In recent weeks, Republicans have seen their prospects improve in a number of Senate races. 7 seats that Democrats must defend now look genuinely competitive: Nevada, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Colorado, Illinois and Pennsylvania? Can the NRSC put even more seats in play? New polls from the 4 Democratic seats that I currently rate “likely retention” (California, North Dakota, New York and Wisconsin) suggest it’s possible in some, less so in others.
(At the moment, there is no conceivable way for Indiana, Maryland, New York’s Schumer seat, Oregon, Vermont and Washington become vulnerable. Despite some early talk about a possible Inouye retirement and a potential Lingle candidacy, neither prospect is attracting any buzz so Hawaii looks safe as well.)
For the DSCC, the best news comes from Wisconsin: A week after Tommy Thompson opened the door to an electoral comeback in 2010, PPP finds that Senator Russ Feingold would easily survive a challenge by the former Governor: In what is the GOP’s dream match-up, the Democrat leads by a solid 50% to 41% margin. Feingold’s approval rating is far from formidable (45-37), but Thompson is too unpopular to topple an entrenched incumbent: His favorability rating stands at 38-45. Feingold leads two little-known Republicans (Terrence Wall and Dave Westlake) by 14% and 15%, though he is just below 50% in both match-ups.
More reassuring news for Democrats in California: Rasmussen finds Barbara Boxer leading Carly Fiorina (46% to 37%) and Chuck DeVore (46% to 36%). That doesn’t mean Boxer is safe (any incumbent under 50% is deemed vulnerable) but at the moment Democrats don’t have much reason to worry about the Golden State. For one, Rasmussen’s California surveys have consistently found more GOP-friendly results than has the Field Poll, generally considered the golden standard of California polling. Second, Boxer’s approval rating remains solid enough (51% to 41%) that it’s tough to envision the state’s Democratic-leaning electorate might consider voting for a Republican: Corzine’s approval rating was stuck in the 30s, and even he managed to come close.
This doesn’t mean that Thompson’s entry would not make Wisconsin a must-watch race or that Fiorina will not end up catch fire (after all, a University of Wisconsin poll released in October found Thompson leading Feingold, 43% to 39%); both Wisconsin and California could still become headaches for the DSCC. Yet, what’s clear is that Feingold and Boxer are in a stronger position going forward than Kirsten Gillibrand and Byron Dorgan, who would quickly vault to the top of the list of endangered incumbents if the NRSC manages to recruit its top candidates.
There’s been enough discussion of the confusion surrounding Rudy Giuliani’s 2010 plans that I don’t need to provide much detail about New York’s situation. While convincing arguments can be made that the former mayor will not end up as strong as he polls and that he has repeatedly proven himself a poor campaigner, the bottom-line for now is that a general election between Giuliani and Gillibrand would start as a toss-up at best. A Marist poll released last week found Giuliani) would start with a 54% to 40% lead (if she were to face George Pataki, Gillibrand would trail by a less dramatic 47% to 45%; by comparison, Zogby’s new survey finds the senator far stronger (she only Giuliani trails 45% to 43% and she leads Pataki 43% to 38%), but it’s nothing for her to boast about.
As for North Dakota, a Zogby poll released over the week-end explains why the GOP is so eager to recruit Governor John Hoeven, who has reportedly accepted to think about the race. The survey finds that he would start with a 55% to 36% lead against Senator Byron Dorgan. The poll leaves no doubt that Dorgan’s vulnerability entirely stems from Hoeven’s strength: The incumbent’s favorability rating stands at an extremely solid 73% (a number most incumbents would die for) and he crushes low-profile Republican Dune Sand 60% to 28%, demonstrating that North Dakotans aren’t at all desperate to dump their senator. The trouble comes from the fact that nearly every respondent likes Hoeven, whose favorability is an absurd 93%.
Frankly, these favorability ratings should make us take this poll with a big grain of salt. Mountain States incumbents are known to remain very popular, but can Hoeven’s favorability rating really be 93%? My skepticism was increased when I saw another Zogby poll, which finds Maine’s two Senators with ridiculously high favorability ratings. I don’t doubt Snowe is popular but 84% in no way matches what other recent polls have found.
