Conservative Democrats Ain’t Listening, Vote Them Out!

Personally I would say you're not alone. I believe the same way as you do.

Looking at it objectively, Democrats are determined to get this done now despite the current fiscal mess. I still think Dems have one final chance if they can package a bill that passes the smell test and then address the fiscal problems separately claiming it won't take effect for 4 yrs and they will take measures to reduce the debt by then :rolleyes:

good strategy! I believe they will pass 'something', don't know what that will look like yet but we must wait & see. I don't know if a complete overhaul is needed but some minor tweaks to the current model could go a long way. For instance, following the examples in the Lasik model
 
The Congress just approved a record 460 Billion dollar defense budget, giving the Bush regime almost everything they wanted. The Congress also handed the Bush regime a victory Saturday, voting to expand the government's abilities to eavesdrop without warrants on foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States. Obviously, they have forgotten the landside victory last September flipping the US Congress from Republican to Democrat. Below is a list of Blue Dog Democrats, conservative democrats that are complicit with republicans in preventing the ending of the illegal Iraqi war. If you see your reprehensive listed, let them know that they can be voted out just like those republicans that got voted out in 2006






Jason Altmire (4th Pennsylvania)
John Barrow (12th Georgia) Blue Dog
Melissa Bean (8th Illinois) Blue Dog
Dan Boren (2nd Oklahoma) Blue Dog
Leonard Boswell (3rd Iowa)
Allen Boyd (2nd Florida) Blue Dog
Christopher Carney (10th Pennsylvania) Blue Dog
Ben Chandler (6th Kentucky) Blue Dog
Rep. Jim Cooper (5th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Jim Costa (20th California) Blue Dog
Bud Cramer (5th Alabama) Blue Dog
Henry Cuellar (28th Texas)
Artur Davis (7th Alabama)
Lincoln Davis (4th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Joe Donnelly (2nd Indiana) Blue Dog
Chet Edwards (17th Texas)
Brad Ellsworth (8th Indiana) Blue Dog
Bob Etheridge (North Carolina)
Bart Gordon (6th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (South Dakota) Blue Dog
Brian Higgins (27th New York)
Baron Hill (9th Indiana) Blue Dog
Nick Lampson (23rd Texas) Blue Dog
Daniel Lipinski (3rd Illinois)
Jim Marshall (8th Georgia) Blue Dog
Jim Matheson (2nd Utah) Blue Dog
Mike McIntyre (7th North Carolina) Blue Dog
Charlie Melancon (3rd Louisiana) Blue Dog
Harry Mitchell (5th Arizona)
Colin Peterson (7th Minnesota) Blue Dog
Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota) Blue Dog
Ciro Rodriguez (23rd Texas) Blue Dog
Mike Ross (4th Arkansas) Blue Dog
John Salazar (3rd Colorado) Blue Dog
Heath Shuler (11th North Carolina) Blue Dog
Vic Snyder (2nd Arkansas)
Zachary Space (18th Ohio) Blue Dog
John Tanner (8th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Gene Taylor (4th Mississippi) Blue Dog
Timothy Walz (1st Minnesota)
Charles A. Wilson (6th Ohio) Blue Dog

. . . sometimes, you have to be careful, what you ask for

. . .
 
alarm-clock-ringing.jpg
 
One down and about 5 to go...in the Senate!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-fs8KCO3dCs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-fs8KCO3dCs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>​

source: Huffington Post

Evan Bayh's Very Long 2009

It's safe to say, now that he's confirmed his impending retirement, that 2009 was a terrible year for Evan Bayh. Pummeled by both the left and the right, Bayh evidently decided he didn't need to endure any more abuse. That didn't stop him from taking his time -- he waited until just a few days before the filing deadline to let the news slip. Indiana Democrats, already facing a very tough electoral climate, now have little time to collect the necessary 500 signatures from each of state's Congressional districts to qualify a new contender.

As Chris Cillizza pointed out two months ago, Bayh's future in the Democratic Party was over long before this announcement (perhaps not coincidentally, Cillizza was also the first to report Bayh's decision). But more than Bayh's dimming political prospects, my guess is that what got to Bayh was the distinctly personal tone attacks on him had taken -- particularly those on his wife, Susan, who serves on the board of WellPoint, one of the nation's largest health insurers.

Bayh started tacking to the right almost immediately after Obama's election, long before it became apparent to most that the coalition which had turned Indiana blue for the first time in 40 years would evaporate. Just weeks after Obama's stunning victory in the state, Bayh was trying to put together a Senate Blue Dog coalition. He took to the conservative op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal in March to decry an omnibus spending bill. He spoke out against cap and trade.

On the most important issue of the year -- health care reform -- Bayh had a long hard time making up his mind. He told reporters there was no difference between voting for cloture on the bill and approving his bill on October 28; just a day later he abruptly reversed course and announced to Rachel Maddow that he'd definitely vote for cloture.

Weeks later Bayh was singing a different tune. Now he was again unsure about how he would vote on the bill, because it contained large fees on medical device manufacturers. Quite a few companies in this industry -- Cook Group, Siemens, Zimmer, Boston Scientific and Medtronic -- have operations in his state. He told hometown radio station WIBC that his vote for the bill depended on cuts in the medical device fees:

I went to the leadership and I said, look, I'm just not gonna support this if you threaten these jobs, they listened to me, and they took action to make sure the jobs are now safe, and the industry should be alright.
Perhaps unwittingly Bayh's boasts about the medical device fee cuts played into one of the biggest criticisms he has faced this year: his undeniable closeness with corporate special interests. Indeed, in a press release announcing the fee cuts Bayh managed to quote the CEOs of two companies that have made contributions to his campaign account through their corporate PACs. 85% of Bayh's campaign cash comes from out-of-state contributors, according to an October Northwest Indiana Times analysis. (That compares to 27% for Indiana's Republican Sen. Dick Lugar).

More than the shots from Glenn Greenwald (who called Bayh the "perfectly representative face for the rotted Washington establishment") and Matt Yglesias (Bayh was "acting to entrench the culture of narcissism and hypocrisy that's killing the United States Congress"), what really must have gotten to Bayh was the intensely personal tenor of the attacks on Bayh's wife, Susan.

