2009.11.04
McDonnell's clean sweep
The votes are counted and the people have spoken. Thursday, we'll congratulate Gov.-elect Bob McDonnell on a well-run, focused campaign and express the hope that the Republican who ran as a moderate candidate is the Republican who shows up in the governor's mansion.
RSS feed 
So why not just annouce your going to congratulate him without adding your opinion that he ran as a "moderate"? Even if that is 100% true why mention it? A feeble attempt at damage control? Would you not congratulate him if he, in your opinion ran as a true conservative? Anything to downplay the fact that a Republican won.
Comment by Richard S. — November 4, 2009 @ 11:53 am
I hope he governs with American and Virginia Values: low tax, pro family and pro life. If those are "moderate" great. Since he is an Army Veteran and a good Catholic (along with Cuccenilli spelling?), the Commonwealth will be lead by good people. Bolling is also a fine man.
Comment by Patt — November 4, 2009 @ 11:57 am
Neither party can have their candidates run as full-fledged etxremes of the political spectrum, they'd lose quickly. That's why you keep seeing Republicans try to moderate themselves and Democrats trying to show conservatism on certain issues, it's all in an effort to try and appeal to the folks in the middle. Unless they are totally inept, they can almost always count on the bases turning out, so the only real way to get the middle to support them is to not come off as a hard-line idealogue. Whoever does that best and runs a decent campaign seems to win.
Comment by Other John — November 4, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
Bush separation anxiety. Meh.
Comment by Art Hill — November 4, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
#3 Well put and it always sees to go in the USA towards the middle. It looks like Sarah Palin an her bunch did not help in NY. The GOP lost and let me see a Democrat has not won there sense, what 1871.
And I think the hard line right wingers will only sink their own party.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 4, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
Bill,
Please get your facts straight.
The democrat that won is replaceing a Republican.
The only reason Owens won was because of a stupid mistake by the GOP
high rollers.
If they would have looked into hoffman first and never put whats her
face up there I will bet my house Owen would have never won.
Comment by HERB KREBS — November 4, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
RTEB quickly forgets that Tim Kaine ran on 2 pledges:
1) I won't commute death penalties.
2) I will sign the marriage amendment if it passes.
Tell me if either of those was kept.....
Virginian's won last night. Kaine the magnificent, the marvel who was made DNC national chair, could not even deliver his own state to his future "full time" employers. If he remains on, I can't wait to see how he does nationally.
And the RTEB was all over the GOP guy who resigned? There's a laugh! Except, he is the one doing the laughing now.
Comment by Bob H — November 4, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
#6 If might want to look as to fact that yes the stupid mistakes the GOP did make on that play and continues to make.
Speaking of stupid, Sarah Palin's new book, Going Rogue" has come out but I did not think she knows what rogue means.
Rogue- An unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal.
But back to facts...Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani did their best to help out in NY too but looks like that did work out.Oh and the million dollars from the Club for Growth and the far right wingers who came from out of state but that also did not work out.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 4, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
Bob,
Kaine's platform was far broader than that. And he did not promise to never commute death penalties. He said that, although he had moral objections to the death penalty, he would not use the governor's clemency powers to block its use in the state. And he did not. He exercised his commutation power sparingly and wisely.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 4, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
Dan,
Surely you remember all the campaign furor over the parents of the NOVA police officer who begged people to not vote for Kaine because he would commute death sentences. How Kaine's people poo pooed the whole thing as playing on the sympathy for grieving parents for political gain.
He said he would NOT commute existing death sentences. And, he did.
And, he also said he would sign the marriage amendment, and, he didn't.
There are others if I cared to dig more deeply. I don't. But I am not going to candy coat that Kaine as been pretty much the same disaster for the democrats as Gilmore was for republicans.
Comment by Bob H — November 4, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
Again, Bob, Kaine said he would not commute all death sentences. He never pledged to avoid commuting any death sentence - which would have been hugely irresponsible.
Kaine commuted one sentence - that of a mentally incompetent man who clearly didn't understand the nature of the punishment. He allowed nine other executions and recently said he could see no reason to approve a request for clemency for Washington, D.C.-area sniper John Allen Muhammad.
