Lawson:

Quote :

"David Price is Wrong on Afghanistan 6/24/2010 During the primary, I stated my support for North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones' resolution to withdraw our forces from Afghanistan. David Price disagreed, however, voting against H. Con Res 2478 and supporting our troops by bringing them home. let's review: in order to protect our supply lines in Afghanistan, we're paying contractors for security, who are then paying off local warlords to allow the shipments through. These warlords are allied with insurgents, however, so money paid to the warlords is then used to support the Taliban This conundrum has a simple answer -- bring our troops home. When we allow our military to be used as an occupying police force, we put our troops at greater risk while worsening our national security. The role of our military is to defend American lives. That includes the lives of our troops themselves. It's time to focus on defending our own border, and retaking southern Arizona from the narcotics gangs occupying our backyard"

Do more Americans think there is a bigger threat at the southern border than there is in Afghanistan?

http://www.lawsonforcongress.com/posts/david-price-is-wrong-on-afghanistan

6/25/2010 10:28:13 AM

There might be a case to be made for it. There's certainly a lot of drug- and gang-related violence going on in northern Mexico, and some of it has spilled out into towns on the US-side of the border. The folks that live in border towns, such as here in Texas, have a right to be fearful of the escalation.

6/25/2010 10:40:15 AM

6/25/2010 12:04:10 PM

Lawson is too socially conservative to take the 4th district. Lawson is anti-choice, anti-gay marriage, anti-federal funding for education/research in the research triangle, which is basically the whole district he is running in. He lost Orange County last time in particular on the order of 71.57%to 28.43%.

And if I recall correctly he referred to one of his GOP opponents as supporting communism.

I'm pro-public transit, pro-environmental protections, pro-funding education/research for public universities (like NCSU), and I think those are fairly common viewpoints in Durham, Orange, & western half of Wake so I don't think Lawson can win here in the triangle district. Now if he wants to move about 10 miles down the road and challenge Etheridge, I think he'd have a real shot.

[Edited on June 25, 2010 at 3:50 PM. Reason : .]

6/25/2010 3:49:58 PM

Are you for murdering people in Afghanistan? If so, go ahead and vote for David price. Their blood will be on your hands.

Focus a little less on things that aren't going to change at the federal level anyway (same sex marriage, abortion) and a little more on the things that actually matter - getting back to a real budget, and putting an end to perpetual war for the benefit of the state.

Unfortunately, I already know the sad truth. "Chapel Hill liberals" won't vote on the issues that matter. They'll vote for anything with a D next to it.

6/25/2010 4:36:55 PM

Quote :

"He lost Orange County last time in particular on the order of 71.57%to 28.43%. "

You've got a pretty different political environment this time around, Supp. I don't think the throngs of "Hope and Changers" are going to get off the couch for a boring mid-term election. Many of them are also disappointed in Obama's results.

On the other hand, you've got a lot of pissed off conservatives who want to send a message to the liberals running Washington.

Now... also from Lawson;s website:

Quote :

"I will also work at the federal level to end taxpayer funding for abortions/"family planning" and support legislation defining life as beginning at conception."

I agree with ending federal funding for a lot of things including this. But I don't support his wish to have the federal gov't define when life begins. I believe it is up to the states to decide at which point during a pregnancy that an abortion is considered murder.

As for gay marriage. He may be against it..but he also doesn't believe it is up to the fed. gov't to be involved with the definition of what a "marriage" is.

Quote :

"I separate marriage as a holy commitment from the legal contract that engages our civil codes, and do not support giving the federal government more of a role in defining the sacrament of marriage -- defining marriage is the job of churches, not of government. The issue of community property and family law is a state issue, not a federal one, and should remain at the state level."

Your third point is that Lawson is against federal spending for education/research in the Research Triangle. Look, the gov't is broke. It shouldn't be pouring more money we don't have into any pork projects.

Quote :

"David Price supports President Obama's unprecedented $3.8 trillion budget, with an expected $1.6 trillion one-year deficit. The national debt is growing exponentially, most recently topping $12.5 trillion. President Obama's budget inexplicably ignores $6.3 trillion in liabilities from the government's takeover of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. We have an unsustainable long-term entitlement burden of over $100 trillion for Social Security and Medicare. Our federal government's balance sheet and income statement are a disaster, and by any GAAP analysis would render us insolvent."

