CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

Anonymous — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:02:31 -0000

Late to the party: The primary vote was small Fighting Joe will whip Lamont in the general. it will cost the Dems to suffer loss of revenue as monies are diverted from other campaigns to support Joe. Joe will get lots of free press which will distract from other candidates, thus helping Republicans. In Illinois the Dems will have to be hypocrits to support Duckworth but that has never stopped a democrat before. The end justifies the means.

Re: Question of the day

wjmaggos — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:58:59 -0000

in addition to what Ive said above, my opinion is that the me-first attitude is killing the Democratic party in general

Re: Question of the day

Late to the Party — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:34:52 -0000

I eagerly await the day I can put Bill Baar on my ignore list.

To the question at hand, I reallze I am quite late to the party but after the initial aftermath of the Lamont win wore off my first thought was that if this is evidence of a backlash towards Bush/the war/rubber stamping/etc. then the Dems in the 6th district have a chance to capitalize on that sentiment with Duckworth in a way they wouldn't have had with Cegelis. Not to resurrect the debate of those two candidates from the primary (please!) but for the dems in the 6th to have an Iraq war vet who has sacrificed for her country puts them in a stronger position to tap into this sentiment. I think absent an anti-Bush sentiment in the 6th the district is too Republican to be in play but what we're seeing now is that they may just have the right candidate at the right time to make it close. I was surprised to have read this whole thread and not seen that angle discussed.

Also for as close as Lieberman made the race at the end you have to think that he lost some votes just for his willingness to run as an independent if he lost. With the margin of victory so small I wonder if he didn't lose the primary on those votes alone. I enjoy thinking about the possibility that it was his me-first attitude that ultimately cost him the election.

Re: Question of the day

The Conservative — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:57:19 -0000

Skeeter: Why do you call a Conservative a "Radical right winger: they are Conservative and half the Republican party and far more Red States consider themselves Conservative rather than Left wing socialists.

Re: Question of the day

The Conservative — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:53:23 -0000

How could it be wrong to create another party as long as it is legal. It used to be in several states that if you lost the primary you could run as an independant. There is nothing wrong with it. Now if you are a member of a political party and that happens to your party you might have more of an intrest and want others to feel the same. That is what the system is all about. Then you should invest your time working for or against that member depending how you feel. That being said the candidate has every right to do what he or she thinks is right.

Re: Question of the day

Rich Miller — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:59:07 -0000

=== Anon - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:23 am [...]

Was it wrong for Adali Stevenson to create the Solidarity Party after the voters had Ã¢â‚¬Å“spokenÃ¢â‚¬Â in the Democratic primary over who thye Ã¢â‚¬Å“wantedÃ¢â‚¬Â for lt. gov.? ===

2 points:

1) Adlai, unlike Lieberman, won the primary.

2) Are you seriously comparing those bonafide lunatics to Lamont?

Re: Question of the day

Rich Miller — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:28:52 -0000

Make it fifty

Re: Question of the day

Skeeter — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:37:37 -0000

Bill,
How do you explain that outside Conn., the Dems bounced an incumbent liberal and replaced her with a moderate, while the GOP bounced an incumbent moderate and replaced him with a radical right winger?

Is what happens in Conn. really more important than what happens in Ga. or Mich.?

That is the problem with Baar. He comes up with his theories first, and then tries to make the evidence fit. He ignores evidence to the contrary. It is just weak scholarship.

Re: Question of the day

The Conservative — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:26:39 -0000

Bill: we never have thrown people out of the party. We have always been more accepting of other views. I grew up in NY with Nelson R. I and lived & worked for candidates in Conn and NY. Both are very Liberal States. I worked for Thompson, Edgar and Ryan and still maintained my Conservative values. Through this I have learned that Liberals do not tell the truth. This is where mistrust comes in. Conservatives have been used and abused and now are taking a less compromise attitude. We where taught it by the Liberal.

Re: Question of the day

The Conservative — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:15:48 -0000

Bill: I am listening. The battle would still rage because we would still want to know who these judges are. Listening though.

