The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JPhillips]

Or my preferred nominee:

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

[Swaggs]

Sweet.

Another Ivy Leaguer (w/ Stevens leaving, this will make 9 of 9!) justice from NY/NJ! Good to see some diversity on the High Court.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Kagan is the SCOTUS nominee. Good choice. It will be hard for the Republicans to oppose her.

I liked Stevens comments on how it is inappropriate to try and determine exactly how a justice will rule. Yet I'm sure we will get more of that this time around.

While I appreciate the bold move from Obama, I fear this nomination of Larry Summers to the high court will be seen as pandering to the transgender lobby.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You basically beat me to it. Although I'll concede that he probably meant "oppose with a to-the-death-filibuster" a great deal more than simply "oppose".

This.

Obviously she won't make it through 100-0, but they won't be able to defeat her or even filibuster her. She's too obviously qualified like Roberts and Alito (despite John Kerry's idiotic attempt to try and start a filibuster from overseas).

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by digamma

While I appreciate the bold move from Obama, I fear this nomination of Larry Summers to the high court will be seen as pandering to the transgender lobby.

We do need a tg on the court, but we also need an Asian. So I hope they're looking for a good tg Asian to put on the court of appeals.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

We do need a tg on the court, but we also need an Asian. So I hope they're looking for a good tg Asian to put on the court of appeals.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Sweet.

Another Ivy Leaguer (w/ Stevens leaving, this will make 9 of 9) justice from NY/NJ! Good to see some diversity on the High Court.

I don't think the supreme court needs that kind of diversity. It needs brilliant legal minds and skillful legal writing, and you find that at the ivies, for the most part.

Kagan is perfectly qualified. I'm sure there will some be opposition, just as there was for John Roberts. But both are really unbelievable, brilliant people whose qualifications can only be questioned by those using the confirmation process as a political convention or something.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Sweet.

Another Ivy Leaguer (w/ Stevens leaving, this will make 9 of 9!) justice from NY/NJ! Good to see some diversity on the High Court.

I guess if the biggest criticism of the Supreme Court is that they come from the best schools in the country, that's a good thing.

[molson]

And for the people criticizing her appearance - give me a fucking break. Sexism is so accepted in this country its ridiculous. When a woman is appointed, or runs for something, her appearance, positive or negative, is a discussion point - maybe the most talked about discussion point.

[larrymcg421]

I would say that anyone criticizing her appearance should at least have the guts to post in the "What do you look like?" thread.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

And for the people criticizing her appearance - give me a fucking break. Sexism is so accepted in this country its ridiculous. When a woman is appointed, or runs for something, her appearance, positive or negative, is a discussion point - maybe the most talked about discussion point.

It's pretty fucking pathetic how we treat women in this country when it comes to politics. It doesn't matter what they've accomplished in life or what their plans are, it's whether they are dressed up pretty and wearing nice clothes.

[Kodos]

I agree. We need more Kathy Griffin's in power!

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think the supreme court needs that kind of diversity. It needs brilliant legal minds and skillful legal writing, and you find that at the ivies, for the most part.

Kagan is perfectly qualified. I'm sure there will some be opposition, just as there was for John Roberts. But both are really unbelievable, brilliant people whose qualifications can only be questioned by those using the confirmation process as a political convention or something.

I'm no legal expert and I know that the best law schools largely reside in the Ivy League.

I'm not sure exactly how to articulate this, but for lack of better terms, it seems sort of inbred to have the Supreme Court made up, entirely, of graduates from (almost literally) the same 3 or 4 schools who were likely trained and mentored under the same handful of legal scholars.

Aren't there any equally qualified candidates that are not from Yale, Harvard, or Columbia? Perhaps someone from Stanford or Michigan or Duke or Georgetown? I don't know -- maybe it doesn't matter in the end, but it seems like if we are going to be pushing for diversity, we could get a little regional diversity, so that the court is a little bit more representitive of the country.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's pretty fucking pathetic how we treat women in this country when it comes to politics. It doesn't matter what they've accomplished in life or what their plans are, it's whether they are dressed up pretty and wearing nice clothes.

Then again, people made fun of Ross Perot's ears too.

[Ksyrup]

In fairness to those making fun of her appearance, even if she dressed up pretty and wore nice clothes, it wouldn't help.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I'm no legal expert and I know that the best law schools largely reside in the Ivy League.

