Disaster: Democrat beats Republican in Mississippi special election; Update: Panic time, say Boehner, Cole
posted at 10:29 pm on May 13, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
And so the only election that mattered tonight, the bellwether of this fall’s congressional races, goes the wrong way. I’m going to go find some glue to huff. Talk amongst yourselves.
Update: It may not end up being all that close, either.
Update: Boehner and NRCC Chairman Tom Cole warn congressional Republicans that a hard rain’s a-gonna fall.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3]
“The voters have no place to go except to the democrats. We need a viable, conservative third party NOW.”
abcurtis on May 14, 2008 at 9:37 AM
Amen!
Al-Ozarka on May 14, 2008 at 10:25 AM
“If it is a hoax, which I agree is a possibility, what is the motivation?” Dave742
Elitist Totalitarianism
Al-Ozarka on May 14, 2008 at 10:27 AM
How do you figure this? The war on poverty, $11 trillion later, hasn’t solved the problem, yet it continues despite real events and data. Same thing with gun control and the economic benefits of tax cuts.
Washington will never change as long as it has no incentive to.
fossten on May 14, 2008 at 10:29 AM
The GOP is in deep trouble come November - defending twice as many senate seats as the Democrats. John McCain’s broad appeal is the last hope for preventing meltdown. General elections are always won from the centre.
A third party would be entirely counter-productive, splitting the right-wing vote and ensuring Democratic hegemony for a generation. The party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Reagan is quite capable of recovering from this mess, but it will require time and application from her supporters. Internet forums are a poor substitute for getting out there and discussing the importance of this election with our friends, colleagues, and neighbors.
Pax americana on May 14, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Just hit me over the head until I turn into Karl…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHgFeBmT1s
MechEng5by5 on May 14, 2008 at 10:35 AM
The GOP is no longer the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Reagan. Or hadn’t you noticed?
fossten on May 14, 2008 at 10:38 AM
maverick muse:
I don’t get how the belief in global warming translates into more power, especially to the extent justified by such a monumental hoax.
When I search “global warming hoax” in Amazon, I mainly see books confronting the science. I am looking for something that goes into details about motivations. Is there such a source?
dave742 on May 14, 2008 at 10:41 AM
I’m sorry to have been unclear. Taxing us to death is a side effect of the hysteria, I don’t believe there’s some grand conspiracy afoot.
Most of us remember the global cooling scare of the 70s which is how Earth Day got started. But this (the current switch from global warming to cooling) is the FIFTH climate hysteria since 1895. “A new ice age” at the turn of the century, then global warming from the 30s to 50s, back to cooling in the 70s and warming in the late 80s. Don’t forget the population scare, ozone hole, acid rain and all the other scares in between.
The media takes a few thin scientific facts and hypes them to death. Everybody panics and demands more info and solutions, science follows the money and the cycle continues until is collapses because none of the predictions come true. It’s 90% garbage, but politicians want to be seen as solving the problem and they want to amass power so they take advantage of it and/or they’re dumb enough to buy into it. No conspiracy needed, just the greek tragedy of human nature.
Laura on May 14, 2008 at 10:48 AM
How depressing. And to think that I once thought America would overcome anything. I guess history is not in our favor.
fossten on May 14, 2008 at 10:52 AM
dave742 on May 14, 2008 at 9:42 AM:
The real question concerning global warming is why so many current scientists have joined the global warming band wagon in spite of the weak (and sometimes fraudulent) scientific models and data. Most politicians and average Americans are simply following the lead of these scientists.
As a scientist, I really don’t have the answer, but I suspect that a lot of it has to do with the fact that most of the younger scientists have been educated in highly liberal institutions that push the twin agendas of radical environmentalism and atheism. I am optimistic that the global warming hysteria will collapse on itself as poor science is exposed by years of real data. Bad scientific theories seldom withstand the test of time and remain in the mainstream of scientific thought.
As far as the motivation of politicians goes, I think that the answer is simple. Politicians are opportunists that seize on anything that is perceived as something that the American electorate is interested in. The American people have long been conditioned to believe that humans are screwing up the environment, so their interest is understandable, since we all live on the same tiny globe. However, as more of the doom and gloom scenarios related to the global warming myth fail to materialize, I think that most Americans will simply lose interest and focus on more immediately important things like the economy and health care. Once that happens, the politicians won’t be far behind.