So how does Zogby’s poll compare to other North Dakota surveys? A summer poll conducted by a Republican firm found Hoeven leading by a similar margin (53% to 36%) but a Research 2000 released all the way back in February had the Democrat ahead by 22%. In short: If Hoeven jumps in we’ll certainly need to see more polling data before proclaiming him the frontrunner, but probably not to consider Dorgan endangered.
Are you really that confident that Washington could not become competitive? During the last big GOP-wave election, several Dem House seats (unexpectedly) flipped to the Republicans and the party won a Senate seat.
I understand that today Washington is “bluer” than in 1994, but it is not inconceivable that a Republican could win statewide — Rossi almost did in 2004.
Of course, such an event presupposes (1) increased unpopularity for Democrats going into November 2010 and (2) a decent GOP Senate candidate who can secure substantial funding. Number two may not be on the table this year.
I would be very suspicious of Zogby internet polls. They have a terrible track record - go to fivethirtyeight.com for details of their polling failures compared to well regarded pollsters like Rasmussen, Gallup etc.
North Dakota needs more polling but as you have mentioned before small agricultural states value their incumbancy advantages, especially when the Senator is a member of the ruling party.
Guy, I would never be so foolish as to discuss any of Zogby’s internet polls at length - let alone make them the basis of a post. Neither of Zogby’s North Dakota nor his New York poll are internet-based; both are phone polls.
“Are you really that confident that Washington could not become competitive?”
If he’s not, he should be. I’m from Washington, and I can’t stand Patty Murray, but she’s safe as a kitten. Washington loves her. She’s had realistic challengers all three times she’s run, all of whom were expected to, at the very least, make the race competitive, and all three times, she’s not only won, but won by big margins.
Murray basically is Washington’s “free money” ATM machine. She’s on Appropriations, and she gets lots and lots of money for Washington. She is incapable of accomplishing much of anything else, she doesn’t have the brain power or the interest, but she brings home the bacon and that, along with her stupid “Mom in Tennis Shoes” schtick, wins big for her every time. And it will again.
Anyhow, I agree that even if Hoeven gets in, he won’t win big, but I strongly disagree that Dorgan won’t be “endangered”. It’ll be very similar to the ‘02 SD Senate Race where Johnson prevailed by 500 or so votes. i.e. a coinflip that could go either way.
Cliff - I don`t know Murray and was interested in the “Mom in Tennis shoes” schtick. She isn’t the only politican who engages in annoying schtick.
Maybe not, but she’s the only one who actually runs on those exact words.
Washington has indeed become much more Democratic since the 1990s. The 2004 Washington Guberneotiral was unusual in that Dino Rossi greatly over performed, but 2004 was a fairly strong year for Republicans nationwide and this was for a state, not a federal office.
Dave Reichert would be a very strong candidate for Republicans in an open seat Senate race thanks to him representing a Dem leaning district and surviving in heavily Democratic years, but he doesn’t have the stature to challange a fairly popular incumbent.
On ND, I’m not suprised to see Hoeven be even more popular than the popular Dorgan. The polling on the race doesn’t seem to make any sense, but I do believe that Dorgon would have an slight advantage rather than a pure toss-up despite Hoeven having a higher approval rating, and that is in terms of seniority, which allows Dorgan to bring in alot of funds to his state that a freshman would not be able to. Johnson was running for a second term in 2002, Dorgan will be running for his 4th, a rather big difference in senority.
In addition I rather doubt that Hoeven would want to go into a extremly tough race just to be a junior senator from North Dokata. North Dokota has no term limits for the govenorship, and with his immenise popularity he can keep his job for as long as he wants. He wouldn’t have to give up the govenorship to challage Dorgan next year, but the there is still the large amount of time and money that would be needed, a committment I doubt Hoeven would want to go through. If he really wants to becomee a Senator someday, Hoeven wait until one of the senators retire; then if he entered the race the seat would his almost by default. Until that happens I believe that Hoeven stick with residing in Bismark.
