(Is it being unfair to speculate that she got her ugly outfit at Wal-Mart?)
I can’t wait for the California primary, I wanna see if the GOP votes vote ideology over electability. I’m willing to bet that is the case.
I also hope all the ballot props other than 13 & 15 fail. It probably wont happen though. After prop 8, I don’t have much fail in CA voters when it comes to voter propositions.
Prostitutes will only take you so far.
From a national viewpoint, I’m seeing Jindal everywhere, I’m seeing Melancon everywhere, decent amounts of Vitter, Sen. Landrieu and Mayor Landrieu are MIA.
Melancon = FUCK YOU BP!!!! (All 4 front page stories are about BP spill)
Vitter = ObamaCare is coming for you and Melancon won’t try to repeal it. Get into the fine print and you’ll see oil stories.
So, has Melancon found an actual issue to run on that he can take to the bank that means all politics is local?
Additionally, I have found myself pivoting from “Anti-Vitter” to “Pro-Melancon,” The guy appears to “get it,” and I think care more about his constituents more than Vitter or Landrieu does. From his actions this week, I feel like if he gets elected he may be the most honest/effective elected official from Louisiana.
Just my thoughts.
I am compiling a list of NRCC-backed candidates who have lost primaries so far this year.
Next Tuesday in Iowa we may be able to add two more to that list, depending on how the IA-02 and IA-03 primaries go. I would be surprised to see Jim Gibbons pull it out in IA-03, and if it goes to convention (no one gets 35 percent) I think he’s a long-short.
In IA-02, I have no idea what’s going to happen, but my wild guess would be another shot for 2008 Republican nominee Mariannette Miller-Meeks rather than victory for the NRCC guy Rob Gettemy. However, Miller-Meeks hasn’t been on tv (using direct mail and face to face events), while Gettemy and Steve Rathje have been running tv ads for about a month. That one could also go to a district convention, in which case I have no idea who would win.
For the GOP gubernatorial primary, the two polls came up with similar numbers. KCCI’s poll found that Terry Branstad has 44 percent support in the GOP primary, Bob Vander Plaats has 29 percent and Rod Roberts has 12 percent, with 15 percent undecided. Public Policy Polling had Branstad with 46 percent, Vander Plaats with 31 percent and Roberts with 13 percent.
For the Democratic U.S. Senate primary, the two polls came up with similar numbers. KCCI’s poll shows Roxanne Conlin way ahead with 48 percent, Bob Krause with 13 percent, Tom Fiegen with 12 percent and 27 percent undecided. PPP had Conlin with 48 percent support among Democratic primary voters, to 13 percent for Krause and 8 percent for Fiegen.
But in the Senate race, PPP’s new poll has Chuck Grassley beating Roxanne Conlin 57-31, while R2K had Grassley ahead by only 50-42 (similar to the R2K poll from early May, which was a 49-40 margin).
I do not get why the two polls came up with such similar numbers on the primary matchups but were so far apart on the Grassley/Conlin race. Maybe there will be some clues when I see the full polling memo from R2K.
I don’t like what Cuomo is doing here.
He has a stake in the race. His preferred candidate Kathleen Rice (pl check the name) is a nepotist.
2. LG California
I would like the democrats to win this.
3. IL senate
I hope God is on our side.
There has been lots of discussion here on it. I am going to rate, IMO, the response of LA’s top officials. (1-10, 10 being best)
Gov. Jindal- 9
Rep. Melancon- 10
Rep. Cao- 7
Sen. Landrieu- 2
Sen. Vitter-7
Plaquemines Pres. Bill Nungresser(considered run for LA-03)-10
Anyone I miss? I did not include Scalise b/c his district is not being affected as much. I did not include Mitch Landrieu, b/c as much as he likes to think he is, he is not really important here.
I loved Labyrinth as a kid. Haven’t seen it in years, but after tonight I really want to.
Sean Salazar, the first candidate to declare, (and one who I thought would not drop) is dropping out and endorsing Rossi. The last two “main” candidates are Paul Akers and Clint didier. Both guys have egos out of this world, so I doubt they drop.
Former Fresno mayor Jim Patterson leads state Senator Jeff Denham 34%-30%, with Pombo at 17%. Among people who’ve already voted though, Denham leads Patterson 37%-32%, with Pombo at 18%.
The Democratic race, such as it is, is roughly even.
