2010 Midterm Elections Thread

[soapfan770]

The funny thing is if that does happen I don't expect any type of big rollback of anything done in the last two to four years. Maybe some adjustments here and there, but nothing actually major until the results of 2012 elections and even that will depend on who's running. A lot can happen in a short period of time. I'm just waiting on civil war to break out with Arizona as ground zero.

Oh yes back here on the rez we might be getting our first woman President in the form of New Mexico state senator Linda Lovejoy. She ran back in 2006 but lost but this year her chances are looking better, perhaps she came be the one to actually change the state of the Navajo Nation/Dinétah? Actually I don't have too much faith in her although unlike her predecessors she is educated and has political experience off the rez.

Lovejoy on the issues

Public impressions of Lovejoy

Lovejoy wins the primary

[DRW50]

Holy crap, O'Donnell won!

I'm sure we might hear from some of the media or from the Republican leadership that this is actually good news, as Castle might have lost to the Democrat, Coons, and they would have had to spend money, whereas now, they won't, because the Tea Party Express, Jim DeMint, and Sarah Palin will raise money for her. They can say that she might still win given the year, and that they can spend that money in other states, like Wisconsin. They can say they weren't expecting to retake the Senate this year anyway.

Chris Matthews is already saying she's like Ronald Reagan. Now that's some hype.

Still, I find it sad that this person who has so much baggage and had some of her top aides running robocalls against her in the days before the election, managed to win convincingly against a former governor and longtime Congressman who did a lot for Delaware.

Now the questions are -- will Delaware elect her? And will Republicans retake the Senate even if they don't have this seat?

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/christine-odonnell-tonight-pulled-off.php?ref=fpa

[quartermainefan]

Oh, she's senile too? People say "Reagan" like he was this great figure in history. People forget now how while he was cutting taxes via his piss-on theory of economics, he was telling school kids to eat ketchup in lieu of a vegetable because he didn't want money going to the school and/or the poor.

[DRW50]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42192.html

[Max]

I apologize for my rudeness Quartermainefan, but do you have an actual quote where Reagan told school kids to eat ketchup instead of vegetables? Because while you have every right to despise the man and his political beliefs, you don't have a right to put words in his mouth. (And for the record, while I do believe that Reagan was a very good president, I don't worship him the way most other Republicans do.)

On the topic of O'Donnell's win, I am obviously very pissed off about it (since the Republicans now have such a slim chance of regaining control of the Senate). However, I am not at all surprised given the success that the Tea Party has enjoyed in so many other GOP primaries this year. Furthermore, I knew that it was a big mistake for the GOP establishment to intervene in this primary on Castle's behalf; that's because such actions absolutely infuriate the Tea Party crazies and make them even more motivated to get out their vote.

Of course, the most blame for this outcome lies on the shoulders of the Delaware's GOP voters, who in thier quest for ideological purity stupidly failed to realize that all they would really be doing (by nomiating O'Donnell) would be to hand the seat to the Democrats. However, Castle himself also deserves blame because he was so complacent during all but the last couple weeks of the campaign. (According to the article CarlD2 posted in the above link, Castle was so sure that he would win that he didn't even have a concession speech prepared prior to his loss.) Despite the fact that Delaware is a liberal state, far-right candidates have won GOP primaries in the Northeast in the recent past; Castle should have been aware of this danger and campaigned accordingly.

[DRW50]

I wonder if the state GOP and national GOP should have just ignored O'Donnell and if she might have fizzled out. I wonder if they got some backlash over attacking a woman, even though they didn't say anything out of line, IMO.

It's an interesting study in how this base has a lot of control over the party at the moment, because after barely reacting, or reacting negatively, to O'Donnell, it was only a day until Rove grudgingly endorsed her, the NRSC gave her money, etc. Of course there's still a good chance she could win.

Here she is at a Value Voters conference.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/christine-odonnell-does-dc-youre-not-the-boss-of-me-video.php

[Sylph]

OMG! These elections are scarily hilarious. "Dabbled in witchcraft"?! What?

Jon Stewart is calling on voters to rally on sanity:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/19/jon-stewart-daily-show-rally

[DRW50]

That is only going to appeal to those already in the echo chamber, although at least he's trying. I imagine the current extremists are also bad for his show, because you can't spoof this kind of stuff, it's much more bizarre than any spoof.

Lisa Murkowski is running for the Alaska Senate seat as a write-in. I wonder how much of this is down to her feud with Palin. She might be able to face rejection by voters but losing to Palin?

http://www.adn.com/2010/09/17/1459578/murkowski-expected-to-say-yes.html

[soapfan770]

Speaking of Karl Rove now there's a downfall/backlash I didn't see coming! Between a meltdown on Fox News and starting a feud with Rush Limbaugh it seems that Rove is now held in much contempt by conservatives as we did in the early 00s, some going as far as calling him "Tokyo Rove".

