Thursday, November 16, 2006

New England Turns Bluer

Democrat Joe Courtney's defeat of incumbent Rep. Rob Simmons (R-CT) -- by just 91 votes -- leaves Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT) as the only House Republican from the six states that comprise New England.

Other New England Republican incumbents to lose were Nancy Johnson of Connecticut and Charles Bass of New Hampshire.

The region's lone Republican Senators are Olympia Snowe, who easily won re-election, and Susan Collins of Maine. Liberal Republican Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) was defeated by Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse.

31 Comments:

Anonymous trinity said...

David R. Mark said...
"Liberal Republican Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) was defeated by Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse."


Another of the "Gang of 14". Like Mike Dewine in Ohio, he got what he deserved.

12:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amen to that Trinity, but you got his name wrong. It's Lincoln Chaffing.

9:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Leave it to Repukes to condemn any fellow Republican who dares to speak up against Bush's failed Iraq war policy.

Place these same Repukes in a time machine. They would be cheering on Nixon and prolonging America's involvement in Vietnam.

9:45 AM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Is that the message: If you try to be bipartisan, the conservative base will leave you?

Nice.

But the reality is that Chafee probably didn't deserve to lose. He was caught up in the anti-Bush sentiment, even though he was clearly anti-Bush (he didn't vote for Bush in 2004, wasn't for the Iraq War, etc.) I don't think the voters condemned him for being in the Gang of 14.

As for DeWine, he was up against a better debater, at a time when the state Republicans were in huge trouble (not his trouble). He was in a hole from the get-go, and didn't dig out of it. Again, his membership in the Gang of 14 probably had little to do with his loss.

10:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chafee voted for cloture on the Alito nomination. A vote for cloture was as good as a vote for confirmation, and he knew it.

11:52 AM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

trinity said...

David R. Mark said...
"Liberal Republican Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) was defeated by Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse."

Another of the "Gang of 14". Like Mike Dewine in Ohio, he got what he deserved

Your idea that a bipartinship effort by Chafee to preserve the idea of debate in our republic form of government is a valid reason for his loss of enough votes from the repukes in his state(along with Dewine in Ohio) tell me a lot about the type of tyrrant you and any other repuke that agrees with you must be.

We are a republic not a democracy. A democracy is a system of government where the will of the majority rules, unrestricted by any law. We are a republic governed by our constitution and our laws.

The constitution was designed to preserve individual rights and to limit the power of government to the protection of individual rights. The founders opposed unlimited majority rule because they recognized that individual rights and liberty would be compromised by mob rule, that the will of the majority could be just as tyrannical as the will of a monarch. In short, they knew that just as monarchy did, so democracy( like total rule by the repukes)would, lead to the infringement of individual rights.

Trinity, I must say your postings and your thinking scares the hell out of me. If there are others that feel the way you do, then our republic is in a lot of trouble. Unfortunately, I feel your thinking is what many repukes are thinking today and that is what the voters said no to in the election.

1:10 PM  
Anonymous democrank said...

Thanks, JABBS.
The Charlie Bass defeat in New hampshire was a real stunner.

3:16 PM  
Anonymous filer said...

Congratulations and thanks to New Hampshire! My state of birth. Live Free Or Die!

3:16 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

whoop4467 said...
"We are a republic not a democracy. A democracy is a system of government where the will of the majority rules, unrestricted by any law. We are a republic governed by our constitution and our laws."


Whoop, I can assure you that I have a fairly comprehensive understanding of our representative republic. I understand it, I passionately embrace it, I absolutely value it, and I unabashedly love and treasure it.

You, my friend, are the one who has demonstrated a lack of knowledge and understanding of the filibuster issue with regard to Judicial nominees, and to be frank, I think you're most likely beyond being educated on the matter.

In any case, instead of accepting the distorted version of the issue that you've been spoonfed, why don't you exhibit some intellectual curiosity and do some research of your own on the subject?

