Looks like Reid has made his picks

[King]

Jesus, Keystone, stop bitching about the moderators already.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

As to the Toomey thing, yes he has some talent, and is a pleasant and articulate chap, but he will have to be very persuasive indeed, or the environment right when he runs for re-election, since it appears he is substantially more conservative in his views than PA is overall. To get it done, he may have to establish himself as having some "plus factor" so he holds votes that might stray due to his ideology. Or PA needs to lose its somewhat small but clearly present, Dem tinged PVI.  That is going to be tough, unless the Philly metro area stops trending Dem.

Well, first, Santorum was well to the right of Pennsylvania, and got re-elected once. 

Second, the state has been possibly drifting a bit rightward in the past two years.  One thing is that PA is  probably a pro-choice state, and Toomey does not emphasize that aspect in the same way Santorum did.

Third, there is no other Bob Casey, Junior out there and the strongest candidate is Rendell.  Rendell is not exceptionally popular.

I've had the impression that PA is relatively pro-life. At least, the most pro-life of any Dem PVI state.  That seems to be the case when you consider all the pro-life Democratic politicians, with only Specter standing out as a pro-choice Republican. I wouldn't expect being pro-life to be a liability in most of the state.

[J. J.]

As to the Toomey thing, yes he has some talent, and is a pleasant and articulate chap, but he will have to be very persuasive indeed, or the environment right when he runs for re-election, since it appears he is substantially more conservative in his views than PA is overall. To get it done, he may have to establish himself as having some "plus factor" so he holds votes that might stray due to his ideology. Or PA needs to lose its somewhat small but clearly present, Dem tinged PVI.  That is going to be tough, unless the Philly metro area stops trending Dem.

Well, first, Santorum was well to the right of Pennsylvania, and got re-elected once. 

Second, the state has been possibly drifting a bit rightward in the past two years.  One thing is that PA is  probably a pro-choice state, and Toomey does not emphasize that aspect in the same way Santorum did.

Third, there is no other Bob Casey, Junior out there and the strongest candidate is Rendell.  Rendell is not exceptionally popular.

I've had the impression that PA is relatively pro-life. At least, the most pro-life of any Dem PVI state.  That seems to be the case when you consider all the pro-life Democratic politicians, with only Specter standing out as a pro-choice Republican. I wouldn't expect being pro-life to be a liability in most of the state.

Maybe as a Democratic state, but it elected Ridge and Rendell governors.  In the 80's and 90's it was substantially more pro-life.  Ridge actually beat pro-life Preate, though there were other factors.  It's moving in a more moderate direction.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Pennsylvania likes incumbents. It's amazing how Santorum was able to win in a landslide in 2006.

An exception to the rule. Anyone with a clue about Pennsylvania politics will tell you that Pennsylvania is a very Pro Incumbent state.

Incumbents defeated in a general election in the House from Pennsylvania in the last 3 elections: 9

Incumbents defeated in a general election in the House from California in the last decade: 1

[Keystone Phil]

Pennsylvania likes incumbents. It's amazing how Santorum was able to win in a landslide in 2006.

An exception to the rule. Anyone with a clue about Pennsylvania politics will tell you that Pennsylvania is a very Pro Incumbent state.

Incumbents defeated in a general election in the House from Pennsylvania in the last 3 elections: 9

Incumbents defeated in a general election in the House from California in the last decade: 1

Ok? So California is more Pro Incumbent with House races so Pennsylvania can't be Pro Incumbent? Nice logic. Note that your state also solidly leans one way statewide, has a few strongholds that lean the other way and very few swing areas so your logic fails even harder.

By the way, I was specifically referring to Pennsylvanians being Pro Incumbent on the statewide level.

[Keystone Phil]

Phil, Badger is well respected. I respect him. He will be totally fair as a moderator, trust me. Plus as a lawyer, I don't think he will get too uptight over the parry and thrust as long as it does not get too personal.

Well respected doesn't necessarily mean fair. We've had some "well respected" moderators recently get into trouble for conduct here.

A moderator responded to you in disagreement and dislikes the politicians you like. He didn't infract you or advocate your banning or something.

The point is that others have been refused moderator status because they're too combative. He's not much different. We'll see how long until posts magically disappear.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Pennsylvania likes incumbents. It's amazing how Santorum was able to win in a landslide in 2006.

An exception to the rule. Anyone with a clue about Pennsylvania politics will tell you that Pennsylvania is a very Pro Incumbent state.

Incumbents defeated in a general election in the House from Pennsylvania in the last 3 elections: 9

Incumbents defeated in a general election in the House from California in the last decade: 1

Ok? So California is more Pro Incumbent with House races so Pennsylvania can't be Pro Incumbent? Nice logic. Note that your state also solidly leans one way statewide, has a few strongholds that lean the other way and very few swing areas so your logic fails even harder.

By the way, I was specifically referring to Pennsylvanians being Pro Incumbent on the statewide level.

OK, statewide the last two US Senator elections had an incumbent defeated.

[Keystone Phil]

Pennsylvania likes incumbents. It's amazing how Santorum was able to win in a landslide in 2006.

