2010 US Midterm Elections: Cast Your Votes

[Odin]

I know 2 things

They will try to impeach Obama (for what I have no clue)
Social issues are about to come back with avengance.

Many of these tea people only pay lip service to Libertarian ideals and are nothing more than social conservatives rebranded.

Needless to say I'm excited to hear about prayer in school, absistinece, and outlawing abortion.

If they impeach obama i will throw tea into boston harbor and continue to pay lip service to my libertarian ideals. More so, I will continue my personal crusade against Chritianity and its dilluting effect on commonsense of a large segment of the voter base.

Prediction: Republicans take the house, dems keep the senate, obama begins deficit reduction and the economy picks up to 2-4% growth for 2011.

Preference: all incumbents on the ballot are defeated and replaced with citizens who have no idea what they are doing.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Egad, Strike, I hope not. Sadly, there probably are a few yahoos who would try it. The idea that Obama has done anything impeachable seems really silly to me. I may loathe many of his administration's policy efforts and more than one of his foreign policy themes, but I that's political opposition, not some sense of betrayal. How can he have betrayed me when he's doing more or less what he said he would do if he were elected and doing so through the legislative process? Far too many folks simply do not understand the idea of a "loyal opposition." We are the poorer for it.

Odin, I think you may have touched on something near and dear to my heart. I too strongly suspect that we would end up with better governance if we didn't elect people who sought the office, but rather SENTENCED people to the office who had no desire to be there. The difference in attitude would, I suspect, be salutory.

[Odin]

Odin, I think you may have touched on something near and dear to my heart. I too strongly suspect that we would end up with better governance if we didn't elect people who sought the office, but rather SENTENCED people to the office who had no desire to be there. The difference in attitude would, I suspect, be salutory.

In simple terms, putting people in office who have already been there is sentencing the country to more of the same. The older I get the more i realize there is no major difference between the 2 parties in applied policy. Granted the media makes a fair penny of expousing the differences but the direction we are heading in was a path started many decades ago.

The only alternative to continued stupidity is replacing incumbents with people who have no clue how washington actually works, but rather how it is supposed to work.

[Louis VI the Fat]

[Strike For The South]

If they impeach obama i will throw tea into boston harbor and continue to pay lip service to my libertarian ideals. More so, I will continue my personal crusade against Chritianity and its dilluting effect on commonsense of a large segment of the voter base.

Prediction: Republicans take the house, dems keep the senate, obama begins deficit reduction and the economy picks up to 2-4% growth for 2011.

Preference: all incumbents on the ballot are defeated and replaced with citizens who have no idea what they are doing.

Egad, Strike, I hope not. Sadly, there probably are a few yahoos who would try it. The idea that Obama has done anything impeachable seems really silly to me. I may loathe many of his administration's policy efforts and more than one of his foreign policy themes, but I that's political opposition, not some sense of betrayal. How can he have betrayed me when he's doing more or less what he said he would do if he were elected and doing so through the legislative process? Far too many folks simply do not understand the idea of a "loyal opposition." We are the poorer for it.

Odin, I think you may have touched on something near and dear to my heart. I too strongly suspect that we would end up with better governance if we didn't elect people who sought the office, but rather SENTENCED people to the office who had no desire to be there. The difference in attitude would, I suspect, be salutory.

Just watch fellas.

[Don Corleone]

I don't think the Republicans will take the House, and I certainly don't think they'll take the Senate, though they will gain a filibuster-sustainable minority.

I've become pretty cynical these days. I believe that the elections, and all the money pouring into the campaigns, are the true stimulus. No way to get people to open their checkbooks if they don't either believe 1) their guys are in jeopardy or 2) their guys are actually in play.

If the House was really up for grabs, they'd be doing more than having Obama trade snarky comments belittling the American people with John Stewart on the Daily Show. And Soros would be shelling out a lot more.

It's a ruse. On the morning of Nov 3rd, status quo. And Lemur... I may have been a year late... and I still owe you a 6-pack of Guiness... but did you happen to notice the talk coming out of the white house this week about ending the mortgage & child tax credits? If Obama was worried about losing the House, why the would he make a comment like that now?

[PanzerJaeger]

Democratic Closing Argument: Personal Attacks

Democrats Attack Over Personal Issues, Republicans Over Policy

By JONATHAN KARL

Oct. 28, 2010

It's not just the Aqua Buddha and David Vitter's prostitute, Democratic candidates across the country are closing out the campaign with personal attacks on Republican candidates, sometimes digging up decades-old legal problems.

In one typical example, Democratic ads have transformed Kentucky Republican House candidate Andy Barr into "a convicted criminal" -- complete with images yellow police tape and fuzzy video of crime scenes. Not mentioned is his crime: As a college student 19 years ago, he was caught using a fake ID during spring break.

As you watch this year's ads -- and I've been watching all too many lately -- you'll notice a striking difference between Democratic and Republican attack ads: Democrats are attacking over personal issues, Republicans are attacking over policy.

There are, of course, many exceptions, but the overall trend is clear. Democrats are hitting their Republican opponents over past legal transgressions, shady business deals and even speeding tickets. Republicans are hammering Democrats over "Obamacare," Nancy Pelosi and the economy.

A recent study by the Wesleyan Media Project actually quantifies this. They looked at 900,000 airing of political ads this year and concluded: "Democrats are using personal attacks at much higher rates than Republicans and a much higher rate than Democrats in 2008."

[Furunculus]

daniel hannan's warning to america:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articl...re_513320.html

[tibilicus]

daniel hannan's warning to america:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articl...re_513320.html

More garbage from Hannan then. The guys anti-European sentiment is getting old, he shakes with fear like a small child being told about a monster under the bed whenever the word "Europe" comes up. Not only does he not appreciate European culture, he doesn't appreciate the relative worth of the European model of politics. As you know, I'm no fan of socialism. But to assert that Europe went down a "road to ruin" by adopting Democratic socialism in its most minor form after the war is completely laughable and again shows Hannan need to brush up on his European history.

He is aware this "socialism" means European societies are more fair and progressive than the US? Or is that bad? I don't have a problem with Hannan being anti-EU, I understand that completely. But the whole anti-European thing is just getting ridiculous now. If Hannan loves the US system of doing things so much, why doesn't he jump ship and move to the states? I lost all respect for this guy after his pathetic attack on the NHS, he doesn't understand to distinction between a welfare state and socialism.