Althouse: "Snowe's Gift To Obama."

February 29, 2012

"Snowe's Gift To Obama."

An Andrew Sullivan blog post title.

167 comments:

NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Snow's gift to Al Gore.; 2/29/12, 9:51 AM
edutcher said...: Getting rid of one of the Weird Sisters is like getting rid of Arlen Specter. A gift to the nation.

And, of course, she was going to be primaried; after all, when history calls, history calls.

PS I can see the Establishment News Media is laying the FUD as deep as they can.; 2/29/12, 9:52 AM
cubanbob said...: Goodbye and good riddance. One less RINO to have to compromise with.; 2/29/12, 9:56 AM
MayBee said...: Sullivan's Sense of Snowe; 2/29/12, 9:58 AM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: Sullivan blogs about Olympia?

This is almost too easy.

"Snowe, meet Flake."; 2/29/12, 9:58 AM
Wince said...: Following the logic, the "help" she might provide by retiring is increasing the "obstructionist" bent of the congress in the Senate.

Isn't that the purported complaint of Obama and Snowe right now?; 2/29/12, 10:05 AM
sakredkow said...: Personally I think some of you moderate Republicans have to think about this. Yes, she was probably more liberal than many of you, but she is trying to tell you something. The far right-wing is damaging the party's chances in November and maybe beyond.
I know. I'm trolling.; 2/29/12, 10:06 AM
sakredkow said...: Actually I shouldn't have even posted the above comment. Moderate Republicans already know this, or my two cents aren't gonna mean anything anyway.; 2/29/12, 10:08 AM
Sofa King said...: Nobody would deny that Obama knows a lot about Snow. Oh, we're talking about Snowe?; 2/29/12, 10:09 AM
Richard Dolan said...: It's only a gift to Obama if he's the winner in November, which seems quite doubtful. Instead, by adding a likely new Dem to the Senate, it will be a check on the next Rep administration of President Romney.

Consider it Snowe's gift to Althouse and those like her who prefer divided government in Washington.; 2/29/12, 10:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Is it a gift to Republicans when a conservative Democrat retires? Because virtually all Democrats south of Maryland are conservative in just as many ways as Snowe is liberal.

So, phx, lefties: gift or not? Please give us your convoluted reasons that make you feel better in your cocoon either way. Thanks.; 2/29/12, 10:13 AM
Carol_Herman said...: There was a Tea Party candidate that was giving her seat a run. I think he dropped out. Now? The republicans can't get a "name" in there who can beat the republican in November.

That could mean the Pubbie's are "one senate seat down?"

The Chinless Wonder may stay "leader" of the Minority Party?

Snowe retires with a nice pension. For her, there's no downside.

Plus, there's an article up at REDDIT that questions Romney's votes, across the board. With an analytical approach to cheating, when counting results.

Why would the republican party not want honest counts? Beats me.; 2/29/12, 10:13 AM
sakredkow said...: Seven: I don't know who gets to claim this as a gift - have to ask the IRS I guess.

My only thought FWIW is that it's a measure of discontentment in the ranks of the GOP. You can argue either that it's no such thing or it only shows discontentment among the farthest left wing of the GOP so good riddance.

I'm making a gut-instinct judgment that it's like the proverbial canary in the mind, tweeting its head off.; 2/29/12, 10:18 AM
MadisonMan said...: Consider it Snowe's gift to Althouse and those like her who prefer divided government in Washington.

I say thank you.

It's a gift whenever an incumbent retires. Thank you Mrs. Enoch Snowe.

Okay, that's not her first name, but I love that song.; 2/29/12, 10:19 AM
The Drill SGT said...: Snowe was about as conservative as you could get and be elected in Maine. No matter what her voting record on the little stuff, she was a sure vote for McConnell and a pretty solid vote on other party issues... just as conservative dems (Manchin anyone?) are to Reid.

She will be missed next year....; 2/29/12, 10:19 AM
sakredkow said...: "proverbial canary in the mind"

Happy accident. I like it.; 2/29/12, 10:20 AM
edutcher said...: John M Auston wins the thread.

Sofa King maybe wins the blog, as far as the election goes.; 2/29/12, 10:20 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "Personally I think some of you moderate Republicans have to think about this. Yes, she was probably more liberal than many of you, but she is trying to tell you something. The far right-wing is damaging the party's chances in November and maybe beyond."

-- That's not what we heard about the Great Blue Dog purge or when the Cornhusker kickback Dem retired. How come moderate Republicans retiring is a sign of a deadly shift to the right, while moderate Democrats retiring is never a sign of a deadly shift to the left?; 2/29/12, 10:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Was it the canary in the coal mine when Zell Miller gave the nomination speech for Bush in 2004?

What about when Jim Webb's disagreements with Democrats and then his retirement announcement? What does your gut tell you about that?

Your gut is full of shit, dude. Your canary doesn't know anything about politics. This is because your canary is actually your id. You just aren't self-conscious enough to understand this fact, or why.; 2/29/12, 10:23 AM
sakredkow said...: Seven: That's fine.; 2/29/12, 10:24 AM
MayBee said...: The far right-wing is damaging the party's chances in November and maybe beyond.

It could also be said the far-left wing of the Democratic party is keeping things from being done in the Senate.
They are also damaging Obama. Imagine if they hadn't put in the insurance mandate, which most Americans find unconstitutional. Obama would be able to easily sweep in Independents and liberal Republicans!; 2/29/12, 10:25 AM
garage mahal said...: Yes, good riddance. And thanks for the seat!; 2/29/12, 10:25 AM
MadisonMan said...: which most Americans find unconstitutional.

As if that's relevant. Only five people in particular have to find it so.; 2/29/12, 10:27 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "Yes, good riddance. And thanks for the seat!"

Because a Republican could never win Snowe's seat.

Oh, wait.; 2/29/12, 10:27 AM
Matt Sablan said...: And Republicans have never settled for someone ideologically impure. Remember how they turned against Scott Brown and drove him from the primary? What about how they rejected Chris Christie and his breaks from Republican orthodoxy, keeping him from the governor's mansion.

Oh, wait.; 2/29/12, 10:29 AM
Nathan Alexander said...: Snowe's statement:
what motivates me is producing results for those who have entrusted me to be their voice and their champion, and I am filled with that same sense of responsibility today as I was on my first day in the Maine House of Representatives. I do find it frustrating, however, that an atmosphere of polarization and 'my way or the highway' ideologies has become pervasive in campaigns and in our governing institutions.

"With my Spartan ancestry I am a fighter at heart; and I am well prepared for the electoral battle, so that is not the issue. However, what I have had to consider is how productive an additional term would be. Unfortunately, I do not realistically expect the partisanship of recent years in the Senate to change over the short term.
The Democrat-controlled Senate hasn't passed a budget in more than 3 years, but the Lefty liberals see the statement as directed at the GOP.

Hmm...