6/25/2010 11:46:20 PM

i would rather my brother be sent to mexico than afghanistan as previously thought about

i just hope he isn't labeled cut and run

6/26/2010 1:38:43 AM

The NY Times has now identified the NC District 4 seat as "in play", which is a switch from early 2010, when the Times declared this seat "safe" for Democrats.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/house

6/29/2010 11:16:27 AM

EarthDogg would prefer 50 individual countries rather than one nation. Doesn't that make him a traitor?

6/29/2010 12:53:55 PM

6/29/2010 1:27:41 PM

Quote :

"EarthDogg would prefer 50 individual countries rather than one nation. Doesn't that make him a traitor?"

You should read the Federalist Papers sometime.

6/29/2010 1:35:21 PM

Here's an video interview with David Price...

http://news.mync.com/site/news/video/11923/Congressman_David_Price__D__NC_District_4/

"The worst thing you could do is give the cay keys back to the guy who drove the car into the ditch in the first place."
Of course, the reporter didn't point out that the democrats have held the congress for the past 4 years. They're the ones who were driving the car.

His two most productive votes in his 20 year stint? His vote for the tax hike in '93 and his vote on ObamaCare. And getting a pork-barrel EPA lab built in his district.

and here is a video interview with Price's opponent BJ Lawson.

http://news.mync.com/site/news/video/11921/BJ_Lawson__R__Congressional_Candidate_NC_District_4/

"Prosperity doesn't come from Washington. So what we need is Less Government Spending, Less Taxes, Less Regulation. And we need to free up the businesses and entrepreneurs right in our community to do what they do best..which is to serve their customers."

8/24/2010 12:29:25 PM

As many congressmen who have districts than span multiple cities, he has an office in each to meet with constituents so at any given time he is necessarily not at more than one of them which makes me find this video a bit disingenuous:



And from this month:

http://www.orangepolitics.org/2010/08/lawson-push-polling-in-nc-4

Quote :

"votes with Nancy Pelosi more than any other member of Congress. If this makes you more likely to vote for him, press 1. If it makes you less likely, press 2." Final question, same button choices: "BJ Lawson is a father, a medical doctor, and a successful small businessman who is reported to have strong grassroots support who will lower taxes and restore the Constitution blah blah blah..." The most interesting question was about whether or not I supported Federal regulations that may add burdens to local and small farmers who sell at Farmer's Markets. Perhaps Lawson is trying this out as a wedge issue against Price? "

Where does Lawson stand on the regulation of large drilling operations like that of BP? Or even on the existence of the EPA?


I think he'd make a better republican challenger to Etheridge. Found this photo on his fb page in an album called "Tax day Tea Party." Tea Party rallies just aren't going to win you many voters in Orange & Durham & western Wake. Whereas district 2 has southern wake and the surrounding less urban districts where he could do better than the triangle.

[Edited on August 24, 2010 at 1:12 PM. Reason : .]

8/24/2010 12:58:52 PM

Quote :

"His two most productive votes in his 20 year stint?"

Some examples from That's My Congress: "The following are positive progressive actions taken by Congressman Price during the 111th Congress"

So I read that to be just since in the past couple of years (might not all be great examples, just skimmed it really quick & grabbed a few, but I think this at least does contain some examples to prove recent productivity that you're concerned about... & this isn't to say David is great, its just to counter act your presentation of no recent productivity):

---------------------

Amendment 35 to H.R. 2647

In June of 2009, Congressman Rush Holt introduced Amendment 35 to H.R. 2647 as a countercurrent to the current push for coverup in American military and interrogation activities. Amendment 35 requires military interrogations to be videotaped, with an exception provided at times when there may not be time to set up a camera.

The idea of required videotaping for interrogations is not an external imposition forced upon the military, but an internal recommendation of the Walsh Report in January of 2009, which states:

We endorse the use of video recording in all camps and for all interrogations. The use of video recording to confirm humane treatment could be an important enabler for detainee operations. Just as internal controls provide standardization, the use of video recordings provides the capability to monitor performance and to maintain accountability.

The Holt Amendment passed in a roll call vote by a margin of 224-193.

Rep. Price has acted progressively by voting YES to pass this measure.


---------------------

H.R. 1024

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any State deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. These are the American standards of nondiscrimination, chiseled into our legal bedrock in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. How seriously do members of Congress take this section of the U.S. Constitution? H.R. 1024 is a test.

