RT @BrainLemon: I have my ideals, but if a lifetime ACU of 83 is an unacceptable “RINO” then we are in trouble. (via @dmataconis)
RT @BrainLemon: I have my ideals, but if a lifetime ACU of 83 is an unacceptable “RINO” then we are in trouble. (via @dmataconis)
Lieberman’s public image as a “moderate” has always been rooted more in fiction than in reality. Lieberman’s voting record indicates affinity and support for traditional left-wing causes. Indeed, Lieberman’s voting record is in line with the likes of such liberal stalwarts as Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Kennedy. Lieberman received a 0% rating from the American Conservative Union in 2004 (Feinstein’s voting record was actually slightly more conservative than Lieberman’s in 2004 and 2005 according to the ACU).
http://www.lewrockwell.com/barnwell/barnwell63.html
Depends on what the 17 percent entails. Sorry, but see part about you don’t get to vote for transfers of wealth and call yourself a conservative in the morning. Either you have bedrock principles, even in the face of imminent woe, or you don’t.
At a macro level, that criticism makes sense, but James hits an important note: The tea partiers are especially upset about the bailouts — they would’ve preferred to see Wall Street crash and burn, and they’re going to punish those Republicans who defected and joined Bush and the Democrats on the issue. Normally I cringe at RINO-bashing, but in this case, much like with Rubio and Crist down in Florida, the net result will be a Senate candidate far more likely to hold the fiscal line against the Obama administration, and that’s a net plus any way you look at it.
Besides, let’s face it, Utah is a heavy Republican lean, so if you can’t have a Senator who scores closer to 100% on the ACU score sheet, then what’s the point? You know Vermont is going to send you a socialist, and you know Utah is going to send you a staunch conservative (or at least should be). There’s nothing wrong with party activists chucking out moderates in states where less moderate candidates can clearly win.
It’s really a great time in America to vote the incumbents out. I know that Barbara Boxer and Dianne Fienstein may not be to blame for everything that’s gone wrong in this country this decade, but they’ve been in office here in Cali for the majority of my lifetime, and it’s really time to get some fresh faces into Washington. If these crusty old bags don’t have the good sense to do what’s right for the state (and the country) and say “Thanks for the 20 years in office (give or take)” then it’s our responsibility, and by ‘our’ I mean democratic primary voters, which I am not one of, so get out there you stupid-asses, so I don’t have to vote for a damn Republican running opposite these two.
This Bob Bennett guy was crying after “losing his career” this weekend. He should be happy to have had a freaking job until the ripe ol’ age of 77. Hell he should just be happy to be alive at that age, but he’s a US Senator at that age?!? It’s a disgrace that he wasn’t ashamed to call serving in the US Senate “a career”, and more ashamed for having remained in the position to the point of rigamortis. This comment is dedicated to John McCain, John Kerry, and the rest of a crusty old decomposing congress and senate.
I have to agree with the general thrust of Sandy’s comment in that, I am not a big fan of senators serving out multiple terms well into their 70s and 80s. To me, that’s just a sign of the inertia of incumbency and corresponding laziness on the part of that state’s voters. Helms, Byrd, Kennedy, and other ancient graybeards should have stepped down long before being generally incapacitated or dying while in office.