Don't over-estimate his appeal. He is an actor, and can be demonized as such. he don't know shit about shinola.
The above could have been said about Reagan.
Republicans do not have a problem voting for actors and never have had a problem voting for actors. The anti-actor thing only applies to liberal actors, not conservative ones.
Republicans also do not have a problem voting for people who "don't know shit about shinola". One only needs to look at our current President to make the case, but if that's not convincing enough, suitable examples can be plucked from the last 6 years of both the House and the Senate.
Don't underestimate Thompson -- he's a bullshit artist who looks like a Daddy and once played the President in a movie about nukes. That mixed with a generally conservative, pro-corporatist worldview and no outstanding votes in favor of women's rights will get him far in the primary. All he needs to do is promise to torture Arab-looking people with impunity when confronted with a highly improbably situation, and he'll be all set to climb to the Presidency.
(That said, I agree - he's got a lot of negatives. And I think that once the GOPer base start really looking at him, they'll decide they don't like him. I'm sure there's something in his voting record that Dobson will condemn, or if not, then maybe he has some gay friends that Dobson will attack him through.)
"Re James Carville .... Who cares???? Who freaking cares???"
Pardon me for asking, but are you nuts?
I care - I care a lot. I'm not an Obama supporter - right now I'm not an ANYBODY supporter. I'd be fine with a Hillary Clinton nomination - any of the folks on the Democratic field right now are an entire tier better than any one of the GOP nominations right now, and I think any of them that can stand up to the inevitable swiftboating that they're going to get during the Presidential run will be able to make the presidency, and probably do a fine job as president.
BUT - this shit that Carville is pulling has got to end. This is the type of crap that Republicans pull all of the time. And its time for the Dems to root it out of their own party and get rid of it. Carville is representing himself as a "Democratic Analyst" on these shows - he's acting like he can be a neutral commenter on how the Democratic primary battle is going when he's got a vested interest in Hillary Clinton being the winner. His title should be "Democratic Activist and Clinton Advisor", whether he's paid to be an advisor or not, if he's giving advice to them he's an advisor and the people watching the show need to know about it.
This has nothing to do with Obama, or Edwards, or even to a large degree Clinton. This has to do with the dishonesty of the media in general and James Carville in particular.
Yeah, like Amazon and Google are bigger than Time-Warner and AT&T (formerly SBC). Maybe in stock price, but not in any real meaningful way.
Plus, neither Amazon nor Google are in a position to control what I do or how I do it - if either of them tries, I just stop using them. Time Warner and AT&T are in a position to stop my use of the Internet period - they're the only two games in town where I'm at. If I don't like their business practices, I have to either do without service entirely or shut up and take it. That's significantly more power than Google or Amazon weild over my day-to-day life.
That came off wrong - when I say I'm suprised by Brown's lead, that's because I didn't think that DeWine would be so weak in this state, not because Brown voted for the torture bill. I'm not sure the majority of folks in this state even know what was in that bill, let alone what it means to them.
I'm suprised because Brown is very liberal, a Cleveland liberal no less, and I never would have thought that a lib from Cleveland would have the lead in a national office.
DeWine's ads have been saturating the Columbus area as well. They've been terrible ads, too. Whoever told DeWine that he should have himself sitting at his kitchen table, talking to to viewers was nuts - he looks terrible. He talks like a robot, and him being in his flannel shirt and sitting in his kitchen just looks fake.
I'm a bit suprised by Brown's lead - like many others I'm ticked that Brown didn't take a stand against the torture and indefinite detainment bill. In a choice between DeWine and Brown, Brown is clearly the better man, but it still baffles me that people that that would be the safe way to vote (and angers me that they didn't have enough principles to fillibuster or at least vote against it).
Doubtful. Some might splinter off (the way that Democratic losses and DLC accomodation pushed liberals to the Green party through the late 90s), but there won't be a collapse. You might see a shift in membership in the Constitution Party, but more likely you'll see the Republican Party "redefine" itself and try to figure out how to come back in 2008.
The real question is what kind of power struggle happens and who ends up on top. It will be the neo-cons vs. the religious radicals vs. the corporatists. I suspect that, with their money, the corporatists will once again win - but you never know. And what happens to W and the Cheney administration if the House tumbles? I'm not even talking inquiries and impeachment investigations, I'm talking about the party eating itself from within and looking for scapegoats to throw under the bus - the lame ducks in the Oval Office will look like pretty good sacrificial lambs if they get thrashed next month.
You know, I wonder how well a sign that says "A Vote for Mark Foley is a vote for Joe Negron" will really work out for Negron.
That said, this should have gone to court, if only to make sure that precedent was set in the law one way or the other, so that if this happens again, it won't be up to the goodwill of the election commissioners to decide what should happen.
I disagree, somewhat, althought I do agree that most of the Republican "mistakes" that some point out aren't mistakes at all - they're the result of conservative policies, and should be rightly called "failed Conservative policies".
