That fire was really an accident and those cars were really registered to him.

An impeachment trial is possible, but a conviction is not.

Pressing his luck it seems. If he goes too nuclear, it could backfire.

I think money is better spent trying to gain seats, rather than Democrat on Democrat battles, which can be very costly. Corbett should have run last year.

How is that a misrepresentation? Swalwell attacked Stark for voting against re-affirming "in god we trust" as the national motto. Stark was standing up for those who do not believe in god, and Swalwell attacked him for it. It is even on Swalwell's own website.

http://www.swalwellforcongress.com/do_we_trust_pete_stark_to_represent_our_views

That's about one vote and Swalwell's campaign wasn't solely based on attacking Stark for being an atheist. The reason the race became competitive was because of his bizarre behavior. Stark's atheism wasn't a big issue in the race.

Are some people forgetting that Stark is crazy? He actually threatened to call CPS on a former Assemblyman who refused to endorse him. Nobody made his atheism is issue, that's a complete misrepresentation, what was an issue was his increasing instability. He didn't even live in the state anymore. Those things couldn't be ignored because he is an liberal atheist.

Democrats can't criticize Republicans for electing crazy or unethical types, then turn around and expect to keep crazy people like Stark in office.

If somebody steps on someone's foot or says the wrong thing, that event could very easily turn into a disaster.

It's a stretch to blame the Occupy 501 for the bridge bombing plot. With that being said, this topic isn't about Occupy Wall Street, it's about the IRS scrutinizing conservative groups seeking tax exempt status and not even in an illegal manner. Some people are acting as if Tea Party leaders are being thrown into jail and beaten.

I don't think any groups involved in politics should be tax exempt period. When conservative groups pop up with tons of money to run ads and such, it does raise questions. The IRS has every right to scrutinize applications for tax exempt status if a group seems to be too political to be deemed tax exempt. No organization is entitled to tax exempt status, there are specifications.

Democrats are definitely more generous than Republicans are, I'm pretty sure Romney voters in states with Democratic governors are not that supportive of their state's governor.

What is it that allowed Sanford to come back so hard so fast?

Because most southerners are hypocrtical morons.

There. I said it. And before anyone whines about 'sterotyping', for once prove the rest of us wrong.

On another note, does anyone have the slightest doubt krazen will flagrently cheat onhis wife if he ever marries?

What am I saying? A woman marry/date/talk to krazen?

That can be said of partisans anywhere, as partisanship rules all these days and that is the main thing elections are decide, using the right partisan buzz words. As for the rest your post, I'm not touching that one, rofl, major shade thrown there.

Sanford's adultery wasn't the main problem (although it does look bad on public display), the problem was that he left the state without a word and used state money to do it.

Is your life so meaningless that the high point of your day is going "neener neener" at posts people made long before the direction of the race changed?

That's what that poster does, it's so pathetic. Click the ignore button, you will be glad you did.

One thing is for certain, Republicans don't really care what a person does, because they just sent a skanky cur to Congress.

Republicans are more tightly packed throughout the state, you can look at the district maps and see that it doesn't really take gerrymandering to get heavily GOP seats in some parts of the state.  Democrats have more moderates in the legislature right now because they won a few seats with low PVIs last year, Republicans won less of those.

It's clearly a toss-up as to who is worse. Both belong on the ignore list, which is a lot better than arguing with either.

Colbert Busch 50%
Sanford 47%
Platt 3%

California has some of the most right-wing Republicans anywhere, they are very extreme, so this is not a surprising margin at all.

As with all close races, it's about the approval, if Sanford is still underwater, Colbert Busch takes it, as that is usually how very close races hinge on. And, there's the fact that Sanford people are comparing Colbert Busch to Lizzie Borden in videos that makes me he's still not in good shape.

Jim Matheson could be the leader and he'd be portrayed the same as Pelosi, so it's not like anyone will be favorable to Republicans. It's not like Democrats should pick leaders based on Republican approval, anyway.

In no way does that make it right. Even if it wasn't racial, the man is still an asshole.

I'm making the point that it's a stretch to call it a racial comment, I never made any judgments of right or wrong. I just don't see where there is racism in the comment.

I think it's a stretch to find anything racial in that comment. And even if it was, it's not like a comment like that is really all that foreign in South Carolina, a lot of people there would affirm it.

I want Tim Walz to redefeat Franken.

Tim Walz is a Democrat, so that wouldn't do Republicans much good.....

As long as incorporated cities are allowed to exist, they can implement measures such as buybacks, since it is explicitly a local issue and cities can make expenditures. I don't see how it can be enforced.

Overreach of the state government, local government has the authority to make a decision like that. And, if gun buybacks are useless, what is the point in passing laws regarding them?