No babka for the winners, but out-of-staters are welcome to enter Bleeding Heartland’s Iowa primary election prediction contest. Comments must be posted by 7 am on June 8 to qualify. It only takes a minute to create a Bleeding Heartland account (runs on soapblox like SSP).
Anybody here play this? It’s a political simulator. They released ‘Congress Forever’ yesterday and that’s been consuming my free time. But after two tries I can’t get over 208 Republicans in 2010 🙁
have a question
How old do you have to be to contribute to candidates for office by debit card? I know the requirements will probally be different for federal and state candidates, but in general what are the rules?
and his sources are predicting a severe double-dip recession, similar to what happened in 1937 when FDR tried to prematurely balance the budget:
I’m no economist, but he’s posted a number of very frightening diaries about the economy. And if he’s right, the Democrats, as the incumbent party, will crash and burn with great intensity and Obama might lose in 2012.
The Des Moines Register posted the Republican primary numbers today. About 57 percent of likely Iowa Republican primary voters support Terry Branstad, 29 percent plan to vote for Bob Vander Plaats, and 8 percent plan to vote for Rod Roberts. The poll was in the field from June 1 through June 3.
This primary might have played out differently had Vander Plaats had more resources to make his case. I will never understand why the Club for Growth and other national right-wing organizations decided not to get involved in the Iowa governor’s race. Given the way the national conservative movement pushed Rubio against Crist, you’d think they would have some issues with Branstad (who received a “D” grade from the Cato Institute when he was governor).
PPP might be polling SC-04 Republican Primary. (I can’t tell from the Twitter feed) Inglis has a potential to lose, but he does have a lot of primary opponents.
Looking @ FEC reports for Mitt Romney’s PAC, he didn’t stay as neutral as everyone thought. He gave Hoffman $5,000 the day before the election.
“Reported Attack Page” when trying to visit politicalwire.com?
This coming week Montana Democrats will choose who will face incumbent Republican Congressman Dennis Rehberg.
Dennis McDonald and Tyler Gernent are the two leading Democrats. One a former Party Chair and Rural Progress; the other is a Missoula Progressive, young man with a bright future.
Affair has not hurt her, only 7 points away from avoiding runoff. This is around the same level Boozman was polling before primary too and he avoided a runoff.
I know this is like a major sleeper race that no one really seems to care about but all the same with the primary coming up I am trying to get interested with the race. Who are we (Democrats) supporting. I have heard good things about Libby Mitchell. Any insight from someone more familiar with the race. Also who is best on the Republican side?
But what’s the deal with all these new posters? Don’t get me wrong, I love the fact that SSP is always growing, but I hate these trolls. Apparently the right fIelder for the Rays (Ben Obrist) was a troll and I’ve seen others around. I don’t have point in this comment, but id like to bring it up.
The subject title is also the title of an article in today’s New York Times that details a severe issue that, if not addressed very soon, will have multiple political effects. I’ll quote from some of the most important parts of the article and then talk about some of the effects I believe are likely in races for different positions.
Having counted on Washington for money that may not be delivered, at least 30 states will have to close larger-than-anticipated shortfalls in the coming fiscal year unless Congress passes a six-month extension of increased federal spending on Medicaid.
Governors and state lawmakers, already facing some of the toughest budgets since the Great Depression, said the repercussions would extend far beyond health care, forcing them to make bone-deep cuts to education, social services and public safety.
Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania, for instance, penciled $850 million in federal Medicaid assistance into the revenue side of his state’s ledger, reducing its projected shortfall to $1.2 billion. The only way to compensate for the loss, he said in an interview, would be to lay off at least 20,000 government workers – including teachers and police officers – at a time when the state is starting to add jobs.
“It would actually kill everything the stimulus has done,” said Mr. Rendell, a Democrat. “It would be enormously destructive.”
There are are other quotes from or references to the urgent concern of Republican Governors Schwarzenegger of California and Douglas of Vermont, Republican Mayor Bloomberg of New York City, Democratic Governor Paterson of New York, and Michael Bird, federal affairs counsel for the National Council of State Legislatures.
The first electoral issue is that any combination of biting tax or fee increases and brutal service cuts from state and municipal governments will sour voters even further on incumbent politicians, almost certainly causing more losses, including some surprising upsets, of incumbents from both parties. Undoubtedly, this would extend to Federal races – as it should, because the Federal government would have failed to meet the need for a new rescue package for state and municipal governments.
