2009 is a relatively low-key election cycle, compared to what 2010 will represent. Anyone with thoughts/opinions heading into next week.

Obviously, the governor races in NJ and VA are interesting. VA is almost definitely flipping back to a Republican governor. Hard to get a handle on whether Christie has lost all momentum in NJ or whether he can get something back.

Perhaps more intriguing (and interesting) is the special election for the NY-23rd district, where a third-party candidate (running on the Conservative Party) has all of the momentum and is believed to be the likely winner: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/...means.html . The Republican candidate is essentially DOA. Could make for some interesting post-election navel-gazing and overreaction. But could it mean something else?

I think BHO has delayed sending troops to Afghanistan because of these elections. He obviously thinks they are important - he was in NJ recently, is scheduled to be there twice more before Tuesday. Guess there is nothing important to do in Washington. I think he made his decision long ago, but has delayed implementation for political reasons. Seeing as we are finishing the deadliest month ever over there, I can only hope that the delay did not cost any lives.

JMO.

(10-30-2009 01:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think BHO has delayed sending troops to Afghanistan because of these elections. He obviously thinks they are important - he was in NJ recently, is scheduled to be there twice more before Tuesday. Guess there is nothing important to do in Washington. I think he made his decision long ago, but has delayed implementation for political reasons. Seeing as we are finishing the deadliest month ever over there, I can only hope that the delay did not cost any lives.
JMO.

If 1000 soldiers get killed, even counting their families that's probably less than 5,000 votes. That's a small sacrifice for a man on a mission to convert America to socialism.

(10-30-2009 02:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-30-2009 01:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think BHO has delayed sending troops to Afghanistan because of these elections. He obviously thinks they are important - he was in NJ recently, is scheduled to be there twice more before Tuesday. Guess there is nothing important to do in Washington. I think he made his decision long ago, but has delayed implementation for political reasons. Seeing as we are finishing the deadliest month ever over there, I can only hope that the delay did not cost any lives.
JMO.

If 1000 soldiers get killed, even counting their families that's probably less than 5,000 votes. That's a small sacrifice for a man on a mission to convert America to socialism.

Wow. Just...wow.

(10-30-2009 02:26 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  

(10-30-2009 02:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-30-2009 01:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think BHO has delayed sending troops to Afghanistan because of these elections. He obviously thinks they are important - he was in NJ recently, is scheduled to be there twice more before Tuesday. Guess there is nothing important to do in Washington. I think he made his decision long ago, but has delayed implementation for political reasons. Seeing as we are finishing the deadliest month ever over there, I can only hope that the delay did not cost any lives.
JMO.

If 1000 soldiers get killed, even counting their families that's probably less than 5,000 votes. That's a small sacrifice for a man on a mission to convert America to socialism.

Wow. Just...wow.

The actual deaths this month were substantially less than 1000, and of course we cannot atribute any particular deaths or any portion of the deaths to the delay. But it is difficult to logically come to the conclusion that the delay has saved any lives of troops already there. If they were undermanned when the request was made, they have remained undermannned while he is delaying, for whatever reason you choose to believe. I don't think thatbeing undermanned has contributed to the safety of any personnel over there.

As for the effect that each death has on the electorate, I think it goes far beyond family. But the days when the media gave us a daily body count are gone, and the impact is less.

(10-30-2009 04:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2009 02:26 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  

(10-30-2009 02:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-30-2009 01:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think BHO has delayed sending troops to Afghanistan because of these elections. He obviously thinks they are important - he was in NJ recently, is scheduled to be there twice more before Tuesday. Guess there is nothing important to do in Washington. I think he made his decision long ago, but has delayed implementation for political reasons. Seeing as we are finishing the deadliest month ever over there, I can only hope that the delay did not cost any lives.
JMO.

If 1000 soldiers get killed, even counting their families that's probably less than 5,000 votes. That's a small sacrifice for a man on a mission to convert America to socialism.

Wow. Just...wow.