A parsing of Liberal Democrat reactions:
"Yeah, those dickhead Rethuglicans are resisting a bi-partisan agreement to vastly increase taxes and spending out of partisanship and racism. They are just like Hitler's Nazis in their exaggerated comparisons when they try to deny the Rights to free contraception and gay marriage mentioned in the Constitution. If they don't learn to be more civil, they should be lined up against a wall and shot like the stupid, rabid dogs they are."; 2/29/12, 10:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Madison -- You aren't right. Consider the politics of the Commerce Clause cases during the FDR administration. Why did more than five members of the Court suddenly find such a bracing change in what the Commerce Clause means?; 2/29/12, 10:30 AM
traditionalguy said...: The RINOs were never really worth much to the GOP.They sold out two-thirds of the time the Dems offered them anything.

Maine voters must like losing their rights under some noble cause delusion just to get some attention for being there.; 2/29/12, 10:32 AM
BarrySanders20 said...: Snowe's 30 year legacy in Congress:

1982 Total Debt: $2T and 36.8% of GDP

2011: Total Debt: $15T and 99.7% of GDP

Compromise on everything except the endless expansion of the federal government. She is part of the problem.; 2/29/12, 10:32 AM
Scott M said...: Maine voters must like losing their rights under some noble cause delusion just to get some attention for being there.

There are no Maine voters nor, in fact, a place called Maine. It's all a narrative construct by some obscure third-rate author named King. Ayup.; 2/29/12, 10:34 AM
MadisonMan said...: Seven, how am I supposed to snark if you make me snark factually?

I am unconvinced that the majority of Americans who find the Mandate to be unconstitutional are doing anything but parrotting a talking point they've heard or expressing their valid objections to the law in a way that they perceive makes them sound smart.

The logical follow-on to the question of the public as to whether the mandate is unconstitutional is How but a pollster never asks that.; 2/29/12, 10:36 AM
Nathan Alexander said...: Look, just be ready for election season:

Anything that happens, and I literally mean anything, will be spun as benefiting Obama and Democrats.

They are trying to create a narrative that will excite Democrat voters and demoralize Republican voters, and have an additional benefit in providing justification for Gregoire/Franken-style attempts to cheat their way to close elections, then selectively enfranchise/disenfranchise the right mix of votes to steal an election.; 2/29/12, 10:38 AM
Henry said...: Actually, a split Congress, if that is what we get, is a gift to everyone.; 2/29/12, 10:38 AM
Cedarford said...: cubanbob said...
Goodbye and good riddance. One less RINO to have to compromise with.

=============
Yeah!
Likely you will have a Democrat liberal not willing to give you 5% of what you brain-dead far righters want, vs. Stowe giving 80-85% of what you want...
Progress!
No ground to compromise with a true Democrat, and if that means Republicans purge themselves down to a hardcore of 15% of the US population with ideas that drive off moderates and independents....you can have all the PURITY you want...because what you say and what you want will have no consequence.
Because you don't have the votes!; 2/29/12, 10:39 AM
Scott M said...: Anything that happens, and I literally mean anything, will be spun as benefiting Obama and Democrats.

For some reason that reminded me of the SNL/Assange quip "If I'm found dead, even if there's a suicide note, it was murder."; 2/29/12, 10:40 AM
MadisonMan said...: Here's an early clip of Olympia singing a song to Susan Collins.

Link; 2/29/12, 10:41 AM
Christopher said...: If Hot Air is to be believed there seems to be more to this than is being reported:

-She didn't tell her staff until yesterday (just a few hours before she made the announcement)

-She had no serious primary challengers

-She was campaigning for re-election in a serious manner.

She may not have been well liked but she was not about to be primaried (were that the issue she would most likely just go independent).

The sudden nature of this suggests a major health concern which must be addressed or major controversy in the works.; 2/29/12, 10:41 AM
Chip Ahoy said...: This
tongue
whole
tongue
time
tongue
I
tongue
was
tongue
thi
tongue
king
tongue
a
tongue
bout
tongue
Su
tongue
san
tongue
Col
tongue
lins.; 2/29/12, 10:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Madison -- I agree that blog comments aren't for constitutional dissertations. Nevertheless, my point, that the Supreme Court is a lot more subject to democratic fancy than you suggest, is valid. Because it's true.

The logical follow-on to the question of the public as to whether the mandate is unconstitutional is How but a pollster never asks that.

Two brief points here. First, Americans were for FDR's absurd agricultural policies. Did they ask How such policies worked? Doubtful. Second, we heard that Americans were against the Iraq War. Pollsters did not Why. The answer, it turned out, was because Americans wanted to Win and they perceived we were Losing.

Finally, I read something interesting yesterday. It was: the conservative activism by the Court recently has muddied the law just as much as liberal activism did before. That is a profound statement on the role of the Court, and how the Court has failed the last several decades. Completely.; 2/29/12, 10:43 AM
sakredkow said...: I think the issue should become who's willing to compromise and negotiate vs. who's going to be a bitter ender. That's how I'd try to frame it for the advantage of the Democrats.

And that's how I'd spin Snowe's exit. Of course this is just fantasy on my part, so don't anyone wail and weep.; 2/29/12, 10:43 AM
Anonymous said...: phx -- I love how you aggressively post utter bullshit and, when it is demonstrated as hopelessly wrong bullshit, you immediately become passive.

It's like some psychological phenomenon. Too bad no psychologist has fleshed it out.; 2/29/12, 10:48 AM
BarrySanders20 said...: Scott M:

I think Maine really does exist, unless my parents were lying about where we were. I went there once as a child and ate a doughnut on Wells Beach. I remember because the water was so very cold. I even remember a joke that an codger told us in an antique store:

"So I says to my wife with the wooden leg, 'Peg, what's eatin' at ya?'
'Termites,' she said, 'But I can't kick.' "

Madison: it is unconstitutional because it forces me to buy something (engage in commerce) from a private company against my will. If Congress had used it tax power to compel coverage, then no worries. But it didn't use its tax powers because the law would never have passed as a tax. Whether the law is constitutional now is all about power and the willingness to play make-believe.; 2/29/12, 10:48 AM
MayBee said...: MadMan-

As if that's relevant. Only five people in particular have to find it so

It's relevant to how voters think about the people who made the law. Which is what we were talking about.; 2/29/12, 10:50 AM
Christopher in MA said...: "Likely you will have a Democrat liberal not willing to give you 5% of what you brain-dead far righters want. . ."

I would much rather have a clear identifiable enemy than a supposed "friend" who keeps you on pins and needles because you don't know when or if she's going to stab you in the back.

Perhaps you've forgotten, gruppenfuhrer, that this miserable scrunt inflicted Obamacare on us by letting the damned thing out of committee. And when the full folly of what she had done becaume evident, she whined that it wasn't her fault, because she was led to believe that she would have the opportunity to amend it from the floor. If, after all her years in the Senate, she hadn't learned by then that there is no such thing as an honest Democrat, then she's dumber than a box of hair and we're better off without her.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.; 2/29/12, 10:50 AM
sakredkow said...: I love how you aggressively post utter bullshit and, when it is demonstrated as hopelessly wrong bullshit, you immediately become passive.

