.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 21, 2009 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Chrissuxcox. This place already has a real fool. Look in the mirror.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 21, 2009 5:05 PM | Report abuse

You Obimbots seem to confuse fighting off with jerking off all the time. Do you get that from your leader? He seems to prefer the latter as well.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 21, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse

You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din. Enjoy the week...and get some rest.

==

They've neither wracked me nor flayed me, just ankle-nipped.

I hope vbh recovers, this place needs a real foil

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 21, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

CF8, impressive. Fighting off three or four Hall of Fame trolls at the same time. Are they tag-teaming?

You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din. Enjoy the week...and get some rest.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | June 21, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

No wonder you love messiah so much you two have so much in common:

Confused, hate America, loony leftist, don't fit in, desperate to be liked, wishes people thought they were smart, thin skinned , afreid of confrontation, devoid of fact, likes to be dominated, feels like a minority yet doesn't like the home community, thinks your life is interesting to others, thinks about god once a year.

You could be twins.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 21, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Chrissuxcox. Sounds like you need to up your therapy sessions each week and get your face out of the pillow. Talk about tmi.

The funniest thing snout you and drivl is your utter ignorance of your own imbecility. You think anyone who disagrees with you is stupid, amoral or insane. You display spite, invective and hate only and I'm your arrogant rants, you project onto others.

Not a person here cares about your life. We enjoy having you display your abject poverty of fact, reason and debate. We do not call to silence you out of lib weakness.

Proclaim your hateful, know it all attitude for all to ridicule. The bloggers here have you figured out.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 21, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

I don't know why you keep coming back to the gay thing, vbhoomes, it's not something I identify strongly with and the only people who consider being gay to be maximally defining are bigots on both sides of the divide. My environmentalism is vastly more influential on my political positions than is my libido, and of the people here who respond to me it's only zouk, jake, and now you who see this as important. I don't read those two, I still read you because I nurture hope, but it won't take many more like the "yellow streak" stuff before I stop.

I have a partner I've been with for fifteen years, I have zero zip nada to do with the gay culture, I refuse to see a mere characteristic as defining me in any way other than who I find sexually attractive. Frankly, the way gay men behave when they get together and let their hair down is completely repellant to me.

I'm also an atheist, and I think about that maybe twice a year. BFD. We live in interesting times, dog help us.

As for seeing the virtue in everyone, I got over that a long time ago. There are many kinds of good people out there, and there are many kinds of people whose essential goodness is masked by pain and inability, but there are also some really lousy people out there too, people without souls, people driven by hate and malice, people we'd all be better off without.

I've mentioned I go to Viet Nam every year. I'm learning their language and I'm immersed in their community in the USA. And it's really striking to go over there and stay among a people who don't have a trace of the American tendency to enjoy cruelty. Here in the USA we have people who enjoy being bothersome, including the trolls who attack forums like this and including the people on the road who love to hold up traffic and try to cause accidents. There is no such habit in Viet Nam, and I've looked really hard for it.

And the existence of this sort of pleasure is simply irreconcilable with what you state about tolerance.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 21, 2009 3:06 PM | Report abuse

The president must have his mouth full. Just like chrissuxcox, he is unable to declare typical American values and instead chooses extreme leftism and kookiness.

Then they villify and lie to fool the nitwits that vote for these imbeciles.

Most amusing is the projection wherby everyone else is coocoo unless you agree with the crazy cat lady.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 21, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

I don't, I wish everybody goodwill, like you I am in my 50's. As I grew older,I grew more tolerant of others, as I recognise we all flawed, no matter how hard we try. Having spent 20 years in the military, I met just about everybody from every backgroud imaginable. And what I found we all shared a bond of service that enable us to break through preconcieved notions we may have each other. Yes, I knew folks in the AF who were Gay and believed they had a right to serve also.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 21, 2009 2:34 PM | Report abuse

People in the South, West and Alaska grew up in a culture of guns & hunting. Don't be so quick to judge other people unless you have walked in their shoes.

==

People in urban ghettoes grew up in a climate of narcotics and crime. Don't be so quick to judge other people unless you have walked in their shoes.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 21, 2009 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Your a hateful fellow chrisfox, I normally like just about everybody. If all Gays were like you, I believe I might change my position on Gay marriage.

==

Oh, OK, I'm "hateful" because I'm "Gay."

Gotcha.

Too bad. This place could use a good conservative poster or two. Guess that won't be you.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 21, 2009 2:19 PM | Report abuse

It's weird how someone like McCain ended up nominated for a party he is such ill suited to. He's one of the few Republicans I actually can listen to. I definitely don't agree with him with a lot of stuff, but he strikes me as a lot more intellectually honest than most of his party. It's too bad a lot of that went to pot in oder to try and rally his base. I'm glad he's out of that nonsense.

Also, its nice that the basers refer to him as a RINO. You can often judge a guy by his enemies.

==

Nonsense. McCain lied like crazy during the campaign, he said that Obama supporters and the Obama campaign were calling him a terrorist on the campaign trail, just as his campaign was calling Obama. McCain has the integrity of a June bug.

And lest we forget, McCain is the one who brought Sarah Palin into national politics, elevating a vicious and stupid woman to the limelight so now our national political discourse has been taken a few steps below the Kansas School Board. Thanks, John, we could have gone a long time without such thick-witted people getting air time.

And if McCain isn't far enough to the right for the nineteen-percenters, that doesn't speak well for him so much as it speaks ill of them. McCain is really really far right, and if he ever had any credible positions for the national stage he lost them a long time ago with his daffiness over earmarks and that stupid bridge.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 21, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Your a hateful fellow chrisfox, I normally like just about everybody. If all Gays were like you, I believe I might change my position on Gay marriage.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 21, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

hey vbhoomes you really need to quit it with the random capitalization. This is English, not German, only proper nouns get capitalized, not the ones naming ideas you like. Freedom and democracy and government are not proper nouns. Before you went spla with the "yellow streak" sort of posts you showed evidence of being smarter than this. Lately I wonder if you handed your login an password over to zouk or jake. Between "yellow streak" and the grade school stylistics you've pretty much joined them. And that's a shame because there are so few conservative posters here who aren't merely disruptive trolls.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 21, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Exactly what is the politics of division Syhines? does that mean we accept your view of issues, or are we allowed to debate and challenge the policies of our current administration.

Posted by vbhoomes

==

Sounds all grand an' civic an' stuff but then one reads a little further and the same guy who posted this also posted about the "yellow streak."

Irreconcilable.

You really need to recant that post, and do something about your recent descent to jaked-level discourse.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 21, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

and stop attacking each other. I hope some of you posters take note of the last sentence.

Posted by: sylhines

==

There is no enforcement here of the stated rules, and we have three regular trolls who do their diligent best to lower discussion here. The best we can do is ignore them, but there are a few who won't do that (hi, Fairlington) so they stick around. In the absence of the Three Stooges the discussion around here is usually fairly civil.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 21, 2009 1:34 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes: I grew up believing that I was a citizen of the greatest nation on earth, and the most good (yeah I know the superlative is "best" but that's too polysemous here). I believed that America was the nation of greatest moral authority and the champion of freedom and human rights.

Then came the ascendancy of what we still refer to "conservatism" with a straight face, then came the free marketeers, then came the neoconservatives.

To continue to believe that is not only disputable, it's delusional, and frankly it was when I was growing up as well. In fact it was in the year before I was born that America deposed the Iranian leader and installed a despotic criminal beholden to American oil companies, a man who conducted a quarter century of the same vicious repression that we so loudly deplored in Cuba and Russia.

Of course back then if you drew attention to our misbehavior in the name of business, why, you were some kind of "left wing radical."

Now, however, America's image in the world isn't based on any Sunday School imagery of human rights and democracy, it's based on Guantanemo and Abu Ghraib and on supplying weapons to a lousy little Middle Eastern country so full of itself that it fires missiles we supply into occupied apartment buildings at dinnertime.

For America to "weigh in" on Iran's stolen election would be to empower the repression with the moral authority of resisting yet more foreign interference, and since it was we who set up the Islamic Revolution in the first place, it's we who have the most power to help sustain it. Obama is doing exactly right.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 21, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Mark, our country stands as a beacon of Freedom & Democracy,

==

Have a nice nap, Rip?

There've been some changes

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 21, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Chrisfox; Sarah not my 1st choice, but I would alright with her as President.

==

I repeat, that is an irresponsible position. She's not only enormously unqualified, but she lacks all sense of her own shortcomings, she's ambitious, and she's stupid. To support her for no better reason than "she has a shot by virtue of being famous" is checkout counter politics.

As for hunters, gimme a break. "They eat what they kill" is thin stuff. I doubt very seriously that very many hunters are saving themselves from hunger. It's a sport, and it's barbaric. Let them shoot each other.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 21, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Exactly what is the politics of division Syhines? does that mean we accept your view of issues, or are we allowed to debate and challenge the policies of our current administration. Politics/Democracy is not pretty but we all get our voice. Read about th 1800 election if you want to really know what partisan politics is all about.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 21, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

The midterm election will see the Dems hold steady in the house and pick up the MO, NC, and LA senate seats.

The best outcome of any policy toward Iran has manifested itself in their internal elections. It is best, given our past history of interventions in internal matters of other countriess, to let those genuine populist concerns play out. I do believe the current policies of engagement, dialouge and respect for other nations by this administration position us, as a country to take advantage of the sea of change that can spread in the mideast. America's display of a more diverse leadership, specifically that of women can embolden the same theme in the mideast where womens' rights are akin to slavey. The faults of change in that region is more likely to break on women rights (human rights,fairness, Israel/Palesine) rather than defeating religion extremenism as America has banked on in the past.

The GOP male dominated version of change(controlling resource and cheap labor) for the world is history. And if the GOP presist in its disdain for radical changes to our domestic/economic policies for people over corporations they may be history.

