Alabama: No sweat for long-time Sen. Richard Shelby (R), easily
defeating William Barnes (D)—70%-30%.
Alaska: Joe Miller (R) finishes 3rd due to sloppiness, giving a surprising
political comeback for incumbent Lisa Murkowski (Write-In); 2nd
place goes to Scott McAdams (D)--39%-33%-28%.
Arizona: Former Pres. candidate John McCain (R) wins an easy fifth
term over prettyboy Rodney Glassman (D)--62%-38%.
Arkansas: Incumbent Blanche Lincoln (D) will go down in flames against
John Boozman (R)--58%-42%.
California: Barbara Boxer (D) wins a fourth term in the toughest fight
of her political life against ex-CEO Carly Fiorina (R)--52%-48%.
Colorado: Incumbent Michael Bennet (D) suffers very tight loss to
Ken Buck (R). Watch for a recount here, folks.--50.6-50.4%.
Connecticut: Despite massive bucks spent, ex-WWE CEO Linda McMahon
(R) gets 'knocked out' by Richard Blumenthal (D)--56%-44%.
Delaware: The First State gets tired of the negative attention and elects
Chris Coons (D) over PR nightmare Christine O'Donnell (R)--55%-45%.
Florida: Gov. Charlie Crist (I) starts packing for nowhere, as he and 3rd
place Kendrick Meek (D) lose to Marco Rubio (R)—44%-36%-20%.
Georgia: Incumbent Johnny Isakson (R) has folks wondering about
the reason for the race, crushing Mike Thurmond (D)--65%-35%.
Hawaii: Longest-serving Sen. Daniel Inouye (D) safely re-elected to
ninth term over Republican Campbell Cavasso (R)--59%-41%.
Idaho: Tom Sullivan (D) never had a chance against Mormon incumbent
Mike Crapo (R)--67%-33%.
Illinois: A very close race ends on a good note for Mark Kirk (R), barely
edging out IL Treasury Secretary Alexi Giannoulias (D)--51%-49%.
Indiana: Ex. Senator Dan Coats (R) is overwhelmingly welcomed back
by Hoosiers, defeating U.S. Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D)--60%-40%.
Iowa: Incumbent Chuck Grassley (R) is returned to the Senate by Iowans
against Roxanne Conlin (D)—57%-43%.
Kansas: Crickets chirping at the headquarters of Lisa Johnston (D), as she
is massacred by U.S. Rep. Jerry Moran (R)--64%-36%.
Kentucky: Nasty campaign ends as Tea Party scores a victory with
Rand Paul (R) over Attorney General Jack Conway (D)--54%-46%.
Louisiana: Scandalous or not, incumbent David Vitter (R) scores a
second term over U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon (D)--57%-43%.
Maryland: Satisfied voters return the feisty Barbara Mikulski (D) to
D.C. over Eric Wargotz (R) with a whopping--63%-37%.
Missouri: U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt (R) moves up the political ladder, as
Robin Carnahan (D) stays on as Missouri Sec. of State--53%-47%.
Nevada: In a very bizarre race, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D)
barely wins over nut job Sharron Angle (R)--50.5%--49.5%.
New Hampshire: This quiet race has U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes (D) losing out
to former NH Attorney General Kelly Ayotte (R). --56%-44%.
New York: Incumbent Chuck Schumer (D) wins an easy third term
over virtually unknown Jay Townsend (R)--66%-34%.
New York: Kirsten Gillibrand (D) keeps Hillary's old seat Female and
Democratic, with a wide win over ex-U.S. Rep Joe DioGuardi--57%-43%.
North Carolina: The underfunded Elaine Marshall (D) is passed over for
incumbent Sen. Richard Burr (R). --57%-43%.
North Dakota: Most popular U.S. Gov. John Hoeven (R) wins the
popularity contest by a landslide over Tracy Potter (D). – 71%-29%.
Ohio: The Buckeye State stays Republican as former Bush official Rob
Portman has decisive victory over Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher (D)—55%-45%.
Oklahoma: Tom Coburn (R) returns to the Senate over the laughable
Jim Rogers (D), who has no campaign website—76%-24%.
Oregon: Liberal Ron Wyden (D) stays comfortable, retaining his seat
against challenger Jim Huffman (R) –61%-39%.
Pennsylvania: This hot race ends with Pat Toomey (R) narrowly edging
out U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak (D)—51%-49%.
South Carolina: Jim DeMint (R) easily keeps his seat after the bizarre
candidacy of Alvin Greene (D)—76%-24%.
