By Hanlon, on May 19th, 2010 at 09:59 AM
The PA primaries went pretty well, I’d say.
In the Special Election to fill the late John Murtha’s seat for District 12, Mark Critz (D) has defeated Tim Burns (R).
For Governor of Pennsylvania with present Governor Ed Rendell (D) reaching term limits this year, the Democrat primary winner, Dan Onorato, will face Tom Corbett, the Republican winner, plus a Libertarian, a challenger from the Constitution Party, and two Independents in November.
US SENATE
The incumbent, Arlen Specter (D) has been removed from contention and will sit home next January. His Democrat challenger and winner of the primary, Joe Sestak, will face Pat Toomey, the Republican primary winner, in November.
Off to a good start.
By Hanlon, on February 11th, 2010 at 01:07 PM
Boy wouldn’t that be something. A Republican takes Kennedy’s seat and a Democrat takes over Texas.
By Hanlon, on January 16th, 2010 at 09:32 PM
 File this one under the “well no shit” category.
As the Massachusetts race is nearing its climax, the two parties are experiencing starkly different responses from their respective crowds. While the Republicans are finding it easy to get their constituents fired up, the Democrats aren’t having nearly as easy a go of it.
He’s drawing crowds rarely seen by Republicans in this state and seems to have more organic support than Coakley, an impression underscored by the imperfect measurement of yard signs spotted for the Republican (many) and the Democrat (none) along the South Shore and on the Cape.
Brown’s message of taking on the state’s entrenched Democratic majority—what he repeatedly calls “the machine”—and addressing a larger discontent among voters here toward Washington has given Republicans an opportunity to win their first Massachusetts Senate contest in nearly 40 years.
In times of discontent, it is always easier to be the opposition party than the incumbents, and right now that swings a lot of momentum toward the Republicans.
Keep in mind the Democrats aren’t exactly happy with things either, and this poses a huge problem because it means the two parties have incredibly different messages. Usually the opposition says “things are bad, we’ll fix them” and the incumbents say “things are great, we’ll keep going.” Unfortunately, the Dems haven’t exactly made things great, so what they’re stuck with is promising that if we don’t lose the 60-seat supermajority, then they’ll make things great. Sort of a “stick with us, it’ll work” kind of thing.
If they have any aces in the hole, they might want to break ‘em out soon. Once the midterm election season ramps up, there won’t be jack shit actually getting done.
By Hanlon, on November 5th, 2009 at 12:46 AM
So by now we’ve all heard about the rather historic election in New York’s 23rd district. The special election resulted in the first Democrat winning the seat in a generation which, while on the surface seems to be evidence of a big rise in support for Democrats, is actually a big story about the split in the GOP.
It wasn’t that Owens beat a Republican, it’s that he beat the Conservative (capital C) candidate of Doug Hoffman, while the Republican’s actual candidate dropped out early. Further still, the right-wing media dove upon Hoffman as the torchbearer, with FOX’s various talking heads and the radio squealers all likening him to Mr Smith heading to Washington, that he’d show the nation that the right-wing, Teabagging base is for real.
This is, of course, suicidal for the party. To attempt to purge the moderates and push for a far-right only GOP would leave the party fractured down the middle and all but guarantee Democratic supremacy from now until doomsday. Turn more races into three-way jaunts among a Democrat, a Republican, and a Conservative and you aren’t going to see too many R’s or C’s on the roster come 2011.
I could have predicted this, but already some are trying to say that the Democrats are guilty of this as well, using the only two examples possible: Lieberman and left-wing frustration with Obama.
Remember the enthusiasm, indeed smugness, that the left blogosphere and netroots exhibited when they helped defeat incumbent Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary in September 2006 because he was a supporter of the Iraq war?
…
Indeed, many on the left are now openly talking about abandoning support of Obama unless he withdraws completely from Afghanistan and Iraq by a date certain.
The differences here are pretty stark. In Lieberman’s case, it wasn’t his war support. It was that he spent the years prior calling his own party weak and basically being a thorn in the donkey’s side. Simply supporting the war was far from Holy Joe’s only sin, and it wasn’t even like he was alone in that regard. It was that Lieberman went out of his way to trash his own party. As for Obama, the problem there is that Obama said he would get us out of Iraq, close Gitmo, and repeal DADT. Holding an elected official to his promises is far from cries for party purity.