Re: Question of the day

babs — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:03:52 -0000

So many comments. Adlai started the "sore winner" campaign with the Solidarity Party. A big difference. One that also proved that a large population still does not like to split their tickets.
Lieberman wins in November. I don't like it but that's what the law allows there. And finally, while some may consider Poshard a moderate Dem - to alot of us, he's a Conservative Dem and barely a Dem. Lieberman's support of Bush and the Iraq war wasn't his only step out of Dem territory and I don't think it will be his last. The only place this could come up here - Melissa Bean's race - has voters that tend more conservative - so I think it won't make a difference.
Bush's numbers are sooo bad here that it will be a reverse of 94. FINALLY.

Re: Question of the day

Bill Baar — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 09:47:41 -0000

Conservative,

Sure, my only point is both parties are split and for Democrats it will be fatal, and for Republicans healthy (or at least not fatal).

Healthy becuase Scalia gave a frame for it. No Judge (or Party I'd add) is any better at making moral judgements then any other person. The moral questoins belong in legislatures.

So what's critical is the selection of non activist judges, and sympathetic legislatures to whatever ones view is... The President becomes the least important player other than to commit one way or the other on vetos.

The Lamont election sets up a litmus test for throwing people out of the party. I don't think Republicans will go that route.

Re: Question of the day

The Conservative — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 08:30:08 -0000

Bill: You still are missing it, the party is the vehicle, to real social conservatives, principle is everything. I am a life long Republican and heavly involved in the party. That said the issues are far more important than the party. There is no way we can support a person such as McCain. There is no trust between a Liberal and a Conservative. The same is happening with the media, nobody believes what they say anymore.

Re: Question of the day

Bill Baar — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 07:38:53 -0000

There is one thing you are forgetting, without the conservative issues there is no Republican party.

I'm on record somewhere saying the Democrats fail in 2008 and disappear as a national party.

Republicans will go through turmoil too and it will be over the social issues.

The solution, the uniting principle, is what Justice Scalia said, a judge is no better equipped to make moral judgements than anyone else

The Social Issues: same sex marriage, abortion, stem cells, all belong in the legislatures (no more Republicans ducking the issues, they need to vote there) and out of the courts.

That means a Giuliani or McCain (I think one or the other will lead the party in 2008) commits to nominating judges like Roberts and Alito.

That's the only way to heal the rift in the R party. And I think it's right and will work.

Re: Question of the day

annon. in the stykes — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 07:05:45 -0000

To bad they end up this way despite party affiliation. But reguritated or not...there is a far left , intense liberal movement within the Dem's, just look who's running things over there & in the case of liberal Joe Lieberman who was with his party the vast majority of the time...they threw him under the bus because he had basic disagreement on key issues the liberals are against ! Soooo! rather than resolve them ...they finished him off. He is a national figure, their parties VP nominee & they've sent a signal to others..walk step or else !! For his sake I really hope he wins as an independent !! Not because I agree with him or a Dem..which I am NOT ...but because it's OK to disagree & debate . This further demonstates the state of the Dem party there & here in Illinois.

Re: Question of the day

T.J. — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 05:34:49 -0000

National polling trends back this up. Even Jack Carter (son of the president conservatives love to put down) is gaining in ArizonaÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

That is fascinating because Carter is not running in Arizona.

Re: Question of the day

Angie — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 02:46:38 -0000

I'm moderate on choice, but I doubt I'll be voting over just one issue. The GOP is a big tent with room for disagreement.

If you can expand the GOP by bringing in more sensible voters who realize that the Dems have gone off the deep end (they rejected a sensible centrist like Joe Lieberman), then perhaps there won't be as much need to pander to the far right fringe.

The GOP tolerates social conservs along with the pro-business/free-market/fiscal conservs who are more moderate on social issues, but the Dems DO NOT tolerate dissent at all. Michael Moore stated once that Joe Lieberman was in the wrong party. Huh??? They're losing it, plain and simple.