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2589634/posts

[quartermainefan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketchup_as_a_vegetable

I didn't put words in his mouth. That was the policy his administration tried to implement. I could cite numerous online sources going into greater detail, but someone will claim it is a liberal smear job no doubt.

http://books.google.com/books?id=hAq_EvcAIW4C&pg=PA139&lpg=PA139&dq=reagan+ketchup+vegetable&source=bl&ots=rU1-ZOXivP&sig=l-eyISClxvZ-G5ZxcYgsLN6BkOY&hl=en&ei=9oaWTIGvB8XflgeoopGmCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBjge#v=onepage&q=reagan%20ketchup%20vegetable&f=false

http://www.fact-index.com/k/ke/ketchup.html

Presidents speak on behalf of their administration, and administrations speak on behalf of the President. That's why when the White House Budget office makes a budget, even if the President himself did not carry the five and divide by three, it is still his budget.

[Sylph]

There's a new book about the Tea Party:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/books/14book.html

[Max]

Quartermainefan, I would not have taken issue with you had you originally stated that it was a proposed Reagan administration policy to have ketchup reclassified as a vegetable. Instead, what I took issue with was the fact that you led others to belive (via your initial post) that Reagan actually gave a speech where he told a group of schoolchildren to eat ketchup instead of vegetables. (And, my own personal view on the topic is as follows: while this is not the answer that liberals and nutritionists want to hear, the fact of the matter is that many--if not most--kids don't eat their vegetables; consequently, lots of tax money is wasted. Thus, I can at least see the rationale behind what the Reagan administration wanted to do. Personally, I think that the best solution would be to estimate the number of kids that would likely eat their vegetables, and make vegetables an available side dish rather than automatically putting them on everybody's plate.)

Getting back to the topic of the mid-term elections, much is currently being made about the fact that Christine O'Donnell once "dabbled in witchcraft." While this disturbing fact is certainly fair game, I'd like to ask my Democratic friends why it was completely off-limits (and, even racist, as some suggested) back in 2008 to talk about about Obama's religious beliefs? Here, I am not talking about any wild rumors that he is a closeted Muslim. Rather, I am referring to the very real fact that he attended the church of Rev. Jeremiah Wright for 20 years. Simply put, I just don't understand the double standard: according to Democrats, it's OK for voters to reject O'Donnell because she dabbled in witchcraft, but no voter has a right to reject Obama despite the fact that his minister has made numerous extreme and anti-American statements?

[quartermainefan]

I had no idea satanism is now seen as a religion.

I thought the double standard was the way almost all republicans whisper "muslim" like it is this great secret exposing Obama as "other" since they don't want to just say he's black (unless you are at a tea party rally, in which case you can talk about the blacks anyway you want and be amongst your peeps) but when the party of christianity, Jesus, real american values, morality and all that dogmatic Falwellian/Palin bullshit nominates someone who dabbled in devil worship...suddenly she is just a kid making a mistake. It does seem perplexing that a party that mandates fealty to Christianity in its candidates to the point that every presidential candidate shamed themselves by saying they didn't believe in evolution, would somehow be quick to embrace a candidate who if I understand my Satans right once dallied with the anti-christ movement.

[Max]

Quartermainefan, I agree that there's a double standard on the far right when they are willing to overlook O'Donnell's witchcraft but attack Obama over his Jeremiah Wright association. However, there's no double standard with me, since I have never supported O'Donnell.

Furthermore, you failed to acknowledge the double standard (that I pointed out exists) among Democrats that states it's OK for voters to reject O'Donnell because she dabbled in witchcraft, but that it's unacceptable for voters to reject Obama despite the fact that his former minister has made numerous extreme and anti-American statements. Instead, the only "response" you gave was to attack Republicans for calling Obama a Muslim (when I, in fact, went out of my way to state that I was not referring to those wild Obama Muslim rumors, but rather was attacking Obama solely on the basis of his association with Wright).

[quartermainefan]

Well, I think the difference is if we want to make a comparison we would compare the Rev Wright, whack job that he is, to the head of her coven or whatever they call themselves. So Obama had a crazy friend/minister? That's not being crazy himself. And I think another key difference is you do not see the democratic party positioning itself as the party from on high, who receives its mandate from Jesus himself. You don't see democrats going around NYC and SF telling the sheep that these enclaves are the real America--as if the people in small towns just aren't quite religious or american enough. You don't see democrats claiming a set of positions as "values" as if all those who don't adhere to these beliefs are somehow lacking in values. You don't see the democratic party forcing all its presidential candidates to adopt a religious doctrine mired in thinking from 100 years ago, where if you don't believe Adam sprang from the ground you are not eligible to be the candidate. Democrats don't claim to be so moral or so christian to the point they demand everyone else pledge allegiance to God. That's the republican's shtick.

I mean lets face it, if we discarded every politician with a crazy minister, well every republican would de facto be excluded whoever shared a stage with Jerry Fallwell or Pat Robertson. On the contrary, republicans demand their candidates genuflect to such charlatans and Elmer Gantrys.