Dino Rossi won in ‘04, before they stole it from him, because he’s a extremely talented politician, Gary Locke was unpopular at the time (although he was actually a decent governor IMHO, I’m glad he’s Commerce Secretary, he was mostly unpopular because he didn’t bend over and let the SEIU bankrupt the state, something Gregoire hasn’t even attempted to slow down), and Gregoire was both an incompetent hack and ran a terrible campaign. And he STILL only won by a couple hundred votes (well, maybe a few thousand since there was evidence to suggest up to 15,000 illegal votes, just no proof of who they voted for). But that only shows how D the state really is.
In ‘08, Rossi actually won people who voted in ‘04, but lost because of the Hope’n'change tidal wave. But again, that just goes to show how blue Washington is. It isn’t overwhelmingly blue like, say, Vermont, but the D block that is there is deeply entrenched.
Basically, the D’s need to screw up badly, the R’s need to run a perfect race, and then they still might lose.
Also, re: Reichert,
I actually don’t think he’d be all that great of a statewide candidate. I actually volunteered for his first campaign and I love the guy, but he’s won the 8th under difficult circumstances because A. Darcy Burner was not a credible candidate for people looking for anything but leftist ideology, her resume would have been a joke for City Council, let alone Congress, and B. Because of his status as King County Sheriff. Other parts of the state that aren’t as familiar with him wouldn’t really like him that much. He’s just not an exciting campaigner and his fundraising isn’t great either, even though it should be. I think he’d run a credible, but ultimately losing campaign against, say, Adam Smith, if a Senate seat were to open up.
Rob McKenna could win an open seat, maybe, but it would have to be a good year for Republicans and the D’s would have to make mistakes.
King County Councilman Reagan Dunn (son of the late Jennifer Dunn) is a natural born politician with the looks and the connections to make a credible run at just about anything, but he’s still young. I expect him to merely wait around and replace Reichert rather then run for statewide office.
Other then that, and Dino Rossi who’s probably done, we have zero political talent in the state of any real stature.
Oh, Cathy McMorris Rodgers is an extremely talented pol whom I expect might well be Speaker of the House one day. But there is no chance in hell of her winning statewide in Washington, way too conservative.
Oh, one more thing:
“During the last big GOP-wave election, several Dem House seats (unexpectedly) flipped to the Republicans and the party won a Senate seat.”
True, which proves that R’s CAN win Washington under some, very narrow, circumstances. But you have to remember how that happened. That happened after, in ‘92, the GOP lost EVERYTHING. We had 1 Congressional seat, we even lost what is now Doc Hasting’s seat in ‘92, and we lost every statewide office up for election in ‘92, including the Senate seat, in which a one-term State Senator upset a 18 year Congressional veteran (Murray v. Chandler) and the Governor’s mansion, in which a two-time loser for Senate bested a three-term Attorney General (Eikenberry v. Lowrey).
We won the Senate race in ‘94 when Slade Gorton beat Ron Sims, who was never going to get any significant support outside of King County.
And of the Congressional seats we won in ‘94, all but the two Eastern Washington seats, which should never have been lost, one flipped back in ‘96, two more in ‘98, and the last in ‘00.
It’s a very strange state. Republican wins are essentially accidents of history when everything goes wrong for the D’s. You can’t really manufacture a win, you can only hope the D’s fuck up.
North Dakota last voted for a Democratic candidate in 1964, although Obama made a large improvement over the 2004 race. In South Dakota, in 2004, the state ousted then Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle. He had served 8 years as Congressman and then 18 years as Senator. It does seem odd that they’d toss someone with his power and influence, but they did. This was the first time since 1952 that a Senate Majority leader lost reelection. It was a presidential election year in a very “red state” so that was probably a factor. Also, Daschle was portrayed as blocking President Bush’s agenda. The two states are similar in that they are fairly conservative but send Democrats to Washington more often than not. (Senator Kent Conrad is North Dakota’s other Senator, Senator Johnson serves South Dakota.) North Dakota’s unemployment rate is about 4%, the national average is around 10%. This obviously makes Governor Hoeven look good, but there isn’t any big reason to toss Senator Dorgan either. The election would have to be nationalized, discussing the United States horrific fiscal condition, in order to hurt Dorgan. The healthcare debacle could also be a factor. Also, there would probably have to be a lot of behind the scenes talking to Hoeven, from the Republican’s national party and the Republican leadership in the Senate. There are only 500,000 eligible voters, so it is fairly easy for both Dorgan and Hoeven to travel the state and talk to people. If Hoeven really wanted this, it could be quite interesting.