The second issue is that the lost jobs from layoffs of government workers (teachers, firefighters, police officers, social workers, God only knows who else) would worsen the economy palpably, leading to even more damage to incumbents.
Governors and state lawmakers were caught largely by surprise by the House’s removal of the appropriation. Over the previous 10 months, the Medicaid money had been included in separate bills passed by each chamber, and President Obama had wrapped the extension into his executive budget proposal.
“There was every reason to think they’d get together,” Mr. Rendell said.
But in recent weeks, Republicans and conservative Democrats began to complain that the proposed spending would add to the deficit because it was not “paid for” with new revenues or other cuts. Their success in reducing the size of the bill reflected a deepening debate in Congress, and on the campaign trail, about the long-term consequences of using deficit spending to slay the recession.
To get a conference report with restored Medicaid money in it – which Harry Reid favors – through the House, some Representatives who wouldn’t vote for it the first time would have to take the political risk of being labeled as spendthrift deficit-busters. And of course the Senate, which plans to start consideration of the bill this week, would be blamed by deficit hawks for taking the initiative to reinsert such a fix.
Of course, should they fail to get this through, a lot of them risk losing their seats because – correct me if you have data to prove me wrong – as much as the voters care about deficits, they care more about jobs, taxes, and services.
Democratic aides in both the House and Senate said state officials had not pressed their case forcefully enough.[…]
Republican governors in particular, the aides said, had been reluctant to petition for relief while the party’s leaders in Congress were scorching Democrats for driving up the national debt.
“Governors need to make it clear that it is vital that their states receive this money, instead of blasting Congress for ‘out-of-control spending,’ ” said a senior Democratic aide in the House, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about the issue publicly.
Republican Governors have less room to be nihilists than do the members of the minority party in Congress. Some of them may be assholes, but they have the responsibility to actually administer states and are accountable to the voters. Therefore, in times of emergency, even a hypocritical posturer like Governor Jindal of Louisiana begs for Federal help. We’ve seen this again and again recently. When there’s a flood, tornadoes, or a huge industrial accident, Republican Governors give the “tax and spend liberals” propaganda a rest and put their hands out.
But the political problem for many of them in this situation is greater than mere hypocrisy. Because though as Governors, they desperately need this money, as long as extremist Tea Partiers and Club for Growthers control their party, they will get Hell for publicly lobbying for a Medicare rescue package if and when they run for Federal office – or even for reelection.
So to recap, what we see here is the bitter fruit of insincere Republican posturing, irrational extremism among the Republican rank and file, Blue Dog reelection positioning, and White House enabling of premature deficit hawkery.
Some of the politicians who have put the country at another precipice have to risk political damage by voicing what Governor Douglas of Vermont, a moderate, very reasonably states (quote below). To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, if the politicians who could lose an election over a deficit but know that shafting state governments in a budget emergency is unacceptable don’t hang together, we will all hang separately.
“I’m very concerned about the level of federal spending and what it would mean for the long term,” said Gov. Jim Douglas of Vermont, a Republican and chairman of the National Governors Association. “But for the short term, states need this bridge to sustain the safety net of human services programs and education.”
P.S. Ironically, the Times also features an article about the United Kingdom – Cameron Warns Britons of Austerity – in which the new government there seems to present an attitude quite similar to that of the right-wing deficit hawks in this country: Anti-stimulus and in favor of greater hardship for the people, despite some attempts to rhetorically soften the blow with the following claim (point and counterpoint below):
Mr. Cameron tried to soften the blow by saying that the cuts would not disproportionately affect the vulnerable. Mr. Clegg told The Observer newspaper over the weekend that Britain would not face “a repeat of the 1980s” and the budget cuts of the Margaret Thatcher years.
Dave Prentis, the general secretary of Unison, a union that represents many public service workers, nonetheless told the Press Association news agency that Mr. Cameron’s speech was “a chilling attack on the public sector, public sector workers, the poor, the sick and the vulnerable, and a warning that their way of life will change.”
