It's good to see the Libertarians finally realize that the Tea Party is largely composed of the most conservative elements of the GOP.

I think the libertarians might rather conjecture that the Tea Partiers only believe they are conservative.

I guess I'm using conservative as it is in real life, not how it might be idealized.

Pretty good article refuting Pastor Jones's reasons for buring a Koran. I quoted Part 3 since it has links to Parts 1 and 2.

Top Ten Reasons to Burn a Koran - A Muslim Responds Part III (video) - National Islam | Examiner.com

I always found it fascinating that an object that was probably mass-produced in a factory can be viewed as sacred.

Or an image that can easily be found online?

SI

Ya know, Pastor Jones may not be burning any books today, but our favorite Kansan may be picking up his slack!

Lemme guess- a Fred Phelps story?

SI

Someone needs to put the Ass in Kansas

I thought the point was that Fred Phelps already was "the Ass in Kansas" ;)

SI

Will the Republicans throw away an easy Senate pickup?

Castle (R) leads Coons (D) by 11 points.
Coons (D) leads O'Donnell (R) by 11 points.

Today's GOp primary poll from PPP (Which admittedly is a Dem polling firm, but one referenced on RCP):

O'Donnell 47, Castle 44

That race has hardly been polled because everyone assumed Castle would win easily, but after the Tea Party Express, Palin and DeMint all backed O'Donnell she could win ala Miller in Alaska.

And if she does she'll be a severe underdog in a state the GOP had locked up.

Sometimes I just hate the Tea Partiers for shit like what may happen in Delaware.

What would be interesting is if Castle ran as an independent as he'd probably be the favorite. Who would he caucus with after all the RINO shit he's gotten over the last few months?

What's the point in "winning" a seat if all you're getting is what one pundit colorfully described as "Olympia Snowe in drag"?

Senate control. He'll still vote for the Republican Senate leader, just like all the Blue Dog Dems vote Nancy Pelosi for Speaker.

It's control of the nation's direction that matters, not control of the Senate. Better to lose with honor than to win with none.

Losing with honor still makes one a loser.

Then so be it, winning in name only isn't a win either. And given Castle's voting record, that's what electing him amounts to.

You do realize that there's not enough of your type to ever hold a majority?

I guess being that you are from the south, you are used to being on the losing side of...... well..... almost everything in the history of this country besides college football.

:)

AHAHAHAHA

LOL!!

I sure hope more people share Jon's outlook. Perhaps the only thing that can save the Dems is the GOP fucking everything up.

I mean, how the hell does Harry Reid currently have a lead? That makes no sense given the nature of this election cycle, and it's solely due to the GOP nominating a lunatic. Similarly, Blumenthal has a big scandal and is now cruising because the GOP nominated Linda McMahon.

And now I see polls showing the NH primary is tightening, potentially costing the GOP yet another sure seat.

Review Castle's lengthy voting record.
RemoveRINO Mike Castle

Explain to me why on earth I'd want him re-elected? Just because he claims to be an (R)? A (D) can be just as wrong as this sorry SOB yet there about a couple of dozen of D's seated at the moment who are actually right more often.

Because the things you care about require some sort of majority and the hoped for Confederate Party will never have enough votes to pass anything.

I'd love to see a list of Senators you think cast the right votes often enough and then a plan for how you'll get to 51. The one good thing with a two party system is that it does need differing ideologies to form a majority.

Okay, with the caveat that this is really a shortcut way of answering your question. I'm taking a quick brain break from a really unexpected emergency project that a client handed over after hours tonight & I can't really get away from that for much longer than it takes for a fresh pot of coffee to finish brewing.

With the shortcut, I'm sure there are going to be some people included that I wouldn't normally consider reliable (McCain is an obvious example) but I'm just looking for a baseline, working from the 2009 ratings based on 25 notable votes as detailed at
2009 ACU Ratings :: Senate Standouts « The American Conservative Union

There were 10 senators who got a 100% conservative score, a total of 33 who scored 80% or higher. There were 24 D's who got a 0% score, so I'll write those off largely as lost causes.

I'm not arguing that 51 100%ers is a doable number in the upcoming election, although it's certainly an admirable goal, the math just isn't there.

It's also not something that happens overnight, but steady improvement is a valid goal, to turn 80s into 90s, 90s into 100s, and especially turning sub 60s into 80s. Castle's 56% score (only 1% better than the cellar-dwelling Cao of LA) in the House simply isn't a significant enough movement for me to celebrate, not when there's a potential 80 on the table. Hell, there's D's that are within spitting distance of Castle and some (such as Bright-AL) who are as high as C72%.

Just because we aren't going to get there overnight doesn't mean that shouldn't be the goal, that it isn't worth striving for, or that it's impossible.

If 4/5 votes is relatively reliable, there's 33 now (with this imperfect quickie benchmark) move another 5-7 up, improve 10 in the middle ranges to 2/3 or 1/2 C, knock out a few of the zeroes to get an occasional unexpected vote ... you don't have to have 51 rock solid in order to win a fight, you get as many as you can & keep fighting for more, steady improvement everywhere else that's possible.

A-fucking-men. The South has been wrong on everything that matters. :D

But the point is if you get that 51st Senator, it won't be a 56% person setting the agenda, but someone closer to that 80-90%. If you don't then it will be more of Harry Reid setting the agenda. I mean, getting an 80-90% candidate to win in Delaware is a pipe dream. Even in the best possible conditions for the GOP (see: now) it's just not going to happen.

You seem to be arguing that the GOP should ignore geopolitics and just field the most conservative candidates possible everywhere. That's just political suicide.

It's also a primary (no pun intended) way to prevent the party from rotting from within, which is a long-term issue which cannot be overlooked.

Having Castle's ilk associated with the party in any way ultimately does more harm than good, even if he's right more often than Coons.

So what's best for the party is to have a real small minority with no power? Interesting strategy.

Seriously. The idea that there is an electable "potential 80" in DELAWARE is just smoking something. And, of course, there are some D's in spitting distance of Castle. They mostly come from the South, which is far different geopolitically than, say, the Mid-Atlantic.

How the Senate race is shaping up:

Dem: 44 Safe or Not Up
GOP: 34 Safe or Not Up
GOP should easily win: AK, IN, IA, LA, NC
Dems should easily win: NY, OR

That puts the margin at 46 Dem, 39 GOP

With 16 seats up for grabs, Dems need to win 4 to retain the majority (since they have VP).

Seats they should win: WV (has tightened, but Manchin has been reliably 50% or higher), CT (McMahon is just a bad fit for the state and Blumenthal did a terrific job of weathering a scandal)

The remaining 13 seats would be split up as

6 Toss Up (CA, CO, IL, NV, WA, WI)
7 Lean GOP (DE, FL, KY, MO, NH, OH, PA)

Depending on today's primary results, DE and NH could potentially move from Lean GOP all the way to Lean Dem and all but assure the Dems retain the majority.

The other GOP leaners are probably not in play at this point, but several of the toss ups are in very blue territory. If the GOP fucks up DE and NH today, then the Dems could potentially end up with 54-55 seats, which would be nothing short of a miracle given the nature of this election cycle.

I was looking at projected turnout numbers in DE and I think Castle is in big trouble. They are expecting 30K GOP voters. With the enthusiasm on the far right and Palin/Tea Party support getting 15001 O'Donnell voters out doesn't seem at all out of the question.

Don't be surprised if the Tea Party also wins in NH. It's not as close going in, but turnout for that election will also be small and the Tea Partiers have shown a knack at winning in low turnout primaries.

Today's RCP polls:

CT: Blumenthal 51, McMahon 45
WA: Murray 50, Rossi 41 (this one is a surprise, as all other polls had this much closer. If Rossi can't win this year, he might as well call it a career.)
FL: Rubio 43, Crist 27, Meek 21 (Meek is eating into Crist and Rubio is walking away with this)
NV: Angle 45, Reid 44
OH: Portman 48, Fisher 41
PA: Toomey 47, Sestak 41

Not the worst polling day for Dems. FL is a lost cause, but Fisher and Sestak are at least hanging in there.

I wonder if France gets much criticism in the European media for stuff like this, which really puts our silly Koran burning/mosque location silliness to shame:

France nears ban on full Muslim veils - World news - Europe - msnbc.com

I think there was a thread on this a while back -- pretty disgusting.

Some of these polls are transitioning from registered voter to likely voter. Nate Silver has shown that the CT race really hasn't changed from the last ten point lead, but the switch from registered to likely gives the GOP candidate a few points.

Makes it kind of a pain in the ass to really see what's going on.

47.1% reporting: O'Donnell 55.4, Castle 44.6
7.3% reporting: Lamontagne 50.0, Ayotte 33.1

If having power means accomplishing nothing that's truly important then what's the point?

75% in:

O'Donnell 54
Castle 46

Thanks for the Senate hold Tea Partiers.

The race has tightened a little bit in DE, but is it too late for Castle?

77.5% reporting: O' Donnell 53.9, Castle 46.1

From the obit of a retired USAF veteran this week
"In lieu of flowers the family respectfully asks that donations be sent to the American Cancer Society, or to the campaign of anybody who is running against President Barack Obama in 2012."

Obit: In lieu of flowers, donate to anybody running against Obama - WIS News 10 - Columbia, South Carolina |

10% in and Lamontagne still leads Ayotte 48.7-33.8

I haven't seen any Hodes-Lamontagne, but I've got to think he'll be leading her if she wins the nominations.

AP calls it for O'Donnell.

Watch out DE masturbaters.

There' no doubt the GOP is going to do well in Nov, but it's damn near impossible to see the Senate change hands if DE goes Dem.

Ideological purity FTW.

A.P. calls Delaware for O'Donnell.

It would be an misguided statement at best to assume anything regarding the November election given what we've seen thus far.

Whoops... a little slow. :)

Hard to see her winning in the general, but I'm not going to discount any of the tea party/Palin crowd in elections. Until proven otherwise, I think the enthusiasm gap (plus lack of a presidential race "headliner") makes them legit.

Yeah if the GOP can't take DE, then the Dems have a fairly good grip on 49 seats. They'd have to lose all 6 toss up states. If the GOP screws up NH as well, then the Dems are basically freerolling with their majority from there.

*It's not impossible for the GOP to win in WV or CT, but I don't see it happening.

Wow, O'Donnell finally got a GOP nod. Third time is a charm, it seems.

Wasn't she the nominee in 2008 against Biden?

You are right. I was thinking of her and recalling she was severely underfunded and that the state GOP wasn't exactly in love with her either and somehow decided that meant she hadn't even made it out of a primary. My bad.

Obama's most recent approval rating in DE was 55% (Aug. 5). I'm sure Biden's is even higher. They can both come to campaign if the race is close. I don't see the tea party making much headway there.

In DE I don't think masturbation=adultery is going to play very well.

In NH RCP has Ayotte leading Hodes by 8 but Hodes leading Lamontagne by 3. NH has a very strong libertarian streak tempered by a lot of MA professionals in the south. Lamontagne could still win, but he'll be an underdog and the GOP will have to further stretch their money.

Ex-aide: Christine O'Donnell a 'complete fraud' - David Catanese - POLITICO.com

Man, if the state party was doing that during the primary...I sure hope Sarah's prayer warriors are going to raise her lots of money to win. She'll need it.

I'm largely in agreement as turnout means everything and a minority view can surprise, but O'Donnell's win has certainly put the Dems in much better shape. Rasmussen's last poll had Castle up +11, but Coons up +11 against O'Donnell.

Did Democrats crossover to vote for O'Donnell? I just can't fathom that Republicans thought nominating her was a good idea. Her background is real fucking shady and a Sarah Palin endorsement isn't going to carry her in a general election.

I think Rangel got off one of the better quotes I've seen in primary season, talking about his opponent who is the son of the man Rangel beat 40 years ago.
"He used to be nice young man," he said. "I think God has really blessed him with his good looks and his dad's name, and then God gave up on him."

Rangel is such a corrupt dick. Too bad he's going to be reelected.

I won't disagree with you on either point ... but I still thought he landed a good zinger no matter what else I might think of him ;)

Ayotte may yet pull this out. Lamontagne's lead is now down to 42.2-36.9 with only 22% in.

Yeah, it's just that I see him on local news a lot and this comment comes off as his typical entitlement bullshit. He just feels he's above a primary and that alone is enough to sour me even without all the likely illegal shit he's been doing.

