So today we have three Dems announcing they won’t be running for re-election…
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/06/democrats-drop-plans-seek-election/
I’m wondering what Ritter’s real reason is…
[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
I’m wondering what Ritter’s real reason is…[/quote]
Not sure but I know his own party was planning on having a challenger for him in the primary.
It’s going to get worse for Dems, Reid is in deep shit in Nevada as well.
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
I’m wondering what Ritter’s real reason is…[/quote]
Not sure but I know his own party was planning on having a challenger for him in the primary.
[/quote]
Wow, I hadn’t heard that.
I’ve always figured when someone steps down unexpectedly, they are leaving public life because they have something they want to keep private - homosexual affairs, campaign contribution violations, dead hookers, etc.
[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
I’m wondering what Ritter’s real reason is…[/quote]
Not sure but I know his own party was planning on having a challenger for him in the primary.
[/quote]
Wow, I hadn’t heard that.
I’ve always figured when someone steps down unexpectedly, they are leaving public life because they have something they want to keep private - homosexual affairs, campaign contribution violations, dead hookers, etc.[/quote]
Probably just having trouble raising money like Dodd.
This was calculated. The administration is now going to force out the very soldiers that played their game, but are at risk because of it. I don’t see how anyone else under the Dem ticket can still win though, but I guess they would have a better chance than the incumbants anyway.
Good riddance, I wish more of them would retire…Or just quit. But I anticipate they are going to go out reeking as much havoc as they can and ram as much shit we don’t want down our throats as they can.
Specter is gone in PA, whether in the primary or general election. Should see the Republicans pick up 30+ seats in the house and as much as 8 in the Senate…maybe more. 2010 will see the death of the Liberal agenda for at least a generation, and not a day to soon. It will lead to an outright Republican takeover in 2012 including the presidency. Obama and his agenda will be remembered in a worse light then Carter.
http://www.rockymountainright.com/?q=node/1153
Some right wing blogging about why Ritter left.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Specter is gone in PA, whether in the primary or general election. Should see the Republicans pick up 30+ seats in the house and as much as 8 in the Senate…maybe more. 2010 will see the death of the Liberal agenda for at least a generation, and not a day to soon. It will lead to an outright Republican takeover in 2012 including the presidency. Obama and his agenda will be remembered in a worse light then Carter.[/quote]
Right.
It will be interesting (but probably predictable) to see what the GOP will do when they actually have to govern…and not just sit back and vote “No”…
Mufasa
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
This was calculated. The administration is now going to force out the very soldiers that played their game, but are at risk because of it. I don’t see how anyone else under the Dem ticket can still win though, but I guess they would have a better chance than the incumbants anyway.[/quote]
This is what it is. They are trying to replace almost certain losers with candidates less likely to lose. Might work in a couple cases, but probably not. So now the nation is faced with Putting the liberal lite GOP back in charge or sticking with the ultra leftist America hating lowlifes they have now.
2010 is the year for the Libertarian Party! Republicans and Democrats both have demonstrated how worthless they are and the Libertarians will take all open seats.
hahahahahahhaha! I just can’t write that and keep a straight face.
On the other hand, we have reality.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_01/021783.php
[quote]In the House, 14 GOP incumbents have decided not to seek re-election, while 10 Democratic incumbents have made the same announcement. Does this mean Republicans are “dropping like flies”?
In the Senate, six Republican incumbents have decided not to seek re-election, while two Democratic incumbents have made the same announcement. Is this evidence of a mass Democratic exodus?
Among governors, several incumbents in both parties are term-limited and prevented from running again, but only three Democrats who can seek re-election – Parkinson in Kansas, Doyle in Wisconsin, and Ritter in Colorado – have chosen not to. For Republicans, the number is four – Douglas in Vermont, Rell in Connecticut, Crist in Florida, and Pawlenty in Minnesota. (Update: the GOP number is five if we include Palin in Alaska.)
So, to review, Republican retirements outnumber Democratic retirements in the House, in the Senate, and among governors. The preferred Republican/media meme of the day doesn’t match up well against reality.[/quote]
So the rats you referred to are the minority party ones, obviously.
[quote]tme wrote:
On the other hand, we have reality.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_01/021783.php
[quote]In the House, 14 GOP incumbents have decided not to seek re-election, while 10 Democratic incumbents have made the same announcement. Does this mean Republicans are “dropping like flies”?
In the Senate, six Republican incumbents have decided not to seek re-election, while two Democratic incumbents have made the same announcement. Is this evidence of a mass Democratic exodus?
Among governors, several incumbents in both parties are term-limited and prevented from running again, but only three Democrats who can seek re-election – Parkinson in Kansas, Doyle in Wisconsin, and Ritter in Colorado – have chosen not to. For Republicans, the number is four – Douglas in Vermont, Rell in Connecticut, Crist in Florida, and Pawlenty in Minnesota. (Update: the GOP number is five if we include Palin in Alaska.)
So, to review, Republican retirements outnumber Democratic retirements in the House, in the Senate, and among governors. The preferred Republican/media meme of the day doesn’t match up well against reality.[/quote]
So the rats you referred to are the minority party ones, obviously.
[/quote]
They’re all rats. Let them all leave.
Just one point. Retirement is not the same as seeking higher office. How many of the ones listed above are going to be seeking higher office?
That’s a good point, politicians don’t die, they just get reassigned.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
[quote]tme wrote:
On the other hand, we have reality.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_01/021783.php
[quote]In the House, 14 GOP incumbents have decided not to seek re-election, while 10 Democratic incumbents have made the same announcement. Does this mean Republicans are “dropping like flies”?