However, there are two very real mistakes that I can think of regarding the current Republican administration and legislature. The first is Medicare Part D - that mess should not have happened, even under a conservative regime. The "donut hole" in the middle is pissing people off, and it shouldn't have had to happen - hell, the numbers they used to come up with it were completely fictional, they might as well have just fully funded it or not bothered with it at all. Sure, it would have been a bad idea with the way it is funded, but most of their policies ARE bad ideas, so making that particular misstep was idiotic.
The other is Social Security - not the actual proposed policy, but the ham-handed messaging that they had for it. The "decider" kept his plan under wraps, so the talking head couldn't get on message about what was going on. They didn't figure out the vocabulary to talk about it until far into the media cycle. Now, its true that prior to the last few years this might not have hurt them in the long run and they might have recovered from it, and the progressive movement as a whole deserves a pat on the back for making a big noise over this. But it was a costly mistake on their part that shouldn't have had to be made.
The entire Conservative movement is about selling bad policies with a smile, and making people think that bullshit is pure gold. Hell, people (e.g. voters) STILL believe in "trickle-down economics" as a viable tax model despite the fact that we've been trickled on now for six years and all I'm seeing is urine - the money is going out of the country or into Paris Hilton's doggie dish. When they screw up the sales pitch and surrounding spin, its at the very least a mis-step if not a mistake.
People were having problems in my polling station today - definitely technology related ones. The poll workers were doing their best, but they looked like they had had about 15 minutes of training. EVERYONE was falling back on one kid (probably no more than 18 himself), who could make the computers work. Most of the poll workers were easily in their 60s and didn't seem to like the computer systems at all.
And some of the poor schlubs around me had all kinds of problems. one guy didn't follow the instructions quite right (the poor guy was wrestling with his 3-year-old while trying to vote) and accidentally turned off the video and put it on "audio only" for the blind. No one could get it back to video mode, so he was trying to wrestle with a three-year-old, fumble with headphones, and cast his ballot.
And, for the record, this is a moderately Republican suburban district with lightweight voters - I think the presidential election two years ago was the only time there's ever been a line when I've gone at 7:30am. This year, there were a dozen people there when I got there waiting, and probably at least that many there when I left. I can only guess what kinds of problems are going on in downtown Columbus and Cleveland today.
I'm not so sure what everyone is so confused about. Was I the only one paying attention during the 90s? The Clinton administration was probably the best Republican administration we've had since, oh maybe Nixon. Maybe even Eisenhower. Everything that the moderate Right wanted they got between 1992 and 2000 - and its part of the reason that the GOP has been able to push the agenda so far toward the radical right since then.
Clinton and his people always were moderate-right folks (with a smattering of moderate-left folks among them). They were also always calculating, always triangulating, and always able to figure out what the "best" thing to do was (meaning the thing that would be the most popular/get the most votes/look the best - not necessarily an "objective" standard of best).
None of these moves come as any kind of suprise to me, but I am suprised that people are shocked that the moderate-right Clinton administration are turning out to be people who advocate right wing and moderate right-wing policies.
"I have to admit that it strikes me as a little strange that so many Dems think the Presidential election was stolen, but almost no one thinks the same thing about congressional elections."
Not really. The stealing of congressional elections is much more subtle, because it relies on gerrymandering to force districts into shapes that favor incumbents. Its harder to call an election "stolen" when someone wins it 60/40 than when someone gets the popular vote and the Supreme Court throws the election to the other guy.
"I also have to wonder how 55% of people who identify as non-white say they are protestants, and 61% say they are "born again" Christians. In fact, over two-thirds of all Democrats who identify as Protestant identify as "born again" or "evangelical." Not likely."
Why is this not likely? And why is it odd that 55% of folks who identify as "non-white" say they are protestants? Most of the black and asian Christians I know are Protestants, not Catholics. "Born Again" christians cover a wide base too - wasn't Bill Clinton as Born Again Christian? I'm fairly certain that Jimmy Carter was too.
Don't fall into the Republican trap - "born again" doesn't mean that they instantly fall into a Republican worldview - Republicans just keep saying that it does and hope that folks believe them.
Thanks for that link. I was figuring that SOME Republican would step up to challenge DeWine, I was wondering who it would be. I'm wondering who will step up on the Democratic side and if a messy primary on the Republican side will affect how things go.
But will the GOP run DeWine? No one has spoken up yet, but there are serious rumblings among conservatives that I know that want to see someone else run against DeWine in the primaries because he isn't conservative enough (i.e. isn't on track with the reactionary Christian right).
My nightmare - Jim Petro and Ken Blackwell cut a deal to have Blackwell run for Senate while Petro runs for Governor. This would eliminate the messy gubenatorial primary (even with Montgomery still in the race - without those two beating each other up she won't have a chance against Petro) AND it would allow Blackwell to fire up the base against both DeWine and whoever runs for the Democrats.
Regardless, if DeWine doesn't get the nomination it will be much tougher than if he does. AND depending on how the governor's election goes, there may be coattails there that push one or the other of the candidates into the Senate. It depends on if the Republicans can fire up their base enough OR if the Democrats can convince enough people to get to the polls and vote the bums out. Ohio is going to be a tough fight despite the obvious scandals and corruption here.