Obama has stroked a simmering flame in the mideast and here at home. He had better realize the foreign policy part is the secondary one and the economy is the most important one for the public and the continuation of his administration; and future developments related to equality, justice and economic reform for years to come. It will require at least 6 to 8 years to clean up the domestic mess we are in. Tranquility on the foreign level will take even longer. The sooner we as a nation realize this fact and stop the politics of division the better we will be able to attack the problems, and stop attacking each other. I hope some of you posters take note of the last sentence.

Posted by: sylhines | June 21, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

The midterm election will see the Dems hold steady in the house and pick up the MO, NC, and LA senate seats.

The best outcome of any policy toward Iran has manifested itself in their internal elections. It is best, given our past history of interventions in internal matters of other countriess, to let those genuine populist concerns play out. I do believe the current policies of engagement, dialouge and respect for other nations by this administration position us, as a country to take advantage of the sea of change that can spread in the mideast. America's display of a more diverse leadership, specifically that of women can embolden the same theme in the mideast where womens' rights are akin to slavey. The faults of change in that region is more likely to break on women rights (human rights,fairness, Israel/Palesine) rather than defeating religion extremenism as America has banked on in the past.

The GOP male dominated version of change(controlling resource and cheap labor) for the world is history. And if the GOP presist in its disdain for radical changes to our domestic/economic policies for people over corporations they may be history.

Obama has stroked a simmering flame in the mideast and here at home. He had better realize the foreign policy part is the secondary one and the economy is the most important one for the public and the continuation of his administration; and future developments related to equality, justice and economic reform for years to come. It will require at least 6 to 8 years to clean up the domestic mess we are in. Tranquility on the foreign level will take even longer. The sooner we as a nation realize this fact and stop the politics of division the better we will be able to attack the problems, and stop attacking each other. I hope some of you posters take note of the last sentence.

Posted by: sylhines | June 21, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

It is going to be a tough day for messiah today. fathers day. His old demons are back. Who am I? Why don't they love me? Where do I belong? His policies have been routinely rejected. His ideas laughed at across the world. His charm has been ineffective. His promises empty and broken. His ratings sinking. His governing feckless. His foreign policy weak and dangerous. His results dejecting.

He must resort to the pliant sycophants of the press to seek approval, all other avenues quickly closing. Tough day.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 21, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

So if you thought that Clinton was low when he rented out the Lincoln bedroom, oshama is set to turn the entire building into a brothel this week in his desperate attempt to force through the disaster known as government health care. It costs a fortune and covers fewer people. No wonder no one wants it. Just another
In the long line of failed ideas from the libs.

Record unemployment
Record spending
Record weakness

The mantra of the left.

But at least the press still worships.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 21, 2009 12:06 PM | Report abuse

"Chrisfox; Sarah not my 1st choice, but I would alright with her as President. The difference between you and me about our shared love of animals is I don't assume Moral Superiorty with people who choose to hunt as long as they eat what they kill. People in the South, West and Alaska grew up in a culture of guns & hunting. Don't be so quick to judge other people unless you have walked in their shoes. Self-rightenous is a bad quality in both conservatives and liberals."

For me, its more her lack of understanding of the issues and even some basic civics.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 21, 2009 11:57 AM | Report abuse

vbhoomes wrote:

"Besides to think the mullahs would negotiate away their pursuit of nuclear weapons is delusional."

I agree.

I follow the argument that we refuse to negotiate with them until [something happens]. For me, that could be free elections with neutral ballot counters, preferably Iranian neutral counters that all the players agree are honest.

I would not be surprised if that strategy takes hold. But for appearances in Iran, I still think it should be "at the request of" someone else, and not the UK.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 21, 2009 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Meanwhile obambi still cowers in fear and indecision in a basement somewhere. He has not been able to find a church as hateful and antiamerican as he prefers in DC so he has been golfing instead.

Clearly bush was right about dominoes falling and poor obimbo is proven wrong on every policy. I wonder how his fellows in Hawaii feel about having missiles fired at them after total weakness was displayed.

Jimmy carter is no longer the worst president in our lifetime.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 21, 2009 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Mark, our country stands as a beacon of Freedom & Democracy, France is no subsitute, its not a Super Power like us. The Iranians need to know its their fight but we stand in Solidarity with them. It is quite clear the Iranian Govt is not serving with consent of the Iranian people. The US policy should be no negotitians with an illegitimate regime. The West should stand united and refuse to recognize this regime. There is a lot things we can do to help without actual military intervention. Besides to think the mullahs would negotiate away their pursuit of nuclear weapons is delusional.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 21, 2009 11:31 AM | Report abuse

I see chrissuxcox has oozed out from under his slimy rick to spread his hate and filth. He likes to create a fictitious conservative devil, then accuse them of every vile thought that goes through his own pea brain.

The fact is he is simply a crazy cat lady babbling and frothing like the character on the Simpsons.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 21, 2009 11:25 AM | Report abuse

I cannot stay away from Iran as a topic.

Two columns in WaPo, Gerson and Hoagland:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061803493.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/19/AR2009061902330.

CC won't let me list all the links to English speaking critiques I read yesterday.

Some common threads appear. We have no intel in Iran, no Embassy, no Consulate, nada. Iranians grew up with the specter of UK-US interference and are suspicious of Anglos even when our intentions are pro-freedom. The Hungarian Revolt of '56 is the example of when we talked too much and encouraged the Revolt when we had no intention to back it with force. The Kurd Revolt is the example of when we took the heart out of a movement by cozying up to Saddam.

So it is not as simple as KOZ imagines to have a "Tear down this wall" moment. Assuming that the protesters in Iran want some encouragement from the west rather than from their own internal leaders is prideful, but assuming that they want us to support the Mullahs is silly.

So the west has some room to say it supports freedom of speech and assembly and fair elections. I thought BHO's statement Sunday struck a good tone. I think France has less baggage in Iran than we anglos, and Sarkozy is the appropriate western leader to carry the edgier messages [!]. If France says, for instance, that it wants tougher sanctions on Iran unless free peaceful protest is allowed, and we only say we will support the French position after Canada says it, that may work better than our announcing it and UK supporting it. Peculiar place for us to be, but that is how this one strikes me, this morning.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 21, 2009 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Chrisfox; Sarah not my 1st choice, but I would alright with her as President. The difference between you and me about our shared love of animals is I don't assume Moral Superiorty with people who choose to hunt as long as they eat what they kill. People in the South, West and Alaska grew up in a culture of guns & hunting. Don't be so quick to judge other people unless you have walked in their shoes. Self-rightenous is a bad quality in both conservatives and liberals.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 21, 2009 7:40 AM | Report abuse

Our False Prophet appears to have no idea what a golden opportunity he’s passing up… overthrow this evil regime without firing a single shot… get their Armageddon-inspired nuke program off the world stage… and free 30 million people all at one time.

But the boy wonder is too stupid to see it… or somehow just doesn’t care?

And isn’t this what George W Bush told you was going to happen in the Middle East in the wake of Iraq’s liberation?
Maybe that’s why Barack Obama has so little apparent interest in finishing the job in Iran… no matter how much it benefits the US and free world.

That, and the fact that he’s already piled all his chips on legitimizing this vile regime- a democratic revolution at this point would be embarrassing.

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/

Posted by: ReaganiteRepublican | June 21, 2009 7:19 AM | Report abuse

"think it was Charles Blow over at the NYT who wrote that it would take someone like McCain or Limbaugh declaring that Obama is eligible to be president to put an end to the great birth certificate conspiracy paranoia, and even then it might not take. The lunatics on the right have gotten seriously paranoid, hauling out the guns mad, and they're not listening to reason."

McCain didn't come right out and say he's eligible to be president, but he he was about half a hair width away from it. (Some woman claiming he was a Muslim and he refused to go along with it, saying he's a good family man which kind of annoyed my Muslim friends, but I told them to take it as bad wording)

It's weird how someone like McCain ended up nominated for a party he is such ill suited to. He's one of the few Republicans I actually can listen to. I definitely don't agree with him with a lot of stuff, but he strikes me as a lot more intellectually honest than most of his party. It's too bad a lot of that went to pot in oder to try and rally his base. I'm glad he's out of that nonsense.

Also, its nice that the basers refer to him as a RINO. You can often judge a guy by his enemies.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 21, 2009 3:10 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States, to Stanley Ann Dunham, an American of mainly English descent from Wichita, Kansas, and Barack Obama, Sr., a Luo from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya.


Posted by: opp88 |

==

I think it was Charles Blow over at the NYT who wrote that it would take someone like McCain or Limbaugh declaring that Obama is eligible to be president to put an end to the great birth certificate conspiracy paranoia, and even then it might not take. The lunatics on the right have gotten seriously paranoid, hauling out the guns mad, and they're not listening to reason.

People have explained this to JakeD in exhausting detail, pointing out how vastly unrealistic it is to imagine a mixed-race couple with a very pregnant woman making this trip in the early 60s. He comes right back starting all over with the LONG FORM demand just like he never heard a thing.

Look, opp .. these guys are liars. They're crazy, they're angry, they're sick in the head, and they will believe what they're told and reality be damned. To hell with them.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 21, 2009 2:37 AM | Report abuse

vbhoomes, I consider you to have become one with jaked, zouk, et al., not because you've displayed racism or sexism, but because you have chosen to debase the quality of your argument. And eventually you're going to suffer from guilt by association, if you can't define a way in which your conservatism differs from theirs.

Posted by: nodebris | June 21, 2009 2:13 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin,

Congrats to the Longhorns, but I wish it were UVA. See you next year in Omaha.

Posted by: nodebris | June 21, 2009 1:38 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin,

Thank you for the wonderful response. It was purely the application of the pejorative sense of "partisan" to defensible policy that I found annoying. I apologize for any undue vehemence in my response.

I don't expect to agree with everyone I read here about everything; but I do expect an honest argument, and that's what you always present. I raise my glass to you.