H.R. 1024, the Uniting American Families Act, is a bill which aims to put into closer compliance with the U.S. Constitution by removing discrimination according to the status of permanent couples. According to law, same-sex couples in permanent relationships cannot marry; only different-sex couples can. The creates two classes of couple in the United States. They are separate. Are they equal? Not currently. Under current immigration law, married immigrant spouses of citizens and permanent residents have a preferred route toward gaining permanent resident status themselves. Unmarried partners of citizens and permanent residents have this avenue closed to them. That is unequal treatment under law for immigrants under American jurisdiction, and it is an unequal abridgment of legal privilege for the citizens whose permanent partners wish to join them.

Introduced by New York Democrat Jerrold Nadler, the Uniting American Families Act would end this status discrimination by amending various the immigration laws that discriminate against same-sex couples when one member of a couple is a citizen or permanent resident and the other is seeking citizenship or residency status.

Rep. Price has acted progressively by cosponsoring this bill.


---------------------

H.R. 11

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is a decent bill that seeks to amend an injustice and provide a fair shot at equality in the workplace. It simply says that workers cannot be expected to file suit for compensation for wage discrimination before they actually find out that they’ve been discriminated against. A previous court case, decided against a worker named Lilly Ledbetter, had declared that workers must file a lawsuit within a few months of the time that wage discrimination begins, even if they are unaware of the discrimination at the time. H.R. 11 seeks to remove this preposterous restriction on workplace equality.

Rep. Price has acted progressively by voting YES to pass this measure.

---------------------

H.R. 1310

H.R. 1310, the Clean Water Protection Act, would end the old practice in mountaintop mining of just taking all the heavy-metal-polluted rubble, calling it "fill material," and dumping it into streams from which toxins leach into water supplies and deadly, muddy floodwaters are regularly unleashed.

In 2002, the Bush administration declared that toxin-laden debris from mountaintop removal could be declared "fill material" and dumped into mountain waterways. H.R. 1310 would declare such activity, already dangerous to human health and natural ecosystems, to be illegal.

Rep. Price has acted progressively by cosponsoring this bill.

---------------------

H.R. 2

The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 makes 4 million children who are currently without health insurance eligible to be added to the rolls of the the State Children Health Insurance Program. This legislation isn't some kind of entitlement to a group of people responsible for their own economic vulnerability. It is the fault of no child to be born into a poor family. Rather, this Act is a wise investment in America's future: healthy children grow up to become productive adults.

Rep. Price has acted progressively by voting YES to pass this measure.

---------------------

H.R. 2517

Since the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in the 1990s, successive Congresses have made it clear, either loudly or meekly, that there is no intention to give same-sex couples the right to marry at the federal level. H.R. 2517, also known as the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009, would grant same-sex domestic partners of federal workers the same benefits as federal workers' different-sex spouses. For proponents of equality under law in America, this is a step forward for same-sex couples, albeit at a less ambitious scale than full-fledged same-sex marriage.

Rep. Price has acted progressively by cosponsoring this bill.


---------------------

8/24/2010 1:06:30 PM

H.R. 35

Essential to the structure of the Constitution is the concept of the balance of powers between the three branches of government. That balance was disturbed in November of 2001, when George W. Bush issued Executive Order No. 13233. That executive order thwarted the intention of the law by declaring that sitting presidents, former presidents, and even the heirs of former presidents, would have the power to deny the release of public White House records.

Congress and the Judicial Branch cannot check the power of the White House without knowledge of the Executive apparatus that the White House has put into place. Bush executive order interfered with the system of government oversight and review the Constitution put into place. The Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2009, H.R. 35, ended this interference by specifically counteracting Executive Order No. 13233.

Rep. Price has acted progressively by voting YES to pass this measure.


---------------------

H.R. 3567

If passed, the Respect for Marriage Act of 2009 (H.R. 3567) would repeal DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. Enacted in the 1990s, DOMA removed the presumption (based in the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution) that same-sex marriages carried out in one state would be recognized in other states or by the federal government. H.R. 3567 would restore cross-state and federal recognition, recognition that different-sex marriages continue to enjoy.

Rep. Price has acted progressively by cosponsoring this bill.