South Dakota: Incumbent John Thune (R) must be one hell of a senator,
considering he has zero Democratic opposition. Wow.
Utah: Mike Lee (R) has an easy victory over businessman Sam Granato (D)
in this safely Republican state—59%-41%.
Vermont: Unknown challenger Len Britton (R) is no match for Vermont’s
high-approval Sen. Patrick Leahy (D)—69%-31%.
Washington: Dino Rossi (R) fails again in his third state-wide election, but
gives incumbent Patty Murray (D) a run for her money—50.8%-49.2%.
West Virginia: Mountain State voters can’t let this one go GOP, electing the
popular Gov. Joe Manchin (D) over John Raese (R)—52%-48%.
Wisconsin: The Senate loses a liberal voice in Russ Feingold (D), as he goes
down against Tea Party-endorsed Ron Johnson (R)—53%-47%.
PREDICTION:
37 U.S. Senate races=
25 Republican Victories
12 Democratic Victories
CURRENT SENATE BALANCE: 59 Democrats 41 Republicans
NEW SENATE BALANCE: 52 Democrats 48 Republicans
Next: Governors Races
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Predictions, Probabilities and Perfect Weather
As I age and become more attuned to politics and my own well-
being, I will attempt to spare myself epic disappointment on
Tuesday, November 2nd, by issuing my first-ever predictions
for a mid-term election. It's better this way.
It should be noted first and foremost that I am probably not in
the best frame of mind to make these guesses, despite how
educated they may be. As a political junkie in 2010, I have found
myself surrounded by one of the most mean-spirited campaign
bloodbaths I have ever seen (and my first presidential election
was Bush vs. Gore!) Getting to this point has been brutal for just
about everyone: the voter, the media (who do you think spends
so much time spinning this crap?!) and I'm sure--the candidates
themselves. Yet, I personally have a difficult time preparing
myself for the 'night of nights' due to my growing disenchantment
with the Democratic Party.
Since climbing back to the top of the Congressional mountain in
'06, Democratic performance has been very disappointing, from
the Party's lack of balls while George W. Bush lived out his lame-
duck existence to not being able to properly explain a health care
bill that actually holds promise for the country. If that weren't
enough, our Democratic leaders in Congress and--yes--our very
own President, continues to nibble (if not bite) the hand that feeds
them. As a Gay Liberal, I am very disappointed that the judicial
verdict of repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been appealed by
the Obama Administration--the very group of people who not only
supported, but promised the repeal of the ridiculous law. While the
issue of DADT pales greatly in comparison to the economy, it is just
one more testimony of how Democrats have offended not only their
progressive members, but countless moderates as well, by appearing
weak and off-message. The whole thing makes me sick. Still, I'll vote
Democratic on Tuesday. And I'll do so because although Tea Party/
Republican candidates make some sense when complaining about
the lack of Democratic strength, their complaints certainly don't
imply any new ideas. The "Party of NO" is still alive and well, and I'm
not about to trade progress (however small) for moral pandering and
a return to the blatant arrogance and lack of domestic investment of
the Bush era. I'm resentful but not stupid: the grass is no greener on
the other side. With the Republican Party's environmental stances,
I'd be surprised if there was grass at all.
My predictions will be found in the next few entries. I wont attempt
to predict most House campaign (there are 435 of them!) but the
Senate and Governors races will be captured. I have developed these
guesses from MONTHS of viewing polls, campaign ads and reading
about the candidates. The biggest factor in my predictions, though,
has little to do with funds raised or polls, but more to do with the
political ideology and mood of the state and/or district. Projected
winning candidates will appear in bold form; margins appearing in
red (of course). These guesses have a 99-100% margin of error. ;)
Enjoy.
Get out to the polls on Tuesday, November 2nd, a day forecasted as
being 'partly cloudy.'
Oh, the irony.
being, I will attempt to spare myself epic disappointment on
Tuesday, November 2nd, by issuing my first-ever predictions
for a mid-term election. It's better this way.
It should be noted first and foremost that I am probably not in
the best frame of mind to make these guesses, despite how
educated they may be. As a political junkie in 2010, I have found
myself surrounded by one of the most mean-spirited campaign
bloodbaths I have ever seen (and my first presidential election
was Bush vs. Gore!) Getting to this point has been brutal for just
about everyone: the voter, the media (who do you think spends
so much time spinning this crap?!) and I'm sure--the candidates
themselves. Yet, I personally have a difficult time preparing
myself for the 'night of nights' due to my growing disenchantment
with the Democratic Party.