An exception to the rule. Anyone with a clue about Pennsylvania politics will tell you that Pennsylvania is a very Pro Incumbent state.

Incumbents defeated in a general election in the House from Pennsylvania in the last 3 elections: 9

Incumbents defeated in a general election in the House from California in the last decade: 1

Ok? So California is more Pro Incumbent with House races so Pennsylvania can't be Pro Incumbent? Nice logic. Note that your state also solidly leans one way statewide, has a few strongholds that lean the other way and very few swing areas so your logic fails even harder.

By the way, I was specifically referring to Pennsylvanians being Pro Incumbent on the statewide level.

OK, statewide the last two US Senator elections had an incumbent defeated.

One was defeated in a primary (though he would have lost the General) but I'll count it. That's two in the last two Senate elections. Go back to Wofford and that's three. You have to go back to the 1960s to find another time when that happened.

We're a Pro Incumbent state when it comes to statewide elections, jfern. You're wrong on this. Just take a breath, admit it and go back to trolling.

[J. J.]

Pennsylvania likes incumbents. It's amazing how Santorum was able to win in a landslide in 2006.

An exception to the rule. Anyone with a clue about Pennsylvania politics will tell you that Pennsylvania is a very Pro Incumbent state.

Incumbents defeated in a general election in the House from Pennsylvania in the last 3 elections: 9

Incumbents defeated in a general election in the House from California in the last decade: 1

Ok? So California is more Pro Incumbent with House races so Pennsylvania can't be Pro Incumbent? Nice logic. Note that your state also solidly leans one way statewide, has a few strongholds that lean the other way and very few swing areas so your logic fails even harder.

By the way, I was specifically referring to Pennsylvanians being Pro Incumbent on the statewide level.

OK, statewide the last two US Senator elections had an incumbent defeated.

One who switched parties and was primaried (I doubt it that will apply to Toomey), and one who, as noted, was very far to the right, but won re-election once.  And, in looking at the statewide row offices, and the Senate itself, these are defeats of incumbents over the last 30 years.

1980 - Robert E. Casey (not the one elected governor).  Treasurer, elected in 1976.

1988 - Don Bailey.  Auditor General, elected in 1984.

1994 - Harris Wofford.  Senate, elected in a special election in 1991.

2006 - Rick Santorum. Senate, elected in 1994.

2010 - Arlen Specter.  Senate, elected in 1980, lost primary.

I can literally count on one hand the number of defeated statewide incumbents in PA in the last 30 years.

And note this, none of the senators elected to a full term were denied reelection the first time out.

And here is the number that have left "voluntarily."

1987 - Budd Dwyer. Treasurer, re-elected in 1984.  Suicide after conviction.

1995 - Ernie Preate. Attorney General, re-elected in 1992.  Resigned after conviction.

2001 - Tom Ridge.  Governor, re-elected in 1998.  Resigned after being named Assistant to the
President for Homeland Security.

2003 - Mike Fisher.  Attorney General, re-elected in 2000.  Resigned after being appointed a federal judge.

2010 - Tom Corbett.  Attorney General, re-elected (I didn't vote for him) in 2008.  Resigned after being elected governor.

[Badger]

If Toomey has his way deficits may rise as revenues fall, Medicare, Social Security, Education aid, may all be slashed, but no billionaire trust fund baby will EVER see their taxes raised a dime. Not on his watch, sirs.

Bless you Senator Toomey, and Godspeed on your noble mission!

And this, gentlemen, is a newly minted moderator. Happy days are here again.

And how exactly have I misrepresented Toomey's well-documented position as a jihadist against federal taxation of almost every kind?

Phil, Badger is well respected. I respect him. He will be totally fair as a moderator, trust me. Plus as a lawyer, I don't think he will get too uptight over the parry and thrust as long as it does not get too personal.

Well respected doesn't necessarily mean fair. We've had some "well respected" moderators recently get into trouble for conduct here.

The point is that others have been refused moderator status because they're too combative. He's not much different. We'll see how long until posts magically disappear.

My goodness, Phil, this whole moderator thing does have your panties in a bunch, doesn't it?

Look, I'm not out to prove anything, and I don't need you pre-emptively complaining about me as an "inspiration" to be fair. I actually envision I'll be a relatively easy going mod, reserving points for all but the most blatant of spamming & trolling, and egregious of personal attacks. I initially plan to use the thread lock more than the points or deletion to control runaway threads. That all remains to be seen as I'm brand new to this, of course....

So while I'll try resisting the urge to go for the jugular when someone gets really stupid, that doesn't go so far as to mean I'll sit back and take s*%t regarding my performance as a mod before I even start the job. Mkay?

[Keystone Phil]

And how exactly have I misrepresented Toomey's well-documented position as a jihadist against federal taxation of almost every kind?

...

My goodness, Phil, this whole moderator thing does have your panties in a bunch, doesn't it?

Again, folks, this is your new moderator. Fair and level headed!

[Marokai Backbeat]

A moderator just said "panties"?! FIRE THIS MAN IMMEDIATELY.

[Keystone Phil]

A moderator just said "panties"?! FIRE THIS MAN IMMEDIATELY.