For many years Susan's membership on several major corporate boards (eight of them, in 2008) was something of an open secret. Only over the course of the health care reform debate was it widely spoken about in Indiana. With Bayh playing a prominent role in the haggling over the public option and medical device fees, it was impossible to ignore the fact that WellPoint, a behemoth insurer, was paying Susan Bayh hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Between 2006 and 2008 Susan earned $2.1 million from health insurers. Legal under Senate rules, Susan Bayh's refusal to step down from WellPoint's board, and her husband's denial that the millions she had earned from WellPoint would influence him, were greeted with derision from ethics watchdogs.

It's hard to say how Evan Bayh would have made out in November; one January poll had him under 50% but a February poll had him handily defeating both of the two most prominent Republican contenders, John Hostettler and Dan Coats.

Coats once held Bayh's seat in the Senate but decided not to run against him in 1998. After more than a decade spent as an ambassador to Germany and a lobbyist for hire, Coats has decided he wants back in the Senate. The lobbying will make Coats vulnerable, and the campaign had promised to involve plenty of mudslinging. It had seemed certain that Coats would point to Susan's service on corporate boards to neutralize Bayh's advantage on the lobbying issue. An NRSC spokesman called their marriage the "Bayh family partnership," making it sound like the Gambino family. The fact that the House is looking into a 39% rate hike by one of WellPoint's California subsidiaries couldn't have been any comfort.

Susan Bayh's service on the WellPoint board was criticized by more than just wingnuts or diehard health care reform fanatics -- groups like Common Cause have raised serious questions about it. But for Bayh -- for both of the Bayhs -- it still must have felt like the politics of personal destruction. There were certainly other factors at play, and no doubt the reason Bayh cited in his announcement to the Indianapolis Star, increasing polarization in the Senate, weighed on him. But the promised attacks on Susan must have weighed on him just as much if not more, and he decided he wasn't going to take it anymore.
 
Liberal media?

source: Huffington Post

Media Portray Retiring Senator As Model Of 'Centrism,' Independence

The Media's Billion Dollar Ad for Evan Bayh

The mainstream media has been giving Evan Bayh a big fat sloppy wet kiss for the last 24 hours. Every single story is about how moderate and centrist and independent he is. Golly gee willikers, Evan Bayh is such a pure and innocent person and he just couldn't take the corruption of Congress anymore. He was so fed up with the partisanship and like any great man decided he must strike out on his own and leave DC.

Come on, are these people this naïve or do they have a stake in this? Do you really think Evan Bayh only has pure motivations and was the last good man in Washington? This is absolutely absurd, and on many fronts it's the exact opposite of the truth. No one made a deal with corporate lobbyists faster than Evan Bayh. He wasn't sick of the problems of DC, he was the problem of DC.

Bayh masked his craven capitulation to corporate lobbyists with a veneer of bipartisanship and moderation. If he sold out to enough special interests, he could claim that he was on both sides. But the one side he was never against was business interests that fed him his campaign cash.

So, he is a typical fake politician; I get that and I can live with it. What bothers me is how the media plays along. They have been running a giant ad for Evan Bayh's future political career or future lobbying career over the last couple of days. There is never a skeptical story about how Evan Bayh might be retiring to cash in on lobbyist money. And for those of you not familiar with the process -- and apparently that's the entire DC media -- the most powerful tool lobbyists have is the implied bribe that politicians get at the end of their career. If you play ball and do what you've been told, you're nearly guaranteed a multi-million dollar payoff at the end. Look at Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, Billy Tauzin, and Dick Armey. This list goes on and on. Everybody gets rich, oh right, except the American people.

Yet, not one knucklehead on TV has suggested that Bayh might be leaving to take the money. Instead they paint him as this hero of bipartisanship and moderation. It's a giant ad for Bayh. If he wanted to buy this much positive media coverage in the form of commercials, he'd have to spend nearly a billion dollars on every station in the country. Instead, the corporate media does him this favor as a going away present. And my guess is there will be nary a word when he resurfaces as a multi-million dollar corporate lobbyist in a little while. And then if he resurfaces in politics later, again the mention of his corporate ties will be glorified as the moves of a savvy businessman and the so-called moderate will ride back into town as a hero.

If news media producers are not doing this on purpose, then they are hideously misinformed about the process and grossly negligent in reporting the real facts of Washington. If they are doing it on purpose (not the television actors posing as news anchors -- they have almost no idea -- but the producers and executives who make decisions on news coverage), then we're all screwed. Everything is an illusion meant to mask the reality of corporate dominance over Washington. If you play ball, you're a hero. If you don't, you're a fringe outsider (otherwise known to the rest of us as a real American). Corporate robots in the media supporting corporate robots in politics. I don't know why I ever get surprised by any of this.
 
This is what should be happening, purging the DINOs! Anyone from Arkansas know about this guy?

source: Arkansas Times

Bill Halter Running For Arkansas Senate: Progressive Democrat To Challenge ConservaDem Blanche Lincoln

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RhSz_ehlOv8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RhSz_ehlOv8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>​

Lt. Gov. Bill Halter WILL run for U.S. Senate in the Democratic primary against Blanche Lincoln. He announced via early morning e-mail, guaranteeing that he'll dominate news of the opening of election filing today, then get another round of publicity when he emerges from seclusion for the actual announcement on Tuesday.

He's for families (health care), against Washington, for "Main Street" over Wall Street.

The filing will be Tuesday. Check his website here.

Does Lincoln swerve a bit to the left for primary voters? Or continue her rightward lurch in anticipation of November? Is her war chest sufficient for a primary and general election should she prevail? Will Halter's football coach return to TV screens?

The race for lieutenant governor is now wide open. Sen. Shane Broadway, Democrat, will be among those joining the field. Jason Tolbert says Republican lobbyist/former legislator Marvin Parks might join pizzeria owner Mark Darr on the GOP side.

Many questions. I can tell you that Republicans are happy this morning. Lincoln will be forced to spend money and perhaps adopt positions useful in the fall campaign. There is a counter argument, however, that a Democratic challenge could make Lincoln stronger. Until now, polls have shown Lincoln with a lead over Halter, though none of the Republican candidates.