---------------------

H.R. 591

The Military Commissions Act is one of the worst laws to be passed by Congress during the Bush years. It revoked the ancient protection of the writ of habeas corpus, enabling arbitrary and indefinite imprisonment. The law ended the right to a fair and speedy trial, setting up a system of kangaroo courts that could operate under absurdly unjust standards. The law gave retroactive immunity to the President and his aides for war crimes. It created unconstitutional exceptions to the Geneva Conventions. It made hearsay and evidence obtained under coercive interrogation admissible.

Under President Barack Obama, the Military Commissions Act is still on the books. It is true that the prisons of Guantanamo Bay and other "black sites" run by the U.S. around the world will be closed... but the laws that enabled them remain in effect. As long as the Military Commissions Act remains on the books, any closure of prisons like those at Guantanamo will be purely voluntary... and wholly reversible.

The surest way to overcome this problem is not just to rely on the trustworthiness of the President of the United States, but to enact a law that specifically contradicts and counteracts the Military Commissions Act. U.S. Representative David Price has introduced legislation to do just that. It’s H.R. 591, the Interrogation and Detention Reform Act. It does away with the unconstitutional military tribunal system. It does away with torture interrogations. It repeals the repeal of habeas corpus and returns constitutional legal protections to the American justice system. Those members of Congress who support H.R. 591 show the most fidelity to their oath of office pledge that they defend the liberties inherent in the Constitution of the United States.

Rep. Price has acted progressively by cosponsoring this bill.

---------------------

Patrick Amendment to H.R. 5136

Substantively, the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy weakens the strained U.S. military by kicking people out with good service records. There is a more formal problem with DADT as well: the policy to discriminate, to kick people out of the military because of their sexual orientation, is a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Patrick Murphy's amendment to repeal the policy is an amendment not only lending substantive benefit to the military and to lesbian and gay servicemembers, but also providing strength to constitutional government.

Rep. Price has acted progressively by voting YES to pass this measure.

---------------------

Motion to Concur on Patriot Act

On February 25, 2010, the House of Representatives passed an extension of Patriot Act provisions for spying on Americans without establishment of probable cause or so much as a demonstration that the person being spied upon is even tangentially connected to terrorism. This reauthorization of the most controversial of Patriot Act powers made it through the House hidden within Medicare legislations and contained no reforms whatsoever.

Rep. Price has acted progressively by voting NO, against this regressive measure.

8/24/2010 1:06:55 PM

Quote :

""His two most productive votes in his 20 year stint?""

Those are the two votes that he, David Price, thinks were the most important. Two 'Yes' votes on horrible bills that grow more federal power over us. His answer to the question reveals his mind-set as a big gov't liberal.

Time for the old man to come home.

[Edited on August 24, 2010 at 10:06 PM. Reason : .]

8/24/2010 10:05:40 PM

Encouraging Update:

Quote :

"RALEIGH, N.C., September 7, 2010 – William (B.J.) Lawson, MD, Republican challenger to Rep. David Price in North Carolina’s Fourth District, announces a turning point in his campaign as a recent poll shows that 46.5 percent of likely voters would elect him, as opposed to 46.1 percent who would vote to re-elect 22-year incumbent Rep. Price. This poll was conducted in mid-August by Action Solutions, which carries out its polls via a state-of-the-art automated telephone system using standard statistical methods to select a representative sample of registered voters. Action Solutions polled 1,038 registered likely voters here in the Fourth District – respondents included 45.4 percent Democrat, 28.2 percent Republican, 23.6 percent Unaffiliated and 2.8 percent other/third party – which accurately reflects the expected off-year turnout in the district. Other data from respondents included: • 95 percent were "very likely” to vote in the November midterm elections • 71 percent believe that Congress is doing a poor job here in the Fourth District • 52 percent do not think government spending helps the economy "

http://www.lawsonforcongress.com/posts/bj-lawson-polling-ahead-of-rep-david-price

9/8/2010 1:47:04 AM

^Wonder if that internal poll is the result of this (the push poll I mentioned earlier when it was happening)?

