Nate: Don't Pawn Your Lisa Murkowski Gear Just Yet

[Eraserhead]

Perhaps Dgov is right. Perhaps the stimulus, health care, it was all a mistake. I really don't know any more.

Somebody call the WAAAMBULENCE!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Perhaps Dgov is right. Perhaps the stimulus, health care, it was all a mistake. I really don't know any more.

Somebody call the WAAAMBULENCE!

This is what Beet is unable to get over:



Never mind that Hillary supported all these policies and would've implemented the exact same ones...

[Meeker]

For old times' sake: http://hillaryis44.com/

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Perhaps Dgov is right. Perhaps the stimulus, health care, it was all a mistake. I really don't know any more.

fixed. The Health care bill was, The Financial Regulations should have been passed last summer, instead of Health Care.


Of course it would haved helped the Dems if Obama lived up to the hype of being the leftist Reagan. Reagan held sted fast that his economic policies were the best. Obama tried to switch course and focus on the deficit and concede the arguement to the Inflationistas. He would be doing far better if he had gone so far as to deny them any credence and held to a more leftist economic line, defending the deficits and stimulus as essential, challenging fears of bond market reactions and inflation. A second stimulus would be possible had he done that. Oh the irony is so hilarious. Where he was ideological, he should have been more flexible and patient, and where he was compromising and conceding, he should have stood his ground.

You have President's who get and make every move right, and then those who get cut no slack.

[The Ex-Factor]

Well Reagan didn't quite hold steadfast in his economic views in the midst of a recession either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Equity_and_Fiscal_Responsibility_Act_of_1982

[Brittain33]

Lunar, the Democratic Party is so smart, that's exactly what has gotten them to where they are today. About to
(1) suffer historic losses

They're going to suffer historic losses because they're coming off of two rounds of historic gains on a map that was still largely drawn by Republicans. If they end up significantly below their 2004 seat totals, that will be a big blow, but if they're down to about where they were before 2006, that's an ugly hit but essentially makes them no worse off than they were before, but having passed historic health care legislation and at least in theory pulled us out of Iraq. And any Republican majority is going to have a lot to prove to become as durable as the '94 one.

I'm sitting back and watching what happens now. It wasn't easy, but I decoupled the Dems' performance in '10 from my self-esteem a few weeks ago.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

What leftist agenda?

Most of the people who use the word leftist have no idea what it means. More understanding of the political spectrum is needed.

To America it's leftist because this country has aligned itself so far to the right.

[Niemeyerite]

Perhaps Dgov is right. Perhaps the stimulus, health care, it was all a mistake. I really don't know any more.

Are you zell [miller]?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well Reagan didn't quite hold steadfast in his economic views in the midst of a recession either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Equity_and_Fiscal_Responsibility_Act_of_1982

Of course, but I don't recall Reagan conceding the economic debate to his Keynesian, essentially admitting they were correct and thus politicially cornering himself. Obama has at several points said things like "the deficit will hold back the recovery" and " The budget situation is effecting the economy".  This is something which Paul Krugman has criticized Obama for doing.


Reagan compromised on the policies but never on the philosophical debate. And despite compromises at times, he largely refused to pull back his tax cuts on a broad scale, despite the huge deficits.

[DrScholl]

Murkowski just conceded.

[tmthforu94]

Murkowski just conceded.

Yep, I'm surprised, given that she narrowed the gap by 300 votes today alone. I think she could still pull this out.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100901/ap_on_re_us/us_alaska_senate_14

[cinyc]

Murkowski just conceded.

Yep, I'm surprised, given that she narrowed the gap by 300 votes today alone. I think she could still pull this out.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100901/ap_on_re_us/us_alaska_senate_14

Actually, after the most recent dump a few minutes ago, Murkowski narrowed the gap by 38 votes - after almost 12,000 votes were counted today.  If 9,000 votes remain to be counted in BOTH primaries, do the math.

Or I'll do it for you - given any reasonable scenario, it is not possible.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

She should've won.  I don't like the Tea Partiers - they screw up the party.  Heck, they tried to take over the MI GOP convention and nominate a different Lt. Governor candidate.