Details of the early morning news release:

HALTER NEWS RELEASE

Halter to Run for Senate in Arkansas – Will File Papers Tomorrow

Arkansas Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter announced early this morning via an on-line video at www.BillHalter.com that Washington is broken and that he can best serve Arkansans by fighting for them in the United States Senate.

“I’m going to spend the rest of today phoning friends, family and supporters, and making a courtesy call to Senator Blanche Lincoln,” said Halter. “I look forward to joining my wife and father tomorrow morning at the state capitol where we’ll make official my campaign to put Arkansans first.”

The transcript of the video can be found below. Additionally, Halter will be available to the media tomorrow when he files papers at the capitol to officially enter the U.S. Senate race. Details on tomorrow are also listed below.

Who: Bill Halter

** Where: www.BillHalter.com **

When: TODAY

Time: 6:00am CST

What: Bill Halter Announces Senate Bid

Note: Interviews with Halter will also be available at Tuesday’s Media Avail

His announcement:


"Today I'm announcing that I will run in the Democratic primary for the United States Senate. Washington is broken. It’s working for the special interests, not Arkansas families. Bailing out Wall Street with no strings attached while leaving middle class Arkansas taxpayers with the bill. Protecting insurance company profits instead of protecting patients and lowering health costs. Bickering and engaging in partisan games while unemployment is at a 25 year high. Enough is enough. It's past time to put more Arkansas values in Washington.

This is not a decision I make lightly. Serving Arkansas as your Lt. Governor for the past three years has been an incredible honor. Shanti and I have carefully considered the implications for our family and we appreciate the encouragement we have received from every corner of the state.

In the end I cannot stand by while jobs are shipped overseas, seniors are pushed to the brink and big banks and insurance companies get bailed out while Arkansans are left to pay for a mess we didn’t create.

We know it is possible to stand up for Arkansas values and Arkansas families and get things done, because we have done it right here in our state.

Our toughest fight was to establish the scholarship lottery. Most believed it couldn't be done. But I took a principled stand that Arkansas voters should decide this issue for themselves and Arkansans approved the scholarship program by almost two to one. This year alone we'll help over 20,000 Arkansas families pay for college - without raising taxes. Working in President Clinton’s budget office, I helped balance the federal budget for the first time in 40 years. As a leader of Social Security I helped fight off the Republican and Wall Street schemes to privatize it. When the legislature moved to increase their pay in these tough economic times, I gave my increase to charity.

Creating good paying jobs. Providing education and opportunity for all who work hard and play by the rules. Protecting seniors and families. Fiscal responsibility. Standing up to the special interests. These are my principles I’ve stood up for here in Arkansas — and these are the principles I’ll take to Washington."
 
Last edited:
T.O.,

Consider adding this to the thought process: We are approaching the 2010 census following which many of the lines for state, local and national offices will be redrawn (re-districting).

In the past, the primary focus of redistricting has in many cases been to create "Safe Districts" by carving strange-shaped districts around ideological and at times racial lines. The result has been districts heavily republican, heavily democratic heavily black or heavily white. The effect has been the creation of districts where the seat-holder has only to play to those who elect him/her: the district's conservative or liberal or white or black constituency -- without much regard for the rest of the voters with contrary opinions.

THE PROBLEM: When districts are drawn that heavily lean conservative, liberal, etc., compromise is unnecessary and moderation of views/positions is not necessary because the seat-holder or candidate does not have to be too concerned with swing voters or the rest of the constituency.
  • They don't have to give a shit about health care;

  • They don't have to compromise, even when they should, where necessary to save our economy;

  • They don't have to give a shit about things outside of their parochial interest; and

  • They don't have to give a shit about the gridlock which they are most certainly part the blame.

IF YOU CAN "actually" VOTE OUT THE CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS or republicans or librarians, for that matter, because they aren't listening, perhaps you may actually be looking at a district worth emulating.

QueEx
 
QueEx, one thing you should have learned or should be learning is that conservatives, whether Democrat or Republican will favor business interests over individual rights, despite their proclamation otherwise. Just look at political direction the Supreme Court which reflects the domination of corporatist leaning appointments over the last thirty years. The only way to thwart their sway over the government is to vote them out. This will not be a short term process for sure. As the standard of living for Americans continue their downward slide the choice will become much easier.
 
QueEx or anybody: I was reading your post and have a question, Can a state gain or lose representatives based on the outcome of the census?
 
This is what should be happening, purging the DINOs! Anyone from Arkansas know about this guy?

source: Arkansas Times

Bill Halter Running For Arkansas Senate: Progressive Democrat To Challenge ConservaDem Blanche Lincoln


source: Huffington Post

UPDATE -- 7:45 PM ET: DailyKos.com founder Markos Moulitsas says that he and several other progressive organizations, including MoveOn.org, have already met their first-week fundraising goal of $500,000 for Halter about 7 hours after Halter announced his Senate run.

This is just day one of what will be an intense two-month effort leading to the mid-May primary. Expect a full rollout on his policy proposals, as well as the engagement of many our movement's biggest hitters.

But Arkansas is a small state, where retail politics is critical. Halter is a master of retail, and the more the netroots contributes, the more time he can spend talking to voters and local media. Lincoln will be lavishly funded by her corporate benefactors. It's up to us to counter that nefarious money, and empower Halter to speak for the little guy, not the the Harold Fords of the world.
 
Last edited:
<font size="5"><center>
Pressure builds on 'Blue Dog' Democrats
over health care vote</font size></center>



McClatchy Newspapers
By Michael Doyle
March 13, 2010


WASHINGTON — With a Capitol Hill showdown only days away, two San Joaquin Valley congressional Democrats remain crucial and undecided votes on a controversial health care bill.

The pressure is building on Reps. Dennis Cardoza of Merced and Jim Costa of Fresno. In some ways, they hold in their hands the bill's fate, as well as several political futures — their own, the president's and their party's. The White House has summoned both in recent days. Television ads and Republican talking points target them.

"I have had good friends who have called me in recent weeks, who have made good arguments on both sides," Cardoza said Friday.

Costa went to the White House on Thursday night. A week ago, it was Cardoza's turn. As counterweight, corporate opponents of the health care reform bill have been running television ads urging viewers to tell Cardoza to vote no. Phone bank operations have been deluging both offices, similarly urging a no vote.