Posted by: nodebris | June 21, 2009 1:32 AM | Report abuse

vbhoomes wrote this: "We should all remember we are americans first and have far more in common if we have the courage to let go of labels"

After he wrote this: "Looks like most of our liberal collegues have abandon this blog for awhile. They only show up when their is only one conservative on line. Looks like they share something with Obama, a big yellow streak."

Physician, heal thyself.

Posted by: nodebris | June 21, 2009 1:22 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States, to Stanley Ann Dunham, an American of mainly English descent from Wichita, Kansas, and Barack Obama, Sr., a Luo from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya.

Obama's parents met in 1960 in a Russian language class at the University of Hawaii at Mānoa, where his father was a foreign student on scholarship.

The couple married on February 2, 1961, and Barack was born later that year. His parents separated when he was two years old and they divorced in 1964.

Posted by: opp88 | June 21, 2009 1:01 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of Senators, Gail Collins weighs in on the GOP presidential hopefuls

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/20/opinion/20collins.html

"One of the reasons that Republican presidential hopefuls are proliferating like rabbits is that the usual suspects — the names that come to mind when you ask people who they think will run against Barack Obama in 2012 — are such an underwhelming crew.

Mitt Romney is pushing himself as the party’s lead attack dog on the Obama health care plan. But every time he shows up on television, we are reminded of a truth we learned during the last presidential campaign: There is something about Romney that causes people to want to change the channel; or, if they are in a senior center in Florida listening to a candidate forum, wander off in search of a second helping of Jell-O."

...

"The two biggest names are Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, one of whom has too many ideas while the other has no ideas whatsoever. But they are bound by the fact that neither one of them is actually ever going to be nominated for president even if we have another Ice Age and the only Americans left alive are them, Dennis Kucinich and that woman who was Miss California until Donald Trump fired her."

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 20, 2009 9:04 PM | Report abuse

JakeD may be right that Wallace was a spy - my dad had seen a newsreel HW and the actual spy Owen Lattimore produced about a trip to Russia. He was so in bed with the Communists in 1948 that Norman Thomas, the Socialist, who hated Communists, btw, publicly denounced him.

==

I'd want to hear it from someone less gullible for trite right-wing hysteria. From the wiki on Wallace it sounds like he was pretty gullible himself, I mean the Communist Party in America pretty much lysed itself after 1939. Wallace must have been a true believer but the accusation he was a traitor doesn't seem to have gained a lot of traction.

What with the wingnuts trying to whitewash Joe McCarthy, I really don't give a crap what they have to say about pretty much anything.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 20, 2009 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Gotta correct myself again -

Lattimore was acquitted of perjury and according to wiki the soviet docs we later got access to clear him as never having been a spy. But he sure was sympathetic to Stalin.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 20, 2009 8:24 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8, HST fired Wallace from his own Cabinet in 1946 b/c Wallace opposed every anti-Stalinist policy HST and Stimson and Marshall and Acheson stood for, and he did so publicly.

JakeD may be right that Wallace was a spy - my dad had seen a newsreel HW and the actual spy Owen Lattimore produced about a trip to Russia. He was so in bed with the Communists in 1948 that Norman Thomas, the Socialist, who hated Communists, btw, publicly denounced him.

However, HW was no Commie himself - he ran a giant commercial ag biz and died a rich man. I think he was big on farm subsidies in later life. I continue to think it was a lucky turn of events that he was dumped.

HST inherited some real bad apples at fairly senior levels - Alger Hiss comes to mind. Moynihan told the ironic story of how Gen. Bradley used to go fishing with HST in Key West. Bradley knew that Hiss was a spy b/c the Army had tapes from Potsdam that proved it. Under the official secrets act, Bradley could not tell HST what he knew and HST continued to believe that Hiss was not a spy. Moynihan got into these records in the '90s and wrote a book about what happens when one branch of govt. keeps secrets.

Hiss would have been HW's SecState.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 20, 2009 8:08 PM | Report abuse

I work a lot in cryptography in software and it's led me to read a lot about the history, and you don't read much about WWII or Enigma without running into Stimson's quote, one of my favorites .. "gentlemen don't read each other's mail"

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 20, 2009 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Whatever the history books say about Obama, I'm confident it won't be that "he delivered a lot of snappy applause lines."

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 20, 2009 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Mark_in_Austin:

Your dad, of course, was right. Wallace wasn't just starry-eyed, he was an actual Soviet spy.

Posted by: JakeD | June 20, 2009 7:51 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes:

You are right -- most of the younger citizens don't even care about the 1980 hostages, let alone 1954 -- it will come sooner rather than later. Too bad Obama didn't make this his "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" moment.

Posted by: JakeD | June 20, 2009 7:47 PM | Report abuse

m_i_a: IIRC Stimson remained as Secy of War under Truman, and I believe (without a lot of detailed historical knowledge to support it) that he would have remained under Wallace as well. I could be wrong. But even so he wasn't someone that Wallace or anyone else with a whit of sense would just ignore, and he wasn't at all starry-eyed about the Soviets. He wanted both theaters of war wrapped up before the Russians got very far, because "who knows where they'll stop."

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 20, 2009 7:45 PM | Report abuse

errata: Stimson was Taft's WarSec, Hoover's SecState, and FDR's WarSec from 1940 on. Should have looked it up before saying he was TR's WarSec.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 20, 2009 7:41 PM | Report abuse

I want th Pres to get into game and show some real moral outrage not say I don't want to meddle in their election.

Posted by: vbhoomes

==

Do you know anything about the history of US involvement in Iran? Do you have any idea how tender the wound still is from our setting up Shah Pahlevi in '53? Iran isn't like the USA where last week is like the Pleistocene in our memories, they remember the repression that we established, remember it well, and the charge of foriegn meddling is a very potent one.

As for your own attituding, my guess is that if Obama delivered a strong speech you would be rat cheer in these pages excoriating him for "merely" speaking, possibly even with some zoukesque "teleprompter" dig.

If the election were overturnoed with US prompting and the New Boss goes full-tilt on the nuclear program, my guess is you'd be attacking Obama for not be prescient about it and say he should have let the "free and fair" election stand.

You'll probably call for military intervention, and then go on the attack when that has unexpected consequences.

In short, I think you've descended to the level of "Obama and the Democrats can do no right," and you're about a week from demanding the LONG FORM of his birth certificate.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 20, 2009 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Chrisfox8, why did you bring Stimson into the discussion?

Did Stimson work for Wallace to remain on the ticket in '44? Do you think that Stimson, who was Sec of War under TR and FDR [!] would have worked in a Wallace Cabinet as Wallace disarmed unilaterally?

What do you know that could help me understand the incongruity of your remark? Explain, please!

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 20, 2009 7:34 PM | Report abuse

I, for one, have appreciated the discussions with you and Mark_in_Austin : )

Posted by: JakeD | June 20, 2009 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Totally taken in by the soviets. I think we might not be free people today b-tching about a recession or anything else if Wallace had succeeded to the presidency in April, 1945.

Posted by: mark_in_austin

==

I think this is a bit of a stretch. Henry Stimson certainly wasn't taken in by the Soviets, he put pressure on Leslie Groves to get the Manhattan Project to feasibility precisely because the Russians were on the march.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 20, 2009 7:21 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

You tried. Don't worry about.

Posted by: JakeD | June 20, 2009 7:14 PM | Report abuse

@drindl - You don't understand Jake. Avoid the provocations and you can have a conversation. If not, then just don't engage.

BB

==

In the months I've been posting here I have not seen a single post from JakeD to substantiate this claim. On the contrary, he is here for no reason other than to make trouble, derail conversations, and draw attention to himself. JakeD posts more than anything else about JakeD, and he acts as an irritant to the extent we allow him to.

These comment sections would be much better for discussion if zouk and JakeD were banned, and scrivener was hospitalized.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 20, 2009 7:05 PM | Report abuse

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/the-froomkin-firing/

Krugman on Froomkin

I'm actually pretty surprised at the response to his firing. I think some good might come out of this.

Posted by: DDAWD

==

I'm not sure I agree with his analysis but he could be onto something; my suspicious is that there was pressure exerted to fire him, certainly from some of the neocons in their stable, possibly even from Dick Cheney, whom Froomkin despises and takes little pain to hide it.

WaPo even has William Kristol doing a column now, the guy who's right no more often than the stopped clock of legend. Kristol was at NYT for some bizarre reason, where he lasted about as long as James Watt at CNN.

I really don't "get" this paper, I wonder if EJ Dionne and Eugene Robinson will be shown the door soon too. Maybe Chuckles Krauthammer has a hit list.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 20, 2009 6:59 PM | Report abuse

2012 will be like 1980 all again, people voting a new President to clean up the mess of the last 4 years. "Go Sarah Go", oh I guess I shouldn't say that because I am suppose to be a sexist.

==

Enough with the snotty sarcasm.

If you're cheering Sarah Palin then you're either trolling or your civic sense is stillborn. To actually support such a stupid and vicious woman for public office is irresponsible as hell.

I remember when you posted like a conservative from the old days. Now you're just another zouk / JakeD / scrivener50 troll. I think I'll just PgUp past your posts like I do theirs from now on.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 20, 2009 6:43 PM | Report abuse

If WaPo fires Meyerson, too, I'll begin to it is purging its left wing.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 20, 2009 6:38 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes, if you read the book "1912" you can come away actually despising Wilson. He is nowhere on my "good" list.

If you do not know how lucky everyone of us is that Wallace got dumped from the '44 ticket just take a look at his bio in wiki. As bad as that reads, my dad thought he was worse. Totally taken in by the soviets. I think we might not be free people today b-tching about a recession or anything else if Wallace had succeeded to the presidency in April, 1945.