It's crap like this that's going to destroy us in 4/6 years when we nominate people who will suck once they get in office.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

She should've won.  I don't like the Tea Partiers - they screw up the party.  Heck, they tried to take over the MI GOP convention and nominate a different Lt. Governor candidate.

It's crap like this that's going to destroy us in 4/6 years when we nominate people who will suck once they get in office.

Miller is certaintly not the worst among Tea Party picks like Angle and Paul. The Media is doing a fine job turning him into Angle though. Be carefull where you get your information. I noticed from CBS' sunday morning show, that Miller they described and the real Joe Miller are two different people.

[??????????]

She should've won.  I don't like the Tea Partiers - they screw up the party.  Heck, they tried to take over the MI GOP convention and nominate a different Lt. Governor candidate.

It's crap like this that's going to destroy us in 4/6 years when we nominate people who will suck once they get in office.

Miller is certaintly not the worst among Tea Party picks like Angle and Paul. The Media is doing a fine job turning him into Angle though. Be carefull where you get your information. I noticed from CBS' sunday morning show, that Miller they described and the real Joe Miller are two different people.

Yeah, I agree. A whole party of Scott Browns and Olympia Snowes is far better then principled conservatives. Roll over RINOs rock.

[Lunar]

The above is correct that Miller won't be an Angle or a Paul.  As I linked to in my first post on this thread though, he still has weird issues. But yeah, Miller is an accomplished person, having a law degree from Yale and a Masters in Economics from University of Alaska, I think.v  So he has a brain, and I'm pretty sure Miller will be better than Paul at understanding local issues

[redcommander]

Sharron Angle isn't dumb either. She earned her college degree from the flagship university of the University of Nevada system, UNR. However, she is very driven by her conservative beliefs and comes off as crazy as a result. Just because you have a degree from Yale doesn't mean you are going to be a fantastic candidate. Just ask GWB.

[Lunar]

Sharron Angle isn't dumb either. She earned her college degree from the flagship university of the University of Nevada system, UNR. However, she is very driven by her conservative beliefs and comes off as crazy as a result. Just because you have a degree from Yale doesn't mean you are going to be a fantastic candidate. Just ask GWB.

You are aware that GWB got elected twice to the highest office in the land?  I mean, you must be using a pretty damn harsh definition for "fantastic candidate" ... I mean... he won, twice.  He won the gold medal in candidate Olympics.  He's just dyslexic.

[DrScholl]

I concur, it's not a matter of some of these people being dumb, it's about them being too radical. If the Republicans expect to remain a viable party, they cannot continue to purge moderates.

[redcommander]

I concur, it's not a matter of some of these people being dumb, it's about them being too radical. If the Republicans expect to remain a viable party, they cannot continue to purge moderates.

They will get the message sooner or later, whether it comes by the Democrats retaining congress this fall, or nominating a tea partier who loses massively to Obama in 2012.

[Dgov]

I concur, it's not a matter of some of these people being dumb, it's about them being too radical. If the Republicans expect to remain a viable party, they cannot continue to purge moderates.

Really?  You mean the people who ruined the GOP's image in the early Bush years with their prolific spending and lack of any resemblance of fiscal restraint?  There's a reason that Republicans have a far less favorable opinion of their own party than Democrats do.  People respond well to politicians making responsible choices--take a look at McDonnell and Christie in Virginia and New Jersey to see what nominating stalwart Conservatives did to the GOP.  These people are making the spending cuts that moderates considered to be "too extreme" or "too controversial" and are highly popular in their states for doing so.

So if you think the GOP is going to die by daring embracing Conservatism again, I have to one thing to say.  People support elected officials to make actual policy changes--not to get re-elected.  If the getting tangible fiscal restraint means no return to the "Permanent Republican Majority" of the Bush Years, that's fine by me.

[jimrtex]

Murkowski just conceded.

Yep, I'm surprised, given that she narrowed the gap by 300 votes today alone. I think she could still pull this out.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100901/ap_on_re_us/us_alaska_senate_14

Actually, after the most recent dump a few minutes ago, Murkowski narrowed the gap by 38 votes - after almost 12,000 votes were counted today.  If 9,000 votes remain to be counted in BOTH primaries, do the math.

Or I'll do it for you - given any reasonable scenario, it is not possible.

