Thursday, 05.15.08
Every Republican Left Behind?
Photo by Flickr User Exfordy under a creative commons license
A Republican Senate candidate is embroiled in the Jack Abramoff scandal. A Republican congressman is caught up in a tawdry sexual affair. And across the country, from Illinois to Louisiana to last night's special election in a deep-red district in Mississippi, which Democrat Travis Childers won handily, Republicans are losing races they expected to win. The 2008 election may be all about "change" -- but it has an awfully familiar feel to it. For the GOP, is this 2006 all over again?
In Colorado, Bob Schaffer, the Republican Senate nominee, made a horrendous blunder last month when he touted the guest-worker program in the Northern Marianas Islands (notorious for forcing abortions and trafficking in sex slaves), which he had once visited on Abramoff’s dime. (There were pictures of Schaffer parasailing to prove it.) His response to the uproar that followed was to attack the press and then go into hiding.
In Virginia, married Staten Island congressman Vito Fossella was busted for drunk driving last week. This turned out to be the least of his worries when it was discovered he was en route to visit his mistress and their illegitimate daughter (which his other family knew nothing about). And then there is the series of election losses, all of them in states and districts that George W. Bush carried easily in 2004.
What should be most worrisome to Republicans is that the party leadership seems as helpless to contain the damage as it was in 2006. Last Thursday, Republicans were widely quoted predicting that Fossella’s resignation was imminent. Turns out it wasn't. Like his fellow disgraced Republican Larry Craig (remember him?), Fossella has chosen to stick around. For all we hear about change, things sure seem to stay the same.
ForeshadowingReid Wilson says the GOP's loss in Mississippi hints at their weakness this November. |
Catalog of corruptionSenate2008 Guru kept track of every scandal big and small involving Republicans. |
More than 24 chances to loseThe GOP "is defending over two dozen open seats and has shown no ability to defend them," Daniel Larison writes. Politico predicts that the GOP could lose twenty seats. |
The sky is fallingTobin Harshaw rounds up commentary on the GOP's woes. |
SolutionsJim Vandehei and Mike Allen interview top Republicans and offer 6 ways the party can save itself. |
(12)
"The Change You Deserve"
CLINICAL TRIALS HAVE SHOWN:
The new and improved Republican Platform Prescription XR for America produces side effects including but not limited to generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, nervousness, yawning, and/or sweating.
Studies have shown a propensity for abnormal vision, impotence, nausea (31%) and constipation (10%).
Also revealed were increased instances of depression, decreased libido, agitation, nightmares, delirium, blurred vision and difficulty focusing.
Known to cause loss of appetite, cold feet, postural hypotension and hemorrhoids (see Bend Over For Bush Syndrome).
Most common side effect is flatulence and political irritability.
Less common side effects include acne and/or pustular rash.
Not a controlled substance and has not been studied in clinical trials regarding potential for abuse.
For further information see Effexor XR for additional warnings.
Consult your family doctor if symptoms persist for more than four years.
Eward:
If your entry constitutes a glimpse of the Republican narrative in the upcoming election, the whole country will fit your accommodated definition of scandal, as your hypocritical party will be voted out of power.
My grandfather used to say that, "There is nothing more injurious in this World, than a moron with a initiative." If you truly value Republican Party I would heed my Grandfather's words.
MsSwim:
I noticed that the John Stewart of the Daily Show had the same joke on his show. Thanks for demonstrating that it is impossible to be witty when you are regurgitating.
I tell you the cut & paste feature in computers is intellectually equivalent to putting your finger down your throat.
Luis del Valle
My opinion has nothing to do with the Republican perspective.
The Democratic Party is rigging this nomination process to favor Obama. By cheating they have lost their moral authority to lecture the Republicans about scandals.
The actions of the superdelegates in the wake of Hillary's victories in PA, IN, and WV have demonstrated that the Democrats are living in a bubble.
Whoa there Luis! Take it easy, my man.
Your dressing down of Eward was clearly justified (any republican who lived through the last 8 years and seriously wants to use the 'glass houses/stones' argument really ought to be forced to take a 'time out' while the grown ups fix the bwoken democracy in November); however, there's no need for the brutal bashing on MsSwin over here, who clearly is with you in Party, message, and even appreciation of the Daily Show (which automatically makes someone a quality human being in my book).
Listen, humor is a very subjective and difficult thing. For me personally, if it weren't for stealing Jon Stewart's jokes every day, my joke-to-laugh rate rate would probably drop by about a factor of ten.
So let's just calm down, not worry about who told which funny first, and agree that the fact the Republicans took a campaign slogan from an anti-depressant is hysterical.
We win this thing in November only if we do not become our own worst enemy. We're talking about unity, hope, positive energy, and the realization that the finally, after so long, karma is about to set things right in this country.
Mechanical Jacobin
A broken democracy is a Party that is rigging a nomination process to favor one candidate. The Hillary supporters are furious that the Democratic Party has turned their back on her. They cannot demand loyalty from us by dismissing their best candidate.
The Obama supporters are forever talking about superdelegates. The superdelegates of the states that Hillary won belong to her. Kennedy, Kerry, and Richardson represent states that Hillary won. Yet, they are voting for the losing candidate.
No Democratic candidate can win with their core voting block leaving the Party.
You can talk about Republican scandals all you want, but it doesn't change the story that the Democratic Party is no longer the moral authority.
Try to calm down and think about the points you've just made. Nowhere does it state superdelegates must abide by the vote in their district or state: they are free to choose however they want.