Quote :

"votes with Nancy Pelosi more than any other member of Congress. If this makes you more likely to vote for him, press 1. If it makes you less likely, press 2." Final question, same button choices: "BJ Lawson is a father, a medical doctor, and a successful small businessman who is reported to have strong grassroots support who will lower taxes and restore the Constitution blah blah blah..." The most interesting question was about whether or not I supported Federal regulations that may add burdens to local and small farmers who sell at Farmer's Markets. Perhaps Lawson is trying this out as a wedge issue against Price? "

I also noticed in looking at his site (when trying to learn about this internal poll) that he's bragging about having the endorsement of Virginia Foxx, and that he denounces "comprehensive immigration reform" as just other words for "amnesty" in the video attached to this ad:



[Edited on September 8, 2010 at 3:53 AM. Reason : .]

9/8/2010 3:45:39 AM

The over-riding issue this year is the failing economy. People have watched Obama's anti-business approach fail. David Price never once wavered from voting with Obama/Pelosi.

He voted for the bail-outs, he voted for cap n tax, and he will vote to raise taxes on the job-creators.

9/8/2010 9:39:03 AM

I met Lawson at his town hall at the Carolina Brewery a few weeks ago. He's a real douche and he will lose.

9/8/2010 10:51:05 AM

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/09/08/669587/lawson-trumpets-poll-showing-lead.html

For whatever it's worth. I don't really buy it.

9/8/2010 4:06:59 PM

^I think I recognize somebody's catch phrase in one of those comments on that article you posted.

uncleron:

Quote :

"(cue whistling past the graveyard). Nothing to see here folks, move along."

EarthDogg:

Quote :

"Funny. But I think you're whistling past the socialist grave-yard. You're whistling past the 2010 democrat grave-yard my friend. Listen... Liberals whistling past the grave-yard. You can whistle past the graveyard all you want"

9/8/2010 4:39:14 PM

^
As the official over-user of the term, I think uncleron isn't using it in the correct way.

My use of "Whistling" was referring to the fact that democrats were writing off the anger of the country over the sputtering economy and over-spending.

But I think the whistling is over. Democrat politicians know that they are probably going to get shellacked this November. They are no longer whistling, they are sweating.

9/8/2010 11:16:04 PM

If you're in the 4th district, or even if you're not, I'd watch the video here: http://www.lawsonforcongress.com/posts/on-the-record-with-david-crabtree

It lays out, pretty well I'd say, the fundamental differences between Lawson and Price. I don't see how anyone can watch this and still think voting for Price is a good idea. The only thing Price can do in the face of well reasoned positions is throw his hands in the air and feign disbelief.

10/16/2010 1:50:25 PM

538 has it at 96.35% chance of not changing hands.

Here is the latest attack ad out of the Price camp, I saw it on tv like 3 times yesterday (not saying I agree w/ it, just passing it along):

10/16/2010 3:19:10 PM

Fuck, I don't like either of them.

10/18/2010 12:42:49 PM

So don't vote for either?

That ad is a little funny, though. It correctly asserts that Lawson wants to get rid of the DoE (though, of course, it fails to mention that he wants these things taken care of at the state/local level instead), but then ends up saying that property taxes will be higher? Why? Because of all that money we'll be saving by having our taxes stay here? Oh, that's right. The ad also failed to mention that we give more to the DoE than we get back. Silly them. Must have been an honest mistake.

Besides that, its just a laughably bad ad. The fact that he hasn't had to campaign, well...ever, really starts to show. The Indy picked up on that during the debate as well.

Other than that, it looks like Lawson's stalker has finally "helped" Price is some manner now with that quote about the DoE.

10/18/2010 3:35:05 PM

Saw a Lawson ad & Price ad last night during the same commercial break. They both basically called each other the worst politician ever. I'm that helped inform the electorate.

11/1/2010 5:56:59 AM

It really is pretty exciting that we get a chance to vote for BJ Lawson today. It's not often you get to vote for someone in your district that will make national news if he wins because he's considered such a great candidate for America.

If he manages to somehow win in this liberal arts fairyland district of all places it really does show that a lot of Americans are ready to grow up and accept the challenges of the real world.

I know some of you guys are younger and haven't grown up yet, but this is truly a vote you may never get to take back so do the right thing. Opportunities to purge the system of slime like Price and replace him with someone who is willing to speak his mind about protecting the national interest don't come along often.

[Edited on November 2, 2010 at 4:05 AM. Reason : GO BJ]

11/2/2010 4:01:01 AM

Quote :

"The only thing Price can do in the face of well reasoned positions is throw his hands in the air and feign disbelief."