Inevitably, bargaining over one issue blends into another. Costa said Friday that he used some of his time with President Barack Obama to urge more consideration for the Valley's water and employment needs. Obama said he understood, Costa reported.

In a memo Wednesday, Republican leaders identified the two Valley lawmakers as among those who will ultimately determine the success or failure of the legislation. They are both part of the Blue Dog coalition, whose members have more moderate voting records than other Democrats.

In November, Cardoza and Costa joined the majority in approving the initial House bill by a 220-215 margin.

Since then, negotiators have revised the package, but the final bill, spanning well over 1,000 pages, isn't expected to be available for inspection until Monday. The Valley lawmakers say they can't commit until then.

"We've gotten the summaries, but we don't know what the actual language is going to be yet," Cardoza said.

Costa, too, stressed that "I want to see the bill in print, what we're actually voting on," before making a decision.

Costa and Cardoza both support elements in the health care package, including insurance coverage for those with pre-existing conditions and portability of coverage when employees move from one job to another. The bill's final cost remains a potential concern for both.

Both lawmakers oppose federal funding of abortions, though they are leaving to others the details of how to write the necessary legislative language.

Because of congressional vacancies, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi needs 216 votes. No Republican is expected to vote for the health care package, leaving Democrats to pick their own way.

Politically, legislators see danger everywhere.

Failure to pass the bill would invariably brand Obama and congressional Democrats as weak or inept. That would hurt the party in November's elections. But in conservative-leaning San Joaquin Valley districts, support for Obama and Pelosi could also be costly.

In this fraught environment, even modest clues invite interpretation. Cardoza, for one, seemed to emphasize on Friday the problems of uninsured San Joaquin Valley residents and the pain of rising insurance costs.

"We have real problems with a lot of my folks not having insurance," Cardoza said.

An estimated 28 percent of the residents of Costa's congressional district in Fresno, Kings and Kern counties lack health insurance, according to the Physicians for a National Health Program. An estimated 22 percent of the residents of Cardoza's congressional district in San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced and Fresno counties are uninsured.

The Valley's uninsured population is much higher than in other parts of the country.

Cardoza and Costa both cited funding for new medical schools in their votes in November. The original House bill authorized $500 million over five years for new medical schools in underserved areas. The University of California at Merced was an unnamed but presumed beneficiary.

The health care package to be considered next week omits the medical school funding.

Instead, Cardoza noted, the Obama administration in its fiscal 2011 budget request is seeking $100 million next year for the same medical school purpose.

Cardoza serves on the leadership-controlled House Rules Committee, which will play a crucial behind-the-scenes role in coming days. The panel sets rules for how bills are put together and debated, and often is lambasted by Republicans for cutting off GOP alternatives.

Congressional action is expected to be concluded by March 21.




http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/...lue-dog-democrats.html#storylink=omni_popular
 
source: ABC


Arlen Specter Loses Pennsylvania Democratic Senate Primary to Joe Sestak

Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania's longest-serving senator, lost his bid to run for re-election as a Democrat to Rep. Joe Sestak, the Associated Press reports.

With 79 percent of precincts reporting, Sestak received 53 percent of the votes, AP reports; Specter received about 47 percent.

Sestak's victory marks a striking triumph over the establishment candidate, who just last month had a more than 20-point lead in polls.
Joe Sestak: "I Stood Up to My Party"

After serving in the Senate for nearly 30 years as a Republican, Specter switched to the Democratic party in order to salvage his career. He won the support of the Democratic establishment -- including Gov. Ed Rendell and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, who worked on his behalf to mobilize voters in Philadelphia, a critical part of the state for Specter.

President Obama also supported Specter, but he never joined him on the campaign trail.

While the Democratic establishment worked to elect Specter, Sestak seized on the 80-year-old senator's party switch to portray Specter as self-interested. He ran a bruising political ad that showed Specter with then-President George W. Bush.
<!--pagebreak-->
Now with Specter out of the picture, the party is switching gears to get behind Sestak. Sen. Robert Menendez, chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, released a statement praising Sestak as "a former Naval Officer who has proven he takes a back seat to nobody when it comes to shaking-up Washington and taking on the establishment."

Specter's loss is the latest sign of an anti-incumbent attitude among voters across the country, as also evidenced by the defeat of Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah and Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia. Early vote counts indicate Specter did not do well enough in Philadelphia, the AP reports, where he was relying on his Democratic allies to help him build up large vote margins.

Sestak now goes on to challenge Republican former congressman Pat Toomey in November for Specter's seat.
 
source: TPM

Lincoln Fends Off Primary Challenge, Heads To Tough Reelection Fight

Sen. Blanche Lincoln fended off a tough Democratic primary challenge tonight, besting progressive opponent Lt. Gov. Bill Halter in a runoff election marked by a high level of voter discontent with Washington. But this race was just the beginning for the embattled Lincoln, who in November will face Rep. John Boozman (R-AR), a former Razorback player with a conservative record.
Lincoln earned 51 percent to Halter's 49 percent with 77 of precincts reporting as the Associated Press called the race for the incumbent senator, a conservative Democrat who sometimes frustrates her party's leaders.
In a victory speech tonight, Lincoln thanked her supporters, saying they'd sent a message that's "loud and clear, and that message was that the vote of this senator is not for sale." She said she had stood up to special interests. "We are head to November with this message," Lincoln said.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee issued a memo soon after Lincoln's win saying she is a "proven independent voice" for Arkansas. They criticized Boozman as a supporting "failed policies of the past" and suggested the party will try to tie him to former President George W. Bush.
"For Democrats in Arkansas to be successful this November, we must be aggressive in framing the choice for voters," DSCC Chairman Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) wrote in the memo.
Halter was recruited by national progressive groups and labor unions who sent money and resources to the state. The competitive race was prolonged an additional three weeks when Lincoln failed to clear the 50 percent vote threshold during the May 18 primary. That night, Lincoln earned 45 percent to Halter's 43 percent while conservative Democrat D.C. Morrison had 13 percent.
It was a rough-and-tumble election, with the candidates sparring over spending, health care reform and even former President Bill Clinton. Lincoln was in trouble before she earned the primary challenge, taking heat from the left for her conservative positions and from Republicans in a state that backed Sen. John McCain for president in 2008.
Lincoln campaigned against both Halter and "outside groups" she said are mad at her for not siding with them 100 percent of the time. Lincoln has balked at spending from unions and groups such as MoveOn.org and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, even as she was boosted by television ads from Republican leaning business groups. She also had the backing of all the national Democrats, though their presence was practically ghostly on the ground in Arkansas. President Obama didn't say a peep on her behalf, the DNC's Organizing for America kept quiet and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee didn't run ads for Lincoln, despite supporting her all the way. Vice President Joe Biden was the lone voice in an OFA email, and Clinton helped her launch the final stretch of the campaign with a rally in Little Rock and by starring in television ads. Obama, who hasn't been in the state since 2007, is unlikely to campaign for Lincoln this fall.
In recent months, Lincoln played a vital role in financial reform, helping to write tough derivatives language that even Democrats would like to see watered down during the upcoming conference negotiations with the House.
Team Lincoln estimated in a memo to the press last week that Halter's camp, labor unions and progressive organizations had spent a total of $2.7 million. The memo said that Lincoln had spent $650,993 while two other groups had spent $541,774 on her behalf for a total of $1.19 million. She had $2.06 million in the bank as of the last Federal Election Commission filing which covered through May 19. Boozman had about $360,000 cash on hand.
 