I specifically meant to say that a Democratic presidential candidate last won North Dakota in 1964…..
Cliff, I am not qualified to say if the Democrats “stole” the Washington governors race. Some would say the GOP stole the 2000 Presidential election. A vastly more important position.
Are you really that confident that Washington could not become competitive? During the last big GOP-wave election, several Dem House seats (unexpectedly) flipped to the Republicans and the party won a Senate seat.
I understand that today Washington is “bluer” than in 1994, but it is not inconceivable that a Republican could win statewide — Rossi almost did in 2004.
I am also from Washington state and I have a positive impression of Sen. Murray. She is a hard worker and has been effective at advocating for Washington state’s interests. Some may not like her because she is liberal. And because she is entrenched and they can’t get rid of her.
Then Sen. Slade Gorton won reelection in 1994 as the incumbent — that race was not for an open seat. The WA Gubernatorial race in 2004 is not comparable to the WA Senate race in 2010. First, governor’s races are an entirely different animal — they are more focused on local issues and less partisan. Second, the 2004 governor’s election was for an open seat. Patty Murray is a 3-term incumbent. At this point she would not go down even if there was a ‘94 style wave.
AG Rob McKenna has his eye on the governor’s mansion in 2012. He is too smart to attempt a suicide run against Sen. Murray. Reichert is a good fit for his district but he simply does not have the chops to run statewide.
As for Rossi having the 2004 election “stolen” from him, the WA Republicans filed the case in conservative Chelan County. (Elected) Judge John Bridges dismissed the GOP case “with prejudice” (a sign he thought their case was complete crap) writing there was “not substantial evidence, by clear and convincing evidence, that improper conduct or irregularities procured Ms. Gregoire’s election to the office of governor.”
Rossi did not appeal to the WA State Supreme Court, claiming the “political makeup” of the Court would make it impossible to get the ruling overturned. What a crybaby.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002321039_rossi08m.html
In response, Chief Justice Gerry Alexander (a Republican) said “I’ve been on the court for 10 years and the court simply does not have a partisan bias. In the 10 years I’ve been here, I don’t think the court has ever said anything or written anything that could lead someone to that conclusion.”
Perhaps Rossi simply realized he had no case.
Guy, POTUS (it was Warren Christopher’s fault that Gore didn’t win) may be a way more important position, but the election in Washington was probably even less clear that FL was. Living in Idaho, it was amazing how much it dominated headlines for so long. It was way bigger than the Franken-Coleman debacle. I definitely can’t say who won.
And I think Murray might, just might, have gone down in 2004 if Nethercutt hadn’t screwed himself with that stupid impersonation add.
And I think Murray might, just might, have gone down in 2004 if Nethercutt hadn’t screwed himself with that stupid impersonation add.
I live in Washington and there is no evidence for that belief. Murray never trailed Nethercutt in any poll during that race. Even Republican polling had him trailing at best by 8-9 points. All independent polls showed her leading anywhere from 11-15.
Nethercutt was a strong conservative in a left-leaning state. He had no political base or name recognition in Western Washington, where most of the population is.
“Cliff, I am not qualified to say if the Democrats “stole” the Washington governors race. Some would say the GOP stole the 2000 Presidential election. A vastly more important position.”
Some people would say Jewish Bankers run the world too. It doesn’t make it so. There has to be evidence/proof etc.
Bush never trailed in any count done by anybody in Florida, unlike Rossi. They never magically “found” 700 ballots in the most conservative county in Florida to push Bush over the top, unlike Rossi (substituting “most liberal” for “most conservative”). They never proved 10 times a greater number of invalid votes then the margin of victory, unlike Rossi.