It's his tone. He'll be nothing more than another Joe Republic: "I'll do whatever I want and get as aggressive as I want and will remain as a moderator. Deal with it."

[J. J.]

And how exactly have I misrepresented Toomey's well-documented position as a jihadist against federal taxation of almost every kind?

...

My goodness, Phil, this whole moderator thing does have your panties in a bunch, doesn't it?

Again, folks, this is your new moderator. Fair and level headed!

"Jihadist" is a pejorative characterization, but it is accurate to say Toomey is anti-tax, which I think is Badger's point.

[Badger]

And how exactly have I misrepresented Toomey's well-documented position as a jihadist against federal taxation of almost every kind?

...

My goodness, Phil, this whole moderator thing does have your panties in a bunch, doesn't it?

Again, folks, this is your new moderator. Fair and level headed!

"Jihadist" is a pejorative characterization, but it is accurate to say Toomey is anti-tax, which I think is Badger's point.

You are mostly correct, JJ. I uise the term jihadist as Toomey is arguably among the most fervently anti-tax legislators in Washington. And in today's tea party dominated GOP, that's saying something. One doesn't get to head the CFG by having a rep for willingness to compromise on fiscal issues.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

A moderator just said "panties"?! FIRE THIS MAN IMMEDIATELY.

It's his tone. He'll be nothing more than another Joe Republic: "I'll do whatever I want and get as aggressive as I want and will remain as a moderator. Deal with it."

Phil, if he deletes stuff inappropriately, complain.   But why complain otherwise?  Why can't he be aggressive if the delete button and infraction button aren't being used improperly?  Seriously, I don't get it.   I'll admit, I consider Badg a personal friend and have had the pleasure of meeting him, but vigorous arguments don't mean he wont' moderate properly.

[Keystone Phil]

A moderator just said "panties"?! FIRE THIS MAN IMMEDIATELY.

It's his tone. He'll be nothing more than another Joe Republic: "I'll do whatever I want and get as aggressive as I want and will remain as a moderator. Deal with it."

Phil, if he deletes stuff inappropriately, complain.   But why complain otherwise?  Why can't he be aggressive if the delete button and infraction button aren't being used improperly?  Seriously, I don't get it.   I'll admit, I consider Badg a personal friend and have had the pleasure of meeting him, but vigorous arguments don't mean he wont' moderate properly.

He's already engaging in excessive hyperbole in response to a post that questions his ability to fairly moderate the board.

[Torie]

Hey Phil, do you have some psychological need to keep a feud going with somebody?  Just asking. I don't think your Jihad (hyperbole alert!) against Badger is going to find much favor around here in any event. If you give him a chance, I suspect that you will find him even more laid back than Lunar, and Lunar was hardly a JBT. JMO. And I know this won't dissuade one little bit!  I was born at night but not last night.

[Keystone Phil]

And I know this won't dissuade one little bit!  I was born at night but not last night.

So you're the one just trying to start a fight. Got it.

[Badger]

How about we get back to the topic at hand?

So what is new with the Supercongress? Are they scheduled to meet yet?

[Brittain33]

Grover Norquist says that "The lady from Washington doesn't do budgets."

She's on the Senate Budget Committee.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/norquist-calls-sen-murray-the-lady-from-washington-who-doesnt-do-budgets.php?ref=fpb

[J. J.]

Grover Norquist says that "The lady from Washington doesn't do budgets."

She's on the Senate Budget Committee.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/norquist-calls-sen-murray-the-lady-from-washington-who-doesnt-do-budgets.php?ref=fpb

Well, considering a budget hasn't been passed in the last 2 1/2 years... . 

[Marston]

Upton says that he will not support any cuts to entitlement benefits for current beneficiaries.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That's nothing. Everyone says that.


What matters is if they are willing to make changes for future retirees. The reason why that is an open question, and not a definate yes, is because of fear the opposition party will mischaracterize the cuts and convince current retirees that either they were cut, or will be soon if they don't send a message.

Worse still is seems the party's are in an exchanging position of getting revenge for the previous attempt by the other party to claim they wanted to throw Grandma out in the street.

2005 - Bush proposes personal accounts and the Dems campaign against "Bush putting Grandma's retirement on the stock market"

2009 - Obama cut's medicare advantage to pay for Obamacare and the Republicans run against $500 billion dollar cut to Medicare


2011 - Republicans vote for a plan to change Medicare into a voucher like system...


With this patten, no wonder everyone is too afraid too do anything with entitlements. It's too easy for the other side to spin and lie about what you did in order to gain political advantage.

[Marston]

No. It's something.

First of all, Upton is generally an honest guy. He wouldn't box himself into that corner unnecessarily if he didn't mean it.

Second, there are a lot of changes to entitlements for current beneficiaries that were basically agreed to during the Obama-Boehner 'Grand Bargain' talks. Changing Social Security COLA's to a Chained-CPI formula and $400 billion in cuts immediately come to mind. I'm not saying that there aren't proposals that just affect future beneficiaries floating around out there but Upton is ruling out some very substantial deficit-reduction proposals by making that statement.