The Congress just approved a record 460 Billion dollar defense budget, giving the Bush regime almost everything they wanted. The Congress also handed the Bush regime a victory Saturday, voting to expand the government's abilities to eavesdrop without warrants on foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States. Obviously, they have forgotten the landside victory last September flipping the US Congress from Republican to Democrat. Below is a list of Blue Dog Democrats, conservative democrats that are complicit with republicans in preventing the ending of the illegal Iraqi war. If you see your reprehensive listed, let them know that they can be voted out just like those republicans that got voted out in 2006




Jason Altmire (4th Pennsylvania)
John Barrow (12th Georgia) Blue Dog
Melissa Bean (8th Illinois) Blue Dog
Dan Boren (2nd Oklahoma) Blue Dog
Leonard Boswell (3rd Iowa)
Allen Boyd (2nd Florida) Blue Dog
Christopher Carney (10th Pennsylvania) Blue Dog
Ben Chandler (6th Kentucky) Blue Dog
Rep. Jim Cooper (5th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Jim Costa (20th California) Blue Dog
Bud Cramer (5th Alabama) Blue Dog
Henry Cuellar (28th Texas)
Artur Davis (7th Alabama)
Lincoln Davis (4th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Joe Donnelly (2nd Indiana) Blue Dog
Chet Edwards (17th Texas)
Brad Ellsworth (8th Indiana) Blue Dog
Bob Etheridge (North Carolina)
Bart Gordon (6th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (South Dakota) Blue Dog
Brian Higgins (27th New York)
Baron Hill (9th Indiana) Blue Dog
Nick Lampson (23rd Texas) Blue Dog
Daniel Lipinski (3rd Illinois)
Jim Marshall (8th Georgia) Blue Dog
Jim Matheson (2nd Utah) Blue Dog
Mike McIntyre (7th North Carolina) Blue Dog
Charlie Melancon (3rd Louisiana) Blue Dog
Harry Mitchell (5th Arizona)
Colin Peterson (7th Minnesota) Blue Dog
Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota) Blue Dog
Ciro Rodriguez (23rd Texas) Blue Dog
Mike Ross (4th Arkansas) Blue Dog
John Salazar (3rd Colorado) Blue Dog
Heath Shuler (11th North Carolina) Blue Dog
Vic Snyder (2nd Arkansas)
Zachary Space (18th Ohio) Blue Dog
John Tanner (8th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Gene Taylor (4th Mississippi) Blue Dog
Timothy Walz (1st Minnesota)
Charles A. Wilson (6th Ohio) Blue Dog

================================================================

Great List!
I told you were just alike.
Now Lets get some real TeaBaggers,no more of these Liberal, Blue Dog,and Republican clowns!
 
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/house/2010_elections_house_map.html" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/house/2010_elections_house_map.html">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
<font size="4">
On the other hand:

<font size>

<font size="4">Hope for the Dems? </font size>


by Simon Rosenberg
September 21, 2010

Both the Real Clear Politics Congressional Generic average and the new Gallup track show similar national trend lines - Dems gaining ground, GOP dropping. Similarly, the Gallup track has Obama's approval rating improving by 10 net percentage points in the past month, from 42/51 to 47/46 (RCP has shown movement despite 2 clear outlier Rasmussen and AP polls).

If these trend lines are true, no one should be suprised. The underlining favorability of the Republican Party is still far below that of the Dems and Obama. This election has never been like 1994 where at this point there had been both a fall of the Dems and a rise in the GOP. The memory of the disasterous GOP reign in the last decade is still too fresh, their leaders still to unreformed, their candidates far too wacky, and their ideas still too reckless for the current GOP to have fully taken advantage of the Democratic underpeformance this past cycle. This election, like all elections, is not like any other election. It has its own contours, its own set of dynamics. Like all elections it is sui generis.

As NDN has been arguing for most of 2010, the real questions in the election were 1) could the Democrats get their huge base to come home and vote 2) could the Dems do a better job at engaging on the main issue of the election, the economy, and better define the GOP as a reckless party? The late movement in this election, despite the truly silly "baked in the cake" arguments we've heard on TV of late, was always likely to be towards the Democrats. This current Congress had done too much right for the summer perceptions of Democratic performance to continue to be as bad as it was. And the underlying strength of the Democratic and Obama brands were just too great for their standing not to improve with some focused recalibration, which has happened now. We dont really now exactly why these things have happened, but I for one believe its because the President has begun to make the choice on the economy much more clear.

Remember that in the last two elections, the Democrats garnered 52 and 53 percent of the national vote. The last time they received such numbers two elections in a row was in the 1930s, meaning that for those covering politics there had not been an environment so Democratic since prior to Reagan's rehabilitation of the GOP, and maybe even all the way back to the 1960s or 1930s. The Democrats started this cycle in a position where if got those who already voted from them in the last two elections to vote for them again they could win a smashing 1934 like victory, bucking historical mid-term trends of parties in historically weaker shape than the 2010 Democrats.