“As for Rossi having the 2004 election “stolen” from him, the WA Republicans filed the case in conservative Chelan County. (Elected) Judge John Bridges dismissed the GOP case “with prejudice” (a sign he thought their case was complete crap) writing there was “not substantial evidence, by clear and convincing evidence, that improper conduct or irregularities procured Ms. Gregoire’s election to the office of governor.””
You are apparently ignorant of both the law and the facts in this case.
Dismissing the case “with prejudice” merely means the case has been decided on it’s merits and cannot be relitigated. It means nothing about what the Judge thought about the case.
Judge Bridges also found that there were at least 1500 illegal votes cast in the election, more then 10 times the 129 vote margin of “victory” (on the third count only, Rossi lead the first two counts). The only reason he refused to overturn the results was because Rossi could not prove who those 1500 people voted for, and he ruled that the Washington State election challenge statute required that you prove that those votes would have gone to you and changed the results, which is clearly an impossible standard, unless you can subpoena 1500 people, get them to show up, get them to admit they voted illegally without taking the 5th, and then assume they tell the truth about whom they voted for. Keep in mind, many of these people are convicted felons as well.
The only people who actually think Gregoire won are people that desperately want to believe it. The only fair minded position, at best, is that nobody knows who won, and we should have a revote.
Oh, and Open Mirage is absolutely right. Nethercutt was a credible candidate, but his campaign never really took off. The impersonation add made no difference. At best, he would have lost by 1% less then he did if it had not run.
Cliff - I believe 3500 old, Jewish people “voted” for Pat Buchannan. Since you say you know politics what are the odds that in Palm Beach alone there would be this number of people supporting someone who says Hitler wasn`t all bad. Older Jewish people typically heavily vote Democratic and 2000 in Florida (with Lieberman on the ticket also) was unlikjely to be different.
The GOP called for no recounts so it is hard to know if Bush would ever have fallen behind - so there is some evidence that the 2000 election was not perfect.
If it had happened the other way around your party would have cried blue murder for years. Democrats just got on with it (in large) part and helped Bush pass legislation. It is called constuctive governance as opposed to the GOP today.
Wow I never knew so much about Washington state politics. Very interesting discussion.
I’m sure the 2000 election was not perfect as Guy says. I would point out that elderly voters mistakenly voting for Buchannan due to poor ballot design is not the same as Republicans “stealing” the election. Additional recounts would not clear up the issue of voter intent when the voter has clearly marked a ballot for someone that they did not intend to vote for. Guy did not make the claim that Republicans “stole” anything, I just want to clarify that is not what we are talking about. As for Washington state governor, I’m not sure the Democrats “stole” that one either, unless they actively encouraged 1500 ineligible voters to cast ballots. I don’t know the answer to that, but I do feel much more informed about Washington state politics than I was yesterday.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Dismissing the case “with prejudice” merely means the case has been decided on it’s merits and cannot be relitigated. It means nothing about what the Judge thought about the case.
I am well aware of what it means — that the charge cannot be refiled. Dismissals with prejudice are not common and if you think that it isn’t a sign that Judge Bridges found the WA GOP’s case meritless, I have a Bridge to Nowhere I’d like to sell you. Perhaps the section of his opinion where Bridges called the WA GOP’s proportional deduction method “unscientific” might be more convincing. And:
“An election such as this should not be overturned because one judge picks a number and applies a proportional deduction analysis. To do so within the context of the facts of this case would constitute the ultimate act of judicial egotism and judicial activism.”
And the notion of a revote is bullshit. Gregoire won the race based on WA state law at the time. Cliff and the (un)Sound Politics crowd simply cannot deal with reality and want to ignore state election law to get the electoral result they want.
Dismissals with prejudice are not common
Uhh, you aren’t a lawyer are you?
Cliff and the (un)Sound Politics crowd simply cannot deal with reality and want to ignore state election law to get the electoral result they want.
No, we simply want the law to make sense. It makes zero sense to have to prove who illegal voters voted for, because it is essentially impossible. The election challenge statute mine as well not exist as construed by the Court in that case.
And it takes a LOT of chutzpa saying that for someone who’s whining about Florida 2000, where the Florida SC literally and unapologetically ignored the written election law and rewrote it for what they thought was “fair”.
