<p>Ah coureur…but beauty is in the eye of the beholder isn’t it? :-)</p>
<p>I’m disappointed that Lieberman is in for another 6 years, and I’m disappointed that the early talk from the new Leadership is all about bipartisanship. Frankly, you can only have bipartisanship when both parties are acting in good faith, and I don’t believe the current Republican party is capable of acting in good faith. </p>
<p>ldmom06, George Bush, product of Andover and Yale and Harvard, son of a president…how is he not an elitist millionaire? Or maybe you just don’t care about your own elitist millionaires. If someone being elitist and a millionaire bothers you, I fail to see why it should make any difference which party they belong to. Try arguing that you disagree with her policies - that would be a good faith argument.</p>
<p>Here come the hearings! Whoopee! Now where do they start? (I’d go with Abramoff and DeLay, then on to Halliburton, and then…</p>
<p>Speaker PE<em>LO</em>SI. </p>
<p>(Don’t worry: the Dems will muff it. But it’s still nice to see the Hate America crowd get whipped, even if they were able to keep Tennessee by playing the usual Republican race card.)</p>
<p>Stay the course.</p>
<p>Welcome to the forum Irishmom, but after 24 posts you may not be aware that I’m not exactly a George W. Bush fan. I disagree with a lot of what he has done…and I also think he has performed in a very commendable way many times during his presidency. I’m not one to turn a blind eye to the faults of any politician, regardless of affiliation; nor do I think they are all bad. I’m not ‘entrenched’ in the b.s beliefs of any political party.</p>
<p>I do have issue with Democrats who are privileged and elitist like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, etc. because it is the Democratic Party that claims to be the ‘party of the people’, who are the ONLY ones who can ‘feel the working man’s pain’, blah,blah, blah…when, as you point out, many are no different than Republicans. I dare say there as many blue-blooded millionaire Democrats serving in Congress, if not more, than the Republicans and it’s ludicrous manipulation and hypocrisy on their part to paint Republicans as the rich and callous ones.</p>
<p>And that is my objection.</p>
<p>And I do believe I stated one of my objections to Pelosi in particular was her hypocrisy in supporting the Patriot Act when it was political expeditious to do so, and then flipflopping for votes later. Any Republican who manipulates will also find themselves on my list along with Pelosi.</p>
<p>(Btw…At least, despite the Ivy background, George W. Bush recognizes chili when he sees. That little nugget cracked me up.)</p>
<p>ldmom,</p>
<p>You obviously don’t know Ted Kennedy if you call him elitist. </p>
<p>Having lived in Texas, I never could figure out why you folks down there dislike him so much. </p>
<p>No problem, though. You’re gonna live with him for the next couple years, so get used to it.</p>
<p>Final margin in Montana is Tester by 2,848. He’s in. </p>
<p>JHS, the PA-06 was one of the races that surprised me. Others were the MN-Gov…damned third-party crossed me up…the margin in the AK-Gov, the margin in the other direction in the RI-Gov, the margin being as big as it was in the MO-Sen, and as small as it was in the MT-Sen and VA-Sen. In the House, I was surpised that the Democrats didn’t take the PA-06, the CT-04, the OH-15, and that the margin was so close in the CT-02; otoh, I was surprised that the Democrats picked off the KS-02 and the NH-01, each of which butted up against an entrenched preconception…just goes to show you.</p>
<p>Ted Kennedy won 70% of the votes in MA. Texans can hate him, but the peeps of MA want to keep him, as voting percentages indicate.</p>
<p>
Ted made many successful trips to the Valley back in the day. He was very popular there and we counted on him to help energize the GOTV. I have no idea whether he still does that. If so, it’s not well -publicized. LOL.</p>
<p>ldmom - the way our current electoral system works, the only people who make it to national office are extremely wealthy and/or extremely connected. I will agree with you that that is a problem. I disagree that only working class people should be allowed to produce policies to help working class people. And I don’t believe it is hypocritical for a party of elitist millionaires to produce policies that help those at the lower end of the ladder. If they were only helping wealthy people out, but saying they were there to help the people at the bottom, then it would be hypocritical.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No kidding. Imagine the nerve of that fella. Attending a corporate Super Bowl party where there were WHITE Playboy bunnies.</p>
<p>I thought that James Carvelle had the most insight last night as he pointed out that the Republican base was pushed back to the deep south and they got clobbered in the northeast, mid-Atlantic, and midwest regions.</p>