Since climbing back to the top of the Congressional mountain in
'06, Democratic performance has been very disappointing, from
the Party's lack of balls while George W. Bush lived out his lame-
duck existence to not being able to properly explain a health care
bill that actually holds promise for the country. If that weren't
enough, our Democratic leaders in Congress and--yes--our very
own President, continues to nibble (if not bite) the hand that feeds
them. As a Gay Liberal, I am very disappointed that the judicial
verdict of repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been appealed by
the Obama Administration--the very group of people who not only
supported, but promised the repeal of the ridiculous law. While the
issue of DADT pales greatly in comparison to the economy, it is just
one more testimony of how Democrats have offended not only their
progressive members, but countless moderates as well, by appearing
weak and off-message. The whole thing makes me sick. Still, I'll vote
Democratic on Tuesday. And I'll do so because although Tea Party/
Republican candidates make some sense when complaining about
the lack of Democratic strength, their complaints certainly don't
imply any new ideas. The "Party of NO" is still alive and well, and I'm
not about to trade progress (however small) for moral pandering and
a return to the blatant arrogance and lack of domestic investment of
the Bush era. I'm resentful but not stupid: the grass is no greener on
the other side. With the Republican Party's environmental stances,
I'd be surprised if there was grass at all.
My predictions will be found in the next few entries. I wont attempt
to predict most House campaign (there are 435 of them!) but the
Senate and Governors races will be captured. I have developed these
guesses from MONTHS of viewing polls, campaign ads and reading
about the candidates. The biggest factor in my predictions, though,
has little to do with funds raised or polls, but more to do with the
political ideology and mood of the state and/or district. Projected
winning candidates will appear in bold form; margins appearing in
red (of course). These guesses have a 99-100% margin of error. ;)
Enjoy.
Get out to the polls on Tuesday, November 2nd, a day forecasted as
being 'partly cloudy.'
Oh, the irony.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Really?!
Wow. I am absolutely in shock over this.
And to think that around 40% of Delaware voters support a candidate
who actually didn't know what the First Amendment is, claiming that
"Senators don't have to memorize the Constitution."
No, Christine, but they should know it.
Just to reiterate what kind of candidates that the Tea Party deems
worthy to serve in positions of power and influence, take a very
frightening scroll through the mind of someone who just might
represent the Silver State come November.
And just how frightening are these Tea Party candidates? You
tell me:
--A governor-turned-VP-nominee-turned-FOX News-pundit
whose experience in foreign affairs didn't exist outside of Wasilla.
--A 'self-certified opthalmologist' who thinks that civil rights laws
were a mistake and minimalizes a drug problem in a drug-ridden state.
--A candidate who claimed to having taken classes at Princeton, had to
admit to a) having never graduated and b) "dating a witch on a satanic
altar."
--A politician who doesn't know where the 9/11 attackers came from and
who verbalized to the class that a classroom of Latino students "looked
more Asian to me."
I need some Pepto Bismol.
And to think that around 40% of Delaware voters support a candidate
who actually didn't know what the First Amendment is, claiming that
"Senators don't have to memorize the Constitution."
No, Christine, but they should know it.
Just to reiterate what kind of candidates that the Tea Party deems
worthy to serve in positions of power and influence, take a very
frightening scroll through the mind of someone who just might
represent the Silver State come November.
And just how frightening are these Tea Party candidates? You
tell me:
--A governor-turned-VP-nominee-turned-FOX News-pundit
whose experience in foreign affairs didn't exist outside of Wasilla.
--A 'self-certified opthalmologist' who thinks that civil rights laws
were a mistake and minimalizes a drug problem in a drug-ridden state.
--A candidate who claimed to having taken classes at Princeton, had to
admit to a) having never graduated and b) "dating a witch on a satanic
altar."
--A politician who doesn't know where the 9/11 attackers came from and
who verbalized to the class that a classroom of Latino students "looked
more Asian to me."
I need some Pepto Bismol.
Bert and Ernie.
In 1915, Republican Edwin Morrow and Democrat Augustus
Stanley both wanted to be Kentucky's next governor. They
campaigned vigorously in the stump-speaking fashion of the
day, and the barbs that the candidates threw at each other
were brutal; often vicious. Legend has it that Stanley actually
got drunk at one of their debates. He threw up while Morrow
was speaking, saying afterwards that "Ed Morrow just makes
me sick to my stomach!" Referring to Democratic corruption,
Morrow once commented that by electing Stanley, the State
would be attempting to "clean house with a dirty broom."
