Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (23900)	11/9/2006 8:46:51 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Herding Cats, Or Blue Dogs By Captain Ed on National Politics Captain's Quarters Now that the Democrats have won control of both chambers of Congress, their real challenge has begun -- big-tent governing. The Democrats took control by nominating center-right candidates to replace Republicans, and now they will have to find ways in which to unify their caucus to get their issues advanced. As the departing Republican leadership can tell them, it's not as easy as it looks: <<< They wear cowboy boots, chew tobacco, love hunting, hate abortion, want less government spending — and some voted for Ronald Reagan. Now they are headed to Congress as Democrats. Although the Democrats’ victory was above all an overwhelming repudiation of the conflict in Iraq, it was also built on the back of moderate, often conservative candidates recruited to compete in traditionally Republican territory. When Congress returns in January, both the House and Senate will see something of an ideological shift, with an influx of freshmen Democrats who, while unified in their opposition to the war, are well to the right of the party’s current caucus on cultural issues. Their success reflects a resurgence of “Blue Dog” Democrats — socially conservative but generally economic populists — across the Midwest, and a bold new strategy to target the Republican-leaning West and South West — states such as Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico — as a way of winning back the White House in 2008. >>> Conservatives have spent the last few years wondering what happened to the Blue Dog Democrats, and the easy answer was that they became Republicans. The parties began to divide by ideology during the Reagan years, and the migration became significant in the 1990s. Out of sheer political expediency, the power brokers in the Democratic ranks backed candidates like Heath Shuler and Jim Webb -- who resembles a Buchananite more than a Blue Dog -- for the sole purpose of winning majorities in Congress. If one doubts that, when was the last time the national party put so much of its efforts and treasure behind pro-life candidates? At their last national convention, the party erupted into criticism when a pro-life politician merely wanted to address the delegates: <<< On Tuesday afternoon, a few hours before the Convention adopted the party's platform, the Democrats for Life of America rallied outside Faneuil Hall and in front of the statue of Samuel Adams. They cheered the great advances pro-life Democrats had made in recent years and decried the new party platform. In 2000 the party's platform included big tent language, saying: "The Democratic Party is a party of inclusion. We respect the individual conscience of each American on this difficult issue, and we welcome all our members to participate at every level of our party." In 2004 that had changed to excluding all pro-life Democrats from the party. The US Senators, Congressmen, ambassadors, state legislators, clergy and ativists from around the country rejected the new language that said it was only "Republican efforts" at work to protect pregnant women and their unborn children. >>> Now that they have a majority, though, these same candidates that they actively recruited will now want to vote their conscience on these matters, and the Democrats may have some tough battles with their special-interest groups. Many of them oppose new taxes, for instance, and the New Direction plan for Democrats calls for big increases in social spending. The newbies did not join the Democrats in order to instill socialism, and some in the activist community may find these new members very trying indeed. Democrats could abide the Blue Dogs in days gone by because they had large enough majorities to make them less relevant. With the razor-thin majorities they have now, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi may find herding Blue Dogs as frustrating as herding cats. captainsquartersblog.com timesonline.co.uk en.wikipedia.org

To: Sully- who wrote (23900)	11/9/2006 9:01:04 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

What about the Supreme Court? Power Line Ed Whelan argues that, even with the loss of the Senate, "there's still plenty of room to get another excellent Supreme Court justice - or even two or three more - confirmed." Ed is less optimistic about confirming good court of appeals judges because "it's far easier for Democrats to obstruct these nominees without arousing the public's attention." I can't say that I share Ed's optimism with respect to Supreme Court nominees. With control of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Dems can bottle up a nominee. On the Senate floor, Ed is correct that the Democratic leadership may be hard-pressed to get 50 votes against the next Alito or Roberts (should we be lucky enough to get such a nominee), since a number of red state Dems are up for re-election in 2008. But the leadership shouldn't have trouble getting the 41 votes needed to sustain a filibuster. Ed notes that there is a political price to pay for such tactics. That's true. But I think the liberals will correctly perceive the swing vote on the Supreme Court as worth that price. JOHN adds: There's this, too. If President Bush thought he had to dump Rumsfeld to placate (or disarm) the Democrats, how willing will he be to take on the consequences on nominating, say, Janice Rogers Brown? My guess is that the Democrats won't be put in a position where they have to filibuster. powerlineblog.com article.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (23900)	11/10/2006 5:43:33 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