Actually it's because I'm scared you're mentally ill.; 2/29/12, 10:50 AM
Bob_R said...: I like how she criticized the "my way or the highway" attitude of her colleagues while announcing that she was hitting the highway because she didn't get her way.

Some people aren't big on irony.; 2/29/12, 10:52 AM
MayBee said...: Actually, a split Congress, if that is what we get, is a gift to everyone.

Exactly.
Gridlock is only a problem if we believe Congress's job is to keep doing more stuff.

They aren't there seriously working on solving our budget problems. They won't even propose a budget. The idea seems to be that they have all this other legislation to do, and stopping it from happening is bad bad bad.; 2/29/12, 10:54 AM
cubanbob said...: MadisonMan said...
Seven, how am I supposed to snark if you make me snark factually?

I am unconvinced that the majority of Americans who find the Mandate to be unconstitutional are doing anything but parrotting a talking point they've heard or expressing their valid objections to the law in a way that they perceive makes them sound smart.

The logical follow-on to the question of the public as to whether the mandate is unconstitutional is How but a pollster never asks that.

2/29/12 10:36 AM

Of course it never occurs to a progressive that the Supreme Court isn't likely to overturn centuries of contract law and the enumerate powers of the constitution just to grant them their wish.

C4 your idiocy and bigotry is tiresome.; 2/29/12, 10:54 AM
ed said...: It's probably due to energy prices. Maine isn't a wealthy state and being that far north with the prevalent weather patterns it is very difficult keeping the home warm this winter. A lot of people are having grave difficulties in buying enough heating oil.

You can eke out the heating oil with firewood but for older residents even that has huge difficulties involved. And regardless of Obama's FUD approach to excusing the high energy prices Snowe has a long history of opposing increasing domestic oil production.

Something that a primary would not only bring out but put up in huge letters for everyone to see and understand. That alone would probably sink her re-election.; 2/29/12, 10:57 AM
Nathan Alexander said...: @MadisonMan,
To some extent, you can classify any public opinion for or against anything as just being parroting of something they heard.

There are two ways to look at people:
1) "a camel is a horse designed by a committee"; people are stupid, and they are stupider in groups.
This is an elitist view.
2) The Wisdom of Crowds: the collective opinion of non-expert people is often (and approaches "usually") better than the opinion of established experts. This is why market economies outperform command economies. No one person can have enough information to make the right decisions, but taken as a whole, the masses of people all make individual judgments that produce a more accurate or better result than any expert.

So maybe people are just parroting the idea that the individual mandate is unConstitutional. Or maybe they have heard the US Constitution discussed enough times that they have the natural and understandable sense that mandating people to purchase something violates the simple and easily-understood principles of "All people are created equal" and "All people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

I'd go with the latter.

The former lets elites do all sorts of horrible things to the people they want to rule.; 2/29/12, 10:57 AM
damikesc said...: The same Dems who wont even pass or propose a budget? They will carry the mantle of compromise?

Romney should, in every speech, rail on the do-nothing Senate and how Obamas only success in office is increasing gas prices.

I also like the new theory that Obamacare can make insurance unusable since it cannot be claimed that the contract was entered into without coercion.; 2/29/12, 10:58 AM
garage mahal said...: Eight Republicans are leaving the House. Writing on the wall? Afraid Nancy will have that beautiful oversized gavel to beat them over the head with?; 2/29/12, 10:59 AM
ed said...: "" - phx

You know.

I always look to liberal Democrats for political advice about Republicans.; 2/29/12, 11:00 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Be nice if the other 99 would follow suit.; 2/29/12, 11:00 AM
sakredkow said...: ed - would I steer you wrong?; 2/29/12, 11:01 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... Afraid Nancy will have that beautiful oversized gavel to beat them over the head with?"

Liberals with their eliminationist rhetoric.; 2/29/12, 11:02 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... ed - would I steer you wrong?.."

Probably. Liberals have been steering the country toward the abyss for decades.; 2/29/12, 11:04 AM
Nathan Alexander said...: @Maybee,
Normally, I'd want Gridlock.

But right now what we need is a united, Tea Party-led, GOP majority in both houses of Congress to:
1) repeal Obamacare, lower taxes, and cut spending
2) cut off all the Executive Branch fiats that bypassed Congress
3) will make it easier for the GOP President to nominate Textualists to the Supreme Court.
(http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interp.html); 2/29/12, 11:05 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "Eight Republicans are leaving the House. Writing on the wall? Afraid Nancy will have that beautiful oversized gavel to beat them over the head with?"

Remember a few months ago when the Democrats had that whole string of retirement announcements?

Are these retirements more than, less than or equal to the normal expected retirements? Of, what, 500 some people, 8 is... what percent?; 2/29/12, 11:05 AM
Alex said...: garage - how many Dems retired in 2010? But when the GOP won the House, you said it meant nothing.; 2/29/12, 11:07 AM
Nathan Alexander said...: @garage,
does 8 GOPers leaving the House mean anything?

Yes, it means that the Democrats future is more than twice as bad as Republicans.

From back in Nov (I think more Democrats have announced since):
While it’s still almost a year until the 2012 midterm election, so far 17 Democrats have notified Pelosi that they will not be on the ballot to defend their congressional seats next November.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/capitol-exodus-two-more-democrats-announce-retirement/; 2/29/12, 11:09 AM
ed said...: "ed - would I steer you wrong?" - phx

I don't know. But for some reason you keep steering to the left ... and we always seem to go in circles.

:); 2/29/12, 11:11 AM
Carnifex said...: An ally you cannot depend or rely on fully is not an ally. They are at best an acquaintance who's interests coincide with yours now and them. I will not miss Ms. Snowe, but I will miss her sometime support, sometimes.

Those who are predicting Dem. increases in congress let alone the presidency, need to put the crack pipe down, and go buy a gallon of gas. Then you can tell me why you think the party that nixed drilling in ANWR, nixed the XL pipeline, shut down drilling in the gulf(for Americans), and is trying to shut down coal plants, is going to be elected by an American populous starving for jobs. Energy is needed for industry.

Obama's problem is not that the gas prices are too high. His problem is gas demand is too low. People have no desire to buy anything but necessities. And won't until they see the economy recover.(a true recovery, not the anemic crap the MSM is touting); 2/29/12, 11:11 AM
Nathan Alexander said...: Masterful juxtaposition on Drudge homepage right now:

Dems grow confident of taking back House...
OBAMA: 'A load of you-know-what'...

Sure, that's not what Obama was talking about, but it makes a nice unintended retort.; 2/29/12, 11:16 AM
MayBee said...: Obama's problem is not that the gas prices are too high. His problem is gas demand is too low.

Our local NPR station had a big story on Monday about how this is killing the funding for highway maintenance.
Which is going to be a long-term problem if mpg continues to be mandated upwards.; 2/29/12, 11:23 AM
dreams said...: Maybe she has some health problem given her decision was such a sudden reversal. I'm not buying her stated reason.; 2/29/12, 11:26 AM
Scott M said...: Maybe she has some health problem given her decision was such a sudden reversal. I'm not buying her stated reason.