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

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/the-froomkin-firing/

Krugman on Froomkin

I'm actually pretty surprised at the response to his firing. I think some good might come out of this.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 20, 2009 6:24 PM | Report abuse

It took five days to decide to fight pirates who were holding Americans. How long will this take.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 20, 2009 6:17 PM | Report abuse

FDR was a Great War President with a few errors you cited. It was his domestic agenda that find high overrated. How Wilson could have been rated as a good President is a mystery to me. His administration had the worst abuse of civil rights in American History. They threw countless americans in jails for simply speaking out against the War. And of course his submission after the War led to the Versailes Treaty, which people said at the time would cause another war. Hitler could have never came to Power without that treaty.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 20, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Oh, wow. I totally missed the paragraph where they used the US data.

It's times like this that I'm glad this is anonymous, because I'm feeling like a fool right now.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 20, 2009 5:59 PM | Report abuse

I think so too, vbhoomes - which is why I rated the Fix Hall of Fame first three as TR, HST, and FDR. I thought FDR knew he was in poor health when he ran in '44 and he kept HST in the dark 'til he died, anyway. Good move to dump the spineless ideologue Henry Wallace for the tough pragmatic HST but then why did he keep HST in the dark? FDR's last months were flawed in that way and in his increasing inability to handle Stalin, that worried Churchill so much. Still, you cannot fault FDR as a war president - he and Marshall left field command with Ike and Nimitz unlike Churchill, Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin, who all meddled to their detriment at one time or another.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 20, 2009 5:50 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD writes:
"Where the #$%# is the control group?? Surely someone would have thought to perform a similar analysis with say 117 random US districts??"

The 100 data points generated from the state numbers for the BHO-McC election weren't enough for you? What would you prefer -- remembering that it is an op-ed and not a peer-reviewed manuscript in a scientific journal?

From the article:
"As a point of comparison, we can analyze the state-by-state vote counts for John McCain and Barack Obama in last year's U.S. presidential election. The frequencies of last digits in these election returns never rise above 14 percent or fall below 6 percent, a pattern we would expect to see in seventy out of a hundred fair elections. "

Posted by: mnteng | June 20, 2009 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Of course Mark, History has proven Truman right(NATO, Israel, berlin Airlift) on the his dealing in the aftermath of WWII and LBJ wrong in Vietnam. I was young at the time but I think the mantra for the GOP was "Peace with Honor". Of coures in reprospect, we wasted a lot good americans from 1968-1973.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 20, 2009 5:32 PM | Report abuse

ddawd - Wilson, FDR, HST, and LBJ were war presidents.

The isolationist wing of the R Party, once strong, used to quote GW on "no entangling alliances". Wilson, the progenitor of the movement now called neocon because it is new to the conservatives, saw America as world liberator. FDR fought the Lindbergh wing of the R Party to get support for the UK and lend lease. HST was hugely unpopular for maintaining the draft and building the military and going into Korea, which Robert Taft opposed. LBJ expanded 'Nam to a full scale war.

Rs always were the leading opponents. The 'Nam years created a flipflop.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 20, 2009 5:14 PM | Report abuse

"BWJ, you have not been following closely enough. The evidence of fraud is overwhelming, beginning with announcing the counting of the election 15 min after the polls closed, through Crazy Mahmoud's victories by the same margin in every precinct, to this statistical analysis.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/20/AR2009062000004.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

I generally agree that the Admin has been properly cautious in its remarks, but think it should now express more support for free speech, joining the Euros on this. Obviously to you and me sabre rattling is not called for - we would lose the people who are
called "reformers" if we talk about attacking their country."


Blah, is this the type of PhD that Columbia is turning out now? Where the #$%# is the control group?? Surely someone would have thought to perform a similar analysis with say 117 random US districts??

Posted by: DDAWD | June 20, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

"We can remember when Ds were the "war party". "

When was this? I know in the Nixon years, Republicans ran on being the war party. Like wasn't George McGovern a peacenik?

Posted by: DDAWD | June 20, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

2012 will be like 1980 all again, people voting a new President to clean up the mess of the last 4 years. "Go Sarah Go", oh I guess I shouldn't say that because I am suppose to be a sexist.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 20, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Last night the 'Horns came from behind in the bottom of the ninth against AZ State to make it to the CWS finals against vaunted LSU. Two solo homers won the game. The first of them was humongous.

http://videos.utexasclan.com/view.php?id=7196
http://videos.utexasclan.com/view.php?id=7197

You do not have to be a Longhorn to appreciate this but loving baseball would help!

Enjoy the videos. Hook 'em, Horns!

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 20, 2009 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Looks like Iran prefers what Bush offered and is not interested in the empty promises of b. Hussain.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 20, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

It's 1979 all over again. Iran is in revolt. The U S has jimmy carter leading us to weakness, malaise, economic disaster and fecklessness.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 20, 2009 4:11 PM | Report abuse

KOZ, apparently an Obama staffer using the Presidents name, said Iran should stop it already. I guess that will have to pass for moral outrage this weekend. So far, Obama has been a total midget on the World Stage. I suppose you have to really believe in Freedom to make a difference and not believe the govt. should take care of you from cradle to grave.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 20, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Methinks the Royal TelePrompTer must be down. How else to explain no speech in over an hour?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 20, 2009 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Compare" tear down this wall" to crickets chirping.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 20, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

in drivl's world, only Americans rig elections. Not acorn, mind you. Despotic dictators who get 104 percent of the vote are heroes.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 20, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Drindl this is not about Bashing Obama, as I said last week when this was unfolding and Obama was quiet, please prove me wrong Mr. President and come out strong in the upcoming week. Even though it is getting late and the critical moment may have already passed, I want th Pres to get into game and show some real moral outrage not say I don't want to meddle in their election. President Obama has the prestige of his office and personality and as John Nance Garner said when FDR tried to stack the Supreme Court" now the time I cash in some of my chips" It time for Obama to cash in some of his political chips.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 20, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

drindl, if you mean to suggest that the vote was not rigged, please say so.

I can post from sources you would normally quote:
NPR, "The Guardian", "The Economist", etc., how the rigging was accomplished. The votes were not counted locally. The ballots were sent to the Interior Ministry for counting and announced before the count could have physically begun. An IT guy who worked at the Ministry went public with how the count was being rigged and died in an "auto accident" several hours later.

Here is a good article.

http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13856232&source=hptextfeature

Brooks wrote an elegant column yesterday to the same point - events are moving in Iran toward the eventual internal overthrow of this regime. The west must be very careful in supporting that result without actually meddling, as many have suggested. I believe that can be done. I do not believe it can be done with threats of violent confrontation, especially threats we have no capacity to enforce. We are not in control there, and will not be. That truth does not make the sham election less evident or the threat of suppression by the ayatollah less shameful. It does not call for silence in the west, or by us.

Suppression of peaceful dissent violates the Iranian Constitution - did you know that?

The reasons your correspondent found the WaPo statistical argument more interesting as a study of human nature are that he figured the election was a sham before the stat analysis was published and because he is a scientist himself. He was not implying that the election could have been fair - if that inference was made, it was by you alone.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 20, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for those thoughtful questions, Mark_in_Austin. I was, of course, referring to George Washington. It is probably too late to return to that. But that should not mean we stop trying. I think it's more impprtant now than I did even after LBJ / RMN Admins. A truly transformative President, appealing to Americans tired of the same, old corrupt politics could still be elected. I hear what you're saying though. If an Independent cannot be elected in this era of BILLION DOLLAR campaigns, the next best thing would be a coalition-type ticket, with an Independent as VP.

Posted by: JakeD | June 20, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

martk, as mike suggests:

" To me, it's more interesting as a study of human behavior
and our subconscious tendencies rather than evidence of vote
tampering."

I don't see how obama has NOT supported free speech. As yo can see by the village idiot's harangue, it's all about criticizing obama, no matter what he does.

Whne does 'support' become saber-rattling? where do you draw the line? Remember how much good the 'support;' given by Bush I did for the Kurds?

Posted by: drindl | June 20, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

I am absolutely amazed and stunned that some liberals give moral equivelance to the Iranian Regime and the demostrators who are rightly angry about the sham election. I usually don't like call people stupid but to believe this election was fair requires suspension of all intellect. If this current regime continues on their current path then Irsael will surely strike. Causing mayhem to the World Stabilty and economy. But if there was another Iranian revlotion bringing true democracy, all that would be avoided. Our policy should be geared to the latter.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 20, 2009 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Poor barry hussain. Hiding in the bunker, cowering in fear while the dominoes fall.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 20, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Iranian freedom - blame bush.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 20, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Looks like the Bush doctrine is vindicated. The spineless lib approach- a proven flop. Just like all the other lib ideas. Health care, spending, cowardice, apology, empty speeches, bailouts, single digit unemployment- all lib failures.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 20, 2009 1:55 PM | Report abuse

BWJ, you have not been following closely enough. The evidence of fraud is overwhelming, beginning with announcing the counting of the election 15 min after the polls closed, through Crazy Mahmoud's victories by the same margin in every precinct, to this statistical analysis.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/20/AR2009062000004.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

I generally agree that the Admin has been properly cautious in its remarks, but think it should now express more support for free speech, joining the Euros on this. Obviously to you and me sabre rattling is not called for - we would lose the people who are
called "reformers" if we talk about attacking their country.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 20, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

What this is about is not democracy in Iran.. It's about drumming up an excuse to bomb Iran. The wingers want us to encourage violent demonstrations against the mullahs, ensuring that many Iranians are injured or killed, hopefully another Tiananon. Then they would shriek for Obama to send in the troops or the bombs. All they want is chaos and violence, what they get off on.

Luckily Obama is not stupid enough to fall for it. We cannot be seen as being on either side, only offering whatever secret financial support that can be managed, and offering Iranian refugees asylum.

As we have seen in Iraq and Vietnam, we cannot be the world's policeman. We can spend billions and trillions we haven't got, we can shed the blood of thousands of young americans, and the end result will still be chaotic. These changes have to come from within.