The result is that both parties have moved to the right.... .... Moreover, ballot initiatives make the claim of a major anti-conservative swing quite problematic. Democrats moving the ball By Charles Krauthammer Townhall.com Columnist Friday, November 10, 2006 How serious is the "thumpin'" the Republicans took on Tuesday? Losing one house is significant but hardly historic. Losing both houses, however, is defeat of a different order of magnitude, the equivalent in a parliamentary system of a vote of no confidence. On Tuesday, Democrats took control of the House and the Senate. As of this writing, they won 29 House seats (with a handful still in the balance), slightly below the post-1930 average for the six-year itch in a two-term presidency. They took the Senate by the thinnest of margins -- a one-vote majority, delivered to them by a margin of 7,188 votes in Virginia and 2,847 in Montana. Because both houses have gone Democratic, the election is correctly seen as an expression of no confidence in the central issue of the campaign: Iraq. It was not so much the war itself as the perceived administration policy of "stay the course," which implied endless intervention with no victory in sight. The president got the message. Hence the summary resignation of the designated fall guy, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Nonetheless, the difference between taking one house versus both -- and thus between normal six-year incumbent party losses and a major earthquake that shakes the presidency -- was razor thin in this election. A switch of just 1,424 votes in Montana would have kept the Senate Republican. A margin this close should no longer surprise us. For this entire decade the country has been evenly divided politically. The Republicans had control but by very small majorities. In 2000, the presidential election was settled by a ridiculously small margin. And the Senate ended up deadlocked 50-50. All the changes since then have been minor. Until now. But the great Democratic wave of 2006 is nothing remotely like the great structural change some are trumpeting. It was an event-driven election that produced the shift of power one would expect when a finely balanced electorate swings mildly one way or the other. This is not realignment. As has been the case for decades, American politics continues to be fought between the 40-yard lines. The Europeans fight goal line to goal line, from socialist left to the ultranationalist right. On the American political spectrum, these extremes are negligible. American elections are fought on much narrower ideological grounds. In this election, the Democrats carried the ball from their own 45-yard line to the Republican 45-yard line. The fact that the Democrats crossed midfield does not make this election a great anti-conservative swing. Republican losses included a massacre of moderate Republicans in the Northeast and Midwest. And Democratic gains included the addition of many conservative Democrats, brilliantly recruited by Rep. Rahm Emanuel with classic Clintonian triangulation. Hence Heath Shuler of North Carolina, anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-tax -- and now a Democratic congressman. The result is that both parties have moved to the right. The Republicans have shed the last vestiges of their centrist past, the Rockefeller Republican. And the Democrats have widened their tent to bring in a new crop of blue-dog conservatives. Moreover, ballot initiatives make the claim of a major anti-conservative swing quite problematic. In Michigan, liberal Democrats swept the gubernatorial and senatorial races, yet a ballot initiative to abolish affirmative action passed 58-42. Seven out of eight anti-gay marriage amendments to state constitutions passed. And nine states passed referendums asserting individual property rights against the government's power of eminent domain. To muddy even more the supposed ideological significance of this election, consider who is the biggest winner of the night: Joe Lieberman. Just a few months ago, he was scorned by his party and left for dead. Now he returns to the Senate as the Democrats' 51st seat -- and holder of the balance of power. From casualty to kingmaker in three months. Not bad. His Democratic colleagues who abandoned him this summer will now treat him very well. Lieberman won with a platform that did not trim or hedge about seeking victory in Iraq. And he did it despite having a Republican in the race who siphoned off 10 percent of the pro-war vote. All this in Connecticut, a very blue state. The public's views on what we ought to do with the war remain mixed, as do its general ideological inclinations. What happened on Tuesday? The electorate threw the bums out in disgust with corruption and in deep dissatisfaction with current Iraq policy. Reading much more into this election is a symptom of either Republican depression or Democratic wishful thinking. Charles Krauthammer is a 1987 Pulitzer Prize winner, 1984 National Magazine Award winner, and a columnist for The Washington Post since 1985. townhall.com