By contrast, Specter was ousted solely for his support of Obama’s stimulus package. Olympia Snowe is getting pushed out for her occasional support of Democratic legislation, and Hoffman’s rise was against a seeming moderate. This is a crusade against the impure, and is rooted in forcing any non-basers out. If the GOP wants that, good on ‘em. It just means obliteration for the party.
A side note for Lieberman: if you look at the results of the 2006 Senate election in CT, the split was 49-39 Lieberman over Lamont, with a paltry 9% of voters siding with the Republican. Now unless you think Connecticut is 91% Democrat, you then realize that it means Lieberman’s victory came largely on the backs of Republicans who abandoned their candidate in order to make sure that the lefter of two evils didn’t win. This stands in sharp relief against atraditionally Republican election that saw the split between a Dem and the new Conservative candidate.
By Hanlon, on June 14th, 2009 at 01:17 PM
 The more this situation unfolds, the more surreal it seems to get.
Now, everyone’s pretty much realized that Ahmadinejad is coming down with an iron fist, silencing dissent across the country. Cell phone signals jammed, the opposition arrested. All pretty standard practice for a dictatorial “presidency”, but now he’s almost becoming coy, which makes things even more worrisome.
There is rule of law in this country and all the people are equal before the law,” Ahmadinejad said when Amanpour asked if he would guarantee Moussavi’s safety. She also asked why opposition leaders had been arrested.
“In a soccer match, people may become excited and there may be confrontation between the people and the police force. People who violate traffic regulations will be fined by the police no matter who he is. These are not problems,” Ahmadinejad said.
When Amanpour asked a second time if Ahmadinejad would guarantee Moussavi’s safety, he said he had already answered the question.
Totally reassuring.
Back stateside, you’d imagine that in the hopes of patching things up with Iran the United States would avoid taking too hard a stance one way or the other. After all, that’s part and parcel of the whole “diplomacy” thing. No dice. Clinton won’t accept Ahmadinejad’s “victory”, and neither does Biden. Oh sure, no one’s saying “that’s a load-a bullshit” or anything, but by proclaiming their doubts and suspicions, that’s about as close as one could imagine an American official getting to siding with the challenger.
Oh and here comes some Bush legacy for ya:
“I think it’s going to make it incredibly difficult for the Obama administration to acquiesce on Iran’s enrichment of uranium when there is a president in Tehran who continues to deny the Holocaust, and continues to be belligerent toward Israel,” Sadjadpour said. “I don’t see the probability of Ahmadinejad taking a more moderate or conciliatory approach his second time around. Similar to what President Bush said when he was re-elected in 2004, he said, ‘I’ve earned political capital, and now I am going to use it.’”
I’ve defended Ahmadinejad in the past. Quite a few times. However, stealing an election is beyond the pale. That’s one of those things that can counterbalance almost anything else. It exhibits an unbelievable lack of concern for the will of your people. No matter how right you think you are, if the people disagree, you have to deal with it. That’s why elections happen.
By the way, speaking of uranium and such, here’s a weird poll. Four in five Israelis aren’t concerned that an Iran with nuclear weapons would bomb Israel. That just blew mah brain.
By Hanlon, on June 13th, 2009 at 05:34 PM
 I think it was obvious from the beginning that the election in Iran was going to be ugly. Anyone who figured there was even the possibility of a clean victory for the challenger followed by a quiet transfer of power was likely confusing Iran with Iowa.
So, supposedly, Ahmadinejad “won” the election, but the people aren’t buying. They’re taking to the streets en masse, and they’re causing havoc.
Thousands of Iranians have taken to the streets of Tehran in protest against the outcome of the country’s elections, in the biggest unrest since the 1979 revolution.
Riot police were deployed in the capital on Saturday after about 3,000 supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi, a reformist candidate, took to the streets following the announcement of his defeat by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the incumbent president.
See, polls indicated ol’ Mahmoud had a fair shot at losing, but then when the results came in it was practically a 2:1 margin. I want you all to sit back and recall your anger in 2004 when exit polls were trending Kerry but then in some “unexpected” areas Bush pulled ahead. Remember the anger, knowing something wasn’t quite right with his surprise upsets in Ohio and Florida.
Okay, got that? Now take it a step further and imagine how you’d have reacted if Bush had managed to also win Pennsylvania, Illinois, New York, and California and his popular vote was 66%. That’s what we’re looking at in Iran.
