Want to Laugh?
A quiet Friday morning, so I figured I'd toss you some laughs in addition to the news:
New Mexico: New Mexico FBIHOP reports that the folks behind the Swift Boat-style radio ads of fired U.S. Attorney David Iglesias are big Steve Pearce fans:
At HuffPo, two of my favorite posters have new posts: Adam McKay and Bill Maher.
Can you believe Mitt Romney? He trails in single digits in just about every poll, often behind Newt Gingrich who isn't even running yet, and he's already discussing running mates! Most laughable possible running mate: Newt Gingrich, who Romney is running behind!
How much of a disingenuous dope is House Minority Leader John Boehner? Ask the attendees of a Congressional ceremony for the Tuskegee Airmen. And watch the video if you love to wince.
What is "veteran GOP strategist Glen Bolger"'s take on 2006?
It should be no surprise that Linda Krumland and her husband Thomas Krumland both support wingnut southern New Mexico Rep. Steve Pearce. To the tune of $8200 over the 2006 cycle.I think a polite request to Pearce's office to ask him to return the $8200 contribution of somebody so duplicitous would be in order (or to contribute the $8200 to a charity if he really wants to score some good-guy points), unless he wants to be linked to the same scandal that is tarnishing Pajamas Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson.
Glen Bolger: I think that the idea that Republicans weren't conservative enough, or that the base didn't turn out, or that the base wasn't supportive enough, has been knocked down among most political analysts and people who understand elections. I think, what our problem was last time was a perfect storm of Iraq, concern about the ethics problems, no reaction to Katrina, that just undermined confidence in the Republican Party.Hmmmm... Iraq? Yup, the GOP wants to keep it open-ended and wants to increase troop deployment. Katrina? Yeah, I think it's safe to say Bush has forgotten about it. And ethics problems and scandals? Ask Alberto Gonzales, Scooter Libby, and any of the vets staying at Walter Reed. Just another indication that we can expect a 2006 redux in 2008.
posted by Senate2008Guru | 9:56 AM
12 Comments:
2006 redux? That's probably a good bet, given that not a lot can happen in 18 months.
A lot can and will happen.
The Democratic-led Congress will pass more legislation that has public support, which Bush may be forced to veto if the Senate's McConnell Republicans don't block it first.
Meanwhile, over the spring and into the fall, the DSCC will roll out some terrific candidates.
And Republicans will continue to be plagued by scandal (see Scooter Libby, Alberto Gonzales, the Walter Reed fiasco, and now GSA-gate.
A lot will happen over the next 18 months. And I don't think it looks too peachy for the Republican establishment or GOP Senators.
Well then, with 2008 locked up, I guess we can end this blog and start the senate2010guru page.
I realize that asking a cheerleader to consider the possibility of their team not steamrolling to victory is an impossible chore. But it makes for a really, really shitty blog.
so where is your blog? Or are you afraid that the NRSC line of, "we are perfectly ok and cant lose", wont get you a big enough soap box?
The nature of my job prevents me from owning or maintaining a blog. Rest assured, if I had one, it would be a lot more objective than this one.
For instance, I wouldn't treat DSCC or NRSC press releases as legitimate news items. And I would certainly be mature enough to not refer to U.S. Senators by ridiculous nicknames. I would also never embellish or outright lie when reporting a story about a Senator.
no wonder you dont see a problem with GSA employees engaging in partisan politics. it all makes sense now.
What post are you even responding to? I've never said anything about the GSA.
The nature of va blogger's job prevents him from owning or maintaining a blog - but it doesn't stop him from checking this one every ten minutes!
va blogger - you've said over and over again what a terrible blog you think this is. Then, seriously, if you have anything else to do with the hours of your life, stop reading it.
You think I spend hours on this site?
And yes, my job allows me to read and post comments in blogs, but not own and maintain one. Obviously, the owner of a blog will recieve a lot more scrutiny than anonymous commenters.
As I've said, many times before, there is simply no other site I've been able to find that focuses on the Senate races. Therefore, I'm stuck at this one. But while I'm here, I might as well tell you everything you're doing wrong; hopefully, over time, you'll take my advice and veer more towards objectivity and credibility, and away from rank partisanship and blatant cheerleading.
Waaaaaahhhhh.
va blogger, I do think you spend hours on this site.
You said: "As I've said, many times before, there is simply no other site I've been able to find that focuses on the Senate races. Therefore, I'm stuck at this one"
You're not stuck at this site. You're like the conservatives who oppose gay marriage because they think it's mandatory. va blogger, reading this blog is entirely optional. You're not "stuck" here. Stop reading the blog. Turn off your computer and go outside. That is an option. You're not stuck.
When it comes to a blog that focuses on the races, there's no other choice but this one. However unfortunate that is for me, I'm going to keep posting here. If you would like the tone of my posts to change, perhaps you should implement some of my reasonable advice.
"Reasonable" advice... "reasonable"... where have I heard that before?
Post a Comment
<< Home