I hope given these polls that the comparisons to 1994 will come to an end. For the GOP this polls should be very worrying. They are now dropping as a national political party 6 weeks before an election. They have no argument where they want to take the country. They have unattractive leaders and far too many fringe candidates. Led by a re-energized President, the Democrats have begun to find their voice, and their numbers are improving.

Underneath all the noise the political terrain of 2010 is changing, and so far this new terrain is far more favorable to the Dems than the Rs. My sense is that Democrats have reclaimed ground they never should have lost in the first place. The real question now is what happens next, how does this election close? If I were a Republican I would not like the charts on Gallup and RCP showing sharp downward movement this close to an election, as they have very few tools now to reverse what could be a significant drop in their standing. For Democrats there is muted but renewed hope.

http://ndn.org/blog/2010/09/poll-watch-hope-dems
 
<font size="3">
US presidents with a job approval rating above 50% at the
time of mid-term elections are much less likely to see their
party suffer heavy seat losses than are those with approval
ratings below that mark.

Since 1946, when presidents are above 50% approval, their
party loses an average of 14 seats in the US House, compared
with an average loss of 36 seats when presidents are below
that mark.
</font size>


_48876786_seat_loss_464.gif


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11099057
 
QueEx or anybody: I was reading your post and have a question, Can a state gain or lose representatives based on the outcome of the census?


Of course. Research 'reapportionment'.

QueEx


<font size="5"><Center>
Report: Fla. adds 2 seats, N.Y. loses</font size></center>



100926_census_worker_better_ap_328.jpg



p o l i t i c o
By RICHARD E. COHEN
September 27, 2010


A new estimate of House reapportionment gains and losses resulting from this year’s Census reveals a larger-than-expected impact on Florida and New York. According to Washington-based Election Data Services, which reviewed new Census data from a private-sector demographic firm, Florida would gain two House seats and New York would lose two seats.

They would join two other states that already were projected to have multiple-seat changes. Based on the tentative Census data, Texas is expected to gain four House seats and Ohio likely will lose two seats.



According to the EDS estimate, six other states each would gain one seat: Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington. Eight states would each lose one seat: Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

In addition to the Florida and New York changes, the other major switch in the projected reapportionment is that Missouri will lose a House seat instead of Minnesota, according to EDS President Kimball Brace. He released the study for a redistricting seminar of the National Conference of State Legislature in Providence, Rhode Island, this weekend.

Brace said that he had an “inkling” of the Missouri/Minnesota switch, but added, “We were most surprised at the shift of an additional district out of New York and down to Florida, even though that follows the population movement in this country since World War II.”

Although these estimates likely will be close to the official outcome, there are no guarantees until the Census Bureau’s scheduled announcement in late December of the final Census population totals for the 50 states. With those numbers, a long-standing statutory formula will quickly apportion the 435 House seats. That, in turn, will lead to the state-by-state redistricting of House seats, which will revise the congressional maps for the 2012 election.

Assessing the partisan impact remains speculative, not least because November results will determine who controls the state legislature and governor’s office in many states—partisan changes would affect who controls the map-drawing in many states. The outcome of congressional elections in November likely will create additional variables, including partisan control of seats and the relative influence of House members within a state delegation.

Still, some early projections can be made based on current population data, especially for the four states projected to have multiple-seat changes.

In Texas, Republicans are expected to retain control of the legislature and Republican Gov. Rick Perry has a small lead over Democratic challenger Bill White. Even with complete GOP control of redistricting, however, the surge in Hispanic population likely will result in a Democratic gain of one or two of the expected four new seats—including one each in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex and in the Houston metropolitan area.

Republicans expect to add a seat in the Austin-San Antonio region and in other rapidly-growing suburban areas. There could be significant redistricting tweaks in heavily Hispanic border districts, which have had large population gains, and in sprawling rural areas where population has been relatively stagnant.


<u>Projected Gainers</u> (and expected gain):

Florida (2)
Texas (4)
Arizona (1)
Georgia (1)
Nevada (1)
South Carolina (1)
Utah(1)
Washington (1)

<u>Projected Losers</u> (and expected loss):

New York 2
Ohio likely 2
Illinois (1)
Iowa (1)
Louisiana (1)
Massachusetts (1)
Michigan (1)
Missouri (1)
New Jersey (1)
Pennsylvania (1)


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42741.html
 
<font size="5"><center>
Republicans put 99 Democrat-held
House seats in danger</font size></center>




101018_bright_grayson_markey_kratovil_ap_328.jpg




p o l i t i c o
By ALEX ISENSTADT
Octobaer 19, 2010



With two weeks remaining until Election Day, the political map has expanded to put Democrats on the run across the country – with 99 Democratic-held House seats now in play, according to a POLITICO analysis, and Republicans well in reach of retaking the House.

It’s a dramatic departure from the outlook one year ago – and a broader landscape than even just prior to the summer congressional recess. As recently as early September, many Republicans were hesitant to talk about winning a majority for fear of overreaching.



Today, however, the non-partisan Cook Political Report predicts a GOP net gain of at least 40 House seats, with 90 Democratic seats in total rated as competitive or likely Republican.

"When Chairman [Pete] Sessions and Leader [John] Boehner said that 100 House seats were in play, Democrats scoffed,” said Ken Spain, the National Republican Congressional Committee’s communications director. “Today, they aren't laughing anymore."

The number of Democrats in danger is more than double the 39 seats Republicans need to seize control of the House. It reflects an elastic electoral environment that favors the GOP by every measure: money, momentum and mood of the country — in this case, sour on Democratic incumbents.

For Democrats, a deteriorating political environment – unemployment high, President Barack Obama’s approval ratings low — has been exacerbated by the presence of cash-flush, independent conservative groups that have poured huge sums of money into races.

The groups, including American Crossroads, have combined with the National Republican Congressional Committee to stretch the boundaries of the 2010 map into races where there’s even a scent of Democratic vulnerability.

