Chambliss wins in Georgia

[Cecilie1200]

not so
there are 2 very liberal republicans that will get re-elected as long as they run, Snowe and Collins
and i'm sure there are others, but cant name them off the top of my head
but you can only vote for or against the people in your own state

Yup. We have RINOs coming out our ears. It's the Democrats who get tossed to the sharks when they have the gall to step out of line. Joe Lieberman, anyone?

 

[Tech_Esq]

The 60 seat majority really is a meaningless issue as many Democrats and Republicans tend to vote back and forth depending on the legislation and as the the Democrats hold a bigger majority you will now notice the Republicans that vote with the Democrats more so than you did before is all and visa-versa. I do believe that it will be difficult for the Republicans to march in lock step on every legislation that the party doesn't like, for example take Universal Health Care, you will have several Republicans cross over the line on that one. I do think though on other issues like the card check one that it will come into play. Mind you this is just an opinion and comes from watching these so called honorable Senators for a while. You know something comes to mind here, if you think these people in Washington have your best interest at heart then keep in mind that the leader of the Senate was very happy with the opening of the Visitors Center yesterday because it keeps us smelly tourists out of the capital building according to him. Just a thought.

Nice theory, but the facts are that it's untrue. For my writing requirement in law school, I did it on the Constitutionality of term limitations which was all the rage at the time. One of the charts I used was an examination of party line voting by members of both parties over a 50 year period. The facts are that these jokers vote party line roughly 85% of the time.

There are occasions and situations that a leader may let his members vote their conscience, but that is the exception rather than the rule. That's the fallacy of voting for the "individual" not the party. You are only fooling yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nice theory, but the facts are that it's untrue. For my writing requirement in law school, I did it on the Constitutionality of term limitations which was all the rage at the time. One of the charts I used was an examination of party line voting by members of both parties over a 50 year period. The facts are that these jokers vote party line roughly 85% of the time.

There are occasions and situations that a leader may let his members vote their conscience, but that is the exception rather than the rule. That's the fallacy of voting for the "individual" not the party. You are only fooling yourself.

Did it ever cross your mind that "voting the party line" might actually BE voting your conscience? Is it at all conceivable that maybe they are members of that party to begin with precisely BECAUSE its goals and principles closely match their individual consciences?

John Lott Jr., the economist, points out that people assume that politicians have their power base and re-election as their motivation for voting in a certain way, but that isn't necessarily the case. If it were, then a politician who has announced his intention to retire at the end of a term might be likely to vote differently than he did in previous terms. But closer examination of the last terms of such politicians revealed that their voting records usually remained the same.

Basically, it is easier for the parties and the backers to find a politician who genuinely believes in the desired ideals than it is to bribe one into voting that way for his entire career.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Did it ever cross your mind that "voting the party line" might actually BE voting your conscience? Is it at all conceivable that maybe they are members of that party to begin with precisely BECAUSE its goals and principles closely match their individual consciences?

John Lott Jr., the economist, points out that people assume that politicians have their power base and re-election as their motivation for voting in a certain way, but that isn't necessarily the case. If it were, then a politician who has announced his intention to retire at the end of a term might be likely to vote differently than he did in previous terms. But closer examination of the last terms of such politicians revealed that their voting records usually remained the same.

Basically, it is easier for the parties and the backers to find a politician who genuinely believes in the desired ideals than it is to bribe one into voting that way for his entire career.

Yeah, that occurred to me, then I took a political science course. If Lott is correct then the entire whip apparatus that so much time and effort is spent maintaining both on the Repub and Dem sides are a gigantic wasted effort and are superfluous. Probably not.

There is no evidence to suggest that 85% of pols of the same party would vote the same on every vote without "help." I don't see how bribery gets in the discussion. There are ways that parties have to influence the various levers of power that have nothing to do with money.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

What I realize is that you still haven't explained where you got the idea that Chambliss called Cleland "unpatriotic", or did anything wrong in that ad at all.