I'm not sure exactly how to articulate this, but for lack of better terms, it seems sort of inbred to have the Supreme Court made up, entirely, of graduates from (almost literally) the same 3 or 4 schools who were likely trained and mentored under the same handful of legal scholars.

Aren't there any equally qualified candidates that are not from Yale, Harvard, or Columbia? Perhaps someone from Stanford or Michigan or Duke or Georgetown? I don't know -- maybe it doesn't matter in the end, but it seems like if we are going to be pushing for diversity, we could get a little regional diversity, so that the court is a little bit more representitive of the country.

Linking to Wiki here, not as a definitive source in & of itself but rather as a compilation of links to the various ranking systems.

I've looked at about half the ones mentioned on the site & it does appear that the "Top 14" are pretty much the same in each credible method, just in some different order. Yale & Harvard are typically 1 & 2, but Stanford actually ranks 3rd ahead of Columbia in the better known lists. And some specific measures put the Univ. of Chicago ahead of Columbia as well.

Notably though, I'm talking about the latest rankings ... which really wouldn't be applicable to SCOTUS candidates today, only (theoretically) some years down the road.

[Buccaneer]

Snippet from Roland Martin:

Guy-Uriel Charles, founding director of the Duke Law Center on Law, Race and Politics, has heavily scrutinized Kagan's hiring record as head of Harvard Law School. In a scathing blog post, he has said that of the 29 positions Kagan had a chance to fill, 28 were white and one was Asian-American. And of the group, only six were women -- five white and one Asian-American.

These numbers on the surface are appalling, and would be ripped to shreds by those who value diversity, but my gut tells me that even though Kagan has been tapped by Obama, the normally vocal and persistent voices in this area will be tight-lipped and quiet, unwilling to oppose or heavily criticize the nomination of a woman to the court, and especially one made by an African-American Democratic president.

[molson]

That's pretty much the distribution of race/gender at the upper levels of the legal profession now. Minorities and women didn't really break into law schools to any significant degree until the 70s. And it takes 20-30 years to get to the top of the legal profession. So who knows what the race/gender of any other applicants that were turned down those jobs even was.

I happen to be, right now, at a legal education thing in D.C. - one of the supplemental handouts is entitled "How to write like Elena Kagan". She's very respected in the legal community. And though she's an east-coast ivy-leaguer, she is an interesting, bold, pick because she's never been a judge. And while we know her politics (staunch democrat), we don't know anything about her appellate law philosophies, because she hasn't been a judge. I think thdere's a good chance she's a "centrist" when it comes to judicial philosophy. Great pick by Obama, IMO.

[larrymcg421]

So I read this scathing blog post, instead of Roland Martin's opinion of it. He does actually pose some interesting questions about her resume, but he completely loses it with this ad hominem nonsense:

Please do not tell me that there were not enough qualified women and people of color. That's a racist and sexist statement. It cannot be the case that there was not a single qualified black, Latino or Native-American legal academic that would qualify for tenure at Harvard Law School during Elena Kagan's tenure. To believe otherwise is to harbor troubling racist views.

No need to actually, you know, try to do research on the issue. It takes much less time to just call people racist.

I do love that they're bringing up the lack of female hires to support their point, as if she's sexist and doesn't think women should attain high levels in the legal profession. I guess she failed miserably at that, what with getting herself nominated to the Supreme Court and all.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

I think there's a good chance she's a "centrist" when it comes to judicial philosophy.

Bwahahahaha.

If there was any real chance of that, Obama wouldn't have picked her.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Bwahahahaha.

If there was any real chance of that, Obama wouldn't have picked her.

Except, it is true.

Maybe not so conservative that she'd be embraced by the firebreathing right, but she's going to get absolutely no love from progressives and hasn't yet. Because this was a middle of the road pick for the President. There are liberal jurists out there that would've been far more controversial.

Picking the former dean of HLS is not some thumb to the nose of jurisprudence, no matter how much NRO wants you to believe otherwise.

Kagan is an establishment pick by a President owes too many people his political existence to make bold choices on much of anything.

This article begins to explain it: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/us...minees.html?hp

[Young Drachma]

Dola:

Here's an article that discusses it.