I have to wonder whether the British have exchanged one kind of fuckups for another kind, and whether the Liberal Democrats may soon regret agreeing to be part of a coalition with the Conservatives. Perhaps the British, rather than lamenting as many Americans do that we have two lousy parties, will being to lament that they have three bad ones.
the hell is Mary Landrieu in all of this. I’ve checked her senate site multiple times since this disaster began and all she’s concerned with is that Louisiana should get more oil revenue now. While on David Vitter’s senate site, he’s talking about sand berms, the Justice Department investigating BP, safety investigations, etc. Is she tone death or something? If I was voting in Louisiana in 2014, I would vote her out of office without hesitation, and I’m a Democrat. Does she not know acting tone death and like nothing was happening is what doomed Blanco’s chances of reelection after Katrina?
Go Bill Halter: I’m really getting optimistic for his chances of winning next week.
There’s a nice snarky first comment that was left at this story here:
Blanche’s Moment Of Truth: AR Runoff Will Be ‘Very Close’
(Is it being unfair to speculate that she got her ugly outfit at Wal-Mart?)
I can’t wait for the California primary, I wanna see if the GOP votes vote ideology over electability. I’m willing to bet that is the case.
I also hope all the ballot props other than 13 & 15 fail. It probably wont happen though. After prop 8, I don’t have much fail in CA voters when it comes to voter propositions.
Prostitutes will only take you so far.
From a national viewpoint, I’m seeing Jindal everywhere, I’m seeing Melancon everywhere, decent amounts of Vitter, Sen. Landrieu and Mayor Landrieu are MIA.
I want everyone to check each of their websites.
http://www.charliemelancon.com…
http://vitterforsenate.com/
Let’s compare their top stories:
Melancon = FUCK YOU BP!!!! (All 4 front page stories are about BP spill)
Vitter = ObamaCare is coming for you and Melancon won’t try to repeal it. Get into the fine print and you’ll see oil stories.
So, has Melancon found an actual issue to run on that he can take to the bank that means all politics is local?
Additionally, I have found myself pivoting from “Anti-Vitter” to “Pro-Melancon,” The guy appears to “get it,” and I think care more about his constituents more than Vitter or Landrieu does. From his actions this week, I feel like if he gets elected he may be the most honest/effective elected official from Louisiana.
Just my thoughts.
I am compiling a list of NRCC-backed candidates who have lost primaries so far this year.
Next Tuesday in Iowa we may be able to add two more to that list, depending on how the IA-02 and IA-03 primaries go. I would be surprised to see Jim Gibbons pull it out in IA-03, and if it goes to convention (no one gets 35 percent) I think he’s a long-short.
In IA-02, I have no idea what’s going to happen, but my wild guess would be another shot for 2008 Republican nominee Mariannette Miller-Meeks rather than victory for the NRCC guy Rob Gettemy. However, Miller-Meeks hasn’t been on tv (using direct mail and face to face events), while Gettemy and Steve Rathje have been running tv ads for about a month. That one could also go to a district convention, in which case I have no idea who would win.
Two polls released this week–PPP and Research 2000 for KCCI-TV in Des Moines. I don’t have the full results and cross-tabs for the R2K poll yet, but there was something strange about the topline results.
For the GOP gubernatorial primary, the two polls came up with similar numbers. KCCI’s poll found that Terry Branstad has 44 percent support in the GOP primary, Bob Vander Plaats has 29 percent and Rod Roberts has 12 percent, with 15 percent undecided. Public Policy Polling had Branstad with 46 percent, Vander Plaats with 31 percent and Roberts with 13 percent.
For the Democratic U.S. Senate primary, the two polls came up with similar numbers. KCCI’s poll shows Roxanne Conlin way ahead with 48 percent, Bob Krause with 13 percent, Tom Fiegen with 12 percent and 27 percent undecided. PPP had Conlin with 48 percent support among Democratic primary voters, to 13 percent for Krause and 8 percent for Fiegen.
In the governor’s race, PPP had Branstad crushing Culver 53-38, and R2K had Culver losing 51-42 (in early May R2K had Culver losing to Branstad 48-41).
But in the Senate race, PPP’s new poll has Chuck Grassley beating Roxanne Conlin 57-31, while R2K had Grassley ahead by only 50-42 (similar to the R2K poll from early May, which was a 49-40 margin).
I do not get why the two polls came up with such similar numbers on the primary matchups but were so far apart on the Grassley/Conlin race. Maybe there will be some clues when I see the full polling memo from R2K.
I don’t like what Cuomo is doing here.
He has a stake in the race. His preferred candidate Kathleen Rice (pl check the name) is a nepotist.
2. LG California
I would like the democrats to win this.
3. IL senate
I hope God is on our side.
