From AmericaBlog today:
Losing Virginia was a devastating blow to the Republicans this year. But, it wasn't a fluke. As the demographics of Virginia, particularly the ever-expanding Northern VA suburbs change, the state is turning even bluer. All that GOP immigrant bashing, and there have been some vocal haters in Virginia like Corey Stewart from Prince William County, have only helped the Democrats increase their margins.
A post-election analysis in today's Washington Post shows just how much things have changed since the 2000 election:
In Northern Virginia's outer suburbs, a growing number of nonwhite residents, particularly Hispanics, are diminishing what had long been a big source of votes for Republican candidates. Loudoun, Prince William and Stafford counties and Manassas and Manassas Park have all experienced double-digit increases in the percentage of nonwhite residents since 2000. And in each of those locations, Democrats' share of the vote increased proportionally.
The nonwhite population of Prince William, for example, has grown by 13 percentage points since 2000. President-elect Barack Obama carried the county with almost 58 percent of the vote -- 13 points better than former vice president Al Gore did in the 2000 presidential race.
I guess all that immigrant bashing by Mr. Stewart in Prince William County paid off -- for the Democrats. Great strategy, VA GOP. And, what an amazing shift in population -- and Democratic vote.
The changing demographics helped the Democratic vote in other exurban counties, too:
Loudoun experienced a 12-point gain in the minority population since 2000, and Obama did 13 percentage points better than Gore did in 2000. Obama did 10 points better than Gore in Stafford, which saw a 10 percent increase in the minority population since 2000.
This shift, matched with historical Democratic strength in the inner suburbs, makes Northern Virginia a huge source of votes for Democrats. The region's size, compared with the rest of the state, threatens Republicans' ability to win statewide if Democrats can continue to get their voters to the poll, demographers and political scientists suggest.
"The transformation in Northern Virginia has been rapid and dramatic, and Obama came out of Northern Virginia with a margin of [213,000] votes, and that is very hard to overcome," said Ken Billingsley, director of demographics and information for the Northern Virginia Regional Commission. "In Prince William, the change has already occurred, and I am not the least bit surprised that Stafford, Spotsylvania and Fredericksburg are moving in that direction."
It's not the same Virginia it was just 10 years ago. That's something for which we can all be thankful.
This is deffinately good news for democrats. I honestly think that two elections that got George W. Bush elected were complete flukes. If you look at the trends from the '90's when Clinton was elected, the country was trending more blue. Only time will tell. I will have a more detailed analysis this week.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Anonymous Comments
I want to address something that occurred today. I received a comment from my post yesterday about George Bush. It was from an anonymous person. Now, I welcome all comments. I encourage comments, even if you do not agree with me. That is what makes this democracy so great. However, I do ask that you do not post anonymous comments. Have the balls to show who you are. That tells me you are ashamed of your beliefs and cannot stand up for them.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
President Bush Gets It Right...A First!
From Teagan Goddard's Politcal Wire:
"Frankly, I'm not going to miss the limelight all that much."-- President Bush, quoted by the AP, in a conversation with his sister about leaving the White House.
"Frankly, I'm not going to miss the limelight all that much."-- President Bush, quoted by the AP, in a conversation with his sister about leaving the White House.
And we are not going to miss him that much either. Less than two
months until Obama is sworn in. I hope we make it.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Florida Turning Purple-ish
Judge Rules Gay Adoption Ban Unconstitutional!
From the Miami Herald:
A Miami-Dade circuit judge Tuesday declared Florida's 30-year-old ban on gay adoption unconstitutional, allowing a North Miami man to adopt two foster kids he has raised since 2004.
In a 53-page order that sets the stage for what could become a constitutional showdown, Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman permitted 47-year-old Frank Gill to adopt the 4- and 8-year-old boys he and his partner have raised since just before Christmas four years ago. A child abuse investigator had asked Gill to care for the boys temporarily; they were never able to return to their birth parents.
''This is the forum where we try to heal children, find permanent families for them so they can get another chance at what every child should know and feel from birth, and go on to lead productive lives,'' Lederman said in court before releasing the order. ``We pray for them to thrive, but that is a word we rarely hear in dependency court.''
''These children are thriving; it is uncontroverted,'' the judge added.
Moments after Lederman released the ruling, attorneys for Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum announced they would appeal the decision to the Third District Court of Appeal in Miami.