This is all, actually, very encouraging. Contrary to people on the right who see no reason to give a shit who wins, what we’re seeing is a genuine uprising of a people who are tired of being defined by the backwards radicals that currently hold the “establishment”. Even if they are currently a minority, it’s clearly a growing minority, and it’s proof that Iran deserves our support and diplomacy, not the hammer.
It’s actually kinda exciting. We may see the proper way to foster revolution and the onset of true democracy.
FURTHER READING: Juan Cole’s writeup of hints that the elections weren’t exactly fair.
By Hanlon, on March 30th, 2009 at 11:33 AM
 I can argue policy. I can handle social issue disagreements. Hell, I can even deal with some of the polemic rage that gets thrown around when we’re talking the economy. What drives me up an effing wall is the hypocrisy.
As if Will’s last post wasn’t bad enough, now we have Sen John Cornyn threatening, no joke, “World War 3″ if the Democrats try to seat Al Franken before Coleman’s eons-long crusade to steal the election is totally shut down.
Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, acknowledges that a federal challenge to November’s elections could take “years” to resolve. But he’s adamant that Coleman deserves that chance — even if it means Minnesota is short a senator for the duration.
Was that bad enough for you? If not…
But Cornyn believes that Minnesota can’t certify Franken the winner if Coleman seeks review from the U.S. Supreme Court or files a new federal case. And Ben Ginsberg, a Coleman attorney and a central player on the Republican side in the 2000 Florida recount, says it’s “an open question” whether a federal court challenge puts a pause on the certification process.
In a case where the Democrat has more votes and the decision may go to the Supreme Court, the Republicans hired a guy who helped the case of a Democrat having more votes losing thanks to a decision by the Supreme Court. It’s like a murder suspect hired Johnny Cochran.
As the old phrase goes, tragedy lead to farce. The 2000 SCOTUS decision was so bad even the justices themselves said “don’t ever use this as precedent,” and the Republican hired a guy who orchestrated that thievery.
But that’s not the hypocrisy. That’s in the form of Cornyn’s support for this taking as long as it has to, when his party was the one screeching at Gore to stop asking for recounts and legal proceedings because he had to stop being a “sore loser” (and remember that decision happened in December of 2000, a full three months closer to that election than we are now).
These guys are shameless, really.
By Hanlon, on March 4th, 2009 at 03:12 PM
 This is a new one to me.
Norm Coleman, he who has been watching himself lose the Minnesota election for the past few months, has done just about everything he could think of to have the election pushed his way. Throw out these ballots, count those, invalidate these, don’t say the election’s over until we get those. I have to say, though, the new strategy of “throw the whole thing out and have another election” is pretty novel.
Speaking during a break in the trial of his election lawsuit, the Republican said he’s not sure how the court can certify a winner when “the number of illegal ballots may far exceed the difference between the candidates.” Coleman’s comments came after his lawyers wrote to the judges a day earlier to raise the possibility of setting aside the election.
“In the end, I do think that’s something that folks will have to think about,” he said.
Yeah, sure. That’s totally going to happen. After the nation had a few thousand elections settled that day, Minnesota just happens to have the one, which by pure coincidence is a lynchpin for the Senate against a man Republicans just hate, that managed to buck all the trends and land itself in a jimmy. Please.
Harry Reid seems to agree with me.
Said Reid spokesman Jim Manley, in an e-mail to TPM: “Just because Mr. Coleman is not happy with the results of the election/recount doesn’t mean he gets to schedule another one.”
By Hanlon, on February 24th, 2009 at 12:12 PM
 If you ever needed evidence that Republicans and Democrats look at things slightly differently, examine early 2001, early 2005, and early 2009. It took some time before the Democrats were truly turned on President Bush, and after elections some time past before it came time to look at electoral strategies.
Republicans, though, are already looking at the 2010 midterms. Just a hair over a month into Obama’s administration and it seems like every Republican politician and strategist is angling at the next vote. Unsurprisingly, their strategy? Oppose everything.
Its themes: Unite against Democrats’ economic policy, block and counter health care reform and tar them with spending scandals.
Those represent the political trifecta that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich bet on in 1994 to produce a historic Republican takeover of Congress.