News Analysis - Kagan Nomination Leaves Longing on the Left - NYTimes.com

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Glad to see a bipartisan bill coming through that addresses Obama's State Of The Union speech demand for a single website where all pork spending is available for everyone to view.

Coburn Bill Targets Earmarks - Roll Call

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Except, it is true.

Maybe not so conservative that she'd be embraced by the firebreathing right, but she's going to get absolutely no love from progressives and hasn't yet. Because this was a middle of the road pick for the President. There are liberal jurists out there that would've been far more controversial.

Well, it's the middle of the road for this President, hell it's probably right of center for a lot of his supporters. But that doesn't make her actually centrist either. Remember, Dan Rather believes he's a moderate, but it doesn't make it so.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Dola:

Here's an article that discusses it.

News Analysis - Kagan Nomination Leaves Longing on the Left - NYTimes.com

Great article. Key quote for me was:

Richard A. Posner, a conservative appeals court judge in Chicago, and William M. Landes, his colleague from the University of Chicago law school, ranked all 43 justices from 1937 to 2006 by ideology and found that four of the five most conservative ones are on the current court. Even the moderate swing vote, Justice Kennedy, was the 10th most conservative over that period. By contrast, none of the current justices ranks among the five most liberal members, and only Justice Ginsburg is in the top 10.

And note, this is Posner's conclusion, not some left-winger.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Well, it's the middle of the road for this President, hell it's probably right of center for a lot of his supporters. But that doesn't make her actually centrist either. Remember, Dan Rather believes he's a moderate, but it doesn't make it so.

It's all relative to where you stand, no? When you're as far right as you are, center-left is still far-left because you probably view center-right (RINOs you call them) as left-wing.

All I know is that if the far-left and the far-right are complaining about the pick, he's done a decent job.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by lungs

It's all relative to where you stand, no? When you're as far right as you are, center-left is still far-left because you probably view center-right (RINOs you call them) as left-wing.

All I know is that if the far-left and the far-right are complaining about the pick, he's done a decent job.

I'm sure Arlen Specter isn't happy about it. I saw a discussion last night where they noted that he came out against her when she was initially approved for Solicitor General. Now, it will be interesting to see if he continues to have those same concerns.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm sure Arlen Specter isn't happy about it. I saw a discussion last night where they noted that he came out against her when she was initially approved for Solicitor General. Now, it will be interesting to see if he continues to have those same concerns.

Doesn't look like it.

[Swaggs]

There is a pretty good chance that Specter could be defeated in the PA Dem. primary today. It will be interesting to see if he goes quietly, since his roots in the Democratic Party are obviously not very deep, or if he decides to run as an independent.

If he decides to "retire," we'll get to see how he really feels with his votes over the next few months.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

There is a pretty good chance that Specter could be defeated in the PA Dem. primary today.

I believe they actually vote next Tuesday instead of today.

[larrymcg421]

Kagan will be largely irrelevant overall. The game changer will be when Kennedy retires.

Also, this won't be Obama's last SCOTUS appointment. I highly doubt Ginsburg stays on through the end of his first term.

[RainMaker]

I'm in favor of non-extremists on the court from both sides. Lets just get some smart people in there.

Although for those on the far left, I can understand the frustration. I mean Obama could nominate a clone of Scalia and the right would say it's an extreme liberal. So if you're going to be labeled that no matter what you do, why not get the person you want in best?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Meanwhile, the 3rd most R-leaning district in the country (GA-9) is voting today, with a crowded field of 8 contenders vying to complete the term of Nathan Deal who resigned to focus on his campaign for governor.

With about 3/4ths of the votes in, looks like it'll come down to a runoff between former state Rep Tom Graves & former state Sen Lee Hawkins, with Graves pulling around 35% today to Hawkins 25%. That sets up a bit of a Northwest vs Northeast battle with Graves stronger toward the TN border and Hawkins base in the easternmost part of the district in Hall County.

The lone Dem in the field finished 5th, with 5.6% at the moment, the lone declared Indy is headed for a last place finish unless he picks a couple of dozen votes more than the other backmarkers.

The race was being seen by some as another test of Tea Party influence, as Graves had their support. Personally, it looks a lot more to me like geography keyed a lot of votes and Graves probably got a little extra play from getting a tax cut through the recent legislative session.