''We respect the court's decision,'' said attorney Valerie Martin, who had argued in support of the ban during a weeklong trial Oct. 1-6. But, she added: ``Based upon the wishes of our client, the Department of Children & Families, we have filed a notice of appeal this morning.''
The attorney general's office had argued that gay men and lesbians are disproportionately more likely to suffer from mental illness or a substance abuse problem than straight people, rendering them less fit to parent -- especially children in foster care who already are under tremendous stress.
Gov. Charlie Crist, a former attorney general who has expressed support for the adoption ban, declined to comment Tuesday, saying he hadn't yet reviewed the ruling.
Gill, who is raising the half-brothers with his partner of eight years, said he was ''elated'' by the ruling.
''I cried tears of joy for the first time in my life,'' he told reporters outside Miami's juvenile courthouse at 3300 NW 27th Ave. His mother appeared with him in court.
The ban on adoption by gay families, he said, does not lead to more children being raised in traditional households, since foster and adoptive families have long been in short supply in Florida.
Instead, he said, ``It results in more children being left without any parents at all. They don't have a mom or a dad.''
Lederman, who overseas Miami's juvenile and child welfare courts, is the second judge this year to declare the state's blanket ban on adoption by gay men and lesbians unconstitutional.
In August, Monroe Circuit Judge David John Audlin Jr. wrote that Florida's 1977 gay adoption ban arose out of ''unveiled expressions of bigotry'' when the state was experiencing a severe backlash to demands for civil rights by gay people in Miami.
''Disqualifying every gay Floridian from raising a family, enjoying grandchildren or carrying on the family name, based on nothing more than lawful sexual conduct, while assuring child abusers, terrorists, drug dealers, rapists and murderers at least individualized consideration, `` Audlin wrote, was so ``disproportionately severe'' that it violates the state and U.S. Constitutions.
In her ruling, Lederman said children taken into state care have a ''fundamental'' right to be raised in a permanent adoptive home if they cannot be reunited with birth parents. Children whose foster parents are gay, she said, can be deprived of that right under the current law.
''The challenged statute, in precluding otherwise qualified homosexuals from adopting available children, does not promote the interests of children and, in effect, causes harm to the children it is meant to protect,'' Lederman wrote.
The judge added: ``There is no question the blanket exclusion of gay applicants defeats Florida's goal of providing [foster] children a permanent family through adoption.''
In a ruling that, at times, reads more like a social science research paper, Lederman dissected 30 years worth of psychological and sociological research, concluding that studies overwhelmingly have shown that gay people can parent every bit as effectively as straight people and do no harm to their children.
''Based on the evidence presented from experts from all over this country and abroad,'' Lederman wrote, ``it is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person's ability to parent. Sexual orientation no more leads to psychiatric disorders, alcohol and substance abuse, relationship instability, a lower life expectancy or sexual disorders than race, gender, socioeconomic class or any other demographic characteristic.
''The most important factor in ensuring a well-adjusted child is the quality of parenting,'' Lederman wrote.
Marc Caputo of The Miami Herald's Tallahassee bureau contributed to this story.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Day Without A Gay!
Day Without A Gay seeks to shift our strong feelings about injustice toward service! Let's fight for equality by out-loving those who would deny us rights. Call in "gay" on December 10th (International Human Rights Day) and volunteer for your local LGBT and/or human rights organizations.The New New Deal?
Tomorrow morning, President-Elect Obama will be introducing his economic team to the country in his second press conference since being elected the 44th President of the United States. He gave a hint at what the new team is going to be working on this weekend during the weekly Democratic Radio Address.
Newt's Little Sister Speaks
Here is a column Candice Gingrich wrote in Huffington Post today to her big brother and the gay community's best friend, Newt Gingrich.
Dear Newt,
I recently had the displeasure of watching you bash the protestors of the Prop 8 marriage ban to Bill O'Reilly on FOX News. I must say, after years of watching you build your career by stirring up the fears and prejudices of the far right, I feel compelled to use the words of your idol, Ronald Reagan, "There you go, again."
However, I realize that you may have been a little preoccupied lately with planning your resurrection as the savior of your party, so I thought I would fill you in on a few important developments you might have overlooked.
The truth is that you're living in a world that no longer exists. I, along with millions of Americans, clearly see the world the way it as -- and we embrace what it can be. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of looking for new ideas or moving beyond what worked in the past.
Welcome to the 21st century, big bro. I can understand why you're so afraid of the energy that has been unleashed after gay and lesbian couples had their rights stripped away from them by a hateful campaign. I can see why you're sounding the alarm against the activists who use all the latest tech tools to build these rallies from the ground up in cities across the country.
This unstoppable progress has at its core a group we at HRC call Generation Equality. They are the most supportive of full LGBT equality than any American generation ever -- and when it comes to the politics of division, well, they don't roll that way. 18-24 year olds voted overwhelmingly against Prop 8 and overwhelmingly for Barack Obama. And the numbers of young progressive voters will only continue to grow. According to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning, about 23 million 18-29 year olds voted on Nov. 4, 2008 -- the most young voters ever to cast a ballot in a presidential election. That's an increase of 3 million more voters compared to 2004.
These are the same people who helped elect Barack Obama and sent a decisive message to your party. These young people are the future and their energy will continue to drive our country forward. Even older Americans are turning their backs on the politics of fear and demagoguery that you and your cronies have perfected over the years.
This is a movement of the people that you most fear. It's a movement of progress -- and your words on FOX News only show how truly desperate you are to maintain control of a world that is changing before your very eyes.
Then again, we've seen these tactics before. We know how much the right likes to play political and cultural hardball, and then turn around and accuse us of lashing out first. You give a pass to a religious group -- one that looks down upon minorities and women -- when they use their money and membership roles to roll back the rights of others, and then you label us "fascists" when we fight back. You belittle the relationships of gay and lesbian couples, and yet somehow neglect to explain who anointed you the protector of "traditional" marriage. And, of course, you've also mastered taking the foolish actions of a few people and then indicting an entire population based on those mistakes. I fail to see how any of these patterns coincide with the values of "historic Christianity" you claim to champion.
Again, nothing new here. This is just more of the blatant hypocrisy we're used to hearing.
What really worries me is that you are always willing to use LGBT Americans as political weapons to further your ambitions. That's really so '90s, Newt. In this day and age, it's embarrassing to watch you talk like that. You should be more afraid of the new political climate in America, because, there is no place for you in it.
In other words, stop being a hater, big bro.
Dear Newt,
I recently had the displeasure of watching you bash the protestors of the Prop 8 marriage ban to Bill O'Reilly on FOX News. I must say, after years of watching you build your career by stirring up the fears and prejudices of the far right, I feel compelled to use the words of your idol, Ronald Reagan, "There you go, again."
However, I realize that you may have been a little preoccupied lately with planning your resurrection as the savior of your party, so I thought I would fill you in on a few important developments you might have overlooked.
The truth is that you're living in a world that no longer exists. I, along with millions of Americans, clearly see the world the way it as -- and we embrace what it can be. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of looking for new ideas or moving beyond what worked in the past.
Welcome to the 21st century, big bro. I can understand why you're so afraid of the energy that has been unleashed after gay and lesbian couples had their rights stripped away from them by a hateful campaign. I can see why you're sounding the alarm against the activists who use all the latest tech tools to build these rallies from the ground up in cities across the country.
This unstoppable progress has at its core a group we at HRC call Generation Equality. They are the most supportive of full LGBT equality than any American generation ever -- and when it comes to the politics of division, well, they don't roll that way. 18-24 year olds voted overwhelmingly against Prop 8 and overwhelmingly for Barack Obama. And the numbers of young progressive voters will only continue to grow. According to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning, about 23 million 18-29 year olds voted on Nov. 4, 2008 -- the most young voters ever to cast a ballot in a presidential election. That's an increase of 3 million more voters compared to 2004.
These are the same people who helped elect Barack Obama and sent a decisive message to your party. These young people are the future and their energy will continue to drive our country forward. Even older Americans are turning their backs on the politics of fear and demagoguery that you and your cronies have perfected over the years.
This is a movement of the people that you most fear. It's a movement of progress -- and your words on FOX News only show how truly desperate you are to maintain control of a world that is changing before your very eyes.
Then again, we've seen these tactics before. We know how much the right likes to play political and cultural hardball, and then turn around and accuse us of lashing out first. You give a pass to a religious group -- one that looks down upon minorities and women -- when they use their money and membership roles to roll back the rights of others, and then you label us "fascists" when we fight back. You belittle the relationships of gay and lesbian couples, and yet somehow neglect to explain who anointed you the protector of "traditional" marriage. And, of course, you've also mastered taking the foolish actions of a few people and then indicting an entire population based on those mistakes. I fail to see how any of these patterns coincide with the values of "historic Christianity" you claim to champion.
Again, nothing new here. This is just more of the blatant hypocrisy we're used to hearing.
What really worries me is that you are always willing to use LGBT Americans as political weapons to further your ambitions. That's really so '90s, Newt. In this day and age, it's embarrassing to watch you talk like that. You should be more afraid of the new political climate in America, because, there is no place for you in it.
In other words, stop being a hater, big bro.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Turkey of the Year Award
From Countdown with Keith Olberman last nite:
She really needs to get a clue. Conducting an interview in front of turkeys being slaughtered is not the best message to send to your constituents.
She really needs to get a clue. Conducting an interview in front of turkeys being slaughtered is not the best message to send to your constituents.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Joe's Gotta Go!
From Think Progress:
Apparently, Joe the Plumber has a book coming out on Dec. 1. Here is the blurb from Think Progress:
Apparently, Joe the Plumber has a book coming out on Dec. 1. Here is the blurb from Think Progress:
Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, aka “Joe the Plumber,” has signed a deal to write a
new book entitled “Joe the Plumber: Fighting for the American Dream.” To capitalize on his recent fame, Wurzelbacher is planning to release it on Dec. 1 – less than
two weeks from now. The New York Times reports that the book “will address
Mr. Wurzelbacher’s ideas about American values.” Wurzelbacher, who had
failed to payhis taxes and wasn’t licensed as a plumber, revealed during the campaign that he was once on welfare but is opposed to welfare programs. He also said, “Social Security’s a joke.”I am already waiting with baited breath and have a spot reserved on my toilet for this great literary masterpiece. One question I have though: Sinec it is coming out less then a month after the election, how long is this masterwork going to be?
Joe, just go AWAY!
HHS, DHS, AG, OMB, Oh My!
It has been a pretty good day for news surrounding President-Elect Obama's future cabinet appointments.
From Teagan Goddard's Political Wire:
CNN reports that Chicago businesswoman Penny Pritzker is President-elect Obama's choice to become Secretary of Commerce.
CNN reports that President-elect Obama has chosen Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (D) to be Secretary of Homeland Security pending further vetting by the transition team.
Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) has been offered the job of Health and Human Services secretary by President-elect Obama and has accepted the job, according to Roll Call."Daschle, who served in the Senate until he lost his re-election bid in 2004, also is set to take on the position of 'health care czar' in the Obama White House, ensuring that he does not get big footed on matters relating to health care policy."Earlier this year, Daschle released a book called Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.
President-elect Obama "is preparing to tap Congressional Budget Office Director Peter Orszag, once a veteran economic adviser in the Clinton White House, to become his budget director," according to the National Journal. "The Office of Management and Budget job -- seen as a key post to help Obama deliver on his domestic policy agenda amidst the gloom of a $700 billion federal financial rescue, a recession and the prospects of a $1 trillion deficit next year -- carries Cabinet rank. An announcement is expected soon, but could come with other personnel decisions Obama is making to lead the Treasury Department and National Economic Council in his White House."
President-elect Obama has decided to pick Eric Holder as his attorney general, "putting the veteran Washington lawyer in place to become the first African-American to head the Justice Department," Newsweek reports."Holder, who served as deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration, still has to undergo a formal 'vetting' review by the Obama transition team before the selection is final and is publicly announced, said one of the sources, who asked not to be identified talking about the transition process. But in the discussions over the past few days, Obama offered Holder the job and he accepted." "The announcement is not likely until after Obama announces his choices to lead the Treasury and State departments."
Now, I am not sure about you, but I think these are some very good appointments. It looks as though he is putting some very competent people in place to help change the country for the better.
I will have some thoughts on these appointments later on.
TTFN.
From Teagan Goddard's Political Wire:
CNN reports that Chicago businesswoman Penny Pritzker is President-elect Obama's choice to become Secretary of Commerce.
CNN reports that President-elect Obama has chosen Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (D) to be Secretary of Homeland Security pending further vetting by the transition team.
Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) has been offered the job of Health and Human Services secretary by President-elect Obama and has accepted the job, according to Roll Call."Daschle, who served in the Senate until he lost his re-election bid in 2004, also is set to take on the position of 'health care czar' in the Obama White House, ensuring that he does not get big footed on matters relating to health care policy."Earlier this year, Daschle released a book called Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.