There’s no question any more that “bipartisanship” isn’t on the Republicans’ agenda. They’re not going to work with Obama at all, they’re not going to bridge the gap, they’re not going to unite and work toward a better tomorrow. For these guys, what matters is winning the next election. That’s it. Fortunately, they’re pretty blockheaded.
“One is 1990, [President George H.W.] Bush gets together with the Democrats at Andrews Air Force Base, raises taxes and loses the next election,” he explained. “The other is 1993, Democrats have a series of proposals to spend and tax. Republicans vote no and regain the House and Senate.”
Bush’s defeat in 1990 is pretty easy to explain. When you vote a Republican into office who says “read my lips, no new taxes,” and then taxes go up, he’s in trouble. It’s a combination of party and promise. Not to mention the economy was in the dumper come 1992, that’s why Clinton had to introduce his sweeping tax package in 1993. He had to fix the mess that Bush left behind. Let’s not forget what we saw between 1993 and 2000 in terms of the economy.
Clinton’s midterm defeat, aside from being offset by another victory in 1996 (a fact apparently lost on the Republicans) was largely thanks to a perceived indifference toward American workers, personified by the 1993 Gore/Perot “debate” on NAFTA. Sure, it hurt Perot on one level, giving us the “giant sucking sound” byte, but Gore’s flippant attitude toward American job loss planted the seeds that turned into a Republican victory in 1994.
Politico goes over a few other good reasons that this isn’t 1994 and thus the strategy may not work well. One, that seems totally lost on the Republicans, is that Americans who voted for Obama somewhat expect some tough times and belt-tightening policies because we have to fix the disaster left behind by the Republicans who followed strategies outlined by guys like Newt.
Peculiar strategy to be sure. And none of it has anything to do with fixing the problems facing the country.
By Will, on September 25th, 2008 at 10:47 AM
 Back when the Wright “scandal” was still the top story in the campaign, I remember thinking that they wouldn’t be have accused him of being crazy if he was a white preacher. Well, I was wrong.
They wouldn’t have accused him of being crazy if he was a black preacher with history with a white candidate.
Bishop Thomas Muthee is a priest and a witch hunter. I don’t mean that figuratively, I mean he actually fucking hunts witches. He claims that witchcraft was the cause of “spiritual oppression” in the Kenyan town of Kiambu, and led 200 fanatics to exile an accused witch from the town
He also believes that we need God in the schools, to prevent children from worshipping Buddha and Muhammed. Again, I’m not making this up. He actually fucking said:
“We need God taking over our education system. If we have God in our schools, we will not have our kids being taught how to worship Buddha, how to worship Muhammad. We will not have in the curriculum witchcraft and sorcery.” He also preaches, “The other area is the media. We need believers in the media. We need God taking over the media in our lives.
He didn’t say this in Kenya. He didn’t say this in some crackpot church in Montana. He said this when visiting the Wasilla Assembly of God, Sarah Palin’s church. And not only was she in the audience (unlike Obama at the time of Wright’s “evil racist crazy bad man” statements), she was called up to the stage for Muthee to lead everyone to pray for her political career.
Read More ->
Back when the Wright “scandal” was still the top story in the campaign, I remember thinking that they wouldn’t be have accused him of being crazy if he was a white preacher. Well, I was wrong.
They wouldn’t have accused him of being crazy if he was a black preacher with history with a white candidate.
Bishop Thomas Muthee is a priest and a witch hunter. I don’t mean that figuratively, I mean he actually fucking hunts witches. He claims that witchcraft was the cause of “spiritual oppression” in the Kenyan town of Kiambu, and led 200 fanatics to exile an accused witch from the town
He also believes that we need God in the schools, to prevent children from worshipping Buddha and Muhammed. Again, I’m not making this up. He actually fucking said:
“We need God taking over our education system. If we have God in our schools, we will not have our kids being taught how to worship Buddha, how to worship Muhammad. We will not have in the curriculum witchcraft and sorcery.” He also preaches, “The other area is the media. We need believers in the media. We need God taking over the media in our lives.
He didn’t say this in Kenya. He didn’t say this in some crackpot church in Montana. He said this when visiting the Wasilla Assembly of God, Sarah Palin’s church. And not only was she in the audience (unlike Obama at the time of Wright’s “evil racist crazy bad man” statements), she was called up to the stage for Muthee to lead everyone to pray for her political career.
Read More ->
|
|
|