Posted by: drindl | June 20, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

If the wingnuts are for "spreading democracy," then you have to sit back and let it work even if you don't like the results. There is no evidence of fraud in the Iranian elections, and it is not disputed that the winner won by a large margin. We (the US) don't do coups and that sort of thing anymore (see Shah of Iran). BHO, per usual, is doing the right thing.
______

Viva BHO, viva Sonia, viva Bo.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | June 20, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Obambi has been reached by cell phone for his view on the Iran situation:

Not Present was his reply.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 20, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Another silly stereotype confirmed. Drivl and chrissuxcox are crazy cat ladies. When I said I recognized drivl from the Simpsons I was kidding but it is obvious my instincts are strong.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 20, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Two things are clear on Iran. The press knows nothing and is worthless. The president knows less and is worthless less.

This is not American leadership. Shame.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 20, 2009 12:54 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes, Until now I have thought the low profile of the Admin on Iran was completely warranted b/c anything we could say would be fuel for the black hats in control in Iran. Now is the time to say "the world is watching", to say that if freedom means anything it means allowing
peaceful dissent. There are even mullahs who agree with that now and one mullah who said the election was obviously rigged. So I agree that carefully escalating our own rhetoric is now a good idea.

Why carefully? Well, in 1956, we got high behind the Hungarian Revolt, and it became a bloody fiasco b/c the Hungarians all thought "Ike was coming" to rescue them from the Soviet tanks. And we did not, of course.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 20, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

These are replies generated by comments directed to me on earlier threads; I beg everyone's indulgence.
--------------------------------------------
JakeD asked me about a non-partisan prez and all I can think of is GW, who loathed parties, and the Constitution, which makes no provision for them. JakeD thinks it is time for a third party. Jake, I dunno.
Like Justice Roberts in dissent, I can think of lists of questions:

1. Would the organizing logic of the third party be to seek and obtain office, as it is for the other two?

2. Would its stated principles be broad enough to capture a majority from time to time, or would it voice a narrow single issue constituency?

3. Would its legislative tactic be to coalesce with one of the other parties on an issue-by-issue basis? Or would its strategy be to extort leadership positions from one party or another in trade for a stable majority coalition for the term of a Congress?

4. These two parties have changed positions over the years. You and I are old enough to remember the isolationist wing of the R Party and how Vandenburg and Ike pretty much overcame that. We can remember
when civil rights leaders in TX were Rs. We can remember when anti-evolutionists were Ds. We can remember when Ds were the "war party". You get my drift. What is immutable about parties that requires a third one? Have we reached a point where the two have stopped shape shifting?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 20, 2009 12:19 PM | Report abuse

These are replies generated by comments directed to me on earlier threads; I beg everyone's indulgence.

Nodebris, thank you for the time and effort you put into a clear response. I now understand the "TSA" reference, and I had not thought of the abolition of that private sector niche until "mnteng" posted that is what you probably were referring to.

I had hoped that RTC would be the model for the TARP instead of our reinventing the wheel, btw.

I also mean no insult by the word "partisan".

I do understand that the distinction I drew between "receivership" and "stockholding ownership" is sometimes ephemeral in practice, and in the short term. But I do take it, as you noted, to be a "bright line" difference because of the long term essence - there are no long term receiverships, as a matter of course and planning.

In any case, I was, as I wrote bsimon1, explaining vbhoomes' sense of "no bipartisanship", not my own. I think the Prez has made, and will continue to make, efforts at cordiality and bipartisanship wherever he can and I favor that. It was not the pattern of the previous president, as I recall. I anticipate occasional cooperation, and hope for it on FP-NatSec.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 20, 2009 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Well it looks like the Iranian thug govt is going to squash the aspirations of Iranians yearning to be free in the baby crib with nary a word from our President. I guess stifling free press and ban the internet and beating and killing Iranians in the streets and universities does not warrant any moral outrage from our President. He probably agrees with the muslim clerics that we are the Great Satan.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 20, 2009 12:11 PM | Report abuse

ROBERTS: I, Barack Hussein Obama...
OBAMA: I, Barack...
ROBERTS: ... do solemnly swear...
OBAMA: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear...
ROBERTS: ... that I will execute the Office of President to the United States faithfully...
OBAMA: ... that I will execute...
ROBERTS: ... faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States...
OBAMA: ... the Office of President of the United States faithfully...

Posted by: JakeD | June 19, 2009 6:25 PM
_______
It has been reported a million times that Roberts flubbed the speech, which he publicly ADMITTED. He later apologized to BHO.

Get it over with. Trot out the usual weekly Hannity/VonBrunn-ish troll list of foolish issues: BHO's date night, teleprompter, Reverend Wright, the lie that the public doesn't want a public option for health insurance (although polls show 80%+ do), cherry-picked anti-BHO approval ratings (based on 500 calls in the middle of the workday to landphones in Tulsa, OK), Ayers, Dijon mustard on burgers, Tony Hawk skateboarding at the WH, making of fun of BHO's African relatives, making fun of BHO nominee Judge Sonia's figure, name, weight, etc., blah, blah, blah. Did I cover everything?

Again congrats on your induction in the Troll Hall of Fame with 37thandO, Dianne72, and the rest of the gang. Your six smashed aluminum cans (you can redeem them for cash at Piggly Wiggly) are in the mail. Good going.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | June 20, 2009 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Yea I know jadeD, they love to sterotype conservatives into what they think they should be ie: racist, sexist, homophobe. Seeing how I am a vegetarian, aupport animals rights, gay marriage and legalization of marijuana, I am sure that makes them even more angry, as they really want to hate us. We should all remember we are americans first and have far more in common if we have the courage to let go of labels. My political views are mixed though I generally agree more with conservatives when it economics and national security policies.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 20, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of political analysis, here's Andrew Sullivan's take on the Post's ouster of Froomkin. His journalism--which involved actual reporting (as opposed to bloviating)--will be missed.
Speculation is the purging had something to do with his reporting on the torture issues.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/the-purging-of-froomkin-ctd.html

Posted by: broadwayjoe | June 20, 2009 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Welcome aboard, vbhoomes (now if we could just get them to call David Letterman every name in the book too ; )

Posted by: JakeD | June 20, 2009 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Well, I've seen it coming for a while, but here it is. vbhoomes has shaken off that reasonable conservative facade and now is one with jaked, zouk and dottydo. Resistance was futile. He has been assimilated.

Posted by: nodebris | June 20, 2009 1:21 AM | Report abuse

jaked wrote: "Maybe it's that time of the month again? Or, A-Rod wouldn't pay any attention to her during the seventh inning stretch?"

Wow. jaked gets to add grossly sexist and misogynist to his list, right under racist, homophobic, xenophobic, paranoid, compulsive, and purely unpleasant.

Give 'em enough rope . . .

Posted by: nodebris | June 20, 2009 1:07 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

This sort of analysis is what you do the best. I appreciate it.

Posted by: nodebris | June 20, 2009 1:02 AM | Report abuse

@drindl - You don't understand Jake. Avoid the provocations and you can have a conversation. If not, then just don't engage.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | June 20, 2009 12:29 AM | Report abuse

From earlier post:
“Looks like most of our liberal collegues have abandon this blog for awhile. They only show up when their is only one conservative on line. Looks like they share something with Obama, a big yellow streak.’
Posted by: vbhoomes | June 19, 2009 2:02 PM “

No, it’s just that you guys are boring, off-topic, and predictably partisan, blindered, and nasty. I could write your talking points after watching about 10 minutes of Fox Spews.

And the particular hostility you show toward articulate women, what you rat-pack wannabes consider to be “mouthy broads.” WHO’s the ones that are frightened?

Posted by: Ichristian | June 19, 2009 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Back on Topic: Dodd has almost two years to get back on his game. He suffered a bit during the financial scandal peak but he's a man of long experience and I'm sure he'll bounce back.

Besides, the GOP has a big fat albatross around its neck, the one called "being Republican." Who'd vote for these crooks?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 19, 2009 7:50 PM | Report abuse

I thought that you two were "ignoring" me?

Posted by: JakeD | June 19, 2009 7:43 PM | Report abuse

jaked -- you are a simple tinfoil-hat racist conspiracist. Can't you just freaking crawl back into your hole?

==

What else would he do with his time? Trolling is his whole "life"

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 19, 2009 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Will there be ANY Obama coattails left for the Dems (or will Obama be an albatross hung around their necks)?

Obama Job Approval Slips to 58% for First Time; Lowest reading for Obama thus far in Gallup Poll

PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama's job approval rating fell to 58% in Gallup Poll Daily tracking from June 16-18 -- a new low for Obama in Gallup tracking, although not dissimilar to the 59% he has received on four other occasions.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121028/Obama-Job-Approval-Slips-58-First-Time.aspx

Posted by: JakeD | June 19, 2009 7:16 PM | Report abuse

jaked -- you are a simple tinfoil-hat racist conspiracist. Can't you just freaking crawl back into your hole?

Posted by: drindl | June 19, 2009 7:12 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox--one of my cats is a beautiful half siamese, half orange tabby [the combination of which which is now recognized breed called 'snowboots' I think ]--all the markings of siamese but with the tabby trademarks of white hind legs and the "M" formation on the forehead, in this case in the characteristic muted and lovely siamese colors.

did you know that the tabby 'M' meant they were holy cats to the church, [cant remember when] because the "M" stood for Mary,while tricolor cats [can't rmember why] were considered devilish?

And a rescue cat too- the mother was a purebred siamese whose owner didn't want anything to do with the kittens which resulted from an orange tabby breaking through the window screen.

Posted by: drindl | June 19, 2009 7:11 PM | Report abuse

thanks a lot, FairlingtonBlade, you wound him up and now he's going to go through his whole insufferable routine all over again

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 19, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse

stifles yawn ...