Kaine didn't make the promise you said, Bob, and he did not break the promise he made.
And it is beyond ludicrous to compare Kaine to Gilmore. Gilmore nearly bankrupted the state. Kaine has managed the state through the depths of this recession as well as anyone could have.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 4, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
8 "Going Rogue"
methinks the title went over your head, of course she knows what it means. she has governed a state, successfully I might add, have you? has 0bama? no.
Comment by pammala — November 4, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
#12 Ah I see she is really liked in Alaska and she was resigning, effective July 26, 2009, eighteen months prior to the completion of her first term.
She was and is a bridge to nowhere.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 4, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
The ONLY race 0bama didn't "help" with...the Democrat won. Does that tell you anything?
Hoffman lost narrowly after campaigning for a couple weeks...I'd say he did a fine job. Given the circumstances. At least Scozzafava didnt win it.
Comment by T Witten — November 4, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
Bill,
You have no idea what you are talking about.
When she resigned she had a approval rating over 70%.
As far as right wingers coming from out of state.
This is a typical media stunt.
Spout off with no proof.
Yet it can be proved that fraudulent ballots were cast
in the Minn. senate race yet i dont hear you screaming about that.
Take a spoonful of sugar, will help the medicine go down.
At least till 2010, then you lefties will need a whole sugar cane
field.
Comment by HERB KREBS — November 4, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
#16 As a matter of fact the cops had to be called in at a two polling stations because those out of state right wingers were yelling at people coming in to the polling station. Reports that people are standing there, covered with Hoffman stickers and yelling anti-choice stuff at voters and that my friend is against the rules and it did not work anyway.
If the GOP keeps going so far to the right I will enjoy 2010 because you would of done the work for us.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 4, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
Bill,
Links please as Dan has always said were are the links.
I didnt hear one time on any media station what you are
implying.
You need to join the RTEB.
Comment by HERB KREBS — November 4, 2009 @ 3:08 pm
#17 Sorry I am not a reporter just a musician as to your other request:
Hint: it was not on Fixed network.
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2009/11/police-called-to-ny-23-polling.html
Enjoy your reading but let me guess, you just might say that thing those on the right do...it's the liberal media.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 4, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
Sorry about that, the link is dead for some reason, so try this one,
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/police-called-ny-23-polling-stations-be
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 4, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
Does anyone find it strange that cnn.com doesn't have anything about the election on their homepage unless you look down into the links?
Comment by Danny — November 4, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
@ Jill Hudson #19:
Did you read the article in the link? The only source is the Democratic Chairwoman who repeats an anecdote she heard...
" I just got off the phone with former state Democratic Chairwoman June O'Neill, who informed me the police had been called to at least two polling sites in St. Lawrence County due to overzealous electioneering (O'Neill called it "voter intimidation") by Doug Hoffman supporters. "
And you question the legitimacy of 'Fixed' News?
Comment by Mike — November 4, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
Danny,
CNN doesnt report the news.
Comment by T Witten — November 4, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
Bill,
I suggesat you get a police report.
This link is nothing but hear say and no proof what so ever.
These links are as bad as the huffington post.
Comment by HERB KREBS — November 4, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
Interesting interpretation of last night's results from Jay Cost, owner of RCP:
http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2009/11/what_the_voters_told_us_last_n.html
"The following points are what we know for certain:
1. The voters of Virginia declared a preference for Bob McDonnell over Creigh Deeds.
2. The voters of New Jersey declared a preference for Chris Christie over Jon Corzine.
3. The voters of New York's Twenty-Third Congressional District declared a preference for Bill Owens over Doug Hoffman.
And that's it. Anything else is reading between the lines, and subject to the haziness that necessarily goes along with such an endeavor."
He goes on to say....