Maybe the pictures finally surfaced of her weekend at Hef's back in '72.; 2/29/12, 11:28 AM
sakredkow said...: Dreams - why would she say that was her reason if it wasn't her reason? Why would she pick that particular reason as an excuse to cover up something else?; 2/29/12, 11:28 AM
MadisonMan said...: Be nice if the other 99 would follow suit.

I'd settle for just the ones up for re-election.

I'm wondering if the Senate choice here will be between Dinosaur Tommy Thompson and Spend Money Tammy. (sigh); 2/29/12, 11:35 AM
Synova said...: "I think the issue should become who's willing to compromise and negotiate vs. who's going to be a bitter ender. That's how I'd try to frame it for the advantage of the Democrats. "

That's what they've been doing. And we all know that "compromise" means "do it my way."

Or else "I won."

Point to something that is clear horse trading of the "you got this thing that you wanted that we don't like and never have."

Because if it's a compromise each side should put up with something they don't like or get something the other side didn't want. Right?

"You get everything that everyone agrees on together and we get what we want" isn't a compromise.

To hear it, conservatives are actually all just socialists who hate Obama and there are no actual policy disagreements, only political obstruction.

It's reasonably effective spin, but a good Republican candidate could tear it to bits simply by repeatedly saying NO BUDGET.; 2/29/12, 11:36 AM
paul a'barge said...: Little doubt about it, this is a killer for this election cycle and for the near term. We're F'ed.

And yes, Snowe knows what she is accomplishing by doing this.; 2/29/12, 11:37 AM
cubanbob said...: MayBee said...
Obama's problem is not that the gas prices are too high. His problem is gas demand is too low.

Our local NPR station had a big story on Monday about how this is killing the funding for highway maintenance.
Which is going to be a long-term problem if mpg continues to be mandated upwards.

2/29/12 11:23 AM

Gas consumption is down because Obama's and the democrat's idiot policies. MPG figures for recent models are not that much improved from eight years ago, google US daily gasoline consumption figures then and now. "It's the economy, stupid!" as Carville said 20 years ago. Where is that serpent head now?; 2/29/12, 11:44 AM
damikesc said...: And yes, Snowe knows what she is accomplishing by doing this.

Which is why I refuse to join in the mourning of her loss. She is Arlen Specter redux.; 2/29/12, 11:45 AM
MadisonMan said...: "It's the economy, stupid!" as Carville said 20 years ago. Where is that serpent head now?

I believe Mr. Santorum cleaved that serpent from its body because he was afraid its penis-shaped head made it homosexual.

My hope is that a Romney candidacy re-focuses the discussion on the Economy, where the discussion belongs.; 2/29/12, 11:51 AM
Writ Small said...: How will the good riddance crowd react when president Santorum can't get his judges through with 49 Senators?; 2/29/12, 11:54 AM
John Stodder said...: So, if I can sum up the non-Rino take on this news:

"Good riddance to Olympia Snowe, and the hell with her for abandoning a safe Republican seat."

Feelings, nothing more than feelings
Trying to forget my feelings of love
Teardrops rolling down on my face
Trying to forget my feelings of love
Feelings, for all my life I'll feel it
I wish I've never met you, girl
You'll never come again

So, let's see, you've got two choices. You can hope Maine nominates a non-Rino, uncompromiser, pose-striker... who will lose.... and blame the RINOs. Or you can hope Maine nominates a RINO, who could win (seeing as how Snowe herself was a safe bet taking that stance), and then spend the next six years gnashing your teeth angrily that the RINO acted like a Rino.

OR: You can do the ultimate non-Rino political move. Watch the Democrats take the seat and then assume that after six years of terrible votes, the stupid voters will have learned their lesson, and they'll come crawling back to the non-Rinos, begging for help.

Aka, the adolescent fantasy, which apparently a lot of non-Rinos are planning to enact on the presidential level this year now that it appears that Obama's twin, according to them, is going to get the GOP nomination.; 2/29/12, 12:01 PM
Steve Koch said...: Senators represent whole states so they can't be as ideologically pure as representatives or the party faithful, especially in states that are not conservative, like Maine. Losing Snowe will leave a mark, unless the GOP can muster up a good replacement candidate muy pronto who will win the election.

In sports, the teams that win most of the 50-50 balls tend to win the game. Dealing with these 50-50 senators is irritating but is a critical part of prevailing politically.

Senators whose votes are unreliable have a tremendous amount of leverage and power. Usually these senators seem to enjoy being the center of attention as the dems and the GOP vie for their votes.; 2/29/12, 12:07 PM
Jason said...: I do find it frustrating, however, that an atmosphere of polarization and 'my way or the highway' ideologies has become pervasive in campaigns and in our governing institutions.

Interesting that Olympia Snowe says this, as over the years she was one of the main culprits of getting GOP legislation killed or weakened.

In a tight senate chamber, she used her power as a "swing vote" numerous times just to piss the GOP leadership off. Deliciously ironic that she now uses the excuse of too much "my way or the highway" politics for quitting, as the GOP had to often bend backwards for her to agree on anything.

As I said in another thread, good riddance.; 2/29/12, 12:07 PM
Darcy said...: She was a crucial vote in the process of enacting Obamacare.

And MayBee! One of my favorite, sort of obscure movies.; 2/29/12, 12:10 PM
dreams said...: Dreams - why would she say that was her reason if it wasn't her reason? Why would she pick that particular reason as an excuse to cover up something else?

Because it was so sudden a reversal, I'm sure her reason is something that she believes but I'm not sure that it is the real reason. I guess it doesn't really matter to anyone but her.; 2/29/12, 12:11 PM
Jason said...: In sports, the teams that win most of the 50-50 balls tend to win the game. Dealing with these 50-50 senators is irritating but is a critical part of prevailing politically.

Dealing with 50-50 legislators is what gets good legislation turned to shit.; 2/29/12, 12:14 PM
chickelit said...: cuban bob wrote: Our local NPR station had a big story on Monday about how this is killing the funding for highway maintenance.

This reminded me of Ken Burns' "Prohibition" when he taught how a potential loss in federal tax on alcohol was a major deterrent for in enacting Prohibition--the Feds wondered how they could recoup losses if such a national prohibition law were to pass. But the 16th amendment (Federal Income Tax) nicely solved that in 1913 and paved the way for the subsequent Volstead Act.

Beware any national energy tax to offset declining
fuel taxes--it could be a prelude to a stricter prohibition on hydrocarbons.
__________
wv's: emberri romsible; 2/29/12, 12:28 PM
Christopher in MA said...: John Stodder, at this point I don't give a damn. Snowe was a backstabbing weasel who long since should have had the hammer dropped on her. If Maine - after seeing the disaster Democrat policies have wreaked on the economy - decide they want more of the same, then I hope they get it good and hard and choke on it.; 2/29/12, 12:29 PM
sakredkow said...: Republicans like John Stodder have their work cut out for them.