Most of the votes that are still out include a lot of Questioned ballots, which were stronger for Miller than the absentee ballots.  I bet it ends up wider than on election day.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I concur, it's not a matter of some of these people being dumb, it's about them being too radical. If the Republicans expect to remain a viable party, they cannot continue to purge moderates.

Really?  You mean the people who ruined the GOP's image in the early Bush years with their prolific spending and lack of any resemblance of fiscal restraint?  There's a reason that Republicans have a far less favorable opinion of their own party than Democrats do.  People respond well to politicians making responsible choices--take a look at McDonnell and Christie in Virginia and New Jersey to see what nominating stalwart Conservatives did to the GOP.  These people are making the spending cuts that moderates considered to be "too extreme" or "too controversial" and are highly popular in their states for doing so.

So if you think the GOP is going to die by daring embracing Conservatism again, I have to one thing to say.  People support elected officials to make actual policy changes--not to get re-elected.  If the getting tangible fiscal restraint means no return to the "Permanent Republican Majority" of the Bush Years, that's fine by me.

Christie was not the Tea Party candidate and neither was McDonnell. McDonnell was unopposed in the primary but he did support McCain in 2008 for one thing. I remember CarlHayden attacking Christie relentlessly as a rino last year.

She should've won.  I don't like the Tea Partiers - they screw up the party.  Heck, they tried to take over the MI GOP convention and nominate a different Lt. Governor candidate.

It's crap like this that's going to destroy us in 4/6 years when we nominate people who will suck once they get in office.

Miller is certaintly not the worst among Tea Party picks like Angle and Paul. The Media is doing a fine job turning him into Angle though. Be carefull where you get your information. I noticed from CBS' sunday morning show, that Miller they described and the real Joe Miller are two different people.

Yeah, I agree. A whole party of Scott Browns and Olympia Snowes is far better then principled conservatives. Roll over RINOs rock.

Considering the states in question, I think Scott Brown and Olympia Snowe are the best you will get.

I concur, it's not a matter of some of these people being dumb, it's about them being too radical. If the Republicans expect to remain a viable party, they cannot continue to purge moderates.

If, Castle loses in Delware I will worry. But so far the climate is better for a moderate Republican now then any previous year. Whenever economcis and spending are trumping Abortion, gays and guns, its the best environment for them. If they can't parly that into the victory, then they are so screwed and so out of touch they don't deserve to win ever. Nostalgia doesn't win votes. People don't give a damn about how a party used to be, they want real time relation to their concerns and issues. If these moderates don't appeal to that, they won't win. It isn't a matter of "teaching" them a lesson. They represent an anger and uneeze, and the weaknesses of establishment candidate.

If someone like Murkowski has to win, then frankly the GOP is over. Murkowski represents the very sh**t that every Dem and moderate Republican bitched about during the bush years. And yet now she is gone you bitch some more. Why is you only care about corruption when it touches a conservative but not when its a moderate? It used to annoy me when Don would dodge this very question and then hide behind his moderate hero credentials to avoid any accountability for this glaring double standard. A conservative gets into a scandal you never hear the end of it, but someone like Murkowski gets a free pass because she is a moderate, she is a woman, or because she arouses some of our sexually deprived posters.  That is an absolutely horrible way to make political decisions. She is gone, get over it. She wasn't of any use anyway. Except a vote for Amnesty, and source of uncontrolled pork and support for the same special interests her dad was connected too, and for some as a hedge against Palin, a foolish move.

[redcommander]

Sharron Angle isn't dumb either. She earned her college degree from the flagship university of the University of Nevada system, UNR. However, she is very driven by her conservative beliefs and comes off as crazy as a result. Just because you have a degree from Yale doesn't mean you are going to be a fantastic candidate. Just ask GWB.

You are aware that GWB got elected twice to the highest office in the land?  I mean, you must be using a pretty damn harsh definition for "fantastic candidate" ... I mean... he won, twice.  He won the gold medal in candidate Olympics.  He's just dyslexic.

And with a booming economy, a country at war, and a weak opponent, he still only won 286 EV's for reelection. That doesn't really seem like the likely result of a supposedly smart Ivy League educated Republican. Bush's academic credentials could only get him so far when he kept making gaffes and polarizing the electorate with his dedication to fear mongering and fiscally irresponsible conservatism.