You would think that, just like today's politicians, they
probably couldn't stand the sight of each other. Still, for all
of the mileage that the media probably got out of making these
candidates seem adversarial, the reality was rather ironic:
It wasn't true at all.
For all of their political differences, Morrow and Stanley
were surprisingly close friends. While campaigning, each
would deliver firey attacks against the other--and would then
meet for dinner after the debates. Once, they were even
spotted helping each other walk down a street after a 'spirited'
evening. They traveled to the same rallies together. The
politicians continued to be friends until Morrow's death 20
years later. Both were ex-governors by that time, Morrow
having succeeded Stanley in his own right.
Bipartisan friendships like these aren't archaic--they're just
uncommon. Senator Richard Lugar, a conservative Indiana
Republican and Senator Patrick Leahy, a liberal Vermont
Democrat, have been colleagues and good friends for over
thirty-five years. They have visited each others' homes and
one story tells that their children live within 100 yards of
each other with their families and share a playground. In
addition to the comraderie, they have written various bills
together.
As Kentucky has recently made headlines with the nasty
developments in its U.S. Senate race, I wonder how Jack
Conway and Rand Paul could serve themselves and society
by taking notice and learning from stories like these?
Couldn't we all?
Stanley both wanted to be Kentucky's next governor. They
campaigned vigorously in the stump-speaking fashion of the
day, and the barbs that the candidates threw at each other
were brutal; often vicious. Legend has it that Stanley actually
got drunk at one of their debates. He threw up while Morrow
was speaking, saying afterwards that "Ed Morrow just makes
me sick to my stomach!" Referring to Democratic corruption,
Morrow once commented that by electing Stanley, the State
would be attempting to "clean house with a dirty broom."
You would think that, just like today's politicians, they
probably couldn't stand the sight of each other. Still, for all
of the mileage that the media probably got out of making these
candidates seem adversarial, the reality was rather ironic:
It wasn't true at all.
For all of their political differences, Morrow and Stanley
were surprisingly close friends. While campaigning, each
would deliver firey attacks against the other--and would then
meet for dinner after the debates. Once, they were even
spotted helping each other walk down a street after a 'spirited'
evening. They traveled to the same rallies together. The
politicians continued to be friends until Morrow's death 20
years later. Both were ex-governors by that time, Morrow
having succeeded Stanley in his own right.
Bipartisan friendships like these aren't archaic--they're just
uncommon. Senator Richard Lugar, a conservative Indiana
Republican and Senator Patrick Leahy, a liberal Vermont
Democrat, have been colleagues and good friends for over
thirty-five years. They have visited each others' homes and
one story tells that their children live within 100 yards of
each other with their families and share a playground. In
addition to the comraderie, they have written various bills
together.
As Kentucky has recently made headlines with the nasty
developments in its U.S. Senate race, I wonder how Jack
Conway and Rand Paul could serve themselves and society
by taking notice and learning from stories like these?
Couldn't we all?
Monday, October 18, 2010
Debating for the Love of Kentucky - Part II
Like guests at a wedding, debate attendees in Bigelow Hall at
UofL's Miller IT building were seated on different sides of the
aisle. In this case, most Conway supporters sat to the left of
the podium while the pro-Paul faction held forth from the
right (coincidental? I think not.)
The tension in the room was knife-worthy. I found it telling
that as the room filled to a standing-only capacity, people
looked for seats in their respective 'camps'--instead of seats
that were merely available. In time, the reason for the tension
came striding down the aisle in the form of Attorney General
Conway and Dr. Paul. Both seemed barely able to hold their
disdain for the other.
Jack Conway, appearing his usual-confident self, delivered a
standard opening statement, peppered with a recap of Rand
Paul's blunders and made a direct, as-humble-as-Jack-can-get
plea for our votes. What followed was something out of the
Twilight Zone.
Appearing borderline-disheveled, Dr. Paul wasted no time on
niceties and verbally went for Conway's throat. Although Dr.
Paul clearly showed that he was agitated at what he perceived
as Conway's attacks on his Christian faith, the Republican's
comments came out of nowhere. I got the impression that most
people either hadn't seen these ads or thought that Dr. Paul got
a little too hot-headed a little too quickly.
Unfortunately, the opening statements set the tone for the
debate. The audience's frustration at the personal attacks
was evidenced by a loud voice four rows behind me, yelling,
"Talk about the ISSUES!" Though I didn't care for the random
sound blast, I was inclined to agree.