Right now, this is the dominant response of a institutionalized left which simply cannot fathom how to deal with a proto-libertarian resurgance from the right. The dominant political model from both sides for the last 60 years has been, "elect me and I'll spend money like xyz". This year, for the first time in decades, there has been a sizable electoral force who wants less from government. Whatever your opinion of that movement, the political establishment (on both sides) is at a loss on how to address this within their established governing paradigm. The GOP can capitolize on this b/c they've had a small government narrative for years (narrative, not execution) and can comfortably parrot this line. On the other hand, a DP simply doesn't have the vocabulary to deal with it.



Anyway . . . interesting data on who is spending money on whom in the race from OpenSecrets.org

Quote :

"Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu $10,000 International Assn of Fire Fighters $10,000 Honeywell International $9,500 Duke University $8,200 National Assn of Realtors $8,000 Communications Workers of America $7,500 United Transportation Union $7,500 Harris Corp $7,000 Raytheon Co $6,000 UNC $5,550 American Dental Assn $5,500 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $5,500 Air Line Pilots Assn $5,000 American Assn for Justice $5,000 American Crystal Sugar $5,000 American Federation of Teachers $5,000 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $5,000 Lockheed Martin $5,000 Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union $5,000 Operating Engineers Union $5,000 "

Quote :

"Nephropathology Assoc $9,600 John P Koeppel MD $4,700 Rex Healthcare $3,000 Duke University $2,400 Education Center $2,400 Hatksas Venture Partners $2,400 Hillbrook Ltd $2,400 Captive-Aire Inc $2,000 Gsk $2,000 Health Start Academy $2,000 Invidia Corp $2,000 National Store Fixtures $1,500 Trialcard Inc $1,500 Gospodarek Cpa $1,250 Howard Simon & Assoc $1,250 Ameriprise Financial $1,000 Bavarian Waste $1,000 Carefusion Corp $1,000 Columbia Ventures $1,000 Duraleigh Contracting $1,000 Ellison Co $1,000 Financial Directions $1,000 International Fund Services $1,000 Maple View Farms $1,000 Michael Ressner $1,000 Philpot Law Group $1,000 Precision Filtration Products $1,000 Raleigh Emergency Medicine $1,000 Red Hat Inc $1,000 Rehab Specialist $1,000 Roadie Rage $1,000 Urg Corp $1,000"

It is rather rare to find such a divergant list of contributors, but there you have it . . .

11/2/2010 8:29:04 AM

Quote :

"This year, for the first time in decades, there has been a sizable electoral force who wants less from government"

you're precious

11/2/2010 9:02:26 AM

Quote :

"I know some of you guys are younger and haven't grown up yet, but this is truly a vote you may never get to take back so do the right thing."

lol, you are probably the youngest person in this thread.

11/2/2010 11:17:45 AM

^^Chalk another one up to the left not knowing how to respond to libertarian (and what was once known as liberal) arguments.

[Edited on November 2, 2010 at 11:20 AM. Reason : ]

11/2/2010 11:19:41 AM

you might not want to count your chickens before they hatch.

You and a lot of people are using your perception bias to read too far into the intent of the voters. This election isn't there to serve as an endorsement of the Republican/tea party positions, rather it is a backlash against the Democrats for failing to fix the economy. If the Republicans govern as if they have a mandate to stand in the way of everything Obama tries to do, or tries to repeal anything Obama has done already they will be out looking for jobs themselves come 2013.

[Edited on November 2, 2010 at 11:25 AM. Reason : .]

11/2/2010 11:20:34 AM

I wrote-in Morgan Freeman

11/2/2010 11:20:57 AM

hahaha....awesome!!

11/2/2010 12:15:52 PM

Quote :

"you're precious"

+

Quote :

"Chalk another one up to the left not knowing how to respond to libertarian (and what was once known as liberal) arguments."

*cough* point proven *cough*

Quote :

"This election isn't there to serve as an endorsement of the Republican/tea party positions"

Part right, part wrong.

My take on this: Early on, much was made of the massive cash-on-hand advantage that the DP had over the GOP. If you only counted money in the "official" coffers of the two parties you would be correct. However, in the end and on the whole nationwide, GOP and nominally Tea-Party candidates had a massive financial advantage over Democrats.

If the only reason was a protest vote against Democratic mis-handling of the economy, you could expect establishment GOP candidates to do fairly well. This hasn't been the case.

