Election Picks

[JaJae]

I figured I'd start a thread discussing who you are supporting in the upcoming election. Personally, I'm not really supporting anybody, but there are people I'm hoping do not get elected. I figured I'd make a list:

Harry Reid
Alan Grayson
Mary Jo Kilroy
Joe Miller
Barbara Boxer
Christine O'Donnell
Barney Frank
Edit: Adding Alvin Greene to the list for the hilarity factor of his campaign.

This is just a quick list off the top of my head. There's plenty more people I'd like to see not get re/elected.

[Salty Dog]

It's stunning how Barney Frank can even compete in an election after his part in the economic collapse. STUUU-NIIINNNGG!!!

[Mr. Amazing]

I live in Texas where there's usually not a lot of choice. Either the same old bribe-soaked and innefectual Republican or a spineless nutjob. But this time the democratic candidate for Governor, Bill White, is actually pretty legit. I lived in Houston and I can attest that he did an excellent job as mayor. He's not your typical wimpy, washed out Democrat.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Salty Dog

It's stunning how Barney Frank can even compete in an election after his part in the economic collapse. STUUU-NIIINNNGG!!!

1. According to Barney Frank, he didn't have anything to do with the economic collapse. Not.a.thing.

His supporters buy it hook, line, and sinker too. Here is the endorsement the Boston Globe gave him:

Frank puts his leverage to work for local causes like the fishing industry in New Bedford, which is perpetually under the scrutiny of federal regulators and needs a powerful advocate.

Assessing Frank’s performance has always been tough, because his fingers are in so many legislative pies. He acknowledges having been slow, like other officials, to see the extent of the home-mortgage crisis that engulfed the economy. For that, he deserves blame. But the larger charge that he pushed to give federally backed mortgages to less-qualified borrowers isn’t all that it seems: The Bush administration, not Frank, was focused on raising the number of buyers in its “ownership society’’; Frank wielded his clout more on behalf of rental subsidies, arguing that not everyone is qualified to own a home.


On the other side of the ledger, Frank was instrumental in helping write TARP and the Frank-Dodd bill to toughen bank regulation. It is not true, as his challenger Sean Bielat says in his ads, that “No individual is MORE responsible than Barney Frank for the housing crisis and economic collapse.’’ Frank deserves some blame, but also some credit.


Bielat, 35, is an intriguing contrast to the 70-year-old Frank. A major in the Marine Corps Reserve, with a Wharton degree and experience at the consulting firm of McKinsey & Co., he can almost go toe to toe with Frank on financial matters. Behind his boyish grin is an ego the size of Frank’s: They’re a fascinating pair of opposites. Bielat favors tax and budget cuts directed mainly away from the military; Frank hopes to spend his next term tackling military waste.


On social issues, Frank is a leader in the move to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell’’ policy, while Bielat insists that the military does not discriminate on the basis of sexuality. On abortion, Bielat acknowledges that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, but is almost unique among politicians in refusing to offer his own view of abortion rights. That refusal signals the strategic nature of Bielat’s candidacy — he’s a smart bomb directed at Frank, zeroing in on the economy while neutralizing Frank’s advantage on social issues. With his broad skills, Bielat can be a leader in the state GOP. But leadership requires more than just strategic intelligence.

Frank deserves the tough questioning he’s received from Bielat; but he also deserves reelection.

The willful ignorance of liberals in Massachusetts is what is truly stunning. But it explains in part how he gets re-elected every year. The Globe is the Bible of the Left in Massachusetts; it's words are gospel; and the masses ask no questions.

2. As if the groupthink up here wasn't bad enough, the gerrymandering of our congressional districts ensures that Republicans (or anyone else, really) have almost zero chance of winning anything less than a state-wide race. (See Scott Brown for more details.)

Here is what our congressional districts look like:



Barney's district is the 4th. He lives up near where the 7th and 9th almost touch each other and cut the 4th into two pieces. In fact, at that point, I believe the district is only one town wide. (Ditto for where the 9th and 3rd almost touch.)

Here is what the alternative map looked like, which was supported by Republicans and good government groups (including Common Cause, a liberal group which campaigns for independent redistricting commissions and districts based on population only, and not political registration):


So yeah...looking at the two, is it any wonder that the Speaker of the state House of Reps that pushed through the first (and current) map was indicted for his role in the redistricting? (He lied under oath about his role in gerrymandering blacks into districts where minority candidates couldn't win elections -- and he was a Democrat, mind you.)


So anyway, that's why Barney always wins, no matter the scandal or the state of the country. It's never Barney's fault, and even if it were, his district is so safe that it's almost impossible for him to lose.

