The Politics Thread

[MichaelGL]

Huntsman seems to be opposite of most candidates on the GOP field, like Newt, Mitt, and Pawlenty, so I assume if he does run, the GOP will eat him alive for some moderate views he holds.

[DRW50]

McCain won because so many other major candidates were seen as unacceptable. He then imploded. That makes it unlikely they'll do that again. They will pick a true believer even if they don't think he's the most electable. Daniels would have always had too much hate and fear coming from those who control the party now.

My guess is that "T-Paw" will win, barring some flub. He is very hard right, he's spent years pandering to extremes in Minnesota, and the media has spent years fawning over how smart and "nice" he supposedly is.

[DRW50]

In special election news, the seat opened up by Congressman Chris "Craigslist" Lee has been won by a Democrat, Kathy Hochul. This is the first time since the 60's a Democrat has won this seat.

This wasn't supposed to happen, mostly because, unlike other NY special elections in recent years, the Republicans and the Conservative Party were generally united behind Jane Corwin.

The GOP is saying that she lost because there are two Democrats in the race, but one of the "Democrats," Jack Davis, is a kook who has been a member of both parties and then filed as an independent.

The GOP's grandstanding over Medicare, along with putting a cold and distant figure like Paul Ryan at the heart of their party, is probably what cost them this seat. Hochul attacked again and again on Medicare cuts. Corwin, meanwhile, ran ads about Nancy Pelosi.

It may be a short-lived victory, but kudos to Kathy Hochul for reminding Washington that even a very Republican district is not interested in a message of gouging the poor for the sake of a few wealthy elites.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55644.html

[wingwalker]

I think that the current crop of candidates that are in or soon be in, will be the field. I don't see these "dream candidates" like Cristie or Jeb Bush that some are trying to get to run, changing their minds and jumping in. Of the current field, likely nominee is Romney, Pawlenty or Huntsman, with my bet on Romney. Personally, though if I were to vote for a Republican, I'd go with Huntsman. He seems the most intelligent, moderate and "real" of the bunch, but I don't see him getting the nom this round. I honestly think he'd be better off in 2016.

Edited May 25, 2011 by wingwalker

[DRW50]

Is relief money for Missouri on hold unless other areas are cut?

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/24/cantor-disaster-relief/

[Max]

Carl, in the special election that you are referring to, the Tea Party candidate (Davis) garnered 9,500 votes, which was more than double the number of votes of the Democratic margin of victory. While the Democrats "MediScare" tactics no doubt helped Hochul, it is nothing more than partisan spin to suggest that those tactics--as opposed to Davis' presence on the ballot--were the primary reason why Corwin lost.

So long as we're sharing news articles, here's one I'd like to post, about the Justice Depatment lauching an investigation as to whether John Edwards illegally used campaign money to pay Rielle Hunter (his mistress):

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/25/edwards-investigation-appears-close-to-an-end/?hpt=T2

You know, it's funny: while the Democrats are now having so much fun trashing Arnold for his out-of-wedlock child, they apparently feel no regret (or hypocrisy) for voting for a man who did exactly the same thing.

[DRW50]

Max, even quite a few Republican strategists have said, albeit anonymously, that the Medicare ads worked. So did Paul Ryan. Jack Davis is a gadfly. He likely took from both sides. The GOP spent months attacking him because they assumed when his numbers went down, his supporters would go to Corwin. Instead, many went to Hochul. In order for Corwin to have won, she would have needed just about every single Davis vote. That was unlikely.

Why would they feel like hypocrites? Edwards was already out of politics by the time his affair was revealed. Primary voters had rejected him in 2008.

Many people did feel disgust and regret when they learned about Edwards. Here's one of his former campaign people writing yesterday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/may/25/john-edwards-democrats

The other difference between Arnold and Edwards is that rumors of Arnold's infidelities had been around for years, and even made the Los Angeles Times not long before the recall election. No one knew about any of this with Edwards. Yet there was some speculation on Arnold even as people were saying he should run for President, have the amendment repealed to let him run, electing and reelecting him as their governor, touting him as their star, etc.

Edited May 26, 2011 by CarlD2

[quartermainefan]

Democrats know Edwards is scum. The difference which you always fail to acknowledge or even admit begrudgingly is the republican party bills itself as the party of family values, social conservatism and morality to the point they once claimed they had the moral majority. So while its true when democrats screw up--and they do--it is bad, when a republican screws up the hypocrisy is off the charts. We just saw this recently when the great thinker, the man with the supposed 100 ideas a day, claimed he was right to persecute Bill Clinton because his own infidelities informed him just why Clinton was wrong. So yeah, a democrat cheats on his wife, he cheats. A republican cheats on his wife, well he cheats too, so why was he on TV just the night before voting to protect marriage and family values from the evil fags that are out to steal all good little christian boys and do immoral acts Jesus would not approve of? And we know Republicans are the party of Jesus and family and the commandments because Republicans say this on a weekly basis it seems.

It isn't the democratic party that tries to legislate against sin as it breaks every commandment in the book. That is strictly a republican thing.

[quartermainefan]

He can't win. He is so charismatically challenged, only a devout groupie could sit through one of his speeches.

[DRW50]

The media, which is always happy to be sycophants for the GOP, will do their best to spin for someone like him. There are few other options at this point. The only other choice is Romney, who is mostly known for his breathless hypocrisy on health care.

[quartermainefan]

He can't win either. He is so smarmy, he comes across like a cross between a used car salesman and a game show host. His insincerity knows no bounds and Obama is probably salivating at the thought of running against him.

[DRW50]

More on the Congressional Republicans putting the brakes on disaster relief. Funny how there isn't enough money for this but there's plenty for abstinence-only education and endless wars.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55776.html

[Max]

Carl, I never said that those Medicare ads didn't work; instead, what I said was that Davis' presence on the ballot--as opposed to those ads--was the primary reason why Corwin lost. (However, in a district that is not so heavily Republican, such Mediscare tactics may very well be the primary reason for a Democratic victory.) As I stated before, the facts bear this out: the number of votes that Davis got was more than double the margin of Democratic victory. It is extremely hard for one to believe--as you are suggesting--that Davis took equal numbers of votes from both sides, given that he ran under the Tea Party mantle (despite once being a Democrat-in-name-only).

Quartermainefan, I agree that as a general rule, it is very hypocritical when a Republican engages in immoral behavior, given that many of them constantly bill themselves as the party of social values. (If I've failed to state this before, I apologize.) However, in Arnold's case, it is quite different, because he always presented himself as a Republican-in-name-only, especially on the social issues. Rather than running as the candidate who "held the mantle of Jesus," Arnold was always despised by social conservatives. Therefore, to suggest that Arnold's affairs (as despicable as they were) show the same level of hypocrisy as Gingrich's affairs is very disingenuous on your part.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Max

[quartermainefan]

Gingrich is worse, he abandoned his wife on her deathbed practically. Arnold cheated on his wife. He's from Hollywood and she is a Kennedy, is this something anyone is shocked about? I don't really see any discussion of Arnold taking a dem/rep line, more like "oh, here is some juicy hilarity for gossips"

[DaytimeFan]

Donald Trump takes Sarah Palin out for pizza. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1393162/Is-Donald-Trump-race-president-Tycoon-hints-possible-campaign-independent.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

This is it. It's OVER Donald. I will no longer watch The Apprentice. I absolutely enjoyed this man and all his bombastic bullsh*t for years. I thought he was hilarious and in on the joke.

But no. It's OVER. He's associated himself within an inch of Sarah Palin.

The only way he can salvage this is by remarrying Ivana.