Re: Question of the day

The Conservative — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 01:14:54 -0000

"You are absolutely right about making the Republican party bigger, Baar. It is time to get back to the good ole fashioned ignoring of social issues and concentrating on what the Ã¢â‚¬Å“conservative movementÃ¢â‚¬Â should beÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Strong national defense."

There is one thing you are forgetting, without the conservative issues there is no Republican party. It would go back to the old Republican party and we could all stay home.

Re: Question of the day

Lovie's Leather — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 22:52:38 -0000

Name a pro-choice Republican, Skeeter... okay, let's begin... Giulliani, Specter, Pataki, Topinka, Radogno, Mark Kirk, Christine Todd Whitman, Olympia Snow, etc. Come on!!! There are plenty of pro-choice GOPers. It is true, pro-choicers are not the party base. But now you, Skeeter, are trying to recruit pro-choice republicans based on the abortion issue. That is the kind of crap I am trying to get away from. The contract with America, did that have any mention of abortion? I am saying we need to end the polarization of abortion in the GOP and welcome people in no matter how they feel about abortion. All you want to do, Skeeter, is polarize.

Re: Question of the day

Skeeter — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 22:35:08 -0000

Answering further,

What happened outside Conn. yesterday?

Two Cong. incumbents lost.

In Georgia, a liberal Democrat incumbent lost to a moderate.

In Michigan, a moderate Republican lost his seat to a right wing extremist.

Now tell me about the future of the two parties. Moderates in the GOP don't have a chance. The right wingers are going after them. Just like it happened in Illinois with Keyes, Salvi, "Rauchy", Syverson, and the rest of wingnuts who run the ILGOP and have made it absolutely the weakest GOP in the country.

When an Illinois Republicans gives you advice, you are better off doing the exact opposite since those guys have proven themselves over the past four years to be really bad at the whole "election" thing.

Re: Question of the day

Skeeter — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 22:18:26 -0000

Making the GOP bigger? That is such utter crap.
Name one pro-choice Republican. One.

We all know that neither McCain nor Guiliani will get the nod in 2008. According to the Bush Team, McCain is mentally unstable (see South Carolina 2000) and Guiliani will be seen by the GOP as a left wing nut. Neither has a chance.

The GOP has been taken over in Illinois by the right wing dingbats. If you don't see that, you must be one.

Re: Question of the day

Lovie's Leather — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 21:37:22 -0000

You are absolutely right about making the Republican party bigger, Baar. It is time to get back to the good ole fashioned ignoring of social issues and concentrating on what the "conservative movement" should be... Strong national defense. Limited Government. Crime fighting. Fiscal Responsibility. It will make the party bigger and would be the best thing for the country. We'll let Shrillary, Bayh, and Feingold infight. I think the Republican party will unite around somebody like a Giulliani or McCain... or they will split the moderate vote and Gingrich will be the nominee. Either way, the core issues of what should be the Republican party will be on display. I'm optimistic.

Re: Question of the day

Bill Baar — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 21:25:25 -0000

Long Time Reader; First Time Poster

Except Roeser talks up Giuliani... R's are going through the same kind of tension except it's on accepting the National Security Democrats the netrooters are driving out.

So the Republicans have some sorting out to do too... but its about making the party bigger, not purifying it...

Re: Question of the day

Bill Baar — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 21:22:28 -0000

WhatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s radical about Lamont?

Not much.

Look at the demographics who voted for him.

Re: Question of the day

Long Time Reader; First Time P — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 21:16:21 -0000

As I listened to Lieberman's speech last night I couldn't help but think how what Connecticut's Democratic party went through is exactly what Illinois' Republican party is going through. Here in Illinois we have extreme Republicans (Roser, Stanek, etc. etc.) who would rather elect a moderate Democrat than a moderate Republican.

In Connecticut there obviously were a lot of liberal Democrats who would rather elect a moderate Republican than a moderate Democrat.

Now, comparing Illinois to Connecticut will be like comparing apples to oranges because Lieberman will put together a very good 3rd party choice, but I would be very interested to see what would happen if Lieberman didn't have that option.