The actual deaths this month were substantially less than 1000, and of course we cannot atribute any particular deaths or any portion of the deaths to the delay. But it is difficult to logically come to the conclusion that the delay has saved any lives of troops already there. If they were undermanned when the request was made, they have remained undermannned while he is delaying, for whatever reason you choose to believe. I don't think thatbeing undermanned has contributed to the safety of any personnel over there.

As for the effect that each death has on the electorate, I think it goes far beyond family. But the days when the media gave us a daily body count are gone, and the impact is less.

To the extent that KIA's were out of Forward Operating Bases that were to be closed as part of the planned redeployment back to "urban" locations, I do blame Obama for wasting time. Had he decided on the proposed plan when it was presented, instead of waiting for weeks, those Marines and Soldiers wouldn't have been there.

(10-30-2009 10:52 AM)gsloth Wrote:  Obviously, the governor races in NJ and VA are interesting. VA is almost definitely flipping back to a Republican governor. Hard to get a handle on whether Christie has lost all momentum in NJ or whether he can get something back.

According to Gov. Corzine's TV ads, all Chris Christie needs to get momentum is a little velocity.

(10-30-2009 04:51 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(10-30-2009 04:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2009 02:26 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  

(10-30-2009 02:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-30-2009 01:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think BHO has delayed sending troops to Afghanistan because of these elections. He obviously thinks they are important - he was in NJ recently, is scheduled to be there twice more before Tuesday. Guess there is nothing important to do in Washington. I think he made his decision long ago, but has delayed implementation for political reasons. Seeing as we are finishing the deadliest month ever over there, I can only hope that the delay did not cost any lives.
JMO.

If 1000 soldiers get killed, even counting their families that's probably less than 5,000 votes. That's a small sacrifice for a man on a mission to convert America to socialism.

Wow. Just...wow.

The actual deaths this month were substantially less than 1000, and of course we cannot atribute any particular deaths or any portion of the deaths to the delay. But it is difficult to logically come to the conclusion that the delay has saved any lives of troops already there. If they were undermanned when the request was made, they have remained undermannned while he is delaying, for whatever reason you choose to believe. I don't think thatbeing undermanned has contributed to the safety of any personnel over there.

As for the effect that each death has on the electorate, I think it goes far beyond family. But the days when the media gave us a daily body count are gone, and the impact is less.

To the extent that KIA's were out of Forward Operating Bases that were to be closed as part of the planned redeployment back to "urban" locations, I do blame Obama for wasting time. Had he decided on the proposed plan when it was presented, instead of waiting for weeks, those Marines and Soldiers wouldn't have been there.

While I think it is good to get advice and mull things over before making a decision affecting so many lives, it has been over 60 days since he first got the recommendation. He has had plenty of time to make a decision. At some point, mulling becomes procrastination, and IMO we are long past that point. If he is not postponing for political reasons, then he is not the decisive leader some people thought they elected.

FWIW

Today, on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, they noted the deaths of 25 servicemen and -women in Iraq and Afghanistan this last week.

Also, it was reported that Obama was in New Jersey, campaigning for the Democratic candidate.

And NY-23 is getting crazier. The Republican candidate has bowed out - and is encouraging supporters to back the Democratic candidate. Although national "contenders" like Palin and TPaw, plus now the House Republican leadership, are backing the Conservative candidate.

(11-01-2009 09:26 PM)gsloth Wrote:  And NY-23 is getting crazier. The Republican candidate has bowed out - and is encouraging supporters to back the Democratic candidate. Although national "contenders" like Palin and TPaw, plus now the House Republican leadership, are backing the Conservative candidate.

On This Week, the topic of NY-23 came up, and George Will made the comment that is a party for people who have the same take on the issues as Scozzalava, and that it is called the Democratic party. So her endorsement of the Democratic candidate seems apt.

(11-02-2009 12:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2009 09:26 PM)gsloth Wrote:  And NY-23 is getting crazier. The Republican candidate has bowed out - and is encouraging supporters to back the Democratic candidate. Although national "contenders" like Palin and TPaw, plus now the House Republican leadership, are backing the Conservative candidate.