FYI, Chafee and the other "Gang of 14" members were NOT on the right side of the U.S. Constitution here, despite what you might think. Thanks to misguided souls like McCain, Dewine, Graham et. al., an opportunity to reaffirm the proper procedure of confirming U.S. Supreme Court Justices was lost. Hopefully, the Republicans will revisit this problem before the Democratic majority is sworn in.

whoop4467 said...
"Trinity, I must say your postings and your thinking scares the hell out of me. If there are others that feel the way you do, then our republic is in a lot of trouble."


Substitute your own name there in place of mine, whoop, and I could have written that.

2:00 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"Is that the message: If you try to be bipartisan, the conservative base will leave you?"


It's not that, rob. Chafee was never really even a moderate Republican. He was the most liberal Republican in the Senate, and the only Republican Senator to vote against the War in Iraq.

Not only that, he even voted against President Bush's re-election in '04, and against the President's tax cuts. He should have just switched parties, but as he basically admitted, he stayed with the GOP mainly because it helped him bring federal dollars home to Rhode Island.

And rob, I have to admit that your above comment really cracked me up, considering what the Democrats did to Lieberman, just because he had the courage of his convictions to part with them on one single issue, namely, the war in Iraq. ONE issue, and they throw him overboard, even though he voted almost exclusively with Democrats.

You really are so funny! ;)

2:22 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

touche

2:54 PM  
Blogger Franz Kraus said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6:06 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

And rob, I have to admit that your above comment really cracked me up, considering what the Democrats did to Lieberman, just because he had the courage of his convictions to part with them on one single issue, namely, the war in Iraq. ONE issue, and they throw him overboard, even though he voted almost exclusively with Democrats.

As usual you display no understanding of what it was that pissed off the voters about Lieberman. It wasn't because he supported the war. It was because he adopted Dick Cheney's rhetoric in suggesting that if people didn't vote for him it would send a bad signal to the enemies, and that people who were against Joe were somehow traitors or appeasers.

That's why. Don't give this bullshit about what they "did" to Lieberman. What they "did" was have a "primary election" and the "voters voted in it." Which is of course, part of democracy.

10:56 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"As usual you display no understanding of what it was that pissed off the voters about Lieberman. It wasn't because he supported the war. It was because he adopted Dick Cheney's rhetoric in suggesting that if people didn't vote for him it would send a bad signal to the enemies, and that people who were against Joe were somehow traitors or appeasers.


Dave G., I'm becoming more and more convinced that you're simply a contrarian as well as a complete political moron.

Lieberman voted with the GOP on national security issues. Lamont won the primary because he had an anti-war platform. Period.

Do me a favor and ignore my posts from now on, and I'll do the same with yours.

12:59 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Lieberman voted with the GOP on national security issues. Lamont won the primary because he had an anti-war platform. Period.

Yes. This is true on some levels. But Hillary Clinton voted for the war. As did a number of other Democrats. Why didn't they face anything more than token opposition in the primary and Ned Lamont - who was not supported by the national party - found success in Connecticut? It wasn't just because Joe voted for the war. There were other reasons, as I've elucidated.


Do me a favor and ignore my posts from now on, and I'll do the same with yours.

Sorry. You dont' get a free pass around here. I'm not going to let your wild statements stand without demanding you back them up. You wanna call me names, fine, go for it, but I'm still not going to just give you a free pass.

1:41 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

trinity said...
whoop4467 said...
"We are a republic not a democracy. A democracy is a system of government where the will of the majority rules, unrestricted by any law. We are a republic governed by our constitution and our laws."

Whoop, I can assure you that I have a fairly comprehensive understanding of our representative republic. I understand it, I passionately embrace it, I absolutely value it, and I unabashedly love and treasure it.

You, my friend, are the one who has demonstrated a lack of knowledge and understanding of the filibuster issue with regard to Judicial nominees, and to be frank, I think you're most likely beyond being educated on the matter.