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 19, 2009 6:35 PM | Report abuse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States#The_administrator_of_the_oath

While the Constitution does not mandate that anyone administer the Oath, the Oath is typically administered by the Chief Justice, but sometimes by another federal or state judge (George Washington was first sworn in by Robert Livingston, the chancellor of the State of New York in 1789, while Calvin Coolidge was first sworn in by his father, a Justice of the Peace and a Vermont notary public who lived in a home without electricity, phone, or running water, in 1923). By convention, incoming Presidents raise their right hand and place the left on a Bible or other book while taking the Oath of Office.

Obama did NOT use a Bible the second time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Second_oath_of_office_of_Barack_Obama.jpg

Posted by: JakeD | June 19, 2009 6:31 PM | Report abuse

ROBERTS: I, Barack Hussein Obama...
OBAMA: I, Barack...
ROBERTS: ... do solemnly swear...
OBAMA: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear...
ROBERTS: ... that I will execute the Office of President to the United States faithfully...
OBAMA: ... that I will execute...
ROBERTS: ... faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States...
OBAMA: ... the Office of President of the United States faithfully...

Posted by: JakeD | June 19, 2009 6:25 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

No, Chief Justice Roberts flubbed but corrected himself, whereas Obama ended up transposing two words. Regardless, if Obama is not a "natural-born" citizen, it doesn't matter if he took the Oath every day for 4 years. Why doesn't he just release the LONG FORM birth certificate?

If I were him, I would at least get Biden to "co-sign" every document I signed ; )

Posted by: JakeD | June 19, 2009 6:15 PM | Report abuse

"After reports today show that Melancon is almost definitely in, does that change the calculation with Vitter? I think Melancon would be an incredibly good candidate and he is a ridiculously good campaigner."

I think Stormy Daniels takes Vitter down during the primaries.

Does that sound dirty? Good.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 19, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

After reports today show that Melancon is almost definitely in, does that change the calculation with Vitter? I think Melancon would be an incredibly good candidate and he is a ridiculously good campaigner.

Posted by: chilidogger | June 19, 2009 6:08 PM | Report abuse

@Jake - Technically, it was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who got it wrong. For such a stickler on details, you've a short memory.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | June 19, 2009 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps it would be worth losing a Senate seat to see new leadership. Republicans pretty much steamrolled over the entire chamber for the past eight years without having close to the numbers the Democrats have now. Hell, the last two years, they were the MINORITY party and still got what they wanted.

==

It really is quite the phenomenon, isn't it. I figured the GOP was cowing Democrats with what-ifs about another "terrorist attack," but when the Democrats are caving as they are it makes me wonder if the prospect is a little more than subjunctive. Like it's scheduled.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 19, 2009 5:26 PM | Report abuse

"DDAWD: I tried going vegetarian in high school, but after a few weeks I started to lose strength. I was lifting weights at the time to get out of sports (now I do it because I like being in shape), and the weight I could lift started to drop, and kept dropping, and as soon as I went back to eating meat my strength came back."

Did you take any supplements?

Posted by: DDAWD | June 19, 2009 5:15 PM | Report abuse

"I wish there was some way to get Harry Reid out of his leadership role without losing a Senate seat to the GOP. He's such a disappointment. His caving on closing Guantánemo because of NIMBY fears was the last straw for me, he couldn't even handle questions about it. He needs to be replaced by someone with a spine."

Perhaps it would be worth losing a Senate seat to see new leadership. Republicans pretty much steamrolled over the entire chamber for the past eight years without having close to the numbers the Democrats have now. Hell, the last two years, they were the MINORITY party and still got what they wanted.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 19, 2009 5:13 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD: I tried going vegetarian in high school, but after a few weeks I started to lose strength. I was lifting weights at the time to get out of sports (now I do it because I like being in shape), and the weight I could lift started to drop, and kept dropping, and as soon as I went back to eating meat my strength came back.

I live near Seattle and we do all our food shopping at the Vietnamese grocery. They have serious vegetarian food for the monks, and there is a Taiwanese place a few blocks further that gets all the monk business, a fantastic selection of very satisfying entrees. It would take *weeks* to miss meat.

Not sure I could go the rest of my life without charbroiled pork (thịt nướng) though.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 19, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

"Man, all this talk makes me think I should give vegetarianism another shot."

What kind of meat are you eating?

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 19, 2009 5:07 PM | Report abuse

I wish there was some way to get Harry Reid out of his leadership role without losing a Senate seat to the GOP. He's such a disappointment. His caving on closing Guantánemo because of NIMBY fears was the last straw for me, he couldn't even handle questions about it. He needs to be replaced by someone with a spine.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 19, 2009 5:02 PM | Report abuse

I've been getting better at it. I'm not Catholic, but I do try to give something up for Lent each year just for the challenge of it (meaning I take it more seriously than the majority of Catholics, haha) I did meat this year. It actually wasn't that bad. The problem is that its not as easy to prepare vegetarian meals. It's a lot easier to toss some chicken in the oven. I do find I eat a lot less meat after Lent than I used to. I'm not a huge animal rights person in the sense that its not one of the biggest things on my mind, but I am cognizant of the issue. I'll always support animal research, but eating meat isn't a matter of life and death.

I think when my life gets a little less hectic soon, I'll give it another shot.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 19, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse

I know what you are talking about chrisfox, I had some friends of mine while in the military join me in Engalnd after we were both stationed in AZ. I asked what they did with there 7 year old cocker spaniel(I loved that dog) and they relayed they took her to the shelter. I didn't end my friendship but I never held them high regards since then. But I don't think it has nothing with being republican, gay or anything else. Some people just lack a soul.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 19, 2009 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Man, all this talk makes me think I should give vegetarianism another shot.

==

It wouldn't be that hard. There are some preparations for vegetarians that're pretty fine eatin' all by themselves. I'm not vegetarian but I eat all kinds of food made for them .. I love tofu and eat it almost every day. At corporate cafeterias in the software industry there are always veggie offerings if only because there are so many Indians doing the work .. gardenburgers are totally delicious and don't try to mimic meat, while Boca Burgers are almost perfectly convincing, hard to believe they aren't beef. Last time I went to a company BBQ I had two double cheeseburgers, only one meat patty out of the four. The same gut-satisfaction that comes of eating meat.

I've managed to keep caring for animals separate from eating meat. That's probably compartmentalization, which is evil, and it might not last much longer. I go to Việt Nam every year and I've heard pigs headed for slaughter crying.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 19, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

You know, I didn't know that Arkansas has two Democratic Senators. That ain't too shabby.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 19, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Man, all this talk makes me think I should give vegetarianism another shot.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 19, 2009 4:37 PM | Report abuse

They didn't want to hurt your widdle feelings by ganging up on you like they did in the previous post. Awwwwwwww

==

The very idea that anyone would be intimidated by intellectual challenges from zouk and Jake simply defies comprehension

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 19, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

"Looks like most of our liberal collegues have abandon this blog for awhile. They only show up when their is only one conservative on line. Looks like they share something with Obama, a big yellow streak."

They didn't want to hurt your widdle feelings by ganging up on you like they did in the previous post. Awwwwwwww

Posted by: DDAWD | June 19, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

vhoomes, i have 3 insane cats from rescue shelters.

I have had probably 20 cats in my life, all of them from shelters except the kittens that were born in a horse stall on my neighbor's farm, who was going to drown them.

==

My current cat is a rescue from a purebred shelter. After my Persian died I wanted another Blue Persian but when I went to the purebred shelter they had a Silver Patched McTabby who had the exact same meow as my cat who had just died .. just one meow, as it turned out. Hands-down the most beautiful cat I ever had. It took a few weeks for the adoption and some serious money too. They were really serious about placing the cats in good homes but the fact I knew my vet's number off the tơp of my head went a long way toward establishing my bona-fides.

Had a hard time naming her (previous owner had called her SQL and I already have a cockatoo named Perl) until I saw her walking in the moonlight. She's "Celebithil," Sindarin for "silver moon."

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 19, 2009 4:19 PM | Report abuse

vhoomes, i have 3 insane cats from rescue shelters.

I have had probably 20 cats in my life, all of them from shelters except the kittens that were born in a horse stall on my neighbor's farm, who was going to drown them.

Posted by: drindl | June 19, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Ah yes, when get past the name calling we find there is humanity and goodness in most of us.

==

I'm glad you said "most" and not "all" because if there is one thing I've learned about my fellow man in the last 30 years it's that there really are some sick people out there.

I'll never forget having dinner with my partner of the time and a friend whose partner of many years had just died of liver disease. I asked after their cat, a sweet cuddly female named Alexandra.

"Oh, I dropped her off at the pound"

Total disinterest, like I had asked about a dead tire. This guy was a gay Republican and a Catholic, I'd known him for years, but as of that moment I couldn't sit at the table with him anymore. In deference to his loss I didn't say anything but "excuse me" and I got up and waited out in the car.

A lot of people are indifferent to animals; to their suffering, to their neglect, even to their extinction. I have no regard at all for such people, want nothing to do with any of them, would prefer to not share oxygen, my country, or spacetime with them.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 19, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"The GOP must REALLY be in trouble if Texas is in play.

The DNC should pour its efforts into getting the Texas seat, that would not only be an additional Senator but it would have enormous symbolic value, turning one of the reddest states more blue. George Bush's "own" state, no less. I imagine his swipes at yard plants would have a vicious swing to them as he thought about a Democratic Senator from his state."

Yup, Texas is definitely going in the right direction. They are subject to the same demographic changes that are affecting Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico. Yes, its slower because of the larger population, but the state is getting younger, more educated, and more hispanic. McCain only won by 10% there in 2008. That probably drops into single digits in 2012.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 19, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Ah yes, when get past the name calling we find there is humanity and goodness in most of us.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 19, 2009 3:58 PM | Report abuse

ChrisFox8 - YOU CALL YOUR ADOPTED IRANIAN WOMAN A "CAT"? YOU OPPOSE ISRAEL DEFENDING ITSELF FROM HAMAS?