Of the ad didn't come out and say that Cleland was unpatriotic. Politcal ads are not about substance, they are about imagery. The images of Osama bin Laden and the overtones that Cleland's actions were in some way responsible for terrorism called Cleland unpatriotic and a bad american by not actually coming out and saying. This type of ad is in poor taste and ranks right up there with the McCain has a black baby push polls. Cleland may not be a war hero, but he was permanently maimed in a combat zone and I find it infuriating that Chambliss would run this type of ad against a man that did not get 5 student deferments to avoid serving in Vietnam(as Chambliss did). It was shitty, no matter what party you belong to. Forgive me for trying to hold the GOP to a higher standard.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Of the ad didn't come out and say that Cleland was unpatriotic. Politcal ads are not about substance, they are about imagery. The images of Osama bin Laden and the overtones that Cleland's actions were in some way responsible for terrorism called Cleland unpatriotic and a bad american by not actually coming out and saying. This type of ad is in poor taste and ranks right up there with the McCain has a black baby push polls. Cleland may not be a war hero, but he was permanently maimed in a combat zone and I find it infuriating that Chambliss would run this type of ad against a man that did not get 5 student deferments to avoid serving in Vietnam(as Chambliss did). It was shitty, no matter what party you belong to. Forgive me for trying to hold the GOP to a higher standard.

Oh, SPARE me the faux wounded loftiness. This post is such an untrammeled collection of BILGE, you should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking it, let alone posting it, and you CERTAINLY shouldn't be trying to make ME feel guilty for questioning your earlier "outrage". Clearly, I was more than justified in doing so.

In case you missed it while you were high-mindedly getting your panties in a wad, we are all living under the shadow of terrorists who want to kill us just for existing, of whom Osama bin Laden is the best-known and most prominent. Not only is dealing with and protecting us from terrorists among the duties of the federal government, a reasonable person might even argue that it is THE most important of those duties.

Max Cleland was running for re-election to a seat in the Senate. He wanted to remain part of the federal government whose arguably highest duty is to deal with terrorists. Not only is it completely appropriate and sensible for his opponent to draw attention to any actions he might have taken that made him less than effective in that regard, I would argue that it was positively incumbent upon his opponent to bring that into question. Maybe you're ludicrous and childish idea of "a higher standard" is for Saxby Chambliss to natter on about inane trivialities in order to appear "nice" and "respectful", but I say it would have been irresponsible of Chambliss in the extreme to refrain from bringing up a completely valid and important point.

Being in the military, being in combat, and even being injured while there does NOT earn anyone a lifetime pass on having their actions scrutinized, particularly when that person wishes to be in politics. It does not convey sainthood or infallibility. Shame on you for even suggesting that Chambliss, the Republicans, or the American people should play "affirmative action pity party" with something as important as a Senate seat and the future safety of our people. Just shame on you.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Oh, SPARE me the faux wounded loftiness. This post is such an untrammeled collection of BILGE, you should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking it, let alone posting it, and you CERTAINLY shouldn't be trying to make ME feel guilty for questioning your earlier "outrage". Clearly, I was more than justified in doing so.

In case you missed it while you were high-mindedly getting your panties in a wad, we are all living under the shadow of terrorists who want to kill us just for existing, of whom Osama bin Laden is the best-known and most prominent. Not only is dealing with and protecting us from terrorists among the duties of the federal government, a reasonable person might even argue that it is THE most important of those duties.

Max Cleland was running for re-election to a seat in the Senate. He wanted to remain part of the federal government whose arguably highest duty is to deal with terrorists. Not only is it completely appropriate and sensible for his opponent to draw attention to any actions he might have taken that made him less than effective in that regard, I would argue that it was positively incumbent upon his opponent to bring that into question. Maybe you're ludicrous and childish idea of "a higher standard" is for Saxby Chambliss to natter on about inane trivialities in order to appear "nice" and "respectful", but I say it would have been irresponsible of Chambliss in the extreme to refrain from bringing up a completely valid and important point.

Being in the military, being in combat, and even being injured while there does NOT earn anyone a lifetime pass on having their actions scrutinized, particularly when that person wishes to be in politics. It does not convey sainthood or infallibility. Shame on you for even suggesting that Chambliss, the Republicans, or the American people should play "affirmative action pity party" with something as important as a Senate seat and the future safety of our people. Just shame on you.

I never said I was outraged and have never demonstrated that feeling on the subject. I was dissapointed. I am over it. However, I do get the feeling that you are one those in my party that feels that the Republicans have a monopoly on patriotism. Sorry toots, but that isn't so.

You are right. Shame on me for finding hypocrisy appalling. Saxby Chambliss dodged the draft. As far as I am concerned that makes him ineligible for throwing the accusations that he is better equiped at handling the corporeal threat of terrorism any better than anyone else. Just as I feel that Clinton had zero ability in dealing with the military from day one due to this same fact. I don't want to play pity party, but the fact that Chambliss had to resort to the tactics that used, no matter how effective, tells me all I need to know about the man. Perhaps he is a good Republican. Good for him. That doesn't make his actions in that campaign any less hypocritical.