President-elect Obama "is preparing to tap Congressional Budget Office Director Peter Orszag, once a veteran economic adviser in the Clinton White House, to become his budget director," according to the National Journal. "The Office of Management and Budget job -- seen as a key post to help Obama deliver on his domestic policy agenda amidst the gloom of a $700 billion federal financial rescue, a recession and the prospects of a $1 trillion deficit next year -- carries Cabinet rank. An announcement is expected soon, but could come with other personnel decisions Obama is making to lead the Treasury Department and National Economic Council in his White House."
President-elect Obama has decided to pick Eric Holder as his attorney general, "putting the veteran Washington lawyer in place to become the first African-American to head the Justice Department," Newsweek reports."Holder, who served as deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration, still has to undergo a formal 'vetting' review by the Obama transition team before the selection is final and is publicly announced, said one of the sources, who asked not to be identified talking about the transition process. But in the discussions over the past few days, Obama offered Holder the job and he accepted." "The announcement is not likely until after Obama announces his choices to lead the Treasury and State departments."
Now, I am not sure about you, but I think these are some very good appointments. It looks as though he is putting some very competent people in place to help change the country for the better.
I will have some thoughts on these appointments later on.
TTFN.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
She is the best top around! Keeps giving and giving and giving till it hurts us all!
I just saw this on Andrew Sullivans blog: The Daily Dish! Apparently, Gov. Palin is having some problems adjusting to life back home. Read for yourself.
What's All The Fuss About?
If you are an outside observer of the American Political Machine and just saw a snippet of a headline here or there, you would probably think that President-Elect Barack Obama was in a great deal of trouble. After all, people don't like his choice of Chief of Staff, Secretary of State, White House Council and Attorney General. There is also a great deal of criticism of him for wanting to help out the domestic automakers; GM, Chrysler and Ford. To top it all off, this morning there is new criticism about his plans to push forward on environmental policy. All of this before he has even taken the oath of office.
Well, I have some sound advice to anyone: Take a deep breath and exhale slowly. For all that is written about the "liberal" bias of the media, I am hard pressed to find any. In fact, I am pretty sure there is a "conservative" bias in the media. I turn on the morning news shows and all I hear are criticisms of every single appointment this man has made. I forget where I heard it this morning, but someone said that he is sending the wrong message by making these appointments. He is just following politics as usual. Well, I have a few words for these people: Get a life!
My biggest complaint comes from the anticipation of the announcement that Senator Hillary Clinton may be made Secretary of State. You would think the world was coming to an end. "How can he do this?" "What is he thinking?" "Why would he bring her on board?" "It is drawing too much attention away from him." "Bill is a problem." Well, let's take a look at something, shall we? Now, I don't even begin to understand how President-Elect Obama thinks, nor do I make any claims of knowing him personally (though I have gotten many text messages from him over the course of the campaign). But, I can assume that the decisions he is making are ones he sees as in the best interest of the country.
After eight years of someone giving cushy jobs to his cronies, it is nice to see someone actually making choices that are for the betterment of this nation. I believe that Senator Hillary Clinton would be an amazing choice for Secretary of State. Let's look at it this way: What other person in Washington has the kind of connections that Senator Clinton has? She has been in Washington since 1992 and has met scores of leaders and been to scores more countries. She is refined and I know that she would only have the best interests of this nation in mind when dealing with other world leaders.
Yes, pulling her out of the Senate does take a voice of opposition away from the President-Elect; however, it also puts that voice of opposition in the White House. It gives the Senator from New York a chance to really affect policy and a new direction for foreign affairs. President Bush is known to have surrounded himself with sycophants who grovel at his feet. How refreshing would it be to have a President who encourages an intelligent discourse of how to handle Iran, instead of just bombing them?
There may be a point when a Secretary Clinton says that the United States should invade Iran and President Obama asks why, he is not inclined to. Having that discussion (though I pray that it would never happen) is much more important than riding shotgun and screaming "yeehaw" around the beltway firing six-shooters and wearing a ten gallon hat. If President-Elect Obama is to have an informed opinion about the world and negotiate with our adversaries, then he is going to need someone who is going to be tough and ask the tough questions. Senator Hillary Clinton will do that.
Finally, I am sure there is one more thing that is probably weighing on the Junior Senator from New York's mind: She could have the chance to negotiate a Mideast Peace deal that eluded her husband. Not that I believe she and her husband are in a competition, but somehow I believe the crowning achievement for a Secretary Clinton would be to have that peace deal between Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and the rest of the Arab world. It would also be a defining moment in an Obama administration. Now that is something no one can criticize.