When he wasn't sounding like a broken record when reciting
Rand Paul's college misbehavior, Democrat Conway went into
the same mode when discussing his record. Although it was
painful to hear repeatedly, Conway was obviously proud of his
record as Attorney General. When his answers didn't involve
character attacks, Conway came across as competent and
knowledgeable on the issues. He undoubtedlyscored a few
points with seniors and veterans, masking the usual political
pandering with half-genuine-sounding ideas, such the need for
a veterans nursing home in Central Kentucky.
Dr. Paul spent much of the evening in whine-mode. From
using the "have you no decency?" line from the McCarthy
era, to contemptously addressing how Conway attacked
his beliefs on Social Security, Paul opened himself up to a
direct "Do you believe this or not?" question from a one of
the moderators. Dr. Paul's wordiness and whining about
being attacked completely evaded any kind of simple answer.
Near the end of the debate, Paul's admonishings to Conway to
"be a man" and to "grow up" finally got to the Attorney General.
Gripping the edge of the podium hard, Conway replied that as
Attorney General, he " is always amused to get a lecture on law
from a self-certified opthamologist." Good one.
Jack Conway comes across as smug. He is a well-educated
"city boy" who seems to have little time for challenges to his
positions--but he'll get my vote. Because even if AG Conway
shows more than just a dash of arrogance, Rand Paul's lack of
a correctly-conveyed platform and his style of shooting-off-
the-hip make him appear dangerously inexperienced. As a
member of the crowd who knows that Conway definitely isn't
a Kentucky "good ol' boy", I still walked away believing that
Conway's positions were clear and that he knew enough to
represent the Commonwealth appropriately. I couldn't say
the same for Dr. Paul, who tapped so much into the sound-
bite of restoring America to the way it was that he didn't seem
to have much of a plan for its future.
The closing statements denoted the hostility in the room when,
after Conway's broken-record speech of reiterating his positions
and Dr. Paul's weaknesses, Rand Paul announced that he would
not shake Jack Conway's hand. The doctor proceeded to walk
right past the Attorney General and off the stage.
This was a calculated move to garner support from the perceived-
enraged Christian voter. Instead, it likely backfired on Dr. Paul,
showcasing him as a whiny candidate who couldn't stand the heat,
lacking as much in class as he does in credentials.
UofL's Miller IT building were seated on different sides of the
aisle. In this case, most Conway supporters sat to the left of
the podium while the pro-Paul faction held forth from the
right (coincidental? I think not.)
The tension in the room was knife-worthy. I found it telling
that as the room filled to a standing-only capacity, people
looked for seats in their respective 'camps'--instead of seats
that were merely available. In time, the reason for the tension
came striding down the aisle in the form of Attorney General
Conway and Dr. Paul. Both seemed barely able to hold their
disdain for the other.
Jack Conway, appearing his usual-confident self, delivered a
standard opening statement, peppered with a recap of Rand
Paul's blunders and made a direct, as-humble-as-Jack-can-get
plea for our votes. What followed was something out of the
Twilight Zone.
Appearing borderline-disheveled, Dr. Paul wasted no time on
niceties and verbally went for Conway's throat. Although Dr.
Paul clearly showed that he was agitated at what he perceived
as Conway's attacks on his Christian faith, the Republican's
comments came out of nowhere. I got the impression that most
people either hadn't seen these ads or thought that Dr. Paul got
a little too hot-headed a little too quickly.
Unfortunately, the opening statements set the tone for the
debate. The audience's frustration at the personal attacks
was evidenced by a loud voice four rows behind me, yelling,
"Talk about the ISSUES!" Though I didn't care for the random
sound blast, I was inclined to agree.
When he wasn't sounding like a broken record when reciting
Rand Paul's college misbehavior, Democrat Conway went into
the same mode when discussing his record. Although it was
painful to hear repeatedly, Conway was obviously proud of his
record as Attorney General. When his answers didn't involve
character attacks, Conway came across as competent and
knowledgeable on the issues. He undoubtedlyscored a few
points with seniors and veterans, masking the usual political
pandering with half-genuine-sounding ideas, such the need for
a veterans nursing home in Central Kentucky.
Dr. Paul spent much of the evening in whine-mode. From
using the "have you no decency?" line from the McCarthy
era, to contemptously addressing how Conway attacked
his beliefs on Social Security, Paul opened himself up to a
direct "Do you believe this or not?" question from a one of
the moderators. Dr. Paul's wordiness and whining about
being attacked completely evaded any kind of simple answer.
Near the end of the debate, Paul's admonishings to Conway to
"be a man" and to "grow up" finally got to the Attorney General.