"Personally, I'm a big believer in a humble, narrow interpretation of election returns. On a purely political level, I think a politician is better served by under-interpreting his mandate than by over-interpreting it. It's true sometimes they mean big things - 1860 and 1896 come instantly to mind. But other times they don't mean much of anything. In the earlier part of this year, I argued strenuously that many Democrats were wildly over-interpreting Barack Obama's election in 2008. I disagreed when they pronounced it to be the dramatic inauguration of the new, permanent Democratic majority. My attitude then, as now, is that this is inconsistent with a fair and broad read of electoral history, the party system, and the general mood of the public. So, my narrow interpretation of last night is that the results we saw are in tension with that permanent majority hypothesis - and that they are more consistent with the alternative theory of continuing, robust competition between the two parties. "
Comment by Mike — November 4, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
These elections show the honest and uncorrupted results that happen when ACORN is not involved.
Comment by waynep — November 4, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
#11,
Sorry Dan, I shouldn't have insulted Gilmore that way. You are correct to admonish me on that.
You think Kaine is going to hand off a surplus to McDonnell? You just can't seem to face the fact this guy was not much of a governor can you?
And you are strangely silent over that breaking of the pledge he made about the marriage amendment......
Comment by Bob H — November 4, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
Wayne,
except when they are in a New Jersey hospital supposly
collecting ballots.
Yea right.
Where is those undercover people.
Need to get them up to Jersey.
Comment by HERB KREBS — November 4, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
Ok folks...The Republicans control the Governor's Mansion and parts of the state legislature.
Let's see how they overcome the challenges in front of them.
Kaine had his shot...it's now your turn folks. We have great expectations so don't let us down.
Can you live up?
Comment by Will — November 4, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
#23 Well then,you might want to ask The New York Daily News reporter Elizabeth Benjamin and I am sure she could help you out but I do not think you would believe her.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 4, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
With a Democractic "jobs" president, "jobs"Senate, "jobs"House of Representatives, "jobs" governor, and "jobs" district congressman for the last year and more, I am sure that all the furniture and textile jobs that were sent from Martinsville and Danville overseas by the Republicans soon will be rolling back in. Then under a new Republican governor the state may start to see a surplus.
Comment by waynep — November 4, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
Dan, BTW, here is an excerpt on the commutation of the sentence you mention:
"Kaine's decision was criticized by Attorney General Bob McDonnell. He noted that the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006 voted 7-6 that Walton was competent to be executed and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
McDonnell, a Republican, said Kaine should allow the court ruling to stand, saying "evidence of an inmate's competency is more effectively evaluated by a judicial officer" than a governor."
So, Kaine the great knew more than the legal system than the Supreme Court, and the trial people, and the circuit court, and any judicial officer? Wonder why his popularity dipped?
Its called INTEGRITY.
Comment by Bob H — November 4, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
It was interesting to listen to some economists today during a major economic forum that I attended. One said that the era of Reaganomics is now officially dead. I hadn't thought about it in those terms but generally Reagan pushed for deregulation of just about everything and a lot of that got us to where we are today.
Another said that the first priority is to get people working again...and they were indifferent as to whether the jobs were in the public or private sector. He likened the need to the CCA back in the 30's.
It's also noteworthy that these are both died in the wool Republicans.
Comment by Will — November 4, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
Dyed..not died...sorry.
Comment by Will — November 4, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
Dan still hasn't mentioned a single moderate position McDonnell ran on. Probably because there weren't any. Anybody who heard McDonnell's stump speeches knows they were as red-meat conservative as you could get.
This seems to be template in the mainstream media, though. It's a lie, as usual.
Comment by Suzie — November 4, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
What did McDonnell run as? Check out what a real newspaper says:
McDonnell triumphed, in a state that Barack Obama carried by 6 percentage points, by running as an unabashed conservative
and
Still, there's no doubt that McDonnell ran as a clear-cut conservative -- as did his running mates for lieutenant governor and attorney general, who both won, sealing the first statewide GOP sweep in Virginia since 1997. .
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/opinion/columnists/article/ED-BOB04_20091103-210203/303448/
The liberal media has no choice but to misrepresent McDonnell's campaign, because to admit he ran as a strong conservative completely destroys their canned narrative.
Comment by Suzie — November 4, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
#11 Well put down. I love facts applied to a rebuttal.
Comment by Gary — November 4, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
#35 There is no liberal media that is just your fixed network going off again.