Well, I have some sound advice to anyone: Take a deep breath and exhale slowly. For all that is written about the "liberal" bias of the media, I am hard pressed to find any. In fact, I am pretty sure there is a "conservative" bias in the media. I turn on the morning news shows and all I hear are criticisms of every single appointment this man has made. I forget where I heard it this morning, but someone said that he is sending the wrong message by making these appointments. He is just following politics as usual. Well, I have a few words for these people: Get a life!
My biggest complaint comes from the anticipation of the announcement that Senator Hillary Clinton may be made Secretary of State. You would think the world was coming to an end. "How can he do this?" "What is he thinking?" "Why would he bring her on board?" "It is drawing too much attention away from him." "Bill is a problem." Well, let's take a look at something, shall we? Now, I don't even begin to understand how President-Elect Obama thinks, nor do I make any claims of knowing him personally (though I have gotten many text messages from him over the course of the campaign). But, I can assume that the decisions he is making are ones he sees as in the best interest of the country.
After eight years of someone giving cushy jobs to his cronies, it is nice to see someone actually making choices that are for the betterment of this nation. I believe that Senator Hillary Clinton would be an amazing choice for Secretary of State. Let's look at it this way: What other person in Washington has the kind of connections that Senator Clinton has? She has been in Washington since 1992 and has met scores of leaders and been to scores more countries. She is refined and I know that she would only have the best interests of this nation in mind when dealing with other world leaders.
Yes, pulling her out of the Senate does take a voice of opposition away from the President-Elect; however, it also puts that voice of opposition in the White House. It gives the Senator from New York a chance to really affect policy and a new direction for foreign affairs. President Bush is known to have surrounded himself with sycophants who grovel at his feet. How refreshing would it be to have a President who encourages an intelligent discourse of how to handle Iran, instead of just bombing them?
There may be a point when a Secretary Clinton says that the United States should invade Iran and President Obama asks why, he is not inclined to. Having that discussion (though I pray that it would never happen) is much more important than riding shotgun and screaming "yeehaw" around the beltway firing six-shooters and wearing a ten gallon hat. If President-Elect Obama is to have an informed opinion about the world and negotiate with our adversaries, then he is going to need someone who is going to be tough and ask the tough questions. Senator Hillary Clinton will do that.
Finally, I am sure there is one more thing that is probably weighing on the Junior Senator from New York's mind: She could have the chance to negotiate a Mideast Peace deal that eluded her husband. Not that I believe she and her husband are in a competition, but somehow I believe the crowning achievement for a Secretary Clinton would be to have that peace deal between Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and the rest of the Arab world. It would also be a defining moment in an Obama administration. Now that is something no one can criticize.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
58 and Counting!
From the AP:
The Associated Press has projected that GOP Senator and convicted felon Ted Stevens has lost re-election, with the final major batch of absentee ballots giving Democratic challenger Mark Begich an insurmountable lead.
The current vote count: Begich 150,728 votes, Stevens 147,004 votes. Begich's lead of 3,724 votes is greater than the roughly 2,500 outstanding ballots. By percentage, the 1.18% lead is beyond the 0.5% threshold that would have entitled Stevens to a state-funded recount.
Even if every last single outstanding ballot went to Stevens -- an unlikely scenario, to say the least -- he would still lose, and even if they broke for Stevens by a strong margin it would still likely be outside of the state-paid recount threshold.
Begich will be the first Democrat to represent deep-red Alaska at the federal level since Mike Gravel was defeated for re-election to the Senate in 1980. This also brings the Democrats to a total of 58 Senate seats, with the GOP-held Minnesota and Georgia seats still up for grabs.
Late Update: The Anchorage Daily News has now called the race for Begich.
Late Late Update: Here's something to think about, adding insult to injury: Today was Stevens' birthday.
_______________________________________
What does this mean? It means that Democrats, with the help of Sens. Lieberman and Sanders have an 8 votte majority in the U.S. Senate. It also means, they are only 2 seats short of a super majority. That would make the Republican's attempts at fillibusters a moot point. Although much has been written about Sen. Lieberman's campaigning with Sen. McCain during the Presidential Campaign, having him on our side is a good thing and keeping him on our side is even better.