Also today, former President Carter's grandson is rolling to a state Senate seat in the liberal enclave of Decatur & the former county extension agent where I grew up picks up a state House seat (Graves' old seat) with around 80% of the vote in his race.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Kagan will be largely irrelevant overall. The game changer will be when Kennedy retires.

Also, this won't be Obama's last SCOTUS appointment. I highly doubt Ginsburg stays on through the end of his first term.

I still don't think Kennedy will be that big of a deal. A lot of the major social issues have been tackled by the courts and there are just not a lot of issues that would dramatically change the country.

Even a hot button issue like abortion I don't see changing even if Kennedy is replaced by a hardcore conservative.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I believe they actually vote next Tuesday instead of today.

Good call -- I thought it was now because we voted in West Virginia today. I kept checking for results from PA and then finally read that it wasn't until next week.

On a semi-related note, incumbant Rep. Alan Mollohan, one of the three WV representitives, lost in the Democratic primary today to State Senator Mike Oliverio (who is from Morgantown and I know from my Little League days). Mollohan had been in congress since 1982 (and his dad held the seat from 1968 to 1982). Oliverio will likely be the favorite to win in the general election.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Good call -- I thought it was now because we voted in West Virginia today. I kept checking for results from PA and then finally read that it wasn't until next week.

On a semi-related note, incumbant Rep. Alan Mollohan, one of the three WV representitives, lost in the Democratic primary today to State Senator Mike Oliverio (who is from Morgantown and I know from my Little League days). Mollohan had been in congress since 1982 (and his dad held the seat from 1968 to 1982). Oliverio will likely be the favorite to win in the general election.

Glad to see these incumbents (Bennett out earlier this week) get tossed out. Oliverio seems like a hybrid rather than a true Democrat.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I highly doubt Ginsburg stays on through the end of his first term.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Although for those on the far left, I can understand the frustration. I mean Obama could nominate a clone of Scalia and the right would say it's an extreme liberal. So if you're going to be labeled that no matter what you do, why not get the person you want in best?

While I would prefer a left-wing counterweight to Scalia (hence my lobbying for Diane Wood), I can see what Obama's doing here. Basically he's trying to put in a few politically-saavy, centrist consensus-builders to build a strong center-left coalition to combat the right-wing ideologues (Scalia, Thomas, Alito) and there supposed minder (Roberts). It's a pretty typical move from the Obama playbook.

I'm fine with Kagan, but the fact that she's clearly an unabashed careerist and seems more interested in winning than principles means I'm not going to be a full-throated supporter. Stevens, after all, managed to focus on both of these aspects (the political and the principle) on the Court. And Wood manages to get Posner & Easterbrook to reconsider their preconceived notions, and even decisions every once in a while.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I still don't think Kennedy will be that big of a deal. A lot of the major social issues have been tackled by the courts and there are just not a lot of issues that would dramatically change the country.

Even a hot button issue like abortion I don't see changing even if Kennedy is replaced by a hardcore conservative.

If Kennedy gets replaced by a hardcore conservative Roe v. Wade gets overturned in all but name. Other than that, perhaps not much would change, but that would mainly be a factor of the SCOTUS not being interested in backing up progressive social legislation (gay marriage being an obvious example, but there are others). It goes without saying that this would be attractive to a good number of folks, though.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

While I would prefer a left-wing counterweight to Scalia (hence my lobbying for Diane Wood), I can see what Obama's doing here. Basically he's trying to put in a few politically-saavy, centrist consensus-builders to build a strong center-left coalition to combat the right-wing ideologues (Scalia, Thomas, Alito) and there supposed minder (Roberts). It's a pretty typical move from the Obama playbook.

I'm fine with Kagan, but the fact that she's clearly an unabashed careerist and seems more interested in winning than principles means I'm not going to be a full-throated supporter. Stevens, after all, managed to focus on both of these aspects (the political and the principle) on the Court. And Wood manages to get Posner & Easterbrook to reconsider their preconceived notions, and even decisions every once in a while.