Gripping the edge of the podium hard, Conway replied that as
Attorney General, he " is always amused to get a lecture on law
from a self-certified opthamologist." Good one.
Jack Conway comes across as smug. He is a well-educated
"city boy" who seems to have little time for challenges to his
positions--but he'll get my vote. Because even if AG Conway
shows more than just a dash of arrogance, Rand Paul's lack of
a correctly-conveyed platform and his style of shooting-off-
the-hip make him appear dangerously inexperienced. As a
member of the crowd who knows that Conway definitely isn't
a Kentucky "good ol' boy", I still walked away believing that
Conway's positions were clear and that he knew enough to
represent the Commonwealth appropriately. I couldn't say
the same for Dr. Paul, who tapped so much into the sound-
bite of restoring America to the way it was that he didn't seem
to have much of a plan for its future.
The closing statements denoted the hostility in the room when,
after Conway's broken-record speech of reiterating his positions
and Dr. Paul's weaknesses, Rand Paul announced that he would
not shake Jack Conway's hand. The doctor proceeded to walk
right past the Attorney General and off the stage.
This was a calculated move to garner support from the perceived-
enraged Christian voter. Instead, it likely backfired on Dr. Paul,
showcasing him as a whiny candidate who couldn't stand the heat,
lacking as much in class as he does in credentials.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Debating for the Love of Kentucky - Part I
The moderator asked his question clearly: "Tell us how you would help alleviate
Kentucky's dependency on coal, Mr. Lally." The candidate's response, however,
was something out of Mars. Lally, the Republican Congressional candidate, began
a spirited diatribe about the number of power poles on Bardstown Road. He was
getting fired up (characteristically, it seems) about this ' serious problem' when
there was a murmur from a group of his supporters:
"Coal! COAAAL."
The MC shushed the crowd, but everyone figured it out. And then it hit center
stage: the political newcomer sheepishly realized that the moderator hadn't
asked him about POLES--but rather COAL, Kentucky's one-time reigning industry.
Such a hearing malfunction could happen to anyone. I'll give Todd Lally a break
on that one, considering that he's an Air Force National Guard pilot. I'm sure he's
watching clips of that priceless moment today and thinking to himself, "Damned
loud engines."
It is difficult to determine who won last night's debate. Even though incumbent
liberal Democrat John Yarmuth sings my tune, I fairly admit that both candidates
displayed qualities worthy of any voter's attention. Yarmuth, prone to rambling,
also had a slight tendency to stutter. And while he played constant defense (being
placed there by both challenger Lally and the American public), the Congressman
was by no means a wallflower. When Lally implied that Congress was responsible
for the second-year lack of increase in Social Security payments, Yarmuth was
quick (and justified) to call the Republican's comments "ignorant and irresponsible",
as Congress has nothing to do with Social Security payment structure. Immediately,
Lally looked down. I got the impression of a father chastising a wreckless child. In
this case, the 'child's' brief showcase of guilt was surprising for a politician.
Todd Lally showed a Dick Cheney-esque zeal as a bulldog, chasing Yarmuth on
topics ranging from the national debt to health care reform and the Middle East.
His first couple of attempts to directly question the Democratic incumbent were
bold; Lally definitely tapped in to some of that Tea Party rage and attempted to
make John Yarmuth appear like Satan's right-hand man. Unfortunately, Lally
made frequent use of this tactic, which didn't exactly conform to rules of the
debate. Yarmuth did appear like a deer-in-the-headlights on a couple of occasions,
but as the debate continued, he used political saavy in waiting for the moderator
to approve Lally's question/attack before answering. This bought time for Yarmuth
to make the most sensical use of the last word, thus making Lally to look like a
dangerously-misinformed bully.
Lally spoke of being a native Louisvillian, but really spent much of the hour
trying to tie Congressman Yarmuth to "Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco-agenda", a
phrase that he used three times. His simple answer regarding the distracting issue
of abortion rights: "Only to protect the life of the mother." was well-received by
supporters, especially in comparison to Yarmuth's clear but wordy explanation
of his pro-choice stance and respect for the views on both sides. Lally's passionate
views on U.S.-Afghanistan involvement and his personal reflections of combat
definitely helped him with that segment of the Republican voter.
Still, an objective listener would have felt that John Yarmuth was more focused on
bettering Louisville. For all of Todd Lally's firm direct challenges ("Have you
been to Iraq, Congressman??") ("Some stimulus--do you feel stimulated!?"), his
commanding voice, passion and appeal to many voters, he offered few, if any
solutions to these complex, vast issues. I left the debate feeling more confident in
my opinion that Congressman Yarmuth should keep his job.