<p>That southern base relies heavily on subtle (and occasionally not so subtle) use of the race card. Historically, it was LBJ’s civil rights efforts that began the wholesale shift in the South from the Democratic party to the Republican party. The districting across the South has now been so gerrymandered that the Republican base in the House is safe no matter what.</p>
<p>I think the other interesting outcome was the end of the moderate wing of the Republican party. Their more centrist elected officials got wiped out across the board, often by centrist Democrats.</p>
<hr>
<p>As for those who don’t understand Ted Kennedy’s support in Massachusetts: He is another in a long, long line of “character actors” in the US Senate (from both parties). The fact that he wins overwhelming reelection every six years is no more surprising than Strom Thurmond’s run. In large part, the US Senate is filled with “character actors” with lifetime appointments. I respect those characters on both sides of the aisle. Their ideological refusal to float with the polling winds is a worthy part of the delicate checks and balances in our system of government.</p>
<p>It’s important to point out that the Republicans don’t even make a serious effort to challenge Kennedy. They throw some two-bit perfunctory challenger up against him with no real support.</p>
<p>“Their more centrist elected officials got wiped out across the board, often by centrist Democrats.”</p>
<p>Nope. Check the scoreboard. The most centrist Republican pragmatist incumbents got wiped out by liberal pro-choice, anti-war, anti-Social Security privatizing Dems.</p>
<p>The only moderate Republican booted was Lincoln Chafee from RI.</p>
<p>
Robert Byrd is an interesting character, who has gone through quite a transformation over his many years in the Senate. </p>
<p>I think we may be seeing the demise of the power of race-baiting in politics. Interestingly enough, Bush may be a major contributor to the change in attitudes, with his close relationship with Condi Rice as well as initial appointment of Colin Powell to the cabinet. Kind of undermines the image of the Rupublican party as the party of the good ol’ boys. Those ads might have worked in Tennessee … but the word “macaca” didn’t go over that well in Virginia. </p>
<p>I was definitely saddened by Harold Ford’s loss last night, though it was not unexpected. He was extremely gracious and powerful with his concession speech.</p>
<p>“The only moderate Republican booted was Lincoln Chafee from RI.” </p>
<p>In the Senate, but even in that case, by a very, very liberal pro-choice, vehemently antiwar Dem. </p>
<p>You’ll find races like the Nancy Johnson one all over the place (except in the south, where, with two exceptions, conservative Republican incumbents defeated conservative “pragmatist” Dems. Contrast that with Ron Klein, a liberal if ever there was one, defeating Clay Shaw in Florida.</p>
<p>"I think we may be seeing the demise of the power of race-baiting in politics.'</p>
<p>Why do you think that? In the one major place it was used (Tennessee), it worked like a charm.</p>
<p>In fact, looking back at it, race-baiting was the ONLY thing that worked for Republicans. Prior to the RNC ad, Ford was ahead in every major poll. The Republicans lost every major contested Senate race where they didn’t race-bait, and won the only one where they did.</p>
<p>Funny how that worked, huh? </p>
<p>I thought Ford had it all sewn up in TN, since he even has the religious component. Wrong color though.</p>
<p>Hillary moved, right? Common strategy.</p>
<p>Ford and Mfume would be great Senate candidates in other states. If I were them, I research the fertile ground states and take myself there.</p>
<p>What would you think, from the standpoint of competiveness (even if you voted Republican, or identify yourself as a permanent lifetime Republican) of Clinton-Obama ticket for 2008? You’d have two superb campaigners in Bill and Barack - think that would do it?</p>
<p>I have a strong intuition that McCain will not run, due to health problems - don’t ask me why. Time will tell if my hunch is correct.</p>
<p>Hillary moved, right? Common strategy.</p>
<p>Ford and Mfume would be great Senate candidates in other states, selecting among those that have large minority populations and that are at least 50% Democratic. If I were either of them I would research the fertile ground states and take myself to one of them.</p>
<p>What would you think, from the standpoint of competiveness (even if you voted Republican, or identify yourself as a permanent lifetime Republican) of a Clinton-Obama ticket for 2008? You’d have two superb campaigners in Bill and Barack - think that would do it?</p>
<p>I have a strong intuition that McCain will not run, due to health problems - don’t ask me why. Time will tell if my hunch is correct.</p>
<p>If Hillary runs (and decides to resign), Bill the childkiller could be appointed senator from New York.</p>
<p>Now there’s a thot.</p>
<p>Bill can’t do that, he’s got his pride! My boy Bill (beams)</p>