In the Senate, six Republican incumbents have decided not to seek re-election, while two Democratic incumbents have made the same announcement. Is this evidence of a mass Democratic exodus?
Among governors, several incumbents in both parties are term-limited and prevented from running again, but only three Democrats who can seek re-election – Parkinson in Kansas, Doyle in Wisconsin, and Ritter in Colorado – have chosen not to. For Republicans, the number is four – Douglas in Vermont, Rell in Connecticut, Crist in Florida, and Pawlenty in Minnesota. (Update: the GOP number is five if we include Palin in Alaska.)
So, to review, Republican retirements outnumber Democratic retirements in the House, in the Senate, and among governors. The preferred Republican/media meme of the day doesn’t match up well against reality.[/quote]
So the rats you referred to are the minority party ones, obviously.
[/quote]
There all rats. Let them all leave.
Just one point. Retirement is not the same as seeking higher office. How many of the ones listed above are going to be seeking higher office? [/quote]
Agreed, they are all rats. This reminds me of an old joke…
“How can you tell when a politician is lying? Their lips are moving.”
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
[quote]dhickey wrote:
[quote]tme wrote:
On the other hand, we have reality.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_01/021783.php
[quote]In the House, 14 GOP incumbents have decided not to seek re-election, while 10 Democratic incumbents have made the same announcement. Does this mean Republicans are “dropping like flies”?
In the Senate, six Republican incumbents have decided not to seek re-election, while two Democratic incumbents have made the same announcement. Is this evidence of a mass Democratic exodus?
Among governors, several incumbents in both parties are term-limited and prevented from running again, but only three Democrats who can seek re-election – Parkinson in Kansas, Doyle in Wisconsin, and Ritter in Colorado – have chosen not to. For Republicans, the number is four – Douglas in Vermont, Rell in Connecticut, Crist in Florida, and Pawlenty in Minnesota. (Update: the GOP number is five if we include Palin in Alaska.)
So, to review, Republican retirements outnumber Democratic retirements in the House, in the Senate, and among governors. The preferred Republican/media meme of the day doesn’t match up well against reality.[/quote]
So the rats you referred to are the minority party ones, obviously.
[/quote]
There all rats. Let them all leave.
Just one point. Retirement is not the same as seeking higher office. How many of the ones listed above are going to be seeking higher office? [/quote]
Agreed, they are all rats. This reminds me of an old joke…
“How can you tell when a politician is lying? Their lips are moving.”[/quote]
Wrong.
How can you tell when a politician is lying? When he is breathing and blinking.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
[quote]dhickey wrote:
[quote]tme wrote:
On the other hand, we have reality.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_01/021783.php
[quote]In the House, 14 GOP incumbents have decided not to seek re-election, while 10 Democratic incumbents have made the same announcement. Does this mean Republicans are “dropping like flies”?
In the Senate, six Republican incumbents have decided not to seek re-election, while two Democratic incumbents have made the same announcement. Is this evidence of a mass Democratic exodus?
Among governors, several incumbents in both parties are term-limited and prevented from running again, but only three Democrats who can seek re-election – Parkinson in Kansas, Doyle in Wisconsin, and Ritter in Colorado – have chosen not to. For Republicans, the number is four – Douglas in Vermont, Rell in Connecticut, Crist in Florida, and Pawlenty in Minnesota. (Update: the GOP number is five if we include Palin in Alaska.)
So, to review, Republican retirements outnumber Democratic retirements in the House, in the Senate, and among governors. The preferred Republican/media meme of the day doesn’t match up well against reality.[/quote]
So the rats you referred to are the minority party ones, obviously.
[/quote]
There all rats. Let them all leave.
Just one point. Retirement is not the same as seeking higher office. How many of the ones listed above are going to be seeking higher office? [/quote]
Agreed, they are all rats. This reminds me of an old joke…
“How can you tell when a politician is lying? Their lips are moving.”[/quote]
Wrong.
How can you tell when a politician is lying? When he is breathing and blinking. [/quote]
Wrong.
How can you tell what a politician is lying? When he Exists.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
[quote]dhickey wrote:
[quote]tme wrote:
On the other hand, we have reality.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_01/021783.php
[quote]In the House, 14 GOP incumbents have decided not to seek re-election, while 10 Democratic incumbents have made the same announcement. Does this mean Republicans are “dropping like flies”?
In the Senate, six Republican incumbents have decided not to seek re-election, while two Democratic incumbents have made the same announcement. Is this evidence of a mass Democratic exodus?
Among governors, several incumbents in both parties are term-limited and prevented from running again, but only three Democrats who can seek re-election – Parkinson in Kansas, Doyle in Wisconsin, and Ritter in Colorado – have chosen not to. For Republicans, the number is four – Douglas in Vermont, Rell in Connecticut, Crist in Florida, and Pawlenty in Minnesota. (Update: the GOP number is five if we include Palin in Alaska.)
So, to review, Republican retirements outnumber Democratic retirements in the House, in the Senate, and among governors. The preferred Republican/media meme of the day doesn’t match up well against reality.[/quote]
So the rats you referred to are the minority party ones, obviously.
[/quote]
There all rats. Let them all leave.
Just one point. Retirement is not the same as seeking higher office. How many of the ones listed above are going to be seeking higher office? [/quote]
Agreed, they are all rats. This reminds me of an old joke…
“How can you tell when a politician is lying? Their lips are moving.”[/quote]
Wrong.
How can you tell when a politician is lying? When he is breathing and blinking. [/quote]
Wrong.
How can you tell what a politician is lying? When he Exists. [/quote]
Wrong.
How can you tell when a polotician is lying? When he exists or doesn’t exist.
V