Trinity you may very well have a better understanding of our representative republic and be one of the best scholars on the subject, but it still does not make you perfect or love our constitution better than any one else, especially me. Sometimes too much knowledge makes a person think they should have the last and only word when it comes to patriotism or what they think is best for our nation. Our founding fathers had a lot of wisdom when they formed a republic form of government so that the wealthest, the smartest, and the most connected do not take control and rule by the mob rule. What I read of your post is that you support a movement by the repukes to take control of our government at whatever cost it takes. If it means supressing votes in any fashion or influencing votes by "fearmongering", by supporting a war on terrorism that may never end until only repukes are left on the earth, by the most devilish of shenanigans, by using emotional issues of abortion, homophobia, and gay marriage to keep certain un-informed people thinking by voting for repukes they are going to get these eliminated, you support wholeheartedly and with much justo!

I am sure glad our founding fathers were able to cooperate and debate with others they disagreed with so that we would have the type of government we have today. If they had thought the way you think we would be a real mess today. We have survived for quite a while. Democrats and Republicans individually are not the only ones that know what is best for us a nation, but sometimes it may take only a few to keep the majority from turning us into monarch rule or worse a Hitler/Saddam type of rule.

The filibuster is just but one of a thousand things that have been misused by all politicians. To me there are things much worse than the mis-use of the filibuster. What about politicians selling our government to the highest bidder? What about the abuse of power, the corruption, the few working hours, the partinship that causes more harm, voter fraud and all the hypocracy of politicians . Where is your outrage on some of these subjects? No, you want to harp on your being right about the filibuster!

5:26 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"But Hillary Clinton voted for the war. As did a number of other Democrats."


Voting for the war when they did took no courage on their part whatsoever. When things went well, they wanted to be a part of it. As soon as things got more difficult in Iraq, feckless politicians basically dropped their support for the mission, which in essence means dropping their support for the troops.

Summer soldiers, sunshine patriots, and armchair generals make me sick. Regardless of whether or not you are in favor of the war in Iraq, our troops are there now, and it would be disastrous for the Iraqi people, as well as for the entire Middle East and eventually the world, to remove them before the Iraqis can handle things on their own.

Lieberman, unlike some of you, understands this reality.

Dave G. said...
"Sorry. You dont' get a free pass around here. I'm not going to let your wild statements stand without demanding you back them up."


Don't be an idiot. I can choose to ignore you whenever I wish to, and I think fair-minded people here would know that it has nothing to do with my not being able to back up my statements.

5:46 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

trinity said...Summer soldiers, sunshine patriots, and armchair generals make me sick.

Hell, Trinity anybody that disagrees with you makes you sick! How about repukes that never become soldiers( and there are a lot of them) of any type, do they make you sick? You have to be one sickly person!

6:06 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

whoop4467 said...
"...but it still does not make you perfect or love our constitution better than any one else, especially me."


Please, whoop. I never said anything even remotely like that. I might perceive some of your posts as being somewhat naive or misguided, but one thing comes through loud and clear. You are a very sincere person. I've no doubt of that.

whoop4467 said...
"The filibuster is just but one of a thousand things that have been misused by all politicians."


Whoop, try to follow me here because it's important. I'm speaking specifically of using the filibuster to block a President's choice of judicial nominee from getting an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate as required in the Constitution.

So when you say that it's been misused in that way by ALL politicians, you would be absolutely wrong there. It has ONLY been misused in that way by DEMOCRAT politicians, and that blatant abuse needs to be stopped.

You claim to admire our Founding Fathers and the republic they handed down to us, right? Well, if you do, then you should be in favor of a judicial process that is in line with the one they defined in the Constitution.

6:12 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

whoop4467 said...
"How about repukes that never become soldiers( and there are a lot of them)"


Yes, there are a lot of them. Only about 1 or 2 percent of the general population ever joins the military, whoop.