NuclearPhysicist on May 14, 2008 at 10:53 AM
fossten on May 14, 2008 at 10:29 AM
The war on poverty will stay alive as long as we have a poorer class of voters. Since this is a given in the real world, this war can never end.
However, bad science can and does have an end when real data fails to support it. That doesn’t mean that there won’t be another equally flawed theory to replace it. But, the global warming hoax will see an end when real events don’t validate its false prophesies.
NuclearPhysicist on May 14, 2008 at 11:02 AM
The right wing push to only allow the “perfect conservative” to have a voice in the party is now bearing its bitter fruit.
Reagan wept…
Bradky on May 14, 2008 at 11:04 AM
But the global warming taxes and regulations will stay.
fossten on May 14, 2008 at 11:07 AM
The problem is our failure to learn history. I remembered the cooling of the 70s, but didn’t know about the 50s warming. Did you? And yet, take a gander at this Frank Capra prelude to An Inconvenient Truth. Gore should be charged with plagiarism.
We don’t retain these things from generation to generation and we don’t have any grasp of history.
Laura on May 14, 2008 at 11:08 AM
The GOP 2008: We now accept every Leftist premise, out of fear of being called bad names by them. So please vote for us!
Halley on May 14, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Its a very simple plan. Government entities will be allowed to set how much CO2 you can send into the atmosphere, and will be able to change those levels at will. Any time you exceed the government mandated levels, you will either have to BUY an extra C02 “offset”, or will be fined by the government.
This means the government will be able to choose winners and losers in the market. THEY will be able to impact prices of EVERYTHING.
The UN is involved because this “offset” plan ships money from US to third world nations. We will be forced to buy offesets from underveloped nations, to sustain our own economy…
Essentialy the Greens will be able to impact every aspect of the entire worlds economy by how they set, and enforce, the CO2 levels.
Romeo13 on May 14, 2008 at 11:14 AM
It’s been said many times before, but is worth repeating:
In a race between a Democrat and a Democrat,
the Democrat always wins.
corona on May 14, 2008 at 11:18 AM
But the global warming taxes and regulations will stay.
fossten on May 14, 2008 at 11:07 AM
But, they have to be enacted first and I don’t think that the American electorate will tolerate real tax increases and expensive regulations as long as they perceive/experience pain in their personal finances. Concerns over personal finances will trump proposed, harmful global warming legislation until Americans either perceive a return to prosperity or see climate changes that measurably affect their personal lives. Since neither of these things is likely to happen in the near term, there is still time for the global warming hoax to be exposed before it results in harmful legislative mandates.
NuclearPhysicist on May 14, 2008 at 11:27 AM
As far as Democrats beating Republicans - I’m sorry to say it but I wouldn’t be surprised if David Vitter gets the boot here in La. He’s going above and beyond at the moment - in fact we had a virtual town hall meeting last night on the housing project demolitions which was pretty good and there’s going to be more like that, but he knows the Dems think he’s an easy mark now. And they may be right.
Laura on May 14, 2008 at 11:38 AM
“Laura on May 14, 2008 at 11:38 AM”
He will never get my vote and neither will Mary. Vitter chose fearmongering rather than reason about the immigration issue followed up by his disgusting performance irt the DC Madam.
Bradky on May 14, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Consider the possibility people buy into the global warming theory largely based on their own personal psychology — their temperment, their attitude, and yes, their politics. You can pretty much go down the list of issues and know where a liberal will stand and where a conservative will stand. On global warming, one believes it’s a big deal, another doesn’t. My I suggest their stance on global warming is based on how they think, how their mind works, which is mostly on an unconscious level and so more or less beyond their control. How else to explain that a liberal will believe one way on global warming, a conservative the opposite.
Paul-Cincy on May 14, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Bradky - I’m less interested in the reason he stood up against illegal immigration and more delighted that he stood up against it at all.
Laura on May 14, 2008 at 11:45 AM
“Laura on May 14, 2008 at 11:45 AM”
Laura, the histrionics he encouraged have seen a rise in inappropriate conduct and dialog against LEGAL citizens who happen to be hispanic. Some who are my relatives have experienced this — guess which party they are less inclined to vote for… results are important but tactics have consequences.
Bradky on May 14, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Laura:
The article you linked to says this:
He brings this up in relation to how these hysterical predictions tend to cycle between one extreme to the other. The article he referes to, however, was not about the “looming danger of another ice age.” The article talked about colder temps that were occurring, but then said this:
So the article was not “telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age,” but was saying the exact opposite, and saying it is nothing to worry about. The author, Warren Anderson, is a fraud. That is the problem with this issue. I expect people everywhere are mangling references as your link does. If I am going to sift through all the garbage, I want to know why I am doing it.
If the global warming people are sincere in their belief, and you think they are simply wrong (and I think NuclearPhycisist would agree with this stance), I am not interested in spending the two months reading about it that it will take to sift through the garbage and find the truth. If it is a scientific disagreement, I am not going to spend the time.
If, however, there is a conspiracy (like Romeo13 or MaverickMuse might say), I find it more interesting and might want to spend the two months figuring it out for myself. But if there is a conspiracy, I would like to know what the motivation is for such a grand conspiracy to see if that part of it is reasonable first.
dave742 on May 14, 2008 at 11:48 AM
dave742 on May 14, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Dave - headlines are the key - “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.”
I could go find fifty articles just in the last ten days with deeply misleading, hysteria causing headlines on the war, global warming, and especially lately, the so-called recession. The point is that the media manipulates the info they have in order to get the most impact. People scan, they don’t read.
Laura on May 14, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Forget 2008 and prepare for the 2010 congressional elections. No one is going to believe anything Republicans say this year since they’ve been so irresponsible for the last six years.
Forget about judges. The Dhimmis should have between 58 and 61 seats in the Senate and that, with the remaining Rinos should guarantee supreme courts seats for the likes of Lawrence Tribe or worse.
Forget abortion. With the majority they’ll have the Dems will present a federal abortion law making it legal, free and an available individual right for all females over the age of 6 without parental consent for minors.
Forget old style marriage. A new law will legalize full blown polyamory. Marriage between N>-1 males an M>=1 females and any number of switch hitters. The Muslims will be happy, while they wait for complete Shari’a, and the Mormons can anticipate a new revelation bringing back the good old days.
Forget good and rapid medical care. The joys of the Canadian an British plans imposed in the U.S. will quickly demonstrate the true cost of “free” health care.
Forget planning for vacations in far away places. All kinds of carbon taxes will quickly drive gas prices above $6/gallon and with no nuclear, no exploration etc. people will be lucky to have enough to heat their homes in winter.
These are the good parts, I’ll leave the bad for someone else to enumerate.
Annar on May 14, 2008 at 12:24 PM
dave742, not to threadjack, but the question is what will be done to address the problem? What IGOs or government agencies will have their budgets, headcount, and regulatory authority increased? Let’s not assume away the motivations of bureaucracies.
Will to power is a hardy perennial. Ideology also plays a role. Some folks can’t sleep well at night knowing that there are decisions left to free individuals in markets.
The economic motivations should be apparent as well: Non-signatory countries directly benefit from emissions reduction conventions that relocate production from signatory countries. In economics we talk about rent-seeking, raising rivals’ costs, etc. — improperly inclusive conventions do both these things.
DrSteve on May 14, 2008 at 12:28 PM
McCain, Gerald Ford, Bush 41, Bush 43, Dole, Chafee, Bloomberg, Nixon, Eisenhower, the Rockefellers, Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, Specter, Warner, Hagel, Lugar, Snowe, Collins, Pataki, Shays, Schwarzenegger, Colin Powell, Christie Todd Whitman, Earl Warren, Jim Leach, Howard Baker, James Baker, etc.
I guess I see what you mean.
flyfisher on May 14, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Laura:
You said the “media takes a few thin scientific facts and hypes them to death,” but then say that the hype is only occurring in the headlines, and the body of the articles contains the truth, but people don’t bother to read the truth in the actual article. The issue of global warming, whether correct or not, seems to have more substance than a few overstated headlines of articles that otherwise tell the truth about global warming.