The Associated Press has projected that GOP Senator and convicted felon Ted Stevens has lost re-election, with the final major batch of absentee ballots giving Democratic challenger Mark Begich an insurmountable lead.
The current vote count: Begich 150,728 votes, Stevens 147,004 votes. Begich's lead of 3,724 votes is greater than the roughly 2,500 outstanding ballots. By percentage, the 1.18% lead is beyond the 0.5% threshold that would have entitled Stevens to a state-funded recount.
Even if every last single outstanding ballot went to Stevens -- an unlikely scenario, to say the least -- he would still lose, and even if they broke for Stevens by a strong margin it would still likely be outside of the state-paid recount threshold.
Begich will be the first Democrat to represent deep-red Alaska at the federal level since Mike Gravel was defeated for re-election to the Senate in 1980. This also brings the Democrats to a total of 58 Senate seats, with the GOP-held Minnesota and Georgia seats still up for grabs.
Late Update: The Anchorage Daily News has now called the race for Begich.
Late Late Update: Here's something to think about, adding insult to injury: Today was Stevens' birthday.
_______________________________________
What does this mean? It means that Democrats, with the help of Sens. Lieberman and Sanders have an 8 votte majority in the U.S. Senate. It also means, they are only 2 seats short of a super majority. That would make the Republican's attempts at fillibusters a moot point. Although much has been written about Sen. Lieberman's campaigning with Sen. McCain during the Presidential Campaign, having him on our side is a good thing and keeping him on our side is even better.
How Much? For What?
It seems as though everyone's favorite governor, Sarah Palin is in the process of negotioating a book deal, reportedly worth $7,000,000.00! That's right folks. 7 Million Dollars. From Americablog:
$7 million book deal for Palin?
Joe Sudbay (DC) · 11/18/2008 09:44:00 AM ET · Link
Make a comment · reddit · FARK · Digg It! · Stumble It!
Seven million dollars? For what? When I heard this reported on the news this morning, I didn't quite believe it. But, then again, prominent GOP lesbian Mary Cheney got $1 million for a book about nothing that nobody bought. So, this is one of those inside deals, probably aided by some GOPer in the publishing business, to make Palin rich enough that she can run for president without having anyone else buy her clothes:
Sarah Palin has garnered more than fame from her failed Vice-Presidential bid. She is reportedly close to making a book deal for $7 million.
"Bill Clinton made over $10 million for his deal seven years ago," a publishing insider told Radar. "That was more than any other former President."
Palin offers more than just a political memoir with flashes of sexual mea culpa.
"She has huge appeal to a segment of the female reading public, and her private life hasn't been an open book," our source told us. "Not yet."
The book would be crafted with a ghost-writer and the goal will be to get it in stores in time for Christmas of next year.
Her private life? Ick. We know enough already. Seven million dollars for what?
I can forgive John McCain for a lot of his campaign rhetoric. But, I don't think I'll ever forgive him for inflicting Palin on us.
$7 million book deal for Palin?
Joe Sudbay (DC) · 11/18/2008 09:44:00 AM ET · Link
Make a comment · reddit · FARK · Digg It! · Stumble It!
Seven million dollars? For what? When I heard this reported on the news this morning, I didn't quite believe it. But, then again, prominent GOP lesbian Mary Cheney got $1 million for a book about nothing that nobody bought. So, this is one of those inside deals, probably aided by some GOPer in the publishing business, to make Palin rich enough that she can run for president without having anyone else buy her clothes:
Sarah Palin has garnered more than fame from her failed Vice-Presidential bid. She is reportedly close to making a book deal for $7 million.
"Bill Clinton made over $10 million for his deal seven years ago," a publishing insider told Radar. "That was more than any other former President."
Palin offers more than just a political memoir with flashes of sexual mea culpa.
"She has huge appeal to a segment of the female reading public, and her private life hasn't been an open book," our source told us. "Not yet."
The book would be crafted with a ghost-writer and the goal will be to get it in stores in time for Christmas of next year.
Her private life? Ick. We know enough already. Seven million dollars for what?
I can forgive John McCain for a lot of his campaign rhetoric. But, I don't think I'll ever forgive him for inflicting Palin on us.
BACK FOR MORE!
I am back. I have been working on trying to seperate my two blogs and distinguish the content on both of them. I think I have finally been able to do that. Stay tuned in the next couple of days and you will start to see more postings.
Thank you for your patience.
Thank you for your patience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)