Instead, voters fed up with both the Democratic Party and the GOP were channeling the money to candidates and organizations they felt supported their view of a more limited government. Were some of these candidates nutjobs? Yes. Were some of them hypocritical (the famous "keep your government hands off my Medicare")? Yes. But reading this only as a backlash against Democratic failure to repair the economy is wishful thinking and it presumes that that is the only bone that today's voters have to pick with the Democratic Party.

The fact is, a sizeable group of Americans are legitimately fearful of the expanding debt, a government they feel as unresponsive and politicians who seem to only have canned answers to questions they aren't asking. This group isn't the majority of Americans, but it is going to be the majority of voters today and they explicitly reject the illliberal "New Elite" Democrat model of government.

As I said above, the GOP is clumsily capitalizing on this only because it fits the fake narrative they have crafted since Reagan. If the Democratic Party does not find a way of addressing these concerns, they're going to have trouble capturing swing voters.

I'm not the only one who thinks this: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/11/condescending_left

11/2/2010 1:04:02 PM

I'm in the 12th district (the one that looks like a spaghetti) and I get to choose between Mel Watts and....nobody. It's really discouraging that his reelection is assured, yet his only significant contribution to government has been to derail legislation that would have increased oversight of the Fed.

11/2/2010 1:20:03 PM

Quote :

"The fact is, a sizeable group of Americans are legitimately fearful of the expanding debt, a government they feel as unresponsive and politicians who seem to only have canned answers to questions they aren't asking. This group isn't the majority of Americans, but it is going to be the majority of voters today and they explicitly reject the illliberal "New Elite" Democrat model of government. "

sizeable is subjective and those numers haven't really grown. They've just become more vocal. The American electorate has not made some sort of massive shift.

You just have new money rules, a disenchanted democratic electorate, and a hyped up Republican base.

11/2/2010 2:25:02 PM

LOL @ this guy lying about morgan freeman doing his ad.

11/2/2010 2:28:15 PM

Quote :

"but it is going to be the majority of voters today and they explicitly reject the illliberal "New Elite" Democrat model of government."

What the hell are you talking about?

11/2/2010 2:32:59 PM

You're delusional. It's not just that they're more vocal. The debt crisis is coming to a head, and many are beginning to recognize it. Many of those same people thought everything was fine up until 2007. You simply can't run an economy on nothing but debt without it ending badly. It's a hard pill to swallow, but we will not be returning to where we were early this decade. Many jobs are gone and not coming back.

^^lol at you not doing your homework. He got scammed.

[Edited on November 2, 2010 at 2:37 PM. Reason : ]

11/2/2010 2:33:42 PM

Then he let someone with access to his Facebook account post a lie on his behalf. Either way it's hilarious.

....oh, Lawson thought he actually had Freeman. Still hilarious.

...or did he? http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1110/Email_Lawson_was_told_of_voice_double.html?showall

[Edited on November 2, 2010 at 3:39 PM. Reason : .]

11/2/2010 3:33:11 PM

Quote :

"You're delusional. It's not just that they're more vocal. The debt crisis is coming to a head, and many are beginning to recognize it. Many of those same people thought everything was fine up until 2007. You simply can't run an economy on nothing but debt without it ending badly. It's a hard pill to swallow, but we will not be returning to where we were early this decade. Many jobs are gone and not coming back."

I do this for a living. I have data (proprietary) that backs me up on this. I have objective observation points that I can look at. You have blind belief that makes you think all these people suddenly agree with you. They don't.

Absolutely nothing from the Tea Party will get incorporated into any legislation in the next two years. The Republicans aren't dumb enough; because they realize the American people generally like their government and support many of the core programs that are currently under attack.

You have empty posturing.

[Edited on November 2, 2010 at 3:47 PM. Reason : .]

11/2/2010 3:44:32 PM

You bullshit for a living? Back up your claim instead of asking me to take your word for it.

11/2/2010 3:54:58 PM

Do you understand what proprietary means?

11/2/2010 3:56:02 PM

Quote :

"sizeable is subjective and those numers haven't really grown"

Ambiguity is ambiguous and an increase in voter intensity doesn't matter except when it comes to elections . . .