By the way I am not a atheist.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 4, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
@Suzie #34: Dan still hasn't mentioned a single moderate position McDonnell ran on. Probably because there weren't any. Anybody who heard McDonnell's stump speeches knows they were as red-meat conservative as you could get.
This seems to be template in the mainstream media, though. It's a lie, as usual.
Suzie, McDonnell ran as a pro-environment (hoping to double Kaine's 400,000 acres of land preserved - that used to be a conservative position, but not any more) Republican. He distanced himself from his "red-meat" thesis. He sold himself as a pragmatist, not an ideologue. He talked about expanding the Governor's Opportunity Fund, which conservatives like the real Bob McDonnell opposed prior to this campaign.
He kept very low key about his positions on gay marriage, abortion and other "red meat" issues - and complained when Deeds tried to make an issue of his pro-life position.
Face it, McDonnell ran as a moderate.
I just hope he governs as one.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 4, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
Bob McDonnell and most all Republicans answered the Catholic Bishops' questions concerning social issues: pro life, pro family, economics and crime. Since Bob McDonnell and does support the Virginia Marriage Amendment Limiting legally recoginzed marriage as a man and a woman, and he ran as a moderate, I assuming that limiting marriage to a man and a woman (there are additional qualifications) is a moderate position.
The Democrats as a whole did not answer the Catholic Bishops' questions. Either the issues are of a very minor importance or they were embarassed to give their answers. Ken Cuccinelli also supports the moderate position of limiting marriage to a man and a woman.
Comment by Patt — November 4, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
Since Bob McDonnell does support the Virginia Marriage Amendment.
Comment by Patt — November 4, 2009 @ 7:41 pm
Dan,
First who says pragmatism is a moderate position, and being an ideologue is a conservative position? That's your personal subjective spin and has no basis in reality.
Secondly, McDonnell's campaigned on cutting taxes, cutting spending, and smaller government. Let's see. Nothing moderate there. Straight conservatism. When asked his personal opinion on gay marriage and abortion in debates he said he opposed both. Hmm. Still not seeing moderate.
The Governor's fund is similar to a business tax break. That one's a stretch. So basically all you have is the land preservation issue.
You're saying just because he didn't put social issues front and center, and didn't have Sarah Palin at his rallies, means he campaigned as a moderate, even though you can't find a significant non-conservative issue he campaigned on.
Face it, Dan. The RTD was right on the mark. McDonnell campaigned as an "unabashed conservative". Any view to the contrary is wishful thinking.
Comment by Suzie — November 4, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
Deed's attempts to straddle the middle alienated the base who rewarded him by not turning out. You don't win by saying you'll opt out of the public option or by opposing cap and trade. So Virginia followed tradition. Don't let it go to your heads.
Comment by Art Hill — November 4, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
NRA support for Ken Cuccinelli: must be another moderate.
Comment by Patt — November 4, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
Art 42,
The Daily Kook had a piece today that said the same thing, saying the Democrats lost because they weren't far left enough. Even though that is the ultimate misreading, let's hope they try to govern that way through next November. And you thought last night was a trainwreck!
Comment by Suzie — November 4, 2009 @ 8:54 pm
That's almost as big a misreading as saying the Republicans lost in 08 because they hadn't gone far enough right.
Almost.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 4, 2009 @ 8:57 pm
Art, I'm wondering if Deeds had come out and stated support for those things, how many of the moderates who supported him would have bolted and if the hardcore base would have made up enough of a difference to offset it. I think right now, unfortunately, the Democrats have spent a lot of their political capital in DC and for the most part, a lot of people are none too happy with it. As a moderate who supported Obama over McCain, I can safely say I've not been happy with a lot of the recent DC workings and would have voted third party if I knew how things would be going at present. I was also not thrilled with Deed's campaign of vaguery and non-comittal statements designed to leave enough wiggle room to fit a 747 through with room to spare. I'm sick and tired of politicians being just that, rather than leaders not afraid to do what is right and necessary. hey're too concerned with poll numbers and making sure they can keep getting elected. I give Obama credit for making a lot of decisions he felt were right, they certainly have not been popular at all. I'm in disagreement with him over several of his action items though, which is why I would not support him again. As for Deeds, he just flat did not show any semblence of leadership quality from what I can tell, and I think that hurt him the most. McDonnell was at least bold enough to state some specifics, even if they weren't feasible, plausible, or are so long off he'll be kicked back in retirement before they come to fruition...he at least had details and numbers. I fear that once he settles in, he'll work with the expanded majority to pass more social/moral agenda items to the detriment of the state and freedom, which is why I wound up voting for Deeds despite feeling that he just wasn't ready or capable of doing the job at hand. I know it's rather long-winded, but elections and politics are frustrating the heck out of me with all the ineptitude, corruption, and bumbling that keeps going on. Can we not do better? Our track record would indicate that we can't.