To: Sully- who wrote (23900)	11/11/2006 2:27:08 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

Have the Dems unleashed a monster? Power Line But for the fact that he gives the Democrats a majority, I'd almost be pleased to have Jim Webb in the Senate. Not because I think he'll be a particularly good Senator but because he's likely to be quite an interesting one. Plus, there's a good chance he'll be a huge pain-in-the-neck for the Democratic leadership. Consider this report of his victory speech: <<< He started off by mentioning that "tomorrow is an extremely important day for America," and the crowd went wild, thinking he was talking about taking power. But of course, he launched into his praise of the Marine Corps, and the crowd cheered a little less loudly. Then he thanked all the brave veterans and brave men still fighting, and the crowd cheered a little less loudly again. Then he mentioned that he received a call from Sen. Allen, and the crowd went nuts again. Then he mentioned how pleasant and dignified Allen was, and the crowd grew quiet. Then he said he was having lunch next week with Allen - and the crowd was dead silent. Finally he told the audience that they should all thank Sen./Gov. Allen for his many years of dedicated service to the people of Virginia - and you could almost hear the people gathered looking at each other asking, "What the $#@! did we just do?" It was priceless. >>> Via NRO's Corner corner.nationalreview.com powerlineblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (23900)	11/20/2006 1:35:27 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Hat tip to Amo: Hallelujah! Now that Democrats have taken control of Congress, we can expect: • Gas prices to drop to $1.25, because Republicans will no longer be able to feather the nest of Big Oil with obscene profits. • Cars to run on hydrogen, corn syrup and refried beans, because Republicans will no longer be able to control the laws of physics. • The wage gap to become non-existent, because differences in intelligence, drive, determination, personal responsibility and common sense will be outlawed. • Unemployment to drop to zero when the minimum wage increases to $22.35 per hour, because the demand for labor increases when the cost of labor increases, and not the reverse, as ignorant, mean-spirited Republicans had stupidly claimed. • Test scores of below-average students to skyrocket to above-average levels, because Democrats will outlaw the Republican-invented Bell curve. • The Dow to hit 18,000 in 2007, because it's an economic fact that the best way of growing an economy is to penalize risk-takers, innovators and the industrious. • The price of medicine and health care to plummet, because it's another economic fact that when you give people free stuff, demand goes down. • Foreign investors to swamp the country in capital, because they really don't care about the return on their investments, as the Republicans had led us to believe. • Government to control even more of the economy, because government is clearly better at allocating scarce resources, as the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea and France have proven. • Single-parent households to grow exponentially, because Republicans won't be able to spread the lie that such households are the primary cause of poverty, crime and school dropouts. • Wal-Mart to go out of business, because Republicans won't be able to perpetuate another myth that people prefer low prices to high prices. • Muslim extremists to stop killing Americans and enslaving women, because their extremism was caused by Republicans, who never understood the glories of multiculturalism and the fact that all cultures are equally good, except the American culture. ............... Shamelessly taken from this blog... ....http://curmudgeonlyskeptical.blogspot.com/ Message 23027882