As for you high and mighty diatribe on my belittling of this nation's priorities, shove it in your ass. Don't for a second think you know me or what I find important. I will continue to hold my party members to a higher standard and I will cry foul when they step out of line. The GOP used to have the high ground. The religious right along with Rove and company have given it away with tactics just like this. I would like to get it back in my lifetime.

 

[Mencken]

This is my first serious post so I hope to contribute to this.

Senator Chambliss won with seriously reduced Democratic turnout. If you look at several major counties, Democratic turnout dropped a hundred thousand votes while Republican turnout dropped off just 20,000 from the General Election. It appears the Democrats felt there was no need to turn out and the Republicans felt the 60 Seat argument was serious enough to turn out for.

I'd note that this may be a harbinger of 2010.

 

[Sidestreamer]

This is my first serious post so I hope to contribute to this.

Senator Chambliss won with seriously reduced Democratic turnout. If you look at several major counties, Democratic turnout dropped a hundred thousand votes while Republican turnout dropped off just 20,000 from the General Election. It appears the Democrats felt there was no need to turn out and the Republicans felt the 60 Seat argument was serious enough to turn out for.

I'd note that this may be a harbinger of 2010.

I think it's simply the fact that it's Georgia. The only Democrat that can run there outside of Atlanta is a Republican like Zell Miller.

 

[Mencken]

I think it's simply the fact that it's Georgia. The only Democrat that can run there outside of Atlanta is a Republican like Zell Miller.

Probably; but Obama came close so I thought Georgia wasn't out of reach for a Democrat.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Democrats are counting on moderate Republicans such as Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, who have tilted leftward on issues such as Medicare spending and the Iraq war, to provide the votes to block a filibuster.

Other potential swing votes are Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), whose socially liberal views make him a prospective Democratic recruit on spending matters and Obama's judicial nominations, and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). McCain has supported some Democratic initiatives that are likely to see early legislative action next year, including federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

Senate Democrats, however, must watch their right flank as they craft more sweeping initiatives. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) has supported the Bush White House on many tax and budget issues this decade, and a quartet of Democrats elected in 2006 and 2008 -- Begich, Robert P. Casey Jr. (Pa.), Jon Tester (Mont.), and Mark R. Warner (Va.) -- all ran as centrists.

washingtonpost.com

These Sentors will continue to vote as they always have no matter how many wish them too. I found it interesting in that article as well that the democrats are pushing for full D.C. representation in the house and hinting around at Senate representation. If this vote goes through I wonder then if I could push for my city to have 2 Senators represent me in the US Senate than just two in my state? Now before anyone jumps all over that, I said that in jest. The point here is that 60 seats at this point means nothing as the Democrats have had for years several Republican moderates vote with them on social issues. I thought it was very interesting how suddenly Sen. Joe is now a good guy again. So it should be interesting though. I honestly would love to see the whole lot of these congressmen cleared out and start over with all new people as they have clearly demonstrated a lack of ability to do the job.

I completely agree... and well said. The sad part is that IF we cleared out the legislature, the idiots would send the same brand of self obsessed bumblers to replace them.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You do realize that I'm not a leftist, right?

ROFLMNAO... The hysterical part is that you actually believe that...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Voting against Obama & the Democratic Congress will be desaster for the incumbents in 2010. Guys like Thaddius McCotter in Michigan, my state. He survived in 2006 but that doesn't mean he's safe. And now the Democrats have the majority voice in Washington. Now we will point out who the obstructionists are. How did McCain say it? We will make them famous and you will know their names. So go ahead and filabuster change/progress. See how that works out for ya.

The Red politicians are doing a great job now encouraging that the Big 3 go belly up. That kind of talk only works in the reddest of states. It's a losing argument everywhere else. So keep up the good work.

Good... because we'll need all the help we can get to get the word out about the Americans in the Legislature who are defending this nature against the subversion of the ideological left and the Muslim Marxist they've installed in the White House.