I'm not arguing one direction or the other. I'm just saying that if your centrist judge is going to be portrayed as a far-left liberal, then why not just pick a far-left liberal if it's what you want? The right has done a great job of making centrists look like they are far to the left over the years.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If Kennedy gets replaced by a hardcore conservative Roe v. Wade gets overturned in all but name. Other than that, perhaps not much would change, but that would mainly be a factor of the SCOTUS not being interested in backing up progressive social legislation (gay marriage being an obvious example, but there are others). It goes without saying that this would be attractive to a good number of folks, though.

I'm not too sure about that. I don't believe Roberts is the ideologue that Alito, Thomas, and Scalia are.

Roberts seems to love how Marshall ran the court and I believe he understands how bad division is amongst it. He has stated on numerous occasions that Roe vs. Wade is settled law and seems to respect precedents set by previous courts. I could be wrong on this, but I just don't think Roberts is the kind of guy who is going to tip the scales on a hot-button issue like this. I think it will be avoided for a very long time due to the nature of what overturning it would do.

And the irony of the abortion debate is that it wouldn't outlaw abortion. It would just turn it over to the states. And while gay marriage is an important issue too, it's not as serious as decisions made decades ago that changed the entire landscape of our country. If gay marriage is legalized, nothing much will change. And the fact is, it will be legalized regardless someday as younger generations are growing up with it in their lives.

[JPhillips]

Well Roberts was at the heart of overturning the corporate political money ban, even expanding what the court was looking at so they could make a much broader ruling.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm not arguing one direction or the other. I'm just saying that if your centrist judge is going to be portrayed as a far-left liberal, then why not just pick a far-left liberal if it's what you want? The right has done a great job of making centrists look like they are far to the left over the years.

That's so easy to answer that you ought to be ashamed of not thinking of it yourself.

This particular left-winger doesn't seem (IMO or anyone else's that I've read) likely to be fillibustered. Grilled, with a lot of votes against, but ultimately approved with relative ease.

Pick a completely over the top nutjob (as opposed to a run of the mill lefty) and you run into a much better chance of serious opposition instead of the token stuff that we seem most likely to see.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm not arguing one direction or the other. I'm just saying that if your centrist judge is going to be portrayed as a far-left liberal, then why not just pick a far-left liberal if it's what you want?

LOL Jon answered for me.

But to elaborate: disparage Senate Republicans as I might, there are enough with a shred of realism left who wouldn't really filibuster a centrist judge but would absolutely filibuster a far-left judge. Or at least not vote for cloture / vote for cloture.

Snowe, Collins and even Brown spring immediately to mind, but there are others.

I'm not too sure about that. I don't believe Roberts is the ideologue that Alito, Thomas, and Scalia are.

???

I refer you to what I wrote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

right-wing ideologues (Scalia, Thomas, Alito) and their supposed minder (Roberts)

Roberts was an incredibly saavy pick by Bush, especially as Chief Justice. Sure, he's somewhat of an ideologue, especially on particular issues, but his main value will be to organize and consolidate conservative opinion on the bench for decades, something at which he's already proving adept.

Someone in the Bush Administration got this and clearly Roberts was aimed at the CJ role for them from the beginning (had Rheinquist not died when he had, Roberts would have been confirmed as an AJ and then elevated to the CJ later). Contrast this to the selection of Alito once the Roberts business was done. Alito is clearly an ideologue.

Roberts seems to love how Marshall ran the court and I believe he understands how bad division is amongst it. He has stated on numerous occasions that Roe vs. Wade is settled law and seems to respect precedents set by previous courts. I could be wrong on this, but I just don't think Roberts is the kind of guy who is going to tip the scales on a hot-button issue like this. I think it will be avoided for a very long time due to the nature of what overturning it would do.

Roberts won't have to overturn Roe. If Kennedy retires and is replaced by a hardcore conservative then either:

1. Another justice will lead the charge to overturn Roe when the inevitable case gets to the SCOTUS and Roberts will merely join the majority

or

2. Through a series of decisions Roe will be overturned in all but name (perhaps the only excepts left would be ones when the life of the mother and/or fetus is clearly and unambiguously in danger).

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Libertarian response to Supreme Court political games

May 13, 2010

Contact: Wes Benedict, Executive Director
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: 202-333-0008 ext. 222

Libertarians say Kagan is bad, but bigger problem exists

WASHINGTON - Wes Benedict, Executive Director of the Libertarian Party, issued the following statement today:

"Elena Kagan is another bad pick for the Supreme Court. If confirmed, it is likely that she will vote on cases with the intent of advancing political policy goals.