“This year is shaping up to be something of a repeat of the 52-seat House and eight-seat Senate rout of Democrats in 1994,” handicapper Charlie Cook wrote last week. “Sure, the circumstances and dynamics are different from then, but the outcome seems to be shaping up along the same lines.”

At one time, there was serious doubt the GOP would have the financial resources to compete effectively for the House majority. The thinking was that scores of potential opportunities could go unexplored due to the cash disparity between the NRCC and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

While the NRCC still trails in cash on hand, its fundraising has picked up—the September total was the committee’s largest one-month take since 2006—and independent groups have helped fill the void. And with anti-incumbent, anti-Obama and anti-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sentiment running so high in many districts, even a relative pittance has been enough to push a few Democrats onto thin ice.

The assessment by POLITICO is based on a review of TV media-buy information from those independent groups and the party committees in more than 80 districts; internal and public polling in individual races; Federal Election Commission fundraising data for incumbents and challengers; and reporting on the districts.

While the level of competitiveness among the 99 seats varies widely, they share a common denominator: all of them show some serious sign of vulnerability to takeover by the GOP. Factors included a Democratic incumbent’s unpopular legislative votes, the quality of opposition, the partisan breakdown of the districts or the huge sums of money dedicated to Democratic defeat—or some combination of all those factors—to place them “in play” ahead of Nov. 2.

The subjectivity of those factors have led to varying interpretations of just how many seats are actually at risk for Democrats. The Rothenberg Report, another political handicapper, lists 91 Democratic-held seats as in play, and predicts the “extremely large field of competitive races” will produce a “likely Republican gain of 40-50 seats, with 60 seats possible.”

POLITICO’s list of 99 seats—some of which have only recently emerged—places GOP pickup opportunities across the political map, stretching from regions of Republican strength such as the South to Democratic states such as California, where three incumbent Democrats face competitive challengers.

In deep-blue New York, Republicans have a shot at as many as nine Democrats. “It’s thermonuclear,” said two-term Rep. Michael Arcuri, in describing the campaign against him to the New York Times.


The list doesn’t include several Republican-oriented seats that Democrats have all but ceded to Republicans, including districts in southeastern Louisiana, Upstate New York and Middle Tennessee.
Some Democrats are clearly facing more difficult challenges than others. The DCCC, which is charged with protecting the party’s 39-seat majority, has already pulled TV ad reservations in at least six contests — a sign that Democratic hopes of retaining those seats are diminishing.

There are dramatic differences in the competitiveness of races even within states. In California, Reps. Jim Costa and Loretta Sanchez appear to have easier paths to reelection than fellow Democratic Rep. Jerry McNerney. In New York, Upstate Rep. Bill Owens has a higher degree of reelection difficulty than Long Island-based Rep. Carolyn McCarthy. In Texas, Rep. Solomon Ortiz—who typically wins by wide margins--is far likelier to win than Rep. Chet Edwards, who is regularly faces stiff opposition in his solidly Republican district.


<font size="3">What does an endangered Democrat look like? Take your pick. </font size>

Freshman Democrats make up a large share — more than a quarter — of those facing competitive races. Of the 38 Democrats serving their first full terms in the House, POLITICO rates 29 as at-risk. Some — such as Reps. Bobby Bright of Alabama, Betsy Markey of Colorado, Alan Grayson of Florida and Frank Kratovil Jr. of Maryland — hail from GOP-friendly districts, where they have been in the cross hairs almost since the moment they were elected.

But legislative vets are under fire too. Nine-term New York Rep. Maurice Hinchey and four-term Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva until recently were considered near-locks to win, before their campaigns hit unexpected turbulence. Hinchey attracted unflattering attention this weekend after a videotaped confrontation with a reporter at the same time American Crossroads and other GOP groups are pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into ads in his district.

Grijalva, who called for an economic boycott of his own state amid a housing crisis and record unemployment, has also been hit by outside spending right after an automated poll unexpectedly showed him in a dead heat with his GOP opponent.

The list also includes a handful of veteran Democrats who typically enjoy the benefits of seniority on Capitol Hill and cruise to reelection but this year find themselves locked in competitive races. Among those Democrats are Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton of Missouri and Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt of South Carolina.

Getting outhustled in fundraising is another way for candidates to find themselves on the bubble.

In a sign of GOP momentum — and of the breadth of the competitive landscape — at least 40 Democratic incumbents were outraised by their GOP challengers in the most recent quarter, according to FEC data. Reps. Ron Klein of Florida and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota, both stellar fundraisers, were among those outraised in the latest reporting period.


Not all Democratic districts in play are held by incumbents: The party is trying to retain open seats in states including Pennsylvania, Indiana and Washington.

If there is a particular trouble spot for Democrats, it is the Midwest, where 31 seats are at risk. Democrats are trying to defend incumbents including Reps. Steve Kagen of Wisconsin, Bill Foster of Illinois and Leonard Boswell of Iowa, as well as several open seats.

In the South, where many Democrats occupy conservative-oriented districts, Republicans are making a play for 24 seats.​

POLITICO’s tally does not include a handful of seats in which Democrats are waging competitive campaigns to capture GOP-held seats. Democrats increasingly appear poised to win Delaware’s open at-large seat and Republican Rep. Joseph Cao’s New Orleans-based 2nd District, and are running aggressively against Republican Reps. Dan Lungren of California and Dave Reichert of Washington, and in south Florida’s open 25th District, held by Mario Diaz-Balart.

In the homestretch, the DCCC will have a $60 million program, including at least $40 million of independent-expenditure television ads planned, as well as a $20 million voter contact program.

“The more voters have gotten to know House Republicans’ fatally flawed candidates, including those with ties to organized crime, a Nazi enthusiast, and another being sued for attempted rape and sexual assault, the less there is to like,” said Ryan Rudominer, a DCCC spokesman. “So for all the Republicans’ popping the champagne and the countless millions spent in secret funds from shady right wing groups, they haven’t been able to close the deal in their targeted races, and that’s why Democrats will win.”



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43814.html
 
<font size="5"><center>
Blue Dogs Face Sharp Losses in Midterms</font size>
</center>


Wall Street Journal
Gerald F. Seib
OCTOBER 26, 2010


WASHINGTON—More than half the members of the Blue Dog Coalition—the organization of moderate to conservative Democrats in the House—are in peril in next week's election, a stark indicator of how the balloting could produce a Congress even more polarized than the current one.