Another paid troll from the Bush-Cheney military-industrial complex? A "FRIEND" of drindl?

Read

http://NowPublic.com/scribbler/DontTouchMeWithYourRaysInMyFundament

Posted by: scribbler50 | June 19, 2009 3:56 PM | Report abuse

I know, they want the two horse parlay - White for Senator and Sharp for Guv. But White has no name or base outside metro Houston.

Sharp saved this state's budget during the S&L debacle and he is an effective campaigner. Look at the interviews I posted. Caffiene is required just to get through White's interview with Texas Monthly!

No big name D will run against KBH for Gov. I do not even think one would gamble that Goodhair beats KBH in the primary, because in that primary the indies and many Ds will x-over to vote for KBH. We have open primaries.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 19, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

re: Texas, part deux

As if echoing my wisdom, "Burnt Orange Report" writes:

Chris Cillizza Weighs In on U.S. Senate Race

by: David Mauro
Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 11:24 AM CDT

Chris Cillizza, who writes The Fix column for the Washington Post, released a list of his top 10 most competitive U.S. Senate races earlier this morning.

Although the possible special election in Texas did not make the top 10 (yet), Cillizza did have some advice on how Democrats could win their first statewide race since 1994.

[quotes CC]

Cillizza is a Washington reporter and no Texas expert. However, others including BOR's Phillip Martin, have suggested that given his substantial experience in state government and lack of experience in federal government Sharp would make a stronger candidate for Governor.

Although no well-known Democrat has entered the Governor's race yet, those close the Sharp campaign maintain that he is the Senate race to stay.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 19, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Drindl just to let you know we do share something in commono, I would go along with my taxes being raised so all animal shelters throughout the country would be "No Kill Shelters". The idea that we euthanize healthy adoptable animals because we don't have room for them makes me ill to my stomach. That is not what a supposely civilized society should be doing. Please don't buy a pet from the store or breeder, go to the Humae society. I just adopted the greatest dog in the World doing XMAS. They know and appreciate it when you save them.

==

OK so there is some virtue in you.

I adopted a beautiful Persian many years ago who was three hours from the needle. Couldn't believe people had looked at this beautiful cat and passed her by. Under my care and love she lived to be 23 years old, I had her for two full decades.

But if you think cats and dogs have it bad, you should see what it's like for parrots. Please consider a donation to The Oasis in Arizona.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 19, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Drindl just to let you know we do share something in commono, I would go along with my taxes being raised so all animal shelters throughout the country would be "No Kill Shelters". The idea that we euthanize healthy adoptable animals because we don't have room for them makes me ill to my stomach. That is not what a supposely civilized society should be doing. Please don't buy a pet from the store or breeder, go to the Humae society. I just adopted the greatest dog in the World doing XMAS. They know and appreciate it when you save them.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 19, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

I see KOZ and jaked have spent the past few hours jerking each other off.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | June 19, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

The idea that health care is best left to the magic of the marketplace is one idea we have to stamp out. First of all comes the sobriety of recognizing that there are some parts of our lives that should not be ruled by "market forces," an idea I sneer-quote with undisguised contempt. One may as well believe in fairies.

Second we must recognize that the private sector is not doing a good job at health care. The CEO of United gets $1.7 *billion* in annual compensation, and $31 of every $100 we spend on private-insured health care goes to administrative costs, including the same rapacious executive salaries we're told are necessary to attract "top talent." Top embezzlers, more like. As opposed to Medicare where only $1 per hundred goes to administration.

Third comes the recognition that every civilized country on earth has universal health care, and that our system is not working as well as theirs. We have a deplorable infant mortality rate, we don't live especially long, we have no recognition of preventive care anywhere.

We need socialized medicine and to hell with the free-market loonies.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 19, 2009 3:06 PM | Report abuse

I HAVE "SPOKEN" WITH SPECTER
and he claims no knowledge of the conspiracy to assassinate JFK. He claims he was not there and did not do it.

TRUTH IS DEMANDED, SENATOR!

See me suffer at

http://NowPublic.com/scribbler/HelpMeInChocolateFactoryInHersheyPA_trapped

Posted by: scribbler50 | June 19, 2009 3:04 PM | Report abuse


Here's what a new healthcare system would stop -- MURDER by insurance company:


"Executives of three of the nation's largest health insurers told federal lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday that they would continue canceling medical coverage for some sick policyholders, despite withering criticism from Republican and Democratic members of Congress who decried the practice as unfair and abusive.

The hearing on the controversial action known as rescission, which has left thousands of Americans burdened with costly medical bills despite paying insurance premiums, began a day after President Obama outlined his proposals for revamping the nation's healthcare system.

An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.

It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses."

Posted by: drindl | June 19, 2009 2:59 PM | Report abuse

'Looks like they share something with Obama, a big yellow streak."

God, you rightwingers are disgusting vermin... cockroaches, infested with some unspeakable pustulent ideological disease.

Posted by: drindl | June 19, 2009 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Looks like most of our liberal collegues have abandon this blog for awhile. They only show up when their is only one conservative on line. Looks like they share something with Obama, a big yellow streak.

==

Congratulations, you are now one with zouk.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 19, 2009 2:51 PM | Report abuse

"What to do? change the rules, to get a simple majority in the Senate and blame the tax increases on Bush & Cheney."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Bush tax cuts get passed using similar procedural games? Not that that makes it right; I'm pointing out more for the taste of irony, given that current deficits are exacerbated by those irresponsible tax cuts, coupled with the spending increases during the Bush admin.

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 19, 2009 2:49 PM | Report abuse

PA's SPECTER MAY BE THE ONE WHO DOES NOT RUN -- ESPECIALLY IF A PUBLISHER OFFERS HIM MILLIONS TO TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT JFK AND OTHER POLITICAL INTRIGUES.

PA Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak will run -- take it to the bank.

It's the newly-minted Democrat Specter who may decide to hang it up, rather than risk what would be a humiliating defeat at the hands of a well-liked former military officer who can rightly claim to be the "real" Democrat.

Specter can cement his reputation as a humanitarian by again taking up the cause of civil and human rights. And he will be richly rewarded if he decides to do a full disclosure concerning the pressures he faced as a young Warren Commission investigator and the author of the "single bullet theory."

Senator, please read this -- it's happening on YOUR turf, and all across America:

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR (if links are corrupted / disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | June 19, 2009 2:36 PM | Report abuse

President Obama sends John McCain to defend US again.

This was from deployment with regard to a Mar North Korea test, but probably still applies, unless he sent Jim "Return With Honor" Stockdale's new AEGIS destroyer from Long Beach this time

USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) and USS Chafee (DDG-90) are expected to assume positions where they can use their Aegis guided anti-ballistic missiles to bring down what both United States and Japan have been claiming may actually be a ''rogue missile

Posted by: mesondk | June 19, 2009 2:35 PM | Report abuse

The GOP must REALLY be in trouble if Texas is in play.

The DNC should pour its efforts into getting the Texas seat, that would not only be an additional Senator but it would have enormous symbolic value, turning one of the reddest states more blue. George Bush's "own" state, no less. I imagine his swipes at yard plants would have a vicious swing to them as he thought about a Democratic Senator from his state.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 19, 2009 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Well, I give you credit for showing back up.(I wasn't referring to bsimon, I have respect for you) Pity the dems in Congress, they want to socialize medicine, but after wasting a trillion dollars in so so call stimulas funding, they don't have the money to pay for it. What to do? change the rules, to get a simple majority in the Senate and blame the tax increases on Bush & Cheney. Or just punt and blame the non-partisan CBO as a wing of Rush Limbaugh.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 19, 2009 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Well well both the trolls are active, and vbhoomes has decided to pull any pretense of being any better than them.

Still waiting to here how Obama has betrayed "the jews," unless he means the pressure to stop building settlements. I guess vbhoomes is behind on current events and has failed to note that "the jews" in America are far less supportive of Israel than in times past, and that 72% of "the jews" favor the two-state solution. Supporting Israel as that rotten little country fires missiles into apartment buildings and maximizes body count of women and children has challenged, rather than affirmed, their values.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 19, 2009 2:26 PM | Report abuse

the jews have been betrayed by Obama.

==

What the hell is this creepy sentence about?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 19, 2009 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Ayotte's never run for office before, so there's no real way to know how effective she'd be as a candidate. Of course, it's not like there are any better options available to the NH GOP (a rather stunning turnaround considering they basically ran that state from 1860 until the mid-2000s.

Posted by: SeanC1 | June 19, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

"Looks like most of our liberal collegues have abandon this blog for awhile. They only show up when their is only one conservative on line. Looks like they share something with Obama, a big yellow streak."

Hoomes, I had hopes for you, man. I thought you were going to be the one conservative on here who actually cared about intellectual honesty and civil discourse.

But your schtick got old fast, and you got lumped into the same category as the other resident trolls on here. The bottom line is that you're not worth responding to, you don't care about having an actual discussion at all. You just want to post GOP talking points and run away. Which is fine, it's just not worth anyone's time or effort.

Posted by: VTDuffman | June 19, 2009 2:19 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes, the Libs are allergic to facts. all the hope and change dreaminess is drying up, the messiahs polls are down and the reality of liberal spending is emerging. with all that reality, what is a good lib supposed to do?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 19, 2009 2:13 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes, you having a bad day?

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 19, 2009 2:07 PM | Report abuse

North & South Korean media (magazines, tv,radio and newspapers)... http://www.enewsreference.com

Posted by: nquotes | June 19, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Looks like most of our liberal collegues have abandon this blog for awhile. They only show up when their is only one conservative on line. Looks like they share something with Obama, a big yellow streak.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 19, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

re: Texas

In a special election, the candidate with the most votes, even if only 25%, wins.

If two Rs and one D run, the D might win. If two Ds run, in order for a D to win, at least 3 Rs must run.