I am not getting enough from the conspiracy theorists to convince me that there are valid reasons to construct such a large hoax. I think I’ll just remain ignorant of the whole issue. Thanks anyway.
dave742 on May 14, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Yup. The republican party is going down. But on the bright side, I love any excuse to see that Hudson-Game Over clip. LUV IT!
ncc770 on May 14, 2008 at 12:59 PM
I was trying to be brief because I didn’t intend to threadjack with all this, and I didn’t want to post a really huge comment. I should have just said what I wanted to say the first time, it would have been faster. :-) The media DOES take a few thin facts and hype them to death, MOSTLY in the headlines. You typically have to get near the end of the article to get any info that does not adhere to the media narrative, just like in the war reporting so many conservatives take note of.
Is pollution and waste bad? Yes. We should stop it; that’s just common sense. Does the temperature of the planet change? Certainly. We’ve had demonstrable warming and cooling over time. Is it our fault and can we control it? Not bloody likely. Who benefits from all this hype? The media and the government. And Al Gore, who ironically may be the smartest capitalist of our generation.
Laura on May 14, 2008 at 1:04 PM
And dave742, let me hasten to add I don’t think it’s a hoax or a conspiracy as much as I think there are pressures to support AGW as a key element in research or policy programmes wholly independent from the merits of climate science. If there’s a perceived problem, different people benefit from different solutions. The solution to AGW might be seen as requiring quite a lot of additional (and pervasive) monitoring and control of economic activity. This will benefit some, either from an ideological or economic perspective.
DrSteve on May 14, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Yes, and I’m going with them. May Obama win, and may the Congress double its liberal size. I wish it on every liberal and on every conservative.
Entelechy on May 14, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Reagan wept.
Game over, man. Game over.
You reap what you sow.
Dole, McCain, illegal immigration, spending like liberals, this stupid war.
Game over man. Game over.
Roger Waters on May 14, 2008 at 2:58 PM
David Vitter was found to have patronized a prostitution ring, the leader of which committed suicide when faced with a potential life-long jail sentence. Vitter fought against sinful things like gambling being legal. As far as I know, he hasn’t taken a stand to legalize prostitution. Why on earth should this guy not be in jail, let alone be a senator?
scotta on May 14, 2008 at 7:06 PM
Don’t be surprised to see some Republicans switch parties after the November elections. There isn’t much difference between the two parties anyway.
Log on May 14, 2008 at 7:23 PM
Need a cabana boy who speaks really good English?
Jaibones on May 14, 2008 at 7:36 PM
Vive Le Constitution Party!
SouthernGent on May 14, 2008 at 8:30 PM
McCain lovers - you will finally wake up one day and realize you are on the wrong side. That will make my day.
mariloubaker on May 14, 2008 at 10:01 PM
If you read Ann Coulter’s newest column, you might blame someone else - voters who believe that they are electing a “conservative Democrat”.
corona on May 15, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Have you ever heard of the IRS ?
Maxx on May 15, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Don’t know if the race-baiting swayed the election or not, but it’s very much a smear. Besides the fact that the actual statue in question was of Jefferson Davis, who had nothing to do with the KKK, they also had the statue confused with one of Nathan Bedford Forrest, who WAS NOT the founder of the KKK, though he was associated with it in the beginning.
Forrest did at first praise the KKK, when it originally was started as an organization to push back against the abuses of carpetbaggers during the Reconstruction. Unfortunately, as we all know, the KKK swiftly descended into a tool to oppress black people, and Forrest wound up not only dissociating from it, but even denouncing it. In 1869, he tried to disband it.
Forrest was a self-made businessman and a brilliant general. He was also an originator of some of the tactics used by special operations military ever since. He was a slave-owner who freed some of his slaves, who then became members of his elite guard and fought with him loyally against the Union.
It’s all very complicated. But for Forrest, at least, the KKK did not seem to be about race, and it appears he was appalled by their excesses and violence. He also appeared to have considerable interest in racial reconciliation.
Of course, to most people Forrest would be known for saying that war was about “getting there the fustest with the mostest.” Of course, he never actually said that.
theregoestheneighborhood on May 16, 2008 at 12:28 AM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3]