So you get the word out on those obstructionist! It is my fervent hope that you're kept very VERY busy, as absent a solid core of obstructionist in the legislature, the US may very well be looking drectly at its own 'Soviet style' demise and for precisely the same reason... Leftist socio-economic policy.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

As this economy plays out, as more and more people find themselves without health insurance, and one medical procedure away from bankruptcy, as more people find their homes in foreclosure, while their bank has been given the money to survive, there will be changes even in how hardline Senators and Representatives vote. You have to win the primary and the election in order to be seated. And, in both parties, for the people that are seen as obstructionists, the primary will be increasingly a dangerous place. There is change in the offing, and not just because of a new administration. The failures of the past eight years, foreign and domestic, have change many peoples views on a variety of issues.

There is no failure of the last eight years, which has not been promised in SPADES ( ) by the Muslim Marxist... (no pun intended).

The irony here is that the failures of the Bush administration are core elements of the audacity of HOPE! But it is hilarious that none of you people are anywhere near bright enough to recognize it...

ROFL... Leftists...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I never said I was outraged and have never demonstrated that feeling on the subject. I was dissapointed. I am over it. However, I do get the feeling that you are one those in my party that feels that the Republicans have a monopoly on patriotism. Sorry toots, but that isn't so.

That's true as the only Americans that have ever existed are ideological US Conservatives.

Saxby Chambliss dodged the draft.

Bullshit.

As for you high and mighty diatribe on my belittling of this nation's priorities, shove it in your ass. Don't for a second think you know me or what I find important.

Hey jackass, if you aren't bright enough to recognize that your nation is on the edge of disaster and that the responsibility for this pending catastrophe rests 100% with the ideological left and their spineless cousins the 'independent, moderate, centrist, progressives...' then you're simply not bright enough to have a political voice in this nation.

I will continue to hold my party members to a higher standard and I will cry foul when they step out of line.

You're not holding anyone to a high standard... you're running the usual leftist mantra... here's my advice to you... GET THE HELL OUT OF THE GOP. You're not welcome here and it's not going to be a nice place for you, EVER AGAIN! YOU and the idiots LIKE YOU are why the GOP is no longer in power...

The GOP tent is being taken in and we don't have room for moderates... Go sit with the comrades where ya belong.

 

[Lycurgus]

Chambliss wins. So much for a super majority.

What I find interesting is Obama did not even make one appearance in the state to help secure the ultimate majority power. The excuse of him not having time is weak. He had the time.

Personally, I don't think he wants his party to have that power. I think he sees that as a threat to his chances of a 2nd term. Now, on a 2nd term, I could see him wanting that type of power.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

That's true as the only Americans that have ever existed are ideological US Conservatives.

This doesn't even make sense. You are making this up.

Bullshit.

If Bill Clinton was draft dodger then so was Chambliss.

Hey jackass, if you aren't bright enough to recognize that your nation is on the edge of disaster and that the responsibility for this pending catastrophe rests 100% with the ideological left and their spineless cousins the 'independent, moderate, centrist, progressives...' then you're simply not bright enough to have a political voice in this nation.

This exactly why you are the ******* problem. It takes all kinds to make government work. I can guarantee that I am farther to the right than you politically, the thing is that I am actually smart enough to understand that the only way of accomplishing anything in this country is through compromise. If you want your kind to rule then raise an army and take over, otherwise shut the **** up and get out the way of the people that actually have the intellectual capacity to get things done.

You're not holding anyone to a high standard... you're running the usual leftist mantra... here's my advice to you... GET THE HELL OUT OF THE GOP. You're not welcome here and it's not going to be a nice place for you, EVER AGAIN! YOU and the idiots LIKE YOU are why the GOP is no longer in power...

The GOP tent is being taken in and we don't have room for moderates... Go sit with the comrades where ya belong.

Take the tent in and the party will die. Simple as that. What you don't get is that most moderates are actually more politically conservative than the right. The waters are muddy and nobody knows what the hell a conservative is anymore. You helped cause that. Congratulations.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

ROFLMNAO... The hysterical part is that you actually believe that...

Okay, show me the posts in which in which I have expressed a political leftist ideology.

Good luck.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Chambliss wins. So much for a super majority.

Obama doesn't need Jim Martin .. which is why he wouldn't come to Georgia to help him.

Obama is making his bed comfortably with republicans and he knows he'll get more opposition from the left than the right.

Hell, he may have even wanted Chambliss to win.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

I think it's simply the fact that it's Georgia. The only Democrat that can run there outside of Atlanta is a Republican like Zell Miller.

That's only true since the inception of electronic voting in Georgia. Previously, there hadn't been a republican governor in Georgia since Reconstruction .. a 146 years ago .. and there had never been two republican Senators until electronic voting.