Maybe it's the moderates from both parties who ought to be coming together to join a third party.; 2/29/12, 12:34 PM
Darcy said...: I'd like to say welcome back to John Stodder. Hope that's not too OT.; 2/29/12, 12:41 PM
Anonymous said...: who long since should have had the hammer dropped on her

What does this even mean? Who is the hammer dropper? Voters in Maine? You must realize that voters in Maine will not vote for people you like. You realize that, right?

Stodder has it right. It's adolescent fantasy of the kind that thinks an opportunistic witch can get elected in Maryland, or the kind that thinks some big-government liberal can get elected in Alabama. Rahn Emmanuel understood this. It's how he got the House temporarily back into the hands of the Democrats.

Reality is a bitch. It'll definitely drop hammers on you.; 2/29/12, 12:43 PM
John Stodder said...: Senators represent whole states so they can't be as ideologically pure as representatives or the party faithful, especially in states that are not conservative, like Maine. Losing Snowe will leave a mark, unless the GOP can muster up a good replacement candidate muy pronto who will win the election.

Exactly. As a Republican from a blue state, she was an asset to the GOP, both Rinos and non-Rinos. There is nothing good about her departure, if you believe the country has to turn to a more conservative direction. The glee/rage response of the non-Rinos here and elsewhere is indicative of why 2012 looks so bleak to me right now.

This must be what it was like to be a Democratic regular in 1972. Nixon seemed beatable, but the purist liberals insisted on a like-minded nominee, and thereby ensured their defeat. But they felt good about themselves.

Obviously, history doesn't look like it's repeating here. Romney, the Ed Muskie parallel, looks like he'll get the nomination at this point. Santorum, the McGovern parallel, could've put up a better fight, but it turns out he's an idiot who can't cover up his sexual obsessions, and he thus turned off a lot of voters, women especially. So we might get to rerun 1972 as if Muskie got the nod, and the left-wingers had the choice of staying home and assuring Nixon's re-election, or showing up and possibly giving Muskie a narrow win.

Sadly, I'm betting on Obama now. The non-Rinos are not only angry, they are viewing the world through a distortion field in which somehow the conservative cause is helped by Obama's re-election because it proves a point (to somebody or another -- they never specify whom), and will assure that next time, we'll get a serious non-Rino nominated (even though they had every chance this cycle, and couldn't manage it.) They'll probably do some kind of third-party-write-in-stay-home thing, feel real good about themselves, and then wake up to their stupidity about the time Obama nominates two more Supreme Court justices and/or the debt hits $20 trillion and the US's credit is downgraded again.

But when that day comes, please console yourselves. You were pure!; 2/29/12, 12:46 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Maybe it's the moderates from both parties who ought to be coming together to join a third party..."

That would be great if there are enough Democrats that don't believe every societal issue requires a billion dollar plus Federal program.; 2/29/12, 12:48 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... Reality is a bitch..."

That why I told Morpheus to shove that blue pill up his ass.; 2/29/12, 12:51 PM
sakredkow said...: See a moderate's third party is not gonna work. Hoosier Daddy's already pissing me off.; 2/29/12, 12:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Stodder -- Don't fret, man. As soon as Romney wraps it up, the themes will turn to the economy. Romney wins that battle.

Matter of fact, I predict that the leftist response will be not even to defend Obama, but to talk about George W. Bush, which will be an epically bad move. But they won't be able to avoid it psychologically.; 2/29/12, 12:52 PM
John Stodder said...: I'm not really a Republican. I was a registered Democrat, now I'm unaffiliated. But I'm a conservative on many issues, and in 2012, on the issues that matter most. I fully expect to vote for the GOP in 2012.

Darcy, nothing you say will ever be off topic. I'm glad to see you still frequent these precincts. I'm sorry if I'm coming off a little edgier than usual. This anti-RINO witchhunt has turned toxic, and I feel like someone other than an obvious liberal Dem has to throw a spotlight onto the self-defeating turn the right has taken at the worst possible time.; 2/29/12, 12:52 PM
Revenant said...: My only thought FWIW is that it's a measure of discontentment in the ranks of the GOP.

Snowe was elected in the "Contract with America" Republican landslide of 1994. The party was more conservative then than it is now, socially and (especially) economically.; 2/29/12, 12:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Rev -- Interesting. The 1994 landslide was filled with bad politicians who had barely an intention of actually winning.

I'm surprised Snowe made it through 2000.; 2/29/12, 12:54 PM
John Stodder said...: Machos... I hope you're right. But between reading commenters like Beldar and listening to talk-radio jocks like Limbaugh and Hannity, I fear there is a significant contingent that is in the process of convincing itself that an Obama win is a win for the pure of heart on the right. It will be a close election, and only winnable if the anti-Obama forces can close ranks. Six months ago, I thought that was a given. Now I'm not so sure. But you're right, the weak economy and especially the debt -- and then on top of that the fiascos of Afghanistan and Iran -- should be enough to get everyone on the same page long enough to change presidents.; 2/29/12, 12:57 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... Sadly, I'm betting on Obama now..."

Always hedge John. The fact that the left wanted Demos voting for Santorum means that they're scared of Romney. Both parties have their purists but they don't rule the roost.

Obama is going to have to get another debt ceiling raised before November and if they're talking $4-5 gallon gas by summer and we're still at 8-9% unemployment, he's in deep doo. Or should be unless pictures of Mitt surrounded by naked 12 year olds surface.

Mitt excites me because we finally have a candidate who, you know, understands economics.; 2/29/12, 1:00 PM
sakredkow said...: Yup, the Dem strategy will be to do their best to tie Romney to the far right of the party. Moderate conservatives will howl that's unfair but given the vocal nature of the far-right it won't be that hard IMO.; 2/29/12, 1:01 PM
sakredkow said...: In chess it's called zugwang.; 2/29/12, 1:02 PM
sakredkow said...: Any move you make hurts your position.; 2/29/12, 1:03 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "Yup, the Dem strategy will be to do their best to tie Romney to the far right of the party."

And, as Obama strategists mentioned to Politico I believe, make sure people understand that Romney's religion is weird.

Believe me -- you're more likely going to see dirty pool and lies in this election than some crazy chess move you describe. It's going to be mud and red meat throwing from both sides.; 2/29/12, 1:04 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... Hoosier Daddy's already pissing me off..."

Your moderation should include tolerance for dissenting views.

Or perhaps my view is simply jaded, for example, by the fact the current administration feels its vital that birth control be a mandate and all cars need a rearview camera.; 2/29/12, 1:05 PM
Anonymous said...: phx -- I hope you aren't suggesting that George W. Bush is somehow on the far right of the party.

If Romney is smart, and he is, he'll simply say that these cultural issues are important but can wait for another president. "The status quo is fine for now. I'm not going to spend my presidency on those issues. What is vital -- what I will focus on and what we must focus on -- is creating jobs, lowering debt, and shrinking government."

That's 45 states right there.; 2/29/12, 1:05 PM
MadisonMan said...: Stodder -- Don't fret, man. As soon as Romney wraps it up, the themes will turn to the economy. Romney wins that battle.

Agreed.

Apparently, the insantorumity has been stopped. My hope is permanently.; 2/29/12, 1:06 PM
Anonymous said...: P.S. -- to Team Romney: John Stodder and I are available for consulting work and speech writing. Just waiting for the call.; 2/29/12, 1:07 PM
sakredkow said...: @Matthew I really hope not.; 2/29/12, 1:08 PM
sakredkow said...: @HD I was just playing, didn't really mean it.; 2/29/12, 1:09 PM
Matt Sablan said...: Phx: That's what you get when the guy we elected last time ran an ad attacking his opponent for being unable to type -- because of injuries sustained while being tortured, an ad so bad that, initially, Joe Biden refused to acknowledge it was a real ad until he saw it.

We had a choice between a guy who ran that ad, and a guy who used some of his limited public funding to buy an ad buy to congratulate his opponent.

It's not my fault the nation chose the less classy of the two.; 2/29/12, 1:10 PM
John Stodder said...: That's 45 states right there

But if Romney gave that speech, a lot of the Santorum vote would stay home. And feel quite righteous in doing so. That's the concern.; 2/29/12, 1:18 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I found this quote from Snowe interesting.

" One of a dwindling group of GOP Senate moderates, Snowe said she no longer wanted to serve in an increasingly partisan and polarized Senate."

Damn near verbatim the reason Evan Bayh gave when he bailed.; 2/29/12, 1:20 PM
Scott M said...: Damn near verbatim the reason Evan Bayh gave when he bailed.

Not a shocker. It's the easiest thing to say with the greatest amount of face-saving and least amount of possible downsides.; 2/29/12, 1:22 PM
Matt Sablan said...: It is the new "spending more time with my family."; 2/29/12, 1:24 PM
damikesc said...: Matter of fact, I predict that the leftist response will be not even to defend Obama, but to talk about George W. Bush, which will be an epically bad move. But they won't be able to avoid it psychologically.

It's all they've done for 3 years. You'd think they'd be better at it.

It's impressive to watch the media actively ignore just how bad Obama's numbers are (and how useless the very manipulated unemployment rate is) at this point.

The energy is all in the Republican primary. The GOP is basically leaving Obama alone --- and he is STILL having trouble cracking 50%.

When the attention returns to Obama and he has to explain why a smaller percentage of the work force is working now versus 2008, he will have some work to explain how this is improvement. Let him explain how his promise to be more fiscally responsible than Bush led him to more than match all of Bush's spending in half of the time.

I agree with Machos --- social issues are useless. And the Dems, as always, will overreach in their Mormon bigotry. Romney, for his faults, is not a monster. Nobody buys him as such. He's bland --- but bland is good. A rock star is not needed.

I don't miss Snowe. Sorry, but her departure is a positive. Romney, however, is somebody I can easily vote for even if we have differing views on a lot of issues. At the very least, he has a clue what he is talking about.

I might not agree with his economic policies all the way, but I know he knows what he's talking about and they make some sense. Obama seems convinced a money fairy exists.

All Romney has to say is "I'm going to get us out of your way to let you live your life" and he will win in a massive landslide. There is so much government overreach in so many areas that this will resonate heavily.; 2/29/12, 1:24 PM
damikesc said...: But if Romney gave that speech, a lot of the Santorum vote would stay home. And feel quite righteous in doing so. That's the concern.

I doubt that. Some might, but it won't be a big bloc of people. Santorum's campaign is in such total disaccord with his actual record (he's running as a small government type when he just is not one) that the majority of his supporters are people who don't know his history but listen to his rhetoric.

Romney can talk to them. I have zero concerns about that. I'm also glad he didn't claim to like NASCAR. I don't need a President who likes everything.; 2/29/12, 1:27 PM
Christopher in MA said...: "A lot of the Santorum would stay home."

I don't see that. It certainly seems so now, as (mentioned ad nauseam) the "base" doesn't like or trust Romney. Each candidate is the flavor of the month, but I would suggest that what the ones who have really fired up enthusiasm in the base have in common is a willingness to go after Obama, cries of racism be damned.

You may deny it, but there is a substantial portion of the conservative base that feels McCain essentially threw the election away by not nailing Obama's hide to the wall. Rezko, Wright, Ayers, his complete blank as a person and legislator - all were crippling, if not killing, items that should have been thrown at him. Which, I submit, is why Palin's calling him out as a fraud was such a breath of fresh air at the beginning.

I loathe Romney as I loathed Snowe. But I am also clear-eyed enough to realize that a feces-covered crackwhore would be a better president than Obama. Once (if) Romney gets the nomination, then it will be a two man race and the SCOAMF will actually have to defend his meagre record. And if Romney is smart, he'll do a Nixon / Agnew - stay above the fray while his VP strips the bark off Obama.

But I do not believe the majority of the "Santorum vote" would stay home. They hate Romney, but they absolutely despise Obama.; 2/29/12, 1:32 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: @Stodder,
You missed one possible outcome of Snowe's retirement:

A DINO is elected who is a thorn in the side of Democrats.
Since an actual "R" held the seat for years, the "D" that replaces her has to be worried about getting punished for going too far left, and so is constantly undermining the Democrats on all sorts of legislation.

A DINO who provides bipartisan cover for conservative legislation like lowering taxes and repealing Obamacare.

You can't effectively complain about the Republicans ignoring Democrats if you have even just one Senator voting for the bill, right?

So no matter how it turns out, it's probably better than Snowe.; 2/29/12, 1:32 PM
garage mahal said...: All Romney has to say is "I'm going to get us out of your way to let you live your life" and he will win in a massive landslide

Hah. I think the gaffe-a-minute Thurston Howell is going to get clobbered.

And asked if remarks highlighting his wealth — like when he said Sunday he doesn’t follow NASCAR as closely as some but has “great friends who are NASCAR team owners” — were hurting his campaign, Romney said: “Yes. Next question.”

LOL; 2/29/12, 1:35 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "Hah. I think the gaffe-a-minute Thurston Howell is going to get clobbered."

Why is Obama's wealth never characterized as a negative?; 2/29/12, 1:38 PM
John Stodder said...: You may deny it, but there is a substantial portion of the conservative base that feels McCain essentially threw the election away by not nailing Obama's hide to the wall.