Comment by Other John — November 4, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
#45
McCain was an ultra conservative. Riight! LOL. They still don't know the reason they got buried by two straight-line conservatives last night.
Comment by Suzie — November 4, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
Don't you mean the Palin/McCain ticket?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 4, 2009 @ 9:26 pm
Perfect tkt for 2012.
Romney/Palin.
Comment by HERB KREBS — November 4, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
OJ:
many of the moderates who supported him would have bolted...the base would have made up enough of a difference to offset it.
We'll never know, but between the shift in demographics (more senior voters, who were sympathetic to McDonnell, plus fewer younger voters) and Deed's lackluster use of what was left of Obama's coattails, the majority of Progressives just sat this one out. The right will claim a mandate as they always do, but as John Stewart so aptly put it, Democrats stayed home and "did their laundry". There are several things this president has done, or not done, that I don't agree with either, but I give him credit for trying. God knows there's a whole lot of shoveling to be done behind that elephant.
@44
The Daily Kook had a piece today
Suzie, you really shouldn't read that stuff. It will turn your brain to mush.
Comment by Art Hill — November 4, 2009 @ 9:39 pm
Either combo would have won if not for the incredibly coincidental timing of the banking collapse announcements.
Comment by Suzie — November 4, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
Herb 49
I like Romney/Palin a lot.
Comment by Suzie — November 4, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
It's just hard to imagine a greater contrast than Romney vs. 0bama.
Romney is a man of immense accomplishment in both sectors. He is a strong conservative, has the demeanor, temperament, and good looks. He looks like a president. 0bama has as little gravitas as a man can have, reflective of the little he's ever done. Frankly, Romney has the bearing of an incumbent, and 0bama has the bearing of the rookie.
But the biggest thing is; now everybody knows 0bama is a socialist.
Comment by Suzie — November 4, 2009 @ 10:06 pm
@42 -"Deed's attempts to straddle the middle alienated the base who rewarded him by not turning out. You don't win by saying you'll opt out of the public option or by opposing cap and trade. So Virginia followed tradition. Don't let it go to your heads."
The liberal rationalizations of why Deeds got trounced have been really entertaining. This one ranks right up there. But I thought the liberal spin on yesterday was that the most telling thing to come out of yesterday was the alleged internal strife in NY that led to the Republican candidates defection. You know, the supposed battle between the far right and the moderate Republicans. But here we haved a learned poster telling us that same type of strife is what cost Deeds the election. Interesting.
But I gotta say, I like the whole "you only won because voter turnout was low" argument better. Apparently that argumetn is "we could have won if we wanted to but we our members didn't care enough to try." I saw a democratic campaign manager turned pundit say the democratic voters were burned out after last year. Now that is impressive. Nothing like rationalizing a loss by saying "we were too lazy to go vote." I mean how do you get burned out by having to vote once every year or two? And how lazy and codependent can a party be if its members and supporters don't care enough to actually show up and vote unless there are massive get out the vote efforts.
And the jab about Thompson and Guiliani not being able to deliver NY. Is that really supposed to hurt? The Great Obama himself couldn't deliver Virginia and New Jersey for the Democrats. Are you saying Fred Thompson and Rudy Guiliani should have more political clout than the President? I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just amazed you'd admit it.
These rationalizations and justifications have been great. Thanks again guys. This actually has me looking forward to the mid-terms. I wonder how many blue dogs will run from Obama care like scalded dogs?