Guy,
The way you make stuff up and tie yourself into knots to get your own desired result so you can “win” an argument never fails to tickle my heart. It’s really hysterically funny.
The GOP called for no recounts so it is hard to know if Bush would ever have fallen behind - so there is some evidence that the 2000 election was not perfect.
Not perfect? There’s evidence it’s not perfect? You don’t say!
Where, may I ask, did I ever say it was?
It never ceases to amuse me how you argue against what you wish I might have said, rather then what I actually said.
It doesn’t matter if a bunch of Jews accidentally voted for Buchannan, that doesn’t make the election stolen. People are responsible for their own votes. If you screw up, don’t expect us to read your mind, live with the consequences of your actions. You always could have asked for a new ballot if you had wanted. There is zero way of determining if they voted “incorrectly” or not. They might have actually wanted to vote for Buchannan, or if not, Bush, or Elmer Fudd for all I know. Nobody of an even remotely fair mind would actually argue we should just immediately count them for them for Gore, anymore then we should automatically count them for them for Bush.
Of course, people being responsible for their own actions is something liberals never are too big on giving any credit to.
Cliff - I forgot the arch Conservative, only we love America crowd of which you are obviously a member of never does anything wrong and are consistent at all times. Yep it was a Republican administration that has given us unfunded entitlements (prescription drug), consecutive deficits (whilst the economy grew) and oversaw a coarsening of political debate (of which you are a “great” example).
You make me laugh repeatedly by sounding so intelligent (eg Fl-12 Dems will never win - umm pretty categorical there) yet being unable to accept other peoples points. I don`t think you have ever accepted something someone else has said. You will no doubt say everyone else who is not a Conservative is an idiot. If that is the case then why come on this site?
You will be talking to my hand next time as I am going to ignore you and you blatant bias. At least I listen to other points and sometimes accept them.
Cliff - a couple of points before I leave it.
Why if the WA governor’s election was tainted didn`t the Bush administration investigate? I thought the GOP were the party of law and order and hence would have investigated. Especially if it gave them partisan advantage.
Also as a lay person I would have thought dismissed with prejudice is worse than dismissed without prejudice. Buy hey what do I know. I forgot you are an expert in all areas of life.
Cliff - I forgot the arch Conservative, only we love America crowd of which you are obviously a member of never does anything wrong and are consistent at all times. Yep it was a Republican administration that has given us unfunded entitlements (prescription drug), consecutive deficits (whilst the economy grew) and oversaw a coarsening of political debate (of which you are a “great” example).
You make me laugh repeatedly by sounding so intelligent (eg Fl-12 Dems will never win - umm pretty categorical there) yet being unable to accept other peoples points. I don`t think you have ever accepted something someone else has said. You will no doubt say everyone else who is not a Conservative is an idiot. If that is the case then why come on this site?
You will be talking to my hand next time as I am going to ignore you and you blatant bias. At least I listen to other points and sometimes accept them.
LOL!!!
This is the perfect example of what you do. I never said ANY of the things you say I said, nor implied them. You merely wish I said them so you could “prove” you are “right” and “win” the “argument.”
I give up.
Later.
Just for fun, I’ll answer your other questions because it’s so easy:
Cliff - a couple of points before I leave it.
Why if the WA governor’s election was tainted didn`t the Bush administration investigate? I thought the GOP were the party of law and order and hence would have investigated. Especially if it gave them partisan advantage.
If you actually followed this issue, you’d know that U.S. Attorney John McKay was one of the fired U.S. Attorneys that Chuckie Schumer went apeshit about. One of the reasons he was fired was because he refused to even open an investigation, or even look at evidence turned over to him by independent investigations. The reason he refused to open an investigation, or even look at evidence that was put in front of him (there is a TON of stuff on this on the net, but do your own homework) I think, was because he wanted to run for something in the future, or at least have access to better jobs in ultraliberal Seattle, and didn’t want to anger the elite.