To: Sully- who wrote (23900)	12/1/2006 1:21:12 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Sore Winners Democrats try to steal an election in Florida. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Friday, December 1, 2006 Democrats whomped Republicans in last month's midterms, but oddly enough they're still calling in the legal cavalry to contest one of the few races they narrowly lost. That would be Florida's 13th Congressional District, which runs along the Gulf Coast from just south of Tampa to just north of Fort Myers. The certified winner is Republican Vern Buchanan, who beat Democrat Christine Jennings by fewer than 400 votes out of more than 237,000 cast. Two recounts, which were demanded by Democrats and required by law, have reconfirmed Mr. Buchanan's victory and slightly increased the margin. Unbowed, the Dems are now suggesting that defective voting machines cost them the race. They point to Sarasota County's 18,000 "undervotes," or incidences where voters cast ballots in other races but not the Buchanan-Jennings contest. Ms. Jennings--along with such liberal partisans as People for the American Way and the American Civil Liberties Union--has filed a lawsuit contesting the results based on "statistical and eyewitness evidence of significant machine malfunctions" in Sarasota's iVotronic touch-screen system. They want a court to declare Ms. Jennings the winner by--get this--using statistical models to extrapolate that she would have received most of the undervotes. Short of that, they'll settle for nullifying the November results and holding a new election. But among the many things that are strange here is that if anyone ought to be complaining about undervotes, it's the GOP. Sarasota is the largest and most Republican county in the district, yet the Democrat, Ms. Jennings, carried it handily. In fact, it's the only county in the district that she did carry, which makes it more likely that it was Republicans who declined to vote in the Congressional race, not Democrats. And there are reasons so many voters might have taken a pass on this race while voting in others on the ballot. For starters, the Republican primary featured an exceptional amount of mudslinging. The primary was also a five-man race with four candidates from Sarasota County. Mr. Buchanan won the GOP nomination with just 32% of the vote, and some of his primary opponents either waited until the last minute to issue a public endorsement or never got around to it. So it's entirely possible that voters were turned off by the negative campaigning and chose neither Mr. Buchanan nor Ms. Jennings in silent protest. By the way, undervoting isn't uncommon in the district. Two years ago, there were more than 12,000 Sarasota County undervotes in Democrat Jan Schneider's House race against Republican Representative Katherine Harris. The 2000 race for the 13th district seat, which predated the use of touch-screen voting machines, also featured a high number of undervotes. This week, Florida election officials began auditing the voting machines, which is the very thorough and transparent process for determining whether they worked properly on Election Day. There is still no evidence that the machines malfunctioned. But never mind. Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi allowed Ms. Jennings to vote in House leadership elections last month, and Democrats could attempt to disallow the Florida certification and vote to seat Ms. Jennings in January unless a new election is granted. Democrats did precisely that in a contested Indiana House race 20 years ago when they last held Congress. All of this underscores how anti-Bush hatred has unhinged the political left. They still see Karl Rove lurking outside every voting booth. The Buchanan-Jennings contest has become a particular rallying point for fears about electronic voting, and liberals now want the machines to provide paper trails in the event of a recount. This might be a reasonable request if it were made in good faith. But back during the Florida debacle in 2000, before touch-screen voting was widely used, the same Democrats and liberal columnists deplored the inaccuracy of paper ballots and those "hanging chads." All of which suggests that their real problem is the outcome of the race, not the integrity of the voting process. Some liberals are so paranoid nowadays that they aren't happy even when they win. opinionjournal.com

To: Sully- who wrote (23900)	5/6/2010 12:27:45 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (50) \| Respond to of 35834

Dismal Democratic turnout By: Michael Barone Senior Political Analyst 05/05/10 8:09 PM EDT I’m in London, covering the British election, so I’m not in the perfect position to analyze the turnout in Tuesday’s primaries in Ohio, Indiana and North Carolina. Fortunately, the Hotline has done it for me, and the results are dismal news for Democrats: their voters are just not turning out very much, and Republican voters are. Interesting subtext: Indiana Republican House incumbents Mark Souder and Dan Burton were renominated with strikingly unimpressive percentages, the Republican candidate in the last four elections in the Indiana 9th district (and the winner in the 2004 general election) Mike Sodrel finished third in his primary and insurgent Marlin Stutzman lost by only a narrow margin to former Senator and Congressman (and Ambassador to Germany and Washington lobbyist) Dan Coats by only a narrow margin in the Indiana Senate primary. All of these data points can be cited in the support of the proposition that there’s a backlash against Republican incumbents as well as Democrats in general. Fair point. But it’s still not a trend that promises to cut for Democrats (who are after all most congressional incumbents) in November. Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com