Comment by Another Chris — November 4, 2009 @ 10:33 pm
I guess this will be dismissed not as the will of the people being expressed, but instead as the tyranny of the majority oppressing the minority.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33626383/ns/politics-more_politics
Comment by Another Chris — November 4, 2009 @ 10:42 pm
It is both, Chris.
For now.
Eventually, the people will see the error of their ways, just as most of us cannot conceive of the day, not so long ago, when interracial marriages were banned right here in Virginia.
If you look at the polling data, young people cannot figure out what the deal is on this, why anyone would be upset about the choice another makes in marriage.
The tide is slow, but inevitable.
Which is small comfort to those now denied access to an institution that heterosexuals have defiled for decades.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 4, 2009 @ 11:09 pm
I guess McDonnell needs to decide what he'll do in 2012. Should he take Colonel Flagg's senate seat? Or should he go for the top job. After all, he's 1-0 against 0bama so far.
Comment by Suzie — November 4, 2009 @ 11:10 pm
@54
I wonder how many blue dogs will run from Obama care like scalded dogs?
Speaking of spin, someone's been listening to Krauthammer. I loved Palin's Facebook response to the loss in NY23, "we didn't lose, we just postponed victory until 2010." Or the even more hilarious, "we kept Scozzafava from winning." The look of surprise on Michael Steele's face at the victory speech last night as if "wow, we actually won!" was priceless. I wouldn't read too much into yesterday's races, Republicans would be remiss to believe they're on a roll.
Comment by Art Hill — November 4, 2009 @ 11:42 pm
Time will tell Art, time will tell. The great thing about you is you always claim I say something because I've been listening to . . . whoever. Once again you have attributed my ideas to someone who I've never heard of. Perhaps its possible that some of the ideas you dismiss as conservative talking points are actually what many of us believe. Or perhaps you are projecting your own tendancy to let your party's talking points lead you around by the nose. Either way, your going to have to explain who or what Krauthammer is.
Dan, I think it is all a matter of perspective and how much your partisanship guides your principles. In 2000 when the Supreme Court issued a ruling that was unpopular with democrats, they portrayed it as a great injustice claiming the will of the people was subverted by a biased, activist judiciary. However, in 2008 and 2009 when the will of the people in popular votes on the issues went against the democrats, they cry for the judiciary to overthrow the oppressive will of the prejudiced masses. So you tell me, who should have the authority to decide the path of a society,the majority of the people, or a select few members of a special interest?
Comment by Another Chris — November 5, 2009 @ 5:02 am
"Don't you mean the Palin/McCain ticket?"
McCain was a HORRIBLE candidate. But, given the circumstances...2 fairly unpopular wars (find me a popular one), economy on the downturn, 8 years of one party in the White House...Palin kept it closer than it could have been.
With all that was wrong for the GOP last November, 0bama really didnt stomp McCain like he should have.
NOW, 0bama and the Dems have ALL of the same problems the GOP had, and more. The biggest being, 0bama is a fraud and a Statist, who basically lied to get into office.
Lying to get in office happens a lot (more than I like on either side)...but, I think when your rhetoric soars to the loftiest heights of "Curing the planet...lowering sea levels...RE-Making the country" you set yourself up for HUGE failure and mistrust.
Comment by T Witten — November 5, 2009 @ 10:19 am
Not sure if Krauthammer ? said this too . . .
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091105/pl_politico/29167
but it appears my prediction wasn't that far off base.
Comment by Another Chris — November 5, 2009 @ 10:24 am
Romney/Palin...never in a million years.
Romney/Hutchinson (Kaye Bailey that is)...wouldn't be bad or Romney/Snowe...I could go for either.
But Romney/Palin...that ship would sink faster than the Titanic.
Comment by Will — November 5, 2009 @ 11:34 am
@61
"Read More Stories from POLITICO
Tea parties descend on Capitol
PBS ombud chides Sesame Street
'We got walloped"
Speaks to the objectivity of Politico. Your original ideas generally coincide with those of the best minds that Fox has to offer, Krauthammer being one. You are right though, time will surely tell.
Comment by Art Hill — November 5, 2009 @ 5:04 pm