Just as a matter of fact, however, the military is made up of more Republicans (conservatives) than Democrats (liberals) so I'm not sure why you keep throwing that line into so many of your posts, whoop.

6:19 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Lieberman, unlike some of you, understands this reality.

Really? What I seem to see is a guy who can't resist referring to people who disagree as 'emboldening the terrorists.' And you still haven't addressed that. You can only tell half the voters that they're appeasers and terrorists for so long until they get pissed, which is what they did.

9:40 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

If you say so.

1:40 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

trinity said Just as a matter of fact, however, the military is made up of more Republicans (conservatives) than Democrats (liberals) so I'm not sure why you keep throwing that line into so many of your posts, whoop.

That is bunch of hooey. How many Iraq war vets ran on the democrat ticket as opposed to the republican ticket? Getting a true and honest idea what political party a soldier leans toward is very biased toward whatever the party is of the current President. When I was in the military I would have said I favored whoever had the authority over me. Soldiers learn real fast who controls their destiny in the military. I would also say that only a small % of the soldiers have any political leanings or even vote. There may be a larger % of those that vote, may vote for the party of their current president and I would say that it is highly likely it is the officers that have the highest % of the votes. Officers are more aware that their promotion hinges upon their agreement of the political leanings of their superior officers that control their promotions. I know a little about how officers feel concerning their future promotions because I was in charge of maintainning officers records on the computer during my service on the post where I served in the Army.

I have told you this before and you keep saying your above crap.

My feeling for the best represntation of all political pursuasions in the military is to have a fair lottery type of draft. I feel the really best thing is there should be a mandatory one year of military service for all Americans so that we could all show we love our country equally.

2:43 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Three of my siblings have served, and seven of my cousins. None of them are Democrats, nor are most of the members of the military they know. And we were originally all from NY, too.

I stand by what I said. The majority of the troops are conservative, not liberal.

9:26 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

whoop4467 said...
"I feel the really best thing is there should be a mandatory one year of military service for all Americans so that we could all show we love our country equally.


So what you're suggesting is that people actually be forced into expressing their love for this country? Because that's sure what it seems like.

9:29 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Psssst! Whoop! I also forgot to point out that we do NOT all love our country equally. I mean, it would be nice if we did, but we don't. And you cannot "mandate" love either.

10:31 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

think fair-minded people here would know that it has nothing to do with my not being able to back up my statements. >>>

Uh, Trinity, I think you have one too many negatives in there. Unless you meant to say that you can't back up your statements.

:)

10:31 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

LOL I think you're right there, cutiepie. That was not a very well constructed sentence. :)

10:33 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

I don't think a year of mandatory military service at age 18 would necessarily be a bad thing, honestly.

10:05 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"I don't think a year of mandatory military service at age 18 would necessarily be a bad thing, honestly."


I have mixed feelings about it, Dave G. On the one hand I would agree that military training can do wonders to help instill discipline, personal responsibility and a sense of honor and direction in young people.

It's definitely a positive thing to be exposed to the idea that Country should be defined as being part of something bigger than oneself.

But on the other hand, as we know from the past, not everyone is willing to accept mandatory military service, and some even choose to leave the country in order to avoid it.

The military's argument against it makes sense as well. They say that they would prefer serving with those who are there by personal choice, a desire to serve and/or sense of duty, rather than someone who is being forced to serve, and I can understand that position as well.

In any case, as much as MTV and P. Diddy tried to scare young people into voting against President Bush in '04, warning that he would re-institute the draft, it's always been Democrats like Charlie Rangel who are behind the proposed legislation.

President Bush has always maintained that he would not support re-institution of the draft.

"I want every American to understand that, as long as I am president, there will be no draft,"

1:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I want every American to understand that, as long as I am president, there will be no draft," ...

until I change my mind, and try to convince you otherwise.

2:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares