The Democratic Party is hardly populist... they may pretend they are 'for the people' but actions speak louder than campaign slogans. When everything they spit out is so loaded with pork for rich people and contains 'concessions' that hurts lower classes I am starting to applaud how well they have you fools all duped.

Same for Republicans of course, complete morons who have neither moral or conservative economic coherence.

Both parties are a sham and shill that are at their best when completely paralyzed in mutual opposition because it ends up slowing down the selling off of America to special interest looters (proceeding at a breakneck pace the last 10 years).

I think the ACORN guy was talked about here a bit. Kind of a damaging piece here that shows that he wasn't really a conservative activist, but just a white supremist.

James O'Keefe - Salon.com

There's a difference?

I kid, I kid :p

I was more talking about the Internet bit, which the Dems have used very effectively. I suspect it would be hard to fight that.

Regrading the ABC News story about Colorado Springs, it was written and presented in a way that reminds me of TMZ - simplistic and sensationalist. All of our basic services are being covered and very few are noticing any difference. We have too many wasted streetlights and they chose to save money elsewhere instead of cutting city payroll (which comprises of about 65% of the total budget). From our op-ed "Quite simply, times are tough, and Springs voters have decided to do without much of what they’ve enjoyed in the past. By rejecting tax increases, they’ve decided to hold the line on spending — at least until the economy improves."

Soulless, conservative heathens!!

The Tea Partiers are evening the score there. Brown, especially, got a lot of money and publicity using roughly the same internet tactics that until recently were almost exclusively effective for the left.

Nobody can make the argument that the Republican party is fiscally conservative.

But the psychology behind that chart is dopey, as has been rehashed here time and time again.

And it's not so much "small government" that is desirable to me, but just a government that we can afford, with as limited as possible restraints on our freedom and economic growth. I don't understand why this is so controversial, and becomes such a moral issue.

Should be a fun Lt. Gov. race in IL:

There's some screwy psychology with the question in particular. Seems only natural to prefer deficits over increased taxes if you believe that any tax increase would be spent rather than applied to the deficit (i.e. the two aren't related in reality).

Interesting tactic. When most candidates go negative they do so about their opponent.

:lol:

This is all kinds of fantastic. Saw this this over at The Hill. Conyers want the head of an organization removed from his position because he came to a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus without any black staff members in the group. Things like this remove any doubt as to why nothing gets done in Congress.

Conyers wants Haiti relief official demoted over diversity deficit - TheHill.com

Yeah, I mean that is so much worse than a senator holding up all nomination hearings until he gets $40 billion in earmarks approved for his state.

Report: Shelby Blocks All Obama Nominations In The Senate Over AL Earmarks | TPMDC

Your built-in assumption is that I approve of this. I've repeatedly stated that all earmarks should be passed on their own merits and not attached to other bills. But it is certainly interesting that you would so easily excuse the stupidity by Conyers with another form of stupidity. It's the kind of one-upsmanship so often played in partisan politics that drives me up a wall. They're both idiots. Don't just justify the ignorance of either of these fools.

In addition, you forgot another one from my home state. Kit Bond stonewalled to try to get a new federal building for Kansas City. It's just as bad, though it doesn't reach the monetary level of Shelby.

Martha Johnson: GSA Chief Confirmed After 9 Month Senate Hold-Up

No, my built-in assumption is that you thought that you thought that had anything to do with Congressional business. You specifically stated:


I fail to see how a short letter written to a group that met with a caucus impacts overall Congressional activities can be seen as a clear sign as to why nothing gets done, compared to something like the actions of Sen. Shelby.

When you have a person who thinks that the skin color of the person has anything to do with the ability of that person to provide information on a given topic, you have to question whether that person has his priorities in order. He's there to do what's best for all of his constituents and the American public as a whole. He's not doing that in this case. With that said, this isn't the first time Conyers has said or done something stupid in regards to race, so I suppose we should just excuse it, much like we do with the rest of our government officials.

Your original post touched on none of those topics. You simply stated that the letter showed why nothing gets done in Congress. Which it clearly does not. It shows that Conyers is obviously fixated on racial issues, but it does not impact the overall business of Congress. I provided a cut and dried example of something that did impact the ability of Congress to act.

I certainly agree with your example and provided another one in my home state. Most would disagree that a dysfunctional Congressman who is overly-focused on racial issues has no effect on how smoothly Congress runs. He may not be a show-stopper, but there's little question that he's certainly not contributing anything positive and wasting people's time.

There's a tremendous difference between "not smooth running" and "nothing gets done".

Neither is productive and I think we can agree on that.

Wow. How bad was the field that he beat in the primary?

SI

You win the unintentionally funny award for the day.

Looking at the results he didn't actually come close to beating "the field".

He gets the nomination with 26% of the vote while 5 others split the other 74%.

Flere could probably give better info, but from what I've read nobody thought he could win so nobody bothered to oppo research him.

It's pretty fascinating.

First of all, this all has to be taken in the context of the electorate apparently still not caring about the Lt. Gov's race, despite very recent history, which is kind of LOL in and of itself.

Boland (4th), Castillo (5th) and Link (6th) were probably always no-hopers. Castillo's an unknown with no money and probably (sorry, it's probably true) got his votes based on being the only candidate with a hispanic last name in the race.

Both Boland & Link are long-serving state legislators. Boland's a rep, but represents rural western Illinois, so would never have had the name recognition or money to influence the Chicagoland electorate, which is where most of these elections are decided.

Link is a Majority Whip in the state senate, and although he represents wealthy Lake County (just north of Chicago's Cook County), and he raised some good money, he clearly never really leveraged this, and anyway never had a chance against the support Turner & Hendon enjoyed.

So, Turner & Hendon.

Turner's a longtime state rep and current deputy majority leader. He was probably the favorite, having gotten endorsements from both major Chicago papers and, more critical, Speaker of the House Mike Madigan. For those not familiar with Illinois politics, Madigan is probably the most powerful politician in the state not named Daley. And he's even more ruthless. So Turner was the establishment's candidate.

Hendon, on the other hand, looks like he's had an axe to grind with the state establishment, which is probably what led him to run for this against instead of just conceding to Turner (both Hendon & Turner are black, by the way, and thus would be fighting for control over much of the Chicago ward system).

It all started a couple of years ago when long-time State Senate President Emil Jones decided to retire. On top of basically bequeathing his 14th district seat to his son (also Emil Jones), which rankled people a bit after the even-more-public bequeathing of a seat between John and Todd Stroger, there were some rumblings that Jones might twist arms to support a run by Hendon for President (of the Senate).

What complicated this was the fact that Jones & Madigan had clashed often (to the extent that Jones even became a Blagojevich ally in the Legislature against Madigan) and he knew Madigan would be gunning for control once he retired. In the end, Jones spent his political capital on getting his son his seat, and Hendon didn't contest the election. Thus the election was won by John Cullerton, who just happens to be an ally of both Mike Madigan and Mayor Daley.

So, with Madigan in full control of the Legislature and, given the constitutional weakness of Illinois' governor, basically the state government (note also that his daughter, Lisa, is Attorney General and will cruise to re-election, having been unopposed in the primary), Hendon clearly had to look elsewhere to further his ambitions.

Hendon publically considered running for U.S. Rep Danny Davis' seat when it looked like Davis would run for Cook County Board President (see Strogers, above) instead. However, Davis eventually made the sane decision between a cushy seat in the U.S. House and the clusterfuck that is Cook County, so that avenue closed to Hendon. So he ran for Lt. Gov.

I would imagine the establishment, then, viewed the race like this: Cohen & Castillo were unknowns, Link & Boland didn't have a realistic chance, and though Hendon might siphon some votes based on name recognition, it wouldn't be enough to defeat the machine.

Put simply, this all fell apart when Cohen did some big and well-targeted ad buys in the weeks before the election, along with a number of good PR stunts, and clearly got just enough name recognition to claw enough votes in the greater Chicagoland region to win. Had Hendon not been in the race, of course, Turner would still have won easily.

It was probably that complacency amongst the other campaigns, but Turner's especially, which meant no one spent on ads to capitalize on Cohen's past, which is even more ridiculous given that Cohen purposefully brought up his past to a Sun-Times columnist (Mike Royko's successor, no less) just less than one year ago.

The result, then, is pretty hilarious, and the "winner" is probably Hendon. I can't imagine Hendon really wanted the Lt. Gov role, since he'd still be Madigan's bitch even if he won (though the patronage opportunities were probably compelling). Instead, he more-or-less ensured that Madigan's ally didn't get the nomination. Assuming, of course, that Cohen doesn't back out.

Ah, Illinois politics.... :D

I'd love to say I'm shocked but this is Illinois and we sort of get used to it here. The fact it didn't come out earlier is rather perplexing. You'd think it would be common practice of the big newspapers to run a background check on all the candidates.

Cohen's victory was kind of a surprise. It seemed like a vote for the guy who has nothing to do with the establishment at all considering he ran against two establishment guys. The saying goes, better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

It may have some implications in the Governors race but I'm not sure. Lt. Governor is a position that really has had to do nothing until Blago got into power. There has been a lot of talk over the years and including this one of removing the position altogether.

It is LOLish when the right is now crusading for racial sensitivity.

I still haven't figured out if you want anybody to take you seriously or not.

Is this the part where you pretend there isn't racial issues on the right?

He's moderate. Doesn't lean one way or the other. 99% of his posts do, but not him!

The sad thing though is that if it rolls up to Washington DC, the same thing will happen again, only it will be postponed 15-20 years and hurt a lot more when the system collapses.

Not at all. What I'm saying is that nobody is going to take somebody seriously if they argue matter of factly that the left only has good guys.

Where did I say that? I just said it seemed a bit hypocritical.

Just wanted to point out to those a few pagesd back that were keen on discounting Palin's sway and the import of the words that come out of her mouht and their effect, Id say live coverage of her speech on basically every news channel is the Trump card. You were wrong.

So you're saying that the left has "racial issues" as well? You're not making any sense.

The left's "racial issues" are embodied in folks like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc.

The media sucks, I think we all agree.

Doesnt change the fact that she does have a large contingent of people who will follow and be swayed by the things she says including the lies like the Death Panel one. That was the point of that page(s) of the thread...the media pages were on a different thousand pages.

And the reason none of this matters one whit since we're doomed anyway:

Planners in Rocky Mount concerned with gaming parlors :: WRAL.com


Sigh. Odds are she's on social security and/or food stamps?

My Way News - Dem. Ill. lt. gov. candidate exits race amid furor

CHICAGO (AP) - The Democratic nominee for Illinois lieutenant governor has dropped out of the race less than a week after winning the nomination amid a political uproar about his past.

Scott Lee Cohen announced his decision Sunday night at a Chicago bar.

The pawn broker and owner of a cleaning supplies company won the nomination Tuesday. Since then, it has become widely know that he was accused of abusing his ex-wife and holding a knife to the throat of an ex-girlfriend.

The girlfriend herself had been charged with prostitution. He also admits using steroids in the past.

Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn, who would have been paired with Cohen on the November ticket, U.S. Rep. Danny Davis and Sen. Dick Durbin all had urged Cohen to leave the race.

Lots of rumors that something big is going to come out this week regarding NY-Gov Patterson. Whatever it is, ha lot of people are expecting him to resign.

I'll save anyone curious the trouble of Googling like I did.

Paterson To Resign? Governor David Paterson Will Step Down After Scandal Says Business Insider

Yet just what the scandal is has yet to be defined.

Most media reports point to recent stories involving the governor and other women as signs of some sort of sex scandal.

In the past few weeks Paterson has allegedly been spotted "nuzzling" and "neck-kissing" with a woman not his wife, as well as allegedly getting caught in a compromising situation by a state trooper. The latter accusation is reportedly the reason behind Paterson's decision to ban state troopers from the Governor's Mansion.

There's at least a certain logic to that.

I could see this coming a mile away. He simply didn't have the vision for the job.

Ha ha ha. Remember that one time, in this thread, that you pretended to be infuriated because someone made fun of people with disabilities?

To borrow from the Super Bowl thread: you stay classy.



SI

You mean like this post where he feigned indigation?
Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - The Obama Presidency - hopes and predictions

Or this one where larrymcg421 found him to be talking out of his ass about it, making a short bus joke?
Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - The Obama Presidency - hopes and predictions

SI

MBBF will claim plausible deniability and try to change the subject by mentioning how "surprised" he is that some poll showing Obama with 13% approval isn't being talked about.

Some conservatives will come in and take a shot at the liberals while pretending to be unbiased - "I don't agree with what MBBF said, but it's pretty sad you guys are making this big a deal about it."

molson will complain about some time a Democrat said something insensitive and we didn't care about it.

There, I saved us about two pages.

LMAO @ larry