The Blue Dogs are often seen as a kind of human bridge, connecting left and right in the House. But that bridge is imperiled by the coming Republican wave in midterm elections, the most stark example of how the midterms are likely to weaken Capitol Hill's political center.

Of 54 Blue Dogs in the House, six already have retired or decided to seek other offices. Of those trying to stay, 39 are in competitive races, according to the Cook Political Report, and 22 of those are in pure toss-ups.

Among those facing the toughest races are some of the Blue Dog Coalition's leaders. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota, one of the co-chairs of the group, is locked in a contest with State Rep. Kristi Noem; in the most recent polling earlier this month, conducting by Rasmussen Reports, Ms. Herseth Sandlin trailed 47% to 43%.

Similarly, Rep. Baron Hill of Indiana, a fellow Blue Dog leader, is battling Republican attorney Todd Young in a deadlocked race both parties see as an indicator of the size of the GOP wave.

The bottom line is that the Blue Dog population could be cut significantly, conceivably by half, in next week's voting.

<font size="3">Blue Dogs tend to come from more conservative swing districts, where their hold on their seats is more tenuous in any case, and where voters are more likely to move right when the national winds push strongly in that direction.

"This is going to be a very tough election for the Blue Dogs, because many of them had success in districts where Democrats are always an endangered species," says Jim Kessler, vice president for policy at Third Way, a think tank promoting the ideas of moderate Democrats. "If they lose, some of them may come back in a future wave election, but those are never safe seats." </font size>

Meantime, liberal Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers and Henry Waxman hail from reliably Democratic districts, and they will be returning.

<font size="3">The upshot is one of the great political ironies of the year: A national conservative wave will hit hardest not at the most liberal Democrats, but at the most conservative Democrats. The Democratic caucus left behind will be, on balance, more liberal than it was before the election. </font size>

Meantime, a similar dynamic, only in the opposite direction, will be unfolding within the Republican House caucus. The election figures to bring to Washington some 50 newcomers on the Republican side—some of whom will replace retiring Republicans, others who will take over Democratic seats—and few of them are from the political center.

Instead, the tea-party movement has helped produce a crop of Republican newcomers who are ideologically to the right, and often quite intense about their views. "These people aren't interested in coming here to compromise," said one senior GOP House aide.

The net result will be a Republican House caucus pushed to the right by its newest members. The space vacated in this process will be the ideological center. That old line from Texas populist Jim Hightower—"There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos"—will feel prescient.

Write to Gerald F. Seib at jerry.seib@wsj.com

FULL STORY: http://online.wsj.com/article/capital_journal.html
 
<CENTER>
Blue Dogs Face Sharp Losses in Midterms
</CENTER>


Wall Street Journal
Gerald F. Seib
OCTOBER 26, 2010


WASHINGTON—More than half the members of the Blue Dog Coalition—the organization of moderate to conservative Democrats in the House—are in peril in next week's election, a stark indicator of how the balloting could produce a Congress even more polarized than the current one.

The Blue Dogs are often seen as a kind of human bridge, connecting left and right in the House. But that bridge is imperiled by the coming Republican wave in midterm elections, the most stark example of how the midterms are likely to weaken Capitol Hill's political center.

Of 54 Blue Dogs in the House, six already have retired or decided to seek other offices. Of those trying to stay, 39 are in competitive races, according to the Cook Political Report, and 22 of those are in pure toss-ups.

Among those facing the toughest races are some of the Blue Dog Coalition's leaders. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota, one of the co-chairs of the group, is locked in a contest with State Rep. Kristi Noem; in the most recent polling earlier this month, conducting by Rasmussen Reports, Ms. Herseth Sandlin trailed 47% to 43%.

Similarly, Rep. Baron Hill of Indiana, a fellow Blue Dog leader, is battling Republican attorney Todd Young in a deadlocked race both parties see as an indicator of the size of the GOP wave.

The bottom line is that the Blue Dog population could be cut significantly, conceivably by half, in next week's voting.

Blue Dogs tend to come from more conservative swing districts, where their hold on their seats is more tenuous in any case, and where voters are more likely to move right when the national winds push strongly in that direction.

"This is going to be a very tough election for the Blue Dogs, because many of them had success in districts where Democrats are always an endangered species," says Jim Kessler, vice president for policy at Third Way, a think tank promoting the ideas of moderate Democrats. "If they lose, some of them may come back in a future wave election, but those are never safe seats."


Meantime, liberal Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers and Henry Waxman hail from reliably Democratic districts, and they will be returning.

The upshot is one of the great political ironies of the year: A national conservative wave will hit hardest not at the most liberal Democrats, but at the most conservative Democrats. The Democratic caucus left behind will be, on balance, more liberal than it was before the election.

Meantime, a similar dynamic, only in the opposite direction, will be unfolding within the Republican House caucus. The election figures to bring to Washington some 50 newcomers on the Republican side—some of whom will replace retiring Republicans, others who will take over Democratic seats—and few of them are from the political center.

Instead, the tea-party movement has helped produce a crop of Republican newcomers who are ideologically to the right, and often quite intense about their views. "These people aren't interested in coming here to compromise," said one senior GOP House aide.

The net result will be a Republican House caucus pushed to the right by its newest members. The space vacated in this process will be the ideological center. That old line from Texas populist Jim Hightower—"There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos"—will feel prescient.

Write to Gerald F. Seib at jerry.seib@wsj.com

FULL STORY: http://online.wsj.com/article/capital_journal.html


“Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time”


Harry S. Truman

 
Republicrats are getting hammered.

The Democratic Party is getting hammered.


Do you think November is going to be kind ?

You're becoming Lamarr, answering a question with a question. You made a statement based on what. Tell me where?

:smh: thats your tactic when you attempt to avoid my strong rebuttles to your warped Keynesian ideologies bruh


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
Well, this thread should be dying away now since half of the "Blue Dogs" are now gone. Amazingly, Heath Shuler (D, NC)is still talking shit like they have any influence. The Democrats are now in the minority in the House and the Republicans don't need them anymore. Game over, man.
 
Back
Top