Not a bad night.
30 years is long enough.
Where is SEIU and the other unions when you need them? Lazy Philly basterds wouldn’t go out in the rain to vote as instructed.
Had to laugh when I heard Reid start the spinning earlier today when he said there were TWO fine candidates for the November election. Ha! Ha! That’s loyalty for you.
But don’t forget, none of these results are to be viewed as a referendum on the President’s actions. Unless, you know, when a Dem wins, in which case, of course it should be viewed as an endorsement of the President.
Rand winning should be a wake up call to the Reps. At least start talking a conservative game.
Fear the backlash. It is coming, it is coming. Oh wait…
Critz (D) 53%
Burns (R) 45%
Oops. What happened there boys? We all know you would be shouting from the rooftops had the R pulled it out.
Not a bad night for the party faithful, for sure. Add DINOs and RINOs to the endangered species list.
RNCC had exactly 1 race to focus on, and lost it to a Democrat in McCain Country. That’s gotta sting a bit.
Fear the backlash. It is coming, it is coming. Oh wait…
Critz (D) 53%
Burns (R) 45%
Oops. What happened there boys? We all know you would be shouting from the rooftops had the R pulled it out.
Sorry, that one was off the radar for me. As Sphere said, it will be a hard road for those in the middle, but mostly I like Paul's libertarian streak (which I believe pubs will find includes tacit support for gay marriage), and feel that any rep that switches parties DURING their elected cycle like Specter, deserves to be punted. I actually admired Specter's independence at times, but he was also an arrogant ass, so on a personal level, get a chuckle.
Rand Paul’s landslide victory may be a setback for the Republican establishment, but possibly a good thing for the party in the long run.
“I actually admired Specter’s independence at times, but he was also an arrogant ass, so on a personal level, get a chuckle.”
I would say much the same of Charlie Crist here in Florida, for some of the same reasons; hopefully, his campaign will go the same way as Specter’s.
The talking heads are speculating that Paul’s victory may signal a return to small government, less foreign intervention, and less focus on social issues.
When pigs fly.
The talking heads are speculating that Paul’s victory may signal a return to small government, less foreign intervention, and less focus on social issues.
When pigs fly.
Or when Rand Paul starts his own nation.
Specter lost to a rather liberal democrat. So except for getting rid of someone you may not like, it looks like Specter’s seat has a pretty good shot of becoming a much more liberal vote than it had been. This could end up a big loss for the GOP…
buzzkill
.
it looks like Specter’s seat has a pretty good shot of becoming a much more liberal vote than it had been.
That would be a real stretch at this point. Support for both candidates is about even today at 42% with the rest unk.
So it’s 50/50 right now? That’d be “a pretty good shot at becoming a much more liberal vote than it had been.”
I do what I can.
I know nothing of the two candidates though beyond Specter losing to a liberal Democratic candidate.
Not a bad night.
I’m not so sure I would characterize Paul’s win as a good thing. I’m seeing in Paul a Libertarian who tries to maintain ideological purity, but who avoids publicly owning up to the consequences.
Paul told Maddow that he agrees with most parts of the Civil Rights Act, except for one (Title II), that made it a crime for private businesses to discriminate against customers on the basis of race. Paul explained that had he been in office during debate of bill, he would have tried to change the legislation. He said that it stifled first amendment rights:
Maddow: Do you think that a private business has a right to say that ‘We don’t serve black people?’
Paul: I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. Butdo discriminate.
But I think what’s important in this debate is not getting into any specific “gotcha” on this, but asking the question ‘What about freedom of speech?’ Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. Should we limit racists from speaking. I don’t want to be associated with those people, but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things that freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn’t mean we approve of it…
Maddow:… Howabout desegregating lunch counters?
Paul: Well what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says ‘well no, we don’t want to have guns in here’ the bar says ‘we don’t want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each-other.’ Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion… **
Maddow: Well, it was pretty practical to the people who had the life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen’s lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about what it means about ownership. This is not a hypothetical Dr. Paul.
In my recollection, he never directly answered the question (which was put several times) of whether or not he would have voted for passage of the Civil Rights Act.
Is this the kind of conservative the new and inclusive Republican party needs more, or less, of?
Forgot the link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/rand-paul-tells-maddow-th_n_582872.html
The wriggling starts around minute nine, and continues throughout. She repeatedly asks a single pointed question, and he repeatedly retreats to the “I’m not a racist” smokescreen. Seems these are “discussions worth having” but not necessarily for the purpose of giving direct and clear answers.
Too bad he didn’t inherit his father’s candor along with his libertarian principles.
“In my recollection, he never directly answered the question (which was put several times) of whether or not he would have voted for passage of the Civil Rights Act.”
**
He said that he would have tried to get that one provision changed, but because of the other 90% of the act with which he agreed he would have supported the “totality” of the act. He also pointed out (and I’m paraphrasing from memory) that in a political context you don’t get to pick and choose, but have to vote on a bill as a whole.
I think his point about how the same principle behind that one provision would make it impossible for restaurant owners to keep firearms out of their establishments went completely over Maddow’s head Not surprising, of course.