Ralph Yarborough and John Tower were both plurality elected in special elections their first terms.

Of the two Ds, Sharp is a far superior campaigner and CC's characterization of White as stronger statewide must be challenged.

Watch recent interviews of both at:

http://www.klru.org/texasmonthlytalks/archive/white.php

http://www.klru.org/texasmonthlytalks/archive/sharp.php

Then tell me if White actually induced sleep for you.

The Rs should have at least 2 candidates, Dewhurst and Williams. Abbott will probably run for LG.

Speculation is that Goodhair will appoint Williams pending the special election.
See http://www.williamsfortexas.com/

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 19, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Yup.

Posted by: JakeD | June 19, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

The Senate: Corporate interests' tool for screwing the average guy. We need a F'ing revolution, complete with public hangings.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | June 19, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Jaked - did you notice that 17 billion in fiscal discipline balances out 2 trillion in spending and waste?

Lib math.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 19, 2009 1:34 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's ambitious effort to remake the nation's health care system was always going to be a marathon. Now the runners seem to have stumbled at the starting line

also known as Dem leadership. Can anyone name a single thing productive that
Obimbo has done? Other than speechmaking? I am willing to include his Senate and community organizer days since the pickings are so slim.

you could actually credit Peloony with just about everything that has happened in DC. What a pitiful party.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 19, 2009 1:33 PM | Report abuse

king_of_zouk:

What do you expect of someone who can't get simple U.S. history right -- he thought there are 57 (or was it 58?) "States" and that 44 Americans "have now taken the presidential oath" (he couldn't even get that right -- I can recite it by memory ; )

Posted by: JakeD | June 19, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of liberal goofiness brings us inevitably to Barack Hussein Obama, as he now proudly identifies himself -- at least when he’s addressing Muslims, praising Muslims and, as usual, slandering America. By the way, isn’t it the least bit odd that he never condemns Muslims for clinging to their religion and their suicide bombs? Even if you’re a liberal, doesn’t it seem peculiar that during his speech in Egypt, he didn’t take a moment to mention how much blood and national treasure America has spent -- and, I would suggest, wasted -- defending Muslims in Somalia, Kuwait, Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan? But, then, we mustn’t forget that this is the same chap who went to France and took the opportunity to apologize for America’s arrogance without once mentioning the number of American G.I.s who died making sure that the French wouldn’t have to give up wine and foie gras for beer and bratwurst.

By the way, do you think the day will ever come when he’ll quit apologizing for America’s arrogance and apologize for his own?

Before setting off for the Middle East, where he gave a thumbs-up to Iran’s nuclear program while condemning Israel for building houses, Obama mentioned that America is home to one of the world’s largest Muslim populations. As anyone with even a passing interest in facts would know, there are roughly three million Muslims in the United States. Just to give you some idea of how far off Obama was, Indonesia has 195 million, Pakistan has 160 million, India has 154 million. Even Burkina Faso, a place you’ve never even heard of, has seven million. There are, as one of his advisors should have told him before he shot off his mouth, roughly 40 countries in the world saddled with larger Muslim populations than America.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 19, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Now Peloony doesn't trust the CBO. Only a few weeks after announcing the CIA was liars too.

Why do I get the feeling this chick has no sense of reality?

by about the fifth time you proclaim "everyone's wrong but me" even loony Libs begin to wonder.

drivl, surely you can shed some light on being untethered from planet Earth. Maybe they overtightened her neck and face this month. It seems to be squeezing what little wit she had left.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 19, 2009 1:14 PM | Report abuse

What makes you so sure Lisa Madigan won't run in Illinois? She could definitely beat Mark Kirk, and her recent talks with Obama seem to indicate he'd like her to consider it. I expect she might.

Posted by: Illinoistransplant | June 19, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes:

The Democrats have bankrupted California.

Posted by: JakeD | June 19, 2009 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Wanted for important post, taxpaying Liberal.

President Obama’s choice as chief of protocol for the State Department, a position that carries the status of an ambassadorship, did not file tax returns for 2005 and 2006, errors she corrected last November. The nominee, Capricia Penavic Marshall, has placed blame for the problem on the Postal Service and on miscommunication between her husband and their accountant.

Meanwhile the Obama economy marches forth:

WASHINGTON--The unemployment rates in eight states hit record-highs last month and only two — Nebraska and Vermont — did not report increases. The Labor Department says 48 states and the District of Columbia saw employment conditions deteriorate last month. The fallout from the longest recession since World War II, was the worst in Michigan. Its unemployment rate rose to 14.1 percent.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 19, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

et tu brute?

David Scheiner, an internist based in the Chicago neighborhood of Hyde Park, has a diverse practice of lower-income adults from the nearby housing projects mixed with famous patients like U.S. Sen. Carol Mosely Braun, the late writer Studs Terkel and, most notably, President Barack Obama. (Snip) "I'm not sure he really understands what we face in primary care," Scheiner says.


none of us are sure he understands anything that is not scrolling by on the teleprompter.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 19, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse

The U.S. is moving ground-to-air missile defenses to Hawaii as tensions escalate between Washington and Pyongyang over North Korea's recent moves to restart its nuclear-weapon program and resume test-firing long-range missiles. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Thursday that the U.S. is concerned that Pyongyang might soon fire a missile toward Hawaii.(snip)satellite imagery shows activity at a North Korea testing facility that has been used in the past to launch long-range missiles.


Call it the Obama plan. try not to get hit by incoming missiles.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 19, 2009 12:56 PM | Report abuse

You just have too look at NY to see what a mess the dems have made in that state. Why is not NY mentioned as a GOP pick up. Their Governor is a joke and the jews have been betrayed by Obama. Rudy or the former GOP gov would win in a walk. The dems have no chance in Ohio, since taking control of most of the state, things have gone from bad to worse. With NCR moving to Ga. while fisher and the rest of the dems were sleeping.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 19, 2009 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Dodd has a couple of things going for him: he might be able to rehabilitate his image in the next 18 months, and constituents are more forgiving than posting kibitzers.

Here in PA we hear nada from or about Toomey. I don't think the GOP running a silent campaign is going to persuade anyone but the "core" to vote for Toomey. So the Democrats could run Specter or Sestak or Shirley McLaine and *still* win

Posted by: margaretmeyers | June 19, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Maybe it's that time of the month again? Or, A-Rod wouldn't pay any attention to her during the seventh inning stretch?

Posted by: JakeD | June 19, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuse

king_of_zouk:

LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD | June 19, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse

the drivl beast is playing domanitrix again.

try Decaf.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 19, 2009 12:47 PM | Report abuse

I also assume that "goldbergjeffrey" is referring to born humans who are Constitutionally-qualified for the office (age and residency requirement) as well. PARTISANS are always hyper-literal.

Posted by: JakeD | June 19, 2009 12:39 PM | Report abuse

"If Bunning runs, he wins. But then, that will be true of the republican senate candidate regardless of his or her identity."

-------------------------------------------

Trey Grayson is the ONLY republican candidate that has expressed an interest in the job that has a chance to hold the seat for the GOP.

The vast majority of Kentuckians are pretty well fed up with the performance of its two senators, Bunning in particular. Case in point..majority leader McConnell's slim 4 point victory over a relative unknown in the 2006 election.

Posted by: mhhaggard | June 19, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

It's the constant claim on the right that people are so unhappy with democrats that their will be a republican landslide next election. I just don't buy it.

Posted by: drindl | June 19, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

"what this poster is inferring that republican senate candidates will automatically beat democrats. this is what i said is delusional."

Well 1) I'm assuming the person means Kentucky. 2) I'm assuming that there is some implied reasonableness to said candidates. I don't take him to mean a one armed midget with the face of a baboon will beat a good Democrat.

Perhaps I'm wrong about these assumptions, but I'm usually willing to assume someone isn't a rank partisan ideologue. Predicting a Republican victory isn't going to send me over the edge the way it seems to do for you.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 19, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

If you are paying attention, or can read english:

"that will be true of the republican senate candidate regardless of his or her identity."

what this poster is inferring that republican senate candidates will automatically beat democrats. this is what i said is delusional.

Posted by: drindl | June 19, 2009 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Congressman Charlie Melancon looks like he is officially running against Louisiana United States Senator David Vitter according to a news story published today. I wonder how that will change the line. With Melancon abandoning his House seat, Republicans have a great pick up opportunity.

I think New Hampshire should not be as high as it is listed. Hodes hasn't excelled at fundraising. Ayotte would be a great Senate candidate.

Posted by: madoug | June 19, 2009 11:45 AM | Report abuse

""If Bunning runs, he wins. But then, that will be true of the republican senate candidate regardless of his or her identity."

LOL. Send in the delusional clowns."

yeah, predicting a Republican to win in Kentucky is sooo delusional.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 19, 2009 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Switch NH and Connecticut. Republicans will have a hard time winning that very blue state from scratch. I honestly think it should be #1, but its close enough to KY.

Dodd has his problems, but he has a lot going for him. A deep blue state, an entrenched incumbency, a lot of power in the Senate, high involvement in the high profile issues, a lot of time to rehab his image. A lot of these scandal type things tend not to have a lasting effect compared to a long running abuse of power.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 19, 2009 11:37 AM | Report abuse

"If Bunning runs, he wins. But then, that will be true of the republican senate candidate regardless of his or her identity."

LOL. Send in the delusional clowns.

Posted by: drindl | June 19, 2009 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Here's who's teaming up to deny you decent health care:

"An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.

It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.

Posted by: drindl | June 19, 2009 11:26 AM | Report abuse

If Bunning runs, he wins. But then, that will be true of the republican senate candidate regardless of his or her identity.

Posted by: goldbergjeffrey | June 19, 2009 11:26 AM | Report abuse

I don't believe the Dodd race will be close at all: AIG.

Posted by: JakeD | June 19, 2009 11:19 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company