Before the concluding speeches, Lally and Yarmuth touched on the seemingly-
lifelong Louisville problem of new bridges. Although rambling, Yarmuth asserted
that he would not intervene with the design and decisions of the Bridges Project.
Lally, however, couldn't answer quietly. His points were concise, but he tapped
into that Tea Party rage a bit too much, saying that the bridges should be designed
'without the need for poles'.
Come on, Todd. You Tea Partiers may not want any type of tolls, but building bridges
without supports?
Even Queen Sarah wouldn't dare...
Kentucky's dependency on coal, Mr. Lally." The candidate's response, however,
was something out of Mars. Lally, the Republican Congressional candidate, began
a spirited diatribe about the number of power poles on Bardstown Road. He was
getting fired up (characteristically, it seems) about this ' serious problem' when
there was a murmur from a group of his supporters:
"Coal! COAAAL."
The MC shushed the crowd, but everyone figured it out. And then it hit center
stage: the political newcomer sheepishly realized that the moderator hadn't
asked him about POLES--but rather COAL, Kentucky's one-time reigning industry.
Such a hearing malfunction could happen to anyone. I'll give Todd Lally a break
on that one, considering that he's an Air Force National Guard pilot. I'm sure he's
watching clips of that priceless moment today and thinking to himself, "Damned
loud engines."
It is difficult to determine who won last night's debate. Even though incumbent
liberal Democrat John Yarmuth sings my tune, I fairly admit that both candidates
displayed qualities worthy of any voter's attention. Yarmuth, prone to rambling,
also had a slight tendency to stutter. And while he played constant defense (being
placed there by both challenger Lally and the American public), the Congressman
was by no means a wallflower. When Lally implied that Congress was responsible
for the second-year lack of increase in Social Security payments, Yarmuth was
quick (and justified) to call the Republican's comments "ignorant and irresponsible",
as Congress has nothing to do with Social Security payment structure. Immediately,
Lally looked down. I got the impression of a father chastising a wreckless child. In
this case, the 'child's' brief showcase of guilt was surprising for a politician.
Todd Lally showed a Dick Cheney-esque zeal as a bulldog, chasing Yarmuth on
topics ranging from the national debt to health care reform and the Middle East.
His first couple of attempts to directly question the Democratic incumbent were
bold; Lally definitely tapped in to some of that Tea Party rage and attempted to
make John Yarmuth appear like Satan's right-hand man. Unfortunately, Lally
made frequent use of this tactic, which didn't exactly conform to rules of the
debate. Yarmuth did appear like a deer-in-the-headlights on a couple of occasions,
but as the debate continued, he used political saavy in waiting for the moderator
to approve Lally's question/attack before answering. This bought time for Yarmuth
to make the most sensical use of the last word, thus making Lally to look like a
dangerously-misinformed bully.
Lally spoke of being a native Louisvillian, but really spent much of the hour
trying to tie Congressman Yarmuth to "Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco-agenda", a
phrase that he used three times. His simple answer regarding the distracting issue
of abortion rights: "Only to protect the life of the mother." was well-received by
supporters, especially in comparison to Yarmuth's clear but wordy explanation
of his pro-choice stance and respect for the views on both sides. Lally's passionate
views on U.S.-Afghanistan involvement and his personal reflections of combat
definitely helped him with that segment of the Republican voter.
Still, an objective listener would have felt that John Yarmuth was more focused on
bettering Louisville. For all of Todd Lally's firm direct challenges ("Have you
been to Iraq, Congressman??") ("Some stimulus--do you feel stimulated!?"), his
commanding voice, passion and appeal to many voters, he offered few, if any
solutions to these complex, vast issues. I left the debate feeling more confident in
my opinion that Congressman Yarmuth should keep his job.
Before the concluding speeches, Lally and Yarmuth touched on the seemingly-
lifelong Louisville problem of new bridges. Although rambling, Yarmuth asserted
that he would not intervene with the design and decisions of the Bridges Project.
Lally, however, couldn't answer quietly. His points were concise, but he tapped
into that Tea Party rage a bit too much, saying that the bridges should be designed
'without the need for poles'.
Come on, Todd. You Tea Partiers may not want any type of tolls, but building bridges
without supports?
Even Queen Sarah wouldn't dare...
Friday, October 1, 2010
Free Speech, Meg, Sarah and Dairy Queen.
October, already, huh? I would've liked to have started holiday shopping already,
but I also would've liked to have weighed 190 lbs. last month. Priorities, people.