There has been lots of discussion here on it. I am going to rate, IMO, the response of LA’s top officials. (1-10, 10 being best)
Gov. Jindal- 9
Rep. Melancon- 10
Rep. Cao- 7
Sen. Landrieu- 2
Sen. Vitter-7
Plaquemines Pres. Bill Nungresser(considered run for LA-03)-10
Anyone I miss? I did not include Scalise b/c his district is not being affected as much. I did not include Mitch Landrieu, b/c as much as he likes to think he is, he is not really important here.
I loved Labyrinth as a kid. Haven’t seen it in years, but after tonight I really want to.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c…
Sean Salazar, the first candidate to declare, (and one who I thought would not drop) is dropping out and endorsing Rossi. The last two “main” candidates are Paul Akers and Clint didier. Both guys have egos out of this world, so I doubt they drop.
http://www.surveyusa.com/clien…
Former Fresno mayor Jim Patterson leads state Senator Jeff Denham 34%-30%, with Pombo at 17%. Among people who’ve already voted though, Denham leads Patterson 37%-32%, with Pombo at 18%.
The Democratic race, such as it is, is roughly even.
I know every line of that movie by heart!
http://www.mymotherlode.com/ne…
Perhaps most intriguing is Campbell’s only ahead of DeVore by 3%.
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/ey…
I thought Byrne was 1st and it’s Bentley vs. James for the runoff slot?
http://dc.wispolitics.com/2010…
No babka for the winners, but out-of-staters are welcome to enter Bleeding Heartland’s Iowa primary election prediction contest. Comments must be posted by 7 am on June 8 to qualify. It only takes a minute to create a Bleeding Heartland account (runs on soapblox like SSP).
Anybody here play this? It’s a political simulator. They released ‘Congress Forever’ yesterday and that’s been consuming my free time. But after two tries I can’t get over 208 Republicans in 2010 🙁
have a question
How old do you have to be to contribute to candidates for office by debit card? I know the requirements will probally be different for federal and state candidates, but in general what are the rules?
and his sources are predicting a severe double-dip recession, similar to what happened in 1937 when FDR tried to prematurely balance the budget:
“The Time We Have Is Growing Short”
I’m no economist, but he’s posted a number of very frightening diaries about the economy. And if he’s right, the Democrats, as the incumbent party, will crash and burn with great intensity and Obama might lose in 2012.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/angle…
The Des Moines Register posted the Republican primary numbers today. About 57 percent of likely Iowa Republican primary voters support Terry Branstad, 29 percent plan to vote for Bob Vander Plaats, and 8 percent plan to vote for Rod Roberts. The poll was in the field from June 1 through June 3.
I posted some thoughts on the poll at Bleeding Heartland.
This primary might have played out differently had Vander Plaats had more resources to make his case. I will never understand why the Club for Growth and other national right-wing organizations decided not to get involved in the Iowa governor’s race. Given the way the national conservative movement pushed Rubio against Crist, you’d think they would have some issues with Branstad (who received a “D” grade from the Cato Institute when he was governor).
Selzer’s poll for the Des Moines Register also asked likely Republican primary voters several questions about gay marriage.
I assume general election matchup numbers are coming tomorrow.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/…
PPP might be polling SC-04 Republican Primary. (I can’t tell from the Twitter feed) Inglis has a potential to lose, but he does have a lot of primary opponents.
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-b…
Looking @ FEC reports for Mitt Romney’s PAC, he didn’t stay as neutral as everyone thought. He gave Hoffman $5,000 the day before the election.
“Reported Attack Page” when trying to visit politicalwire.com?
This coming week Montana Democrats will choose who will face incumbent Republican Congressman Dennis Rehberg.
Dennis McDonald and Tyler Gernent are the two leading Democrats. One a former Party Chair and Rural Progress; the other is a Missoula Progressive, young man with a bright future.
No one seems to know who will pull it out…
Smoot v Sewell –
Bronze – SurveyUSA
Silver – ABC/Washington Post
Gold – Field Poll
http://www.publicpolicypolling…
Affair has not hurt her, only 7 points away from avoiding runoff.
http://www.publicpolicypolling…
Affair has not hurt her, only 7 points away from avoiding runoff. This is around the same level Boozman was polling before primary too and he avoided a runoff.