Wow...

awesome. let's hope this extends to other candidates. make the koch brothers and armey pay out of pocket for them all.

Sounds like the RNC will not support O'Donnell.

It will be interesting to see what this does for her fundraising. I can see it hurting, but, in a way, it may rally the type of folks that are inclined to vote for her into giving a lot and working harder. Even more of a rebellion against the establishment, if you will.

I did hear something to the effect that she had like $20K on hand, while the democrat had over a million. I'm not sure how far money goes in Delaware (I assume the Philly market is both impactful in DE and expensive).

Interesting.

Do we take this to mean that the RNC likes its chances better using Palin and the Tea Party as branding over the Republican name? Or are they hoping that she looks like a loser and they don't have to deal with her in 2012?

If she somehow makes O'Donnell and the guy in Alaska (looks more likely than not) into Senators, she looks like a king-maker and vaults to the head of the class for the GOP in 2012.

I'd say she's already at the head of the class, there's just a long time left until graduation ;)

This.

Hmm, apparently PPP has a poll coming out tomorrow morning showing Castle voters favor Coons over O'Donnell 44-28.

Speaking volumes about the sacks of shit backing Castle, but that's really not a big surprise. All the f'n RINO's want is Dem Lite, and that's not going to cut it.

50% in and Ayotte has now taken the lead.

If the National Republican party thinks the primary was hijacked, what's to stop them from backing a 3rd party Castle run? Anyways, it's probably too late to get on the november ballot I'd think.

I doubt Castle would be successful in that scenario. Lieberman was able to do it because the Republican was a single digit non factor. That wouldn't be the case with Coons. If Coons just kept the numbers he was polling at vs. Castle anyways, it'd probably be enough to win a three way race.

That's ok, because Delaware is just going to get full Dem instead of "Dem Lite" instead. I'm sure the hardcore Republicans are happy about that.

Also, because Castle gave up his seat, the Delaware At Large seat will be one of only 3 (maybe 4) House seats that the Dems actually pick up in November.

If the voters of Delaware are that far out of their minds, then it really doesn't seem there was much chance to get anyone worthwhile out of them anyway.

Who knows, maybe we'll get a nice surprise & she'll shock the world in November. If not, at least someone worth at least half a damn gave it a shot.

What do you like so much about her Jon? I don't see much from a conservative standpoint that is attractive about her. Well at least fiscally.

She makes liberals angry. That's really the only qualification needed for a large part of the GOP.

Wow....

Just this morning, when driving into work, I was thinking about making a post in response to others' back-and-forth with Jon over the last few pages to basically argue against the idea that the Tea Party will eventually a) successfully drag the GOP rightwards into minority party status or b) split off from the GOP and become more-or-less a going concern as a legit third party, turning both them and the GOP into minority parties.

I still don't think either scenario will happen, because when the economy eventually improves most people will go back to ignoring politics and just voting (if they vote) for the R or the D each election, but I have to say the results of these primaries, and the GOP's response to them, certainly causes one to think....

PPP: Coons 50, O' Donnell 34

Maybe not angry, but liberals don't like her.

The point is that for a large portion of the GOP qualifications, experience, policy preferences, ethical lapses etc. don't matter. A winning candidate is one that clearly upsets the other tribe. That's all that matters.

U.S. Senator John Cornyn, Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee has issued a statement in support of Tea Party Candidate Christine O'Donnell:

“Let there be no mistake: The National Republican Senatorial Committee – and I personally as the committee’s chairman – strongly stand by all of our Republican nominees, including Christine O’Donnell in Delaware.

I reached out to Christine this morning, and as I have conveyed to all of our nominees, I offered her my personal congratulations and let her know that she has our support. This support includes a check for $42,000 – the maximum allowable donation that we have provided to all of our nominees – which the NRSC will send to her campaign today."
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/KatiePa...rting_odonnell

Methinks you might have that the wrong way around, we might actually be seeing some real leadership from them to move the country in the right direction for the first time in several years. The R's have gained the generic brand advantage already, even as the party shifts rightward. The more clear the actions & intentions of the left become, the more advantage the R's gain.