Whatever the case, it worked. He became a saint to all the Seattle area media for not investigating, and particularly for subsequently for getting fired, (which is particularly ironic, given he was an at-will appointee and could be fired for any reason, while none of the same media give a crap about Gerald Walpin, who was NOT an at-will appointee and was statutorily barred from unilateral dismissal) and landed a job as a law professor at Seattle U. I wouldn’t be surprised if he runs for something soon.
McKay was always the hero of the old liberal Republican establishment (Dan Evans, Dan Satterberg, Sam Reed, Norm Mahling, etc.) that basically make peace with the Democratic establishment by promising never to gore any of their sacred cows so long as they don’t play too rough with them. They never leave once they get in office, but they never do anything of any substance either. They basically are just caretakers of the status quo.
Also as a lay person I would have thought dismissed with prejudice is worse than dismissed without prejudice. Buy hey what do I know. I forgot you are an expert in all areas of life.
I know a thing or two about the law, yes.
It’s “worse” in the sense that you can’t refile it, but it’s purely procedural. It means nothing about the case its self, it merely means that the case has been heard and decided on it’s merits. This happens with almost every case that goes to a full hearing.
So let me get this right a Bush appointed US Attorney doesn`t pursue a case (because he made peace with the Dems, umm nice conspiracy theory there) and since the Bush administration loves to uphold the law (except when they break it in Gitmo and the Supreme Court 3 times tells them to change policy) they fire him. OK what ever.
Maybe I must have misread all your previous posts and you are not a Conservative and GOP supporter. Now if you are I never heard you complain about those things when Bush was in office.
because he made peace with the Dems, umm nice conspiracy theory there
Uhh, if it’s a conspiracy theory, it’s one Chuck Schumer essentially agrees with. He accused Bush of pushing out U.S. Attorneys for not following his political agenda. I agree with him. The problem is, it’s not illegal, unethical, or otherwise wrong. He just wanted to make political hay out of it.
Maybe I must have misread all your previous posts and you are not a Conservative and GOP supporter.
I am both a Conservative and a GOP supporter. Unfortunately for you, I am not a walking stereotype, but a living, breathing person. We’re harder to argue against then a figment of your imagination. But I doubt you’ve ever actually discussed issues with any real person you disagree with.
Cliff - you keep making wrong assumption. I have discussed issues with real people who disagree with me. One is a Libertarian party member - why aren`t you if you disagree with the GOP performance and policies so much?
If you support the GOP then you must at least agree with the majority of what they have done in 2001-2008.
If you support the GOP then you must at least agree with the majority of what they have done in 2001-2008.
Umm, no, not actually, I merely have to disagree with them less then I disagree with the Democrats.
And what’s more, what you dream up in your own imagination as what the GOP did in the past 8 years doesn’t necessarily reflect reality, if your past posts are any indication.
Umm a dream state. Lets see if I have this right, you disagree with a large number of the following. Let me know if these events actually happened :
No child left behind legislation passed, Iraq invaded, $1.3 trillion 10 year tax cut enacted, Intervention into Terry Schivo’s death, Comprehensive immigration reform attempted, privatisation of social security attempted, John Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court, Harriet Myers attempted to be put on the bench, Patriot Act legislation enacted, deficits run each year, Prescription drug entitlement added (first entitlement expansion in decades).
I can accept that you agree with the GOP more than the Democrats. One wonders if you would have more in common with the Libertarian party though. Or indeed no party and take each candidate in each election as it comes. You choose to say GOP supporter.
No, we simply want the law to make sense. It makes zero sense to have to prove who illegal voters voted for, because it is essentially impossible. The election challenge statute mine as well not exist as construed by the Court in that case.
And it takes a LOT of chutzpa saying that for someone who’s whining about Florida 2000, where the Florida SC literally and unapologetically ignored the written election law and rewrote it for what they thought was “fair”.
What the WA GOP needed to prove was that there was deliberate election fraud. That is far from impossible to prove and they could not do it. There are voting irregularities/mistakes in every election. Redoing elections on the basis of irregularities, rather than fraud, is an invitation to endless litigation.
I have not mentioned anything about Florida in this discussion.
Dan Donohoe, a spokesman for King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg, also thinks that dismissal with prejudice do not happen often.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/archives/177332.asp