"Kagan will probably vote to advance liberal policy goals, just as some other justices vote to advance conservative policy goals. That is not the place of justices, who should be applying the Constitution, not trying to rewrite it to make society work better according to their views.

"However, the bitter battles over Supreme Court justices expose a more serious problem in our federal government: the legislative and executive branches simply refuse to take the Constitution seriously.

"Once upon a time, Congress felt it had a duty to legislate in accordance with the Constitution. Likewise, past presidents believed that they should veto laws that were not clearly constitutional. But in more recent years, both branches have thrown this crucial duty away. Now their attitude seems to be, 'We can pass anything we want to, and let the Supreme Court deal with it if they don't like it.' That was absolutely not what the American Founders had in mind.

"We shouldn't have to worry so much about who gets appointed to the Supreme Court. It shouldn't be the case that a single justice can make all of American society lurch from one direction to another. They shouldn't have that much power.

"Republicans who want to throw stones at Kagan, ought to ask themselves why they supported the Bush Administration's blatantly unconstitutional Patriot Act, or why they supported huge expansions of the blatantly unconstitutional Medicare program. When they were in power, they showed absolutely no respect for the Constitution.

"I wish that President Obama had picked a nominee with more regard for the original intent of the Constitution. But even more than that, I wish that he and the members of Congress would stop shirking their responsibility to apply the Constitution themselves."

For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.
.

.

[JPhillips]

Scandal trifecta day.

Blumenthal(D) running for Senate in CT has been embellishing his Vietnam era service over the past several years.

Lowden(R) Reid's main competition in NV had a bus donated by a supporter which breaks the contribution cap by tens of thousands of dollars

and Rep. Souder(R-IN) isn't as family friendly as he's been saying over the years. He's resigning because an affair with a staffer(at least it's a she) has come to light.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Blumenthal(D) running for Senate in CT has been embellishing his Vietnam era service over the past several years.

You know you're in trouble when the New York Times leads with a 3 (online) page, multi-reporter story detailing exactly how you've been lying....

Seriously, what an idiot.

[tyketime]

And yet his staff members are already condemning the "gross misrepresentation" of his statements.

Where is Animal Planet when you need it? Morgan Freeman: "This is the all too common American Weasel in it's natural habitat..."

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

and Rep. Souder(R-IN) isn't as family friendly as he's been saying over the years. He's resigning because an affair with a staffer(at least it's a she) has come to light.

Best part of his resignation statement:

"In the poisonous environment of Washington D.C., any personal failing is seized upon, often twisted, for political gain."

He's all pissed that people won't let him just boink his assistants without bothering him.

[panerd]

Rand Paul has his Kentucky Senate primary today. The media still doesn't understand the Tea Party movement or it's anger as all of the mainstream articles are written focusing on Republican candidate Trey Grayson and the Democratic candidates instead of Paul who should win today and will probably win the senate seat. Oh well at some point they will realize that the people are actually pissed off and Fox News and CNN can longer spin things to keep the Republicrats in office.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

Rand Paul has his Kentucky Senate primary today. The media still doesn't understand the Tea Party movement or it's anger as all of the mainstream articles are written focusing on Republican candidate Trey Grayson and the Democratic candidates instead of Paul who should win today and will probably win the senate seat. Oh well at some point they will realize that the people are actually pissed off and Fox News and CNN can longer spin things to keep the Republicrats in office.

Come again? It took me about 1 minute to find a CNN article picking this as one of the races to watch and mentioning that Paul is kicking Grayson's ass in the polls.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

Rand Paul has his Kentucky Senate primary today. The media still doesn't understand the Tea Party movement or it's anger as all of the mainstream articles are written focusing on Republican candidate Trey Grayson and the Democratic candidates instead of Paul who should win today and will probably win the senate seat. Oh well at some point they will realize that the people are actually pissed off and Fox News and CNN can longer spin things to keep the Republicrats in office.

So are you coming out as a Tea Partier now?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Come again? It took me about 1 minute to find a CNN article picking this as one of the races to watch and mentioning that Paul is kicking Grayson's ass in the polls.

The Grayson-Paul race was also one of the lead stories on this morning's Morning Edition and last night's All Things Considered (both on NPR).