[JaJae]

Considering Ted Kennedy killed a woman in the Chappaquiddick, tried to cover it up, was found guilty for his crimes and then continued to get re-elected without problems in that state I'd say the safe money is on Frank.

[wanna be drummer]

For a second I read that you were supporting Frank, Reid, and O'Donnel. I was about to be very disappointed

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Considering Ted Kennedy killed a woman in the Chappaquiddick, tried to cover it up, was found guilty for his crimes and then continued to get re-elected without problems in that state I'd say the safe money is on Frank.

It is pretty unreal that an elected official could drive drunk, crash, and leave an innocent woman for dead at the bottom of a river, and only call for help the next morning -- and still get re-elected like nothing happened.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

It is pretty unreal that an elected official could drive drunk, crash, and leave an innocent woman for dead at the bottom of a river, and only call for help the next morning -- and still get re-elected like nothing happened.

He only reported it after his car was being taken out of the Bay on the news with a dead body in it. It's a shame too, because Mary Jo didn't drown.. she suffocated in an air pocket in the foot well. Meaning if he had called for help after the accident they probably could have saved her.

[LookingUp]

Originally Posted by JaJae

He only reported it after his car was being taken out of the Bay on the news with a dead body in it. It's a shame too, because Mary Jo didn't drown.. she suffocated in an air pocket in the foot well. Meaning if he had called for help after the accident they probably could have saved her.

Not only that, but he was only convicted of leaving the scene of an accident, not manslaughter.

[LookingUp]

Everyone dies at some point, I would have found more to be thankful about had he shown remorse

[Mr. Amazing]

Originally Posted by JaJae

He only reported it after his car was being taken out of the Bay on the news with a dead body in it. It's a shame too, because Mary Jo didn't drown.. she suffocated in an air pocket in the foot well. Meaning if he had called for help after the accident they probably could have saved her.

Though it is irrelevant, I highly doubt that. I have had a couple of experiences with these sort of rescue operations, and even if the car was not completely flooded, asphyxiation would have taken only four or five minutes. That's a crazy response time. The general rule of thumb is that if the passenger is not able to escape within a minute to a minute and 30 seconds after impact, then it's going to be a retrieval rather than a rescue.

[Mr. Amazing]

As much as family tradition drives me to defend him, I'm still extremely apalled that he was re-elected after the incedent. His brothers were great leaders, and yes, all of them had skeletons in their closet, but I'm of the opinion that personal matters usually have no bearing on someone's ability to lead. That crosses the line that when it comes to an actual criminal charge that should have been intoxication manslaughter; he let his brothers down.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Mr. Amazing

I'm of the opinion that personal matters usually have no bearing on someone's ability to lead...

I admit there may be some merit to that mode of thought in some circumstances and with some leaders. Thus, for example, if Kennedy had just had a simple tragic accident where this woman was killed, and where he had immediately called for help and tried desparately to save her, then I'd have (almost) no issue with his re-election. But that isn't the case here. He left the scene, went and slept off his hang over, and only later reported his involvement to the police.

If that doesn't scream "unfit for office" then what does, exactly?

[Mr. Amazing]

No, I agree with you. I was dissapointed in the whole mess when I learned about it. I was reffering more to Clinton and JFK, both rather adulterous men. But look around you, chances are you know someone who's done that. Does that make them unfit for office? But Ted's was a horrible decision and he shouldn't have gotten re-elected. It's an outright crime after all.

[Davy Cock'it]

Originally Posted by Mr. Amazing

No, I agree with you. I was dissapointed in the whole mess when I learned about it. I was reffering more to Clinton and JFK, both rather adulterous men. But look around you, chances are you know someone who's done that. Does that make them unfit for office? But Ted's was a horrible decision and he shouldn't have gotten re-elected. It's an outright crime after all.

When it comes to crime, politicians should be treated just like the rest of the american population. It pisses me off how they get away with so much. Our nations justice system is flawed.

[Salty Dog]

Originally Posted by Davy Cock'it

When it comes to crime, politicians should be treated just like the rest of the american population. It pisses me off how they get away with so much. Our nations justice system is flawed.

You don't have to be a politician to get away with a crime. All you need is money, alot of it.

[Davy Cock'it]

Originally Posted by Salty Dog

You don't have to be a politician to get away with a crime. All you need is money, alot of it.

Well using money to manipulate the law, and to get people to work for/with you still makes you a politican. You don't have to be a "civil servant" to be a politician.

[DosEquis]

Speaking of "it's amazing they ever got voted in"... didn't ashcroft lose to a dead person in missouri?

[philiprambo]

Good one.thanks for sharing.