Quote :

"The American electorate has not made some sort of massive shift"

Yes, but no, but yes. Maybe. Placing any societal group under stress (even if they only percieve the stress) is going to reveal tendencies which may have remained dormant during times of prosperity. So no, the electorate hasn't shifted significantly but while the American economy was steaming along, there was nothing to trigger this sort of reaction. The electorate didn't so much shift as events caused latent political opinions / emotions / ideologies to re-awaken. There has always been an inherent distrust of central authority in the United States and the stimulus, bank bail outs, auto bail outs and health care have all been pinned on a Democratic congress and now a Democratic president. I'm not arging that this is right or logical but, again, perception matters here.

Quote :

"You just have new money rules"

this is the most over-hyped non-story of this election cycle. Unions, banks and the M-I Complex continue to be the absolute dominant forces in campaign funding and none of them share much in common with the "Tea Party". Politicians just bitch like whiny little kids whenever funding streams challenge incumbents, which is why they're bitching now.

Quote :

"What the hell are you talking about?"

The link somewhat covers it, but more than a few political commentators have noticed a shift within the Democratic Party away from the populism and "common man" mentality they had embraced for decades and a shift towards a soft paternalism in the wake of the election of Barack Obama. Cass Sunstein's book "Nudge" is the seminal text on this line of thought.

11/2/2010 3:59:03 PM

Quote :

"Yes, but no, but yes. Maybe. Placing any societal group under stress (even if they only percieve the stress) is going to reveal tendencies which may have remained dormant during times of prosperity. So no, the electorate hasn't shifted significantly but while the American economy was steaming along, there was nothing to trigger this sort of reaction. The electorate didn't so much shift as events caused latent political opinions / emotions / ideologies to re-awaken. There has always been an inherent distrust of central authority in the United States and the stimulus, bank bail outs, auto bail outs and health care have all been pinned on a Democratic congress and now a Democratic president. I'm not arging that this is right or logical but, again, perception matters here."

The bigger issue, just like in 2008, is whose base is more riled up. The center-left isn't as active this year. Look at some of the early voting numbers we are already seeing come out. Early voting numbers are down; especially amongst Democrats. Republicans are breaking even and in some cases coming out slightly ahead, while Democrats are have lost close to 7% of their early vote numbers. With early voting being one of the best indicators of voter excitement, this shows you how depressed the Democrats are.

Quote :

"this is the most over-hyped non-story of this election cycle. Unions, banks and the M-I Complex continue to be the absolute dominant forces in campaign funding and none of them share much in common with the "Tea Party". Politicians just bitch like whiny little kids whenever funding streams challenge incumbents, which is why they're bitching now. "

don't kid yourself. The new money rules have allowed the messages to get out there earlier and earlier. The earlier you are able to go out with your message the earlier you can control the conversation and direction of the election. that's how the new money rules changed everything. It opened up the market place for voices that were normally drowned out by the traditional money forces.

Quote :

"The link somewhat covers it, but more than a few political commentators have noticed a shift within the Democratic Party away from the populism and "common man" mentality they had embraced for decades and a shift towards a soft paternalism in the wake of the election of Barack Obama. Cass Sunstein's book "Nudge" is the seminal text on this line of thought."

Political commentators are typically full of shit. There isn't some sort of new liberal elite. they haven't shifted away from their traditional populism. they've been too busy playing defense for the past decade to actually get out there and articulate a message to the voters.

[Edited on November 2, 2010 at 4:14 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on November 2, 2010 at 4:15 PM. Reason : .]

11/2/2010 4:10:42 PM

^^^In this context, it's a conveniently placed cop out. "I know why you're wrong but...uhh...uhh...I can't say why!"

[Edited on November 2, 2010 at 4:14 PM. Reason : ]

11/2/2010 4:13:37 PM

Why don't you explain to us why the people in America have suddenly decided to embrace this tea party movement.

I'll patiently wait for your response.

I expect your response to answer the following paradoxes.

1. If they so dramatically support the movement, why they don't want any cuts to Medicare

2. If they so dramatically support the movement, why they don't want to see any changes to Social Security

3. If they so dramatically support the movement, why they don't want to see any cuts to public education

4. If they so dramatically support the movement, why they don't want to see any cuts to food safety and other governmental regulations

5. If they so dramatically support the movement, why they don't want to see any reductions in unemployment benefits.

I'll wait for your masterful response.

11/2/2010 4:18:38 PM