You do realize of course that this is exactly the argument Clinton is making RIGHT NOW to try to take superdelegates from Obama. Which she is free to do. But no rules dictate upon what basis superdelegates must make their decision. And right now they find Obama the more electable candidate. Maybe that will change. Chances are it will not.
Principally because even if you were to count the votes for Clinton and Obama in Florida and the votes for Clinton alone in Michigan, it does not change the fact that Obama still comes out with more popular votes, more primaries won, more delegates and more superdelegates.
There is not a single metric by which Clinton is winning, and STILL she is not being forced to get out of the race. She is free to go as long as she likes, and even to convince the superdelegates to leave Obama and support her.
This process is confusing, long, and very tense. But it is not "rigged". I understand you want Clinton to win the nomination very much, but this does nothing for anyone. Why don't you try campaigning or making calls to one of the remaining states? It would be a good way to channel the stress and frustration you feel.
It's up to you, but whatever you do, if Obama does win the nomination, please don't go down the conspiracy theory path, "IT WAS ALL RIGGED! IT'S A SECRET PLOT! HE'S A MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE" path. I don't care if you support Obama in the end or not (well I do, but I can't decide for you), but I really hate to see a mind lost to the hellish underworld of internet conspiracy theory advocates. That place is dark, lonely, and filled with "9/11 Truthers".
Mechanical Jacobin
If MI and FL cannot change the popular vote and delegate count, why did Obama block the revote? If it doesn't make a difference, expedite the revote process before a nominee is selected.
Everything that I have read states the Democratic Party wants her out of the race by June 3 and FL and MI will be settled at the convention. This doesn't sound fair to me. "The Democratic Party is the party of inclusion, not exclusion." They have broken our trust by letting these 2,000,000 voters hang in the balance.
Every vote should count from all 50 states. By hiding behind the rules argument, it shows callousness on the part of the Democratic Party. In addition, it will leave a damaged Democratic nominee.
This isn't about 9/11 conspiracy theories. There is a concerted effort by the Party and the MSM to handpick Obama by excluding the votes from MI and FL.
Obama is the more electable candidate? The voters of the big-swing states of MI, OH, FL, and PA would beg to differ. Their electoral votes matter more than other states, and she has won these states. This election should be about the "will of the people." The good voters of AZ, NM, and MA chose Hillary. Therefore, their superdelegates need to reflect the will of their voters and switch to Hillary.
The Republican Party has used God and the Bible as guideposts for their positions on moral, social, and political issues. It will be interesting to see if they move away from this position as more and more of their elected officials prove completely unable to abide by the simplest of the Bible's rules, or if they will simply do a better job of screening their party members for moral consistency.
Why is it that people insist on describing the nomination of a political party's candidate as a democratic process? It is not! There is nothing particularly democratic about political parties, they exist to maintain power for "their" people and that's it.
One characteristic of a democratic contest would be one where national candidates face a vote on a single day. Not in 50 or so elections strong out over 6 months. Who would fair better in that scenario? Clinton or Obama?
The Democrats are a political party, not a legislative body. Party operatives are not bound to reflect the "will of the people". Neither are legislatures for that matter. Yes, it might be politically damaging for Democratic super delegates to not follow the instructions of Democratic voters in their district... but then again... it might not be.
Even if the Democratic party nominated Satan himself, I'd be hard put to vote for the Republican candidate this year.
Terry Lorber--
Our system was clearly designed for a time without instantaneous mass communication, but there's some value to the current system. What if we had just a national primary--or two: one for Dems, one for Reps? The candidates with the largest budgets--to run the ads, pay for the travel, organize the "ground forces," all at the same time, in all 50 states, would almost surely win. Would a bias toward the candidate with the best fund-raising machine be a good thing? Who, besides the wealthiest, would then have a real say in picking our president?
The logic of "party" is that people do have different views of what's best for their country. The way I see it, the Dems fall closer to favoring the good of the community than to the good of the individual; the Reps, vice-versa. Ultimately, I think, each presidential election is a referendum on that choice.
If I favor one of those positions over the other, I want to participate in a process that picks the individual in my party most likely to win the general election, and I want the process to go on long enough that I can get a sense of who the best candidate might be. Perhaps this year's Republican process is an excellent example. McCain emerged over a period of many months, including a time when his campaign was flat broke. With a national primary, almost certainly Romney would have won; a front-runner with a bottomless money supply. Clinton would have been similarly favored on the Democratic side. (Though if bottomless pockets were the principal determinant, Bloomberg might have been in the mix.)
This year, I'm not sure that the ultimate outcome of a Romney-Clinton election would be much different from McCain-Obama. But I don't think that's been generally true over the past 50 years or so.
Joshua, With all due respect, the Democratic Party needs to examine themselves first before throwing stones at the Republicans.
The biggest scandal taking place is the Democrats insisting that Hillary move over for Obama. She is clearly more qualified to lead this country. Yet, the party persists in piling on. The endorsement by Edwards is an attempt to blunt Hillary's trouncing of Obama in WV.
The Republicans have their sex and financial scandals. However, we have the Democrats stealing a nomination while their voters in upcoming primaries are still deciding on a candidate.
The second biggest scandal of this primary is the FL and MI debacle. Obama blocked the revote in both states and now he is planning to campaign in FL. The hypocrisy of the Party and Obama knows no bounds.
Before you start writing about Republican scandals, the scandalous treatment of Hillary by the MSM and the Democratic Party will have to be investigated and reported.
Posted by EWard | May 15, 2008 3:47 PM