[redcommander]

I concur, it's not a matter of some of these people being dumb, it's about them being too radical. If the Republicans expect to remain a viable party, they cannot continue to purge moderates.

Really?  You mean the people who ruined the GOP's image in the early Bush years with their prolific spending and lack of any resemblance of fiscal restraint?  There's a reason that Republicans have a far less favorable opinion of their own party than Democrats do.  People respond well to politicians making responsible choices--take a look at McDonnell and Christie in Virginia and New Jersey to see what nominating stalwart Conservatives did to the GOP.  These people are making the spending cuts that moderates considered to be "too extreme" or "too controversial" and are highly popular in their states for doing so.

So if you think the GOP is going to die by daring embracing Conservatism again, I have to one thing to say.  People support elected officials to make actual policy changes--not to get re-elected.  If the getting tangible fiscal restraint means no return to the "Permanent Republican Majority" of the Bush Years, that's fine by me.

Christie was not the Tea Party candidate and neither was McDonnell. McDonnell was unopposed in the primary but he did support McCain in 2008 for one thing. I remember CarlHayden attacking Christie relentlessly as a rino last year.

She should've won.  I don't like the Tea Partiers - they screw up the party.  Heck, they tried to take over the MI GOP convention and nominate a different Lt. Governor candidate.

It's crap like this that's going to destroy us in 4/6 years when we nominate people who will suck once they get in office.

Miller is certaintly not the worst among Tea Party picks like Angle and Paul. The Media is doing a fine job turning him into Angle though. Be carefull where you get your information. I noticed from CBS' sunday morning show, that Miller they described and the real Joe Miller are two different people.

Yeah, I agree. A whole party of Scott Browns and Olympia Snowes is far better then principled conservatives. Roll over RINOs rock.

Considering the states in question, I think Scott Brown and Olympia Snowe are the best you will get.

I concur, it's not a matter of some of these people being dumb, it's about them being too radical. If the Republicans expect to remain a viable party, they cannot continue to purge moderates.

If, Castle loses in Delware I will worry. But so far the climate is better for a moderate Republican now then any previous year. Whenever economcis and spending are trumping Abortion, gays and guns, its the best environment for them. If they can't parly that into the victory, then they are so screwed and so out of touch they don't deserve to win ever. Nostalgia doesn't win votes. People don't give a damn about how a party used to be, they want real time relation to their concerns and issues. If these moderates don't appeal to that, they won't win. It isn't a matter of "teaching" them a lesson. They represent an anger and uneeze, and the weaknesses of establishment candidate.

If someone like Murkowski has to win, then frankly the GOP is over. Murkowski represents the very sh**t that every Dem and moderate Republican bitched about during the bush years. And yet now she is gone you bitch some more. Why is you only care about corruption when it touches a conservative but not when its a moderate? It used to annoy me when Don would dodge this very question and then hide behind his moderate hero credentials to avoid any accountability for this glaring double standard. A conservative gets into a scandal you never hear the end of it, but someone like Murkowski gets a free pass because she is a moderate, she is a woman, or because she arouses some of our sexually deprived posters.  That is an absolutely horrible way to make political decisions. She is gone, get over it. She wasn't of any use anyway. Except a vote for Amnesty, and source of uncontrolled pork and support for the same special interests her dad was connected too, and for some as a hedge against Palin, a foolish move.

I wouldn't have minded so much if she lost to someone other than Joe Miller. She is controversial I know, and I do think she should have gotten less biased treatment during her time in senate by the media for her votes and political beliefs. Now I know a lot of Conservatives don't like her, but she was a productive member of senate, and that is what I liked about her. She was able to work to get things done when colleagues like Mitch McConnell were calling for No votes on every piece of legislation sponsored by Democrats. Miller strikes me as just another no vote in senate, which doesn't help the Republicans to become viable again. If there had been a fresh face with a record of working across the aisle but sticking to conservatism, someone like LePage, Ayotte, or Hoeven for the state of Alaska, than I would have been all for them defeating Murkowski. Maybe Miller will surprise me as the campaign goes on and shows some independence. I just want the Republicans to come up with some creative policy agendas, and not rely on Paul Ryan to shed the image of them being the party of No.