I know this is like a major sleeper race that no one really seems to care about but all the same with the primary coming up I am trying to get interested with the race. Who are we (Democrats) supporting. I have heard good things about Libby Mitchell. Any insight from someone more familiar with the race. Also who is best on the Republican side?
Reed is out. Clark versus Bachmann.
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/ey…
an excellent primer on how to manage a political crisis, mixed with a bit of luck
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol…
But what’s the deal with all these new posters? Don’t get me wrong, I love the fact that SSP is always growing, but I hate these trolls. Apparently the right fIelder for the Rays (Ben Obrist) was a troll and I’ve seen others around. I don’t have point in this comment, but id like to bring it up.
The subject title is also the title of an article in today’s New York Times that details a severe issue that, if not addressed very soon, will have multiple political effects. I’ll quote from some of the most important parts of the article and then talk about some of the effects I believe are likely in races for different positions.
There are are other quotes from or references to the urgent concern of Republican Governors Schwarzenegger of California and Douglas of Vermont, Republican Mayor Bloomberg of New York City, Democratic Governor Paterson of New York, and Michael Bird, federal affairs counsel for the National Council of State Legislatures.
The first electoral issue is that any combination of biting tax or fee increases and brutal service cuts from state and municipal governments will sour voters even further on incumbent politicians, almost certainly causing more losses, including some surprising upsets, of incumbents from both parties. Undoubtedly, this would extend to Federal races – as it should, because the Federal government would have failed to meet the need for a new rescue package for state and municipal governments.
The second issue is that the lost jobs from layoffs of government workers (teachers, firefighters, police officers, social workers, God only knows who else) would worsen the economy palpably, leading to even more damage to incumbents.
To get a conference report with restored Medicaid money in it – which Harry Reid favors – through the House, some Representatives who wouldn’t vote for it the first time would have to take the political risk of being labeled as spendthrift deficit-busters. And of course the Senate, which plans to start consideration of the bill this week, would be blamed by deficit hawks for taking the initiative to reinsert such a fix.
Of course, should they fail to get this through, a lot of them risk losing their seats because – correct me if you have data to prove me wrong – as much as the voters care about deficits, they care more about jobs, taxes, and services.
Republican Governors have less room to be nihilists than do the members of the minority party in Congress. Some of them may be assholes, but they have the responsibility to actually administer states and are accountable to the voters. Therefore, in times of emergency, even a hypocritical posturer like Governor Jindal of Louisiana begs for Federal help. We’ve seen this again and again recently. When there’s a flood, tornadoes, or a huge industrial accident, Republican Governors give the “tax and spend liberals” propaganda a rest and put their hands out.
But the political problem for many of them in this situation is greater than mere hypocrisy. Because though as Governors, they desperately need this money, as long as extremist Tea Partiers and Club for Growthers control their party, they will get Hell for publicly lobbying for a Medicare rescue package if and when they run for Federal office – or even for reelection.
So to recap, what we see here is the bitter fruit of insincere Republican posturing, irrational extremism among the Republican rank and file, Blue Dog reelection positioning, and White House enabling of premature deficit hawkery.
Some of the politicians who have put the country at another precipice have to risk political damage by voicing what Governor Douglas of Vermont, a moderate, very reasonably states (quote below). To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, if the politicians who could lose an election over a deficit but know that shafting state governments in a budget emergency is unacceptable don’t hang together, we will all hang separately.
P.S. Ironically, the Times also features an article about the United Kingdom – Cameron Warns Britons of Austerity – in which the new government there seems to present an attitude quite similar to that of the right-wing deficit hawks in this country: Anti-stimulus and in favor of greater hardship for the people, despite some attempts to rhetorically soften the blow with the following claim (point and counterpoint below):
I have to wonder whether the British have exchanged one kind of fuckups for another kind, and whether the Liberal Democrats may soon regret agreeing to be part of a coalition with the Conservatives. Perhaps the British, rather than lamenting as many Americans do that we have two lousy parties, will being to lament that they have three bad ones.
the hell is Mary Landrieu in all of this. I’ve checked her senate site multiple times since this disaster began and all she’s concerned with is that Louisiana should get more oil revenue now. While on David Vitter’s senate site, he’s talking about sand berms, the Justice Department investigating BP, safety investigations, etc. Is she tone death or something? If I was voting in Louisiana in 2014, I would vote her out of office without hesitation, and I’m a Democrat. Does she not know acting tone death and like nothing was happening is what doomed Blanco’s chances of reelection after Katrina?