I don't really deny that at all. He ran a terrible campaign. He gave nobody outside of a foreign policy-firster any reason to vote for him. I think his basic campaign message was, "I'm only qualified to be commander in chief. The president part, I think Obama would be better at. You figure out which is more important to you; I won't stand in your way."; 2/29/12, 1:39 PM
Scott M said...: Garage is truly awesome. Swoops in, makes a ridiculous comment about Snowe getting about because of some perceived upcoming upheaval, ignores people asking for clarification, then swoops in again for another carpet bombing.; 2/29/12, 1:40 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: Expensive gas.
Assaults on religious freedom.
Manufactured rights that make everyone pay for the enjoyment of a few.
Depression-era low levels of workforce participation.
Democrat-controlled Senate hasn't fulfilled its Constitutionally-mandated duty to present a budget in more than 3 years.
300 people dead, including a US LEO, due to a deliberate program to allow guns to walk across the border in order to gin up a dishonest justification to violate 2nd Amendment rights.
Tax cheats abounding in an administration that claims higher taxes is a duty.
An administration that uses executive fiat to bring about outcomes it can't achieve through the legal way via Congress.
An administration that sought out the job of improving the economy and promised to have it done within 3 years is depending on number games to claim a recovery that everyone can see is non-existent.
The current administration has shown it will do anything to avoid cutting spending, resulting in 4 consecutive years of $1T+ deficits.
Demonization of private citizens for daring to participate in public discussions.
ACORN
Planned Parenthood bullying of the Komen Foundation.
Obama's transparent lies about his stance on SSM.
Firing the IGs so there is no oversight of Obama's payoffs to cronies using taxpayer dollars.
Scolding Americans for eating too much fat while serving fattening meals during state dinners.
Scolding Americans for earning too much while taking constant lavish vacations.
Scolding Americans for being lazy while spending most of his time on the golf course.
Saying that Islamic extremist terrorists are less of a threat to the US than returning US military veterans.
TSA's security theater that makes us less safe, while enabling union workers to act out their sexual fantasies.
Nanny-state intrusion into ever more aspects of citizens lives.
The fiscal collapse of blue model locations like Detroit, California, New York.

This will all be discussed in the general election campaign. Obama and the Democrats will start frantically shouting "Hey look, that squirrel looks like George W Bush!"

Obama is going to lose, and the GOP will pick up gains in both houses.; 2/29/12, 1:42 PM
John Stodder said...: And asked if remarks highlighting his wealth — like when he said Sunday he doesn’t follow NASCAR as closely as some but has “great friends who are NASCAR team owners” — were hurting his campaign, Romney said: “Yes. Next question.”

I loved that answer. It affirmed for me that Romney is the kind of person who should be president, regardless of party or ideology. Not exactly stuck on himself.

Obama, the thin-skinned narcissist, would still be answering that question, justifying his every remark.

Garage, since when has a candidate's wealth ever been an issue that turned a vote against him? It didn't hurt JFK or FDR. I don't think it was what did Gore or Kerry in. (Yes, they are very rich men.) It didn't hurt Bush 41 or 43. You really think Obama, who is also pretty darn comfy in the 1 percent though a piker compared with Romney, can play the "vote for me, I'm middle class" card?

Please tell him to try.; 2/29/12, 1:43 PM
damikesc said...: At least Romney earned his. And if you think Obama is going to be able to explain away his specifically stated desire to increase energy costs and Chu saying that the Administration doesn't care about it...well, keep hope alive and all.; 2/29/12, 1:47 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Actually I think garage lost a little bit of his mind in 2008. Us regulars back then remember when he stood solidly by his gal and was every bit as critical of Obama as Pogo or DBQ. Heck, we actually thought he would make a full recovery and become a conservative.

Then in the 11th round Obama pops Hillary! with and uppercut and she was down for the count. Ever since then he hasn't been the same.; 2/29/12, 1:55 PM
Henry said...: Nathan Alexander wrote:

A DINO is elected who is a thorn in the side of Democrats.
Since an actual "R" held the seat for years, the "D" that replaces her has to be worried about getting punished for going too far left, and so is constantly undermining the Democrats on all sorts of legislation.

Umm, you aren't from New England, are you. Please look up "Sheldon Whitehouse".

At least with a pyrrhic victory you still have a victory. You're composing hymns to pyrrhic defeat.; 2/29/12, 2:13 PM
dogzilla said...: Sen. Snowe has a husband with some possible legal problems.

Former Gov. John McKernan and Education Management Corporation.

Scott D'Amboise called for Snowe's resignation last May. Then things went very, very quiet.

Maybe this resignation was a prudent rather than noble one?; 2/29/12, 2:16 PM
chickelit said...: Actually I think garage lost a little bit of his mind in 2008.

I remember the days when garage was like a detached & unheated structure, filled with fishing gear and sporting equipment. But then he turned himself into a posh heated annex of the Wisconsin Local 1848--a veritable Taj Mahal of Union Halls.; 2/29/12, 2:19 PM
garage mahal said...: Garage, since when has a candidate's wealth ever been an issue that turned a vote against him

It's not really his actual wealth. It's how sticks his foot in his mouth almost every time he attempts to explain it.; 2/29/12, 2:53 PM
Scott M said...: It's not really his actual wealth. It's how sticks his foot in his mouth almost every time he attempts to explain it.

Praytell, GM, how the episode you cited is negative for him.; 2/29/12, 2:56 PM
Roger J. said...: Not being a global thinker, I suspect the good people of Maine can sort this one out. As for divided government, the more divided the better. Mr Obama, should he win, will be a lame duck. With any luck he will have a republican congress. The numbers I have seen favor a republican senate, and I doubt Mr Obama has any coattails sufficient enough to make the house democrat. Interesting times ahead, as always.; 2/29/12, 3:03 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: For the first time ever, and probably last time ever, I agree with garage.

Mitt has been singularly ineffective in advocating the conservative view of wealth being the result of hard work and good choices.

Of course, there maybe a reason Mitt has that problem, if he has the same understanding of merit as I've heard from other Mormons.

Also (but unrelated), what Roger J. said: word. I can't get to worked about Snowe one way or the other for the reasons he stated.; 2/29/12, 3:07 PM
John Stodder said...: almost every time he attempts to explain it.

If you mean that he seems awkwardly almost embarrassed by it, agreed.

If you mean "explain it" like, explain where he got it? I think he's at his best when he endeavors to do that. I wish he'd do it more.; 2/29/12, 3:08 PM
damikesc said...: It's not really his actual wealth. It's how sticks his foot in his mouth almost every time he attempts to explain it.

It's odd that he is even asked. The press didn't seem interested in how many chicks Kerry had to nail to get his millions. Or how much fraud Gore had to commit to get his millions.

Only conservatives seem to be the ones asked about their money.; 2/29/12, 3:08 PM
sakredkow said...: The press didn't seem interested in how many chicks Kerry had to nail to get his millions.

This is where garage likes to mock people for diverting - "But, but, but...what about?"; 2/29/12, 3:20 PM
Scott M said...: How is a compare/contrast in the context of the same discussion a diversion? Bringing up Kerry in this respect doesn't make any sense without the original topic.; 2/29/12, 3:21 PM
sakredkow said...: @ScottM You're right. I'm gonna talk to garage about that.; 2/29/12, 3:26 PM
Titus said...: Maine aint Mississippi.

Southern Maine, which is an extension of Massachusetts, and has a majority of the population is dark blue, and really gay. Ogunquit is a gay haven. Can't swing a cat without hitting a fag in Ogunquit.

Although, that Thad Cochran seems to be a huge porker and continues to get reelected.; 2/29/12, 3:54 PM
Titus said...: Portland has some of the most fab dining choices as well.

Portland is so delish and cute.