Oh, let there be no mistake. I fully support the GOP getting fully behind O'Donnell and spending as much money as they think she needs. Anything that will cut into the money they'll spend in CA, NV, IL, CT, CO, WA, and WI is fine by me.

So it's a party for morally bankrupt fools?

Stick them all on an island together and let them govern themselves. They'd deserve the mess they'd inevitably get themselves into.

"generic brand advantage" is meaningless

You keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. But check out the trending for a steady stream of R's with (alleged) independents and you'll see otherwise.

There's at worst a decent chance that the leftists are going to find themselves on an island with plenty of room, the rest of the country is abandoning that sinking ship at a steady clip.

But look at party approval ratings. The only thing worse than being a Dem is being a Republican.

The electorate is angry and they're going to punish the party in power, but there is at best conflicting data as to whether the country is really moving towards the platform of the far right.

Generic brand advantage has always been meaningless. No matter who's the incumbent. That's a widely-known fact.

Take a look at the trending for R's with independents? Are you kidding? Look at Castle-voters with a 44-28 preference for O'Donnel's opponent (whose name escapes me right now). Look at the unfavorable ratings of Palin (for one example) with independents. Let alone someone like Angle or some of those other whackos.

Independents are not going to vote en masse for Tea Party candidates or hard-right Republicans. A small percentage of them might, but they're not all flocking to them.

Independents tend to fall somewhere in the center. Moving farther right only alienates them further.

Yep.

Which speaks volumes about their true colors, and further affirms Castle as the RINO anyone paying attention knew he was already.

At the risk of repeating myself, what's the point in "winning" if you have to become the enemy to do it? That's not winning, that's surrender. And that's a behavior that's over.

The truth is, the further to the right we can push things, the bigger the advantage becomes. The left is demoralized, many of them realize that they've already failed & disheartened would-be voters don't show up at the polls. Independents know that the D's are a sinking ship as well, at worst they'll simply stay home. Meanwhile, R voters are invigorated by the likelihood of having more reliable candidates in 2010 and 2012.

As for the meaning of the generic poll, this is worth considering

Or rather, they are the true Republicans (what do you think the Republican Party was in the 50s, 60s, and 70s?) and the super small government, socially conservative (c'mon, O'Connell is against masturbation for God's sake!) folks are the RINOs.

Wait a sec, I thought that was me....


That's predicated on the assumption that a majority (or even an almost-majority) of Americans will agree that what the Tea Party espouses is the right direction for the country - after all, you still have to win majorities (in elections and in Congress) to change things. Given your well-documented contempt for the intelligence of the average American, I'm a little surprised that you think so many Americans will "see the light" in this manner.

And that's pretty much what I mean by it being a potential "minority party".

(1) At first, the Tea Party seemed to try hard to avoid the social conservative label. It wanted to honestly push for lower deficits and less spending. I guess that got boring. Now Palin and the Tea Party activists use their energy to push folks who want to use the Bible to tell me that I can't touch my penis. Sigh. I guess I wonder if the Tea Party was ever about anything more than that. The police power of the state all up in my business because the Bible told them so.

(2) Shit like this has consequences. I understand energizing the base. But do moderates really not matter at all? If not in 2010, what about beyond?

I think you have to remember that the Tea Party has never had formal leadership or a formal platform. It's not a party. I'm sure a lot of the people that showed up at those early rallies were all power fiscal responsibility, but the socially conservative republicans saw this disorganized "movement" as an opportunity. And now they own it - "Tea party" just means really conservative. Which kind of sucks for the true fiscal conservatives, whose crazy ideas about fiscal responsibility are now considered fringe and loopy. Good short-term wins for the Republicans with this strategy, but overall, it's better for the Democrats, who can now point to the tea party as the main opposition to their fiscal recklessness and lack of a plan on how to control things like health care costs. And they're going to win that battle because the "tea party" is just too goofy.

The sad part is, I would not be surprised if a large number of people would like to have a christian theocracy in this country, which would not be a whole lot different than the soviet union, but, with a religious slant to it.

+1 to molson's post

I can see that, but, I meant more the day to day life of a citizen, check points searching people for porn or alcohol, house searches for bible checks, camps for atheists or other threats to the 'state', stuff like that.