Mine these days are new brakes and a better fall/winter (and spring and summer)
wardrobe. *sigh*
I found a rather interesting article today. What to say about a Christian Assistant-
Attorney General (AAG) who goes after a Gay college (University of Michigan)
student body president? For starters, I think that this high-ranking State official
is likely more interested in men's briefs than briefs of the legal variety. HELLO!?
It's one thing if the Big Man on Campus was part of a criminal investigation, but
no...AAG Shirvell is waging his own, personal campaign against the guy on his
own, personal blog. Seriously: "Chris Armstrong Watch". Realllly?! He's a college
kid, and you're a government official in a state with one of the highest crime rates
in the country. Shouldn't you be working on that?? While I think that the AAG is
probably guilty of harassment, I'm not so sure that he should be fired from his job.
Before you call me a traitor to equal rights and the "liberal agenda", hear me out:
Andrew Shirvell's comments are protected under the free speech clause--and he
hasn't used his office (that we know of) to go after the kid. I'd say that the Assistant
AG's real problem is that the closet can handle only so many law books. (You liked
that, didnt you? :))
Meg Whitman. Wow. She spends $119 million of her own money to become Governor
of California (why in the Hell would anyone want that job?!) and now she's probably
lost the race because she started preaching about only hiring legal workers. As tends
to happen when people get 'preachy' the skeleton came flying out in the form of an
illegal housekeeper, part of Ms. Whitman's "extended family" for nine years. I'm not
sure whether to feel sorry for Meg and her stupidity in spending that much money
on something so insane, or to point and say she had it coming. Even if opponent
Jerry Brown says something incredibly off (which is as common as a speed limit
sign), I think that California will wind up with a Democratic governor (there's the
silver lining.)
In another exciting article , Sarah Palin received a nice salute from the Republican
Party when a poll discovered that she and Mitt "I'm-Mormon-And-You-Can-Handle
-It" Romney are formidable candidates for President in 2012. To that news, I say
that when former-Governor and reigning Captain Scary, SarahPalin begins her
exploratory campaign, that I will also declare my own campaign in exploring the
laws of Canadian citizenship. Or hell, Argentina. I don't care...
Lastly, I like Dairy Queen and its chicken strip baskets.
You simply cannot go wrong.
but I also would've liked to have weighed 190 lbs. last month. Priorities, people.
Mine these days are new brakes and a better fall/winter (and spring and summer)
wardrobe. *sigh*
I found a rather interesting article today. What to say about a Christian Assistant-
Attorney General (AAG) who goes after a Gay college (University of Michigan)
student body president? For starters, I think that this high-ranking State official
is likely more interested in men's briefs than briefs of the legal variety. HELLO!?
It's one thing if the Big Man on Campus was part of a criminal investigation, but
no...AAG Shirvell is waging his own, personal campaign against the guy on his
own, personal blog. Seriously: "Chris Armstrong Watch". Realllly?! He's a college
kid, and you're a government official in a state with one of the highest crime rates
in the country. Shouldn't you be working on that?? While I think that the AAG is
probably guilty of harassment, I'm not so sure that he should be fired from his job.
Before you call me a traitor to equal rights and the "liberal agenda", hear me out:
Andrew Shirvell's comments are protected under the free speech clause--and he
hasn't used his office (that we know of) to go after the kid. I'd say that the Assistant
AG's real problem is that the closet can handle only so many law books. (You liked
that, didnt you? :))
Meg Whitman. Wow. She spends $119 million of her own money to become Governor
of California (why in the Hell would anyone want that job?!) and now she's probably
lost the race because she started preaching about only hiring legal workers. As tends
to happen when people get 'preachy' the skeleton came flying out in the form of an
illegal housekeeper, part of Ms. Whitman's "extended family" for nine years. I'm not
sure whether to feel sorry for Meg and her stupidity in spending that much money
on something so insane, or to point and say she had it coming. Even if opponent
Jerry Brown says something incredibly off (which is as common as a speed limit
sign), I think that California will wind up with a Democratic governor (there's the
silver lining.)
In another exciting article , Sarah Palin received a nice salute from the Republican
Party when a poll discovered that she and Mitt "I'm-Mormon-And-You-Can-Handle
-It" Romney are formidable candidates for President in 2012. To that news, I say
that when former-Governor and reigning Captain Scary, SarahPalin begins her
exploratory campaign, that I will also declare my own campaign in exploring the
laws of Canadian citizenship. Or hell, Argentina. I don't care...
Lastly, I like Dairy Queen and its chicken strip baskets.
You simply cannot go wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)