Think a tiny Boston.; 2/29/12, 3:56 PM
damikesc said...: Mitt is in a damned if you do/damned if you don't situation with Progressives. If he defends money, he is "out of touch" with.the "common man" (as opposed to our apparently fonger-on-the-pulse-of-the-common-man President) and if he acts humble, he is explaining things poorly. Mitt worked his butt off, is more intelligent than anybody else in the race and will be a solid President. I will be happy to vote for him.; 2/29/12, 4:01 PM
Revenant said...: But if Romney gave that speech, a lot of the Santorum vote would stay home. And feel quite righteous in doing so. That's the concern.

There isn't a significant Santorum vote in the first place. There's a Tea Party vote that has been desperately searching for an alternative to Romney, and has been latching on to a series of increasingly-bad candidates throughout the primaries.

If Romney promises to focus on Tea Party issues instead of the usual social crap, he'll win them over.; 2/29/12, 4:03 PM
MadisonMan said...: Only conservatives seem to be the ones asked about their money.

That's 'cause Liberals deserve any money they stumble upon!; 2/29/12, 4:40 PM
garage mahal said...: In the span of one hour, Romney went from being against the Blunt amendment, to opposing it. Principles.; 2/29/12, 4:48 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: @garage,
You said:
In the span of one hour, Romney went from being against the Blunt amendment, to opposing it. Principles.
being against it and opposing it are the same things.; 2/29/12, 4:53 PM
damikesc said...: In the span of one hour, Romney went from being against the Blunt amendment, to opposing it. Principles.

His Democratic opponent-to-be is still opposed to gay marriage...officially. Principles abound.; 2/29/12, 4:53 PM
garage mahal said...: being against it and opposing it are the same things

True! I meant he is now in favor of the Blunt amendment. Duh.; 2/29/12, 5:01 PM
sakredkow said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/29/12, 5:13 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: @garage,
And it seems likely that when first asked about the Blunt amendment, he misunderstood what it meant.

You seem to be expecting a benefit of the doubt you won't extend Romney.

Principles, eh?; 2/29/12, 5:26 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: @phx,
You seem to care more about Obama's eligibility to President than any conservative has in the last year.

What are you, a birther?

Or have you really used up any possible topic that implies hope of a Democrat electoral victory this fall?; 2/29/12, 5:29 PM
Writ Small said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/29/12, 5:35 PM
Henry said...: Nathan wrote: Of course, there maybe a reason Mitt has that problem, if he has the same understanding of merit as I've heard from other Mormons.

I'm totally mystified by what this means despite my Mormon upbringing. What is the Mormon understanding of merit?; 2/29/12, 5:50 PM
James said...: >>Eight Republicans are leaving the House. Writing on the wall? Afraid Nancy will have that beautiful oversized gavel to beat them over the head with?<<

Keep dreaming. Apparently you think that after the "shellacking" of 2010, the Republican legislatures have been twiddling their thumbs and not redrawing district boundaries that would favor Republicans for the next few election cycles.

There's no way Dems will reclaim the House, and all signs point to a loss of the Senate too.; 2/29/12, 6:24 PM
sakredkow said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/29/12, 6:25 PM
Carnifex said...: Listen...

Hear that?...

It's Garage, and all the little liberals, whistling, as they walk past the graveyard that the One's presidency is going to be buried in.
(to the Secret Service, this is an allegory, I am not threatening anyone)

Sorry, had to get that disclaimer in.

I am disappointed with the GOP. They had an opportunity to reverse dramatically the damage done by nearly a century of progressive rule, instead, they play it safe, not to lose, in a game they were guaranteed to win.

I will vote for the R nominee. I won't have a choice. Because it's anyone but Obama.

That said , Romneycare and Obamacare are incestuous siblings conceived on the altar of liberalism. So I'll vote for he slighty less liberal.; 2/29/12, 6:58 PM
damikesc said...: You can't make this stuff up. And you "mainstream" Republicans and conservatives can't catch much of a break.

Obama is making blatantly racist appeals to get votes.

Man, you Progressives have to be embarrassed by the actions of the extreme members of your coalition.

I won't even go into the assorted idiocy of the CBC this week.; 2/29/12, 7:05 PM
sakredkow said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/29/12, 7:08 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: @Henry,
Where you start in this life is based on how you did in the pre-mortal life.

It's kind of difficult to explain the way that works out to non-Mormons w/o sounding at least somewhat arrogant.; 2/29/12, 7:22 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: @phx,
No one cares about that. Only you do.

It's a nice garage mahal-like attempt to switch the topic to something you think benefits Democrats more, but it has no connection to any of the GOP candidates, the GOP in general, or conservatives.

And since you keep bringing up a topic that no one else cares about, i.e., the President's qualifications to be President, I guess you are self-identifying as a racist.; 2/29/12, 7:25 PM
sakredkow said...: I was doing a little trolling. I apologize. You'll get over it though.; 2/29/12, 7:25 PM
sakredkow said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/29/12, 7:27 PM
sakredkow said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/29/12, 7:29 PM
sakredkow said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/29/12, 7:31 PM
Henry said...: Where you start in this life is based on how you did in the pre-mortal life.

I think you have Mormonism confused with Hinduism.

There may be some "folk" theology that points that way, or some stray comments by dead Mormon leaders, but you won't find the blessing of the current church on this idea.

Mormons do believe in a pre-mortal life, but it's pass/fail. If you made it to this life, you passed.; 2/29/12, 7:31 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: @Henry,
Happens every time:

A group of Mormons, including a missionary or two, say what they believe.

But if you bring it up again in a different context where it might reflect badly on a Mormon, someone pops up and acts ignorant. When you repeat what you were told, the Mormon says some variation of "that's not what Mormons believe at all!"

Well, you've got missionaries running around spreading heresy about your church, then.

Or maybe you just didn't have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky. There are many ways to dissemble without outright lying, aren't there?; 2/29/12, 7:47 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: @phx,
if you're right about what?; 2/29/12, 7:50 PM
sakredkow said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/29/12, 7:51 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: @phx,
I wish we could go off-line to discuss this without boring the other commenters...
But I'd really like to know what your assertion is.

How, exactly, are you tying the actions of an obscure sheriff who has no power/influence in the GOP and who most conservatives have never heard of to Olympia Snowe's retirement?

I'm trying to figure out how a connection could ever be proven or disproven.

It sounds like you are trying to set up some sort of "butterfly effect".

If not, my apologies for misunderstanding you. That's why I asked for clarification.; 2/29/12, 8:01 PM
Henry said...: @Nathan -- And your vague, unsourced, third-hand hearsay reflects upon Romney how?

If you're going to speculate on a specific person's actual religious beliefs you're going to have to do better than "I heard that someone said something once."; 2/29/12, 8:47 PM
Steve Koch said...: Instapundit reports that Snowe resigned just 3 weeks before the filing deadline for the GOP primary with no other GOP candidate entered into that race. She has been campaigning intensely and has piled up $3 million in contributions for this race. Something is fishy.; 2/29/12, 10:19 PM