On This Week, the topic of NY-23 came up, and George Will made the comment that is a party for people who have the same take on the issues as Scozzalava, and that it is called the Democratic party. So her endorsement of the Democratic candidate seems apt.

Dede Scozzafava is a prime example of a RINO.

While the Republican Leadership could look the other way on her Pro-Choice and Pro Gay Rights positions, she also favored the "Stimulus Plan," favored "Card Check" and was Pro- Bailout.

It was the last three that did her in.

What about elections closer to home?

(11-02-2009 08:49 AM)JSA Wrote:  What about elections closer to home?

Annise Parker and Peter Brown in a runoff for Mayor.

I thought Houston learned from last time the perils of having a Mayor with the last name of "Brown."

(11-02-2009 09:27 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(11-02-2009 08:49 AM)JSA Wrote:  What about elections closer to home?

Annise Parker and Peter Brown in a runoff for Mayor.

I thought Houston learned from last time the perils of having a Mayor with the last name of "Brown."

A few months ago, the pundits were speculating whether Brown's early commercial buys were a wise move or not. I guess they were. I had thought it would be Parker in a walk, but apparently not.

Broadly speaking, where do the two stand on issues? Just curious, I doubt I'll ever live in H-town again, but still curious about what goes on there...

(11-02-2009 06:48 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Dede Scozzafava is a prime example of a RINO.
While the Republican Leadership could look the other way on her Pro-Choice and Pro Gay Rights positions, she also favored the "Stimulus Plan," favored "Card Check" and was Pro- Bailout.
It was the last three that did her in.

This is interesting to me because I'm pro-choice and pro-gay-rights, but my fiscal conservatism opposes anything like the "stimulus" plan or "card check" or bailout. If Scozzafava were a fiscal conservative, I'd support her in a heartbeat, but she obviously isn't. In order to remain a major party, the republicans are going to have to realize that there are parts of the country where anti-abortion, anti-gay candidates simply cannot win, but a fiscally-conservative, socially-liberal candidate can win, and they are going to have to support such candidates wholeheartedly in those areas if they expect to be more than a regional party.

I don't have a home in either party. I tend to vote for third parties (usually libertarian) and sorta kinda cheer for the republicans, because I'm not personally threatened by their positions on abortion or gay rights in the same way that I am personally threatened by "tax and spend" democrats. I guess my favorite outcome is one party controlling congress and the other the white house, because gridlock is the best antidote to the truly crazy people on the fringes of both major parties.

Shrub was absolutely the worst of both worlds for me--fiscal spendthrift who was considered "conservative" because, in words someone posted on this or another ncaabbs board, "he wore a cowboy hat and talked about Jesus a lot."

(11-02-2009 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-02-2009 06:48 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Dede Scozzafava is a prime example of a RINO.
While the Republican Leadership could look the other way on her Pro-Choice and Pro Gay Rights positions, she also favored the "Stimulus Plan," favored "Card Check" and was Pro- Bailout.
It was the last three that did her in.

This is interesting to me because I'm pro-choice and pro-gay-rights, but my fiscal conservatism opposes anything like the "stimulus" plan or "card check" or bailout. If Scozzafava were a fiscal conservative, I'd support her in a heartbeat, but she obviously isn't. In order to remain a major party, the republicans are going to have to realize that there are parts of the country where anti-abortion, anti-gay candidates simply cannot win, but a fiscally-conservative, socially-liberal candidate can win, and they are going to have to support such candidates wholeheartedly in those areas if they expect to be more than a regional party.

I don't have a home in either party. I tend to vote for third parties (usually libertarian) and sorta kinda cheer for the republicans, because I'm not personally threatened by their positions on abortion or gay rights in the same way that I am personally threatened by "tax and spend" democrats. I guess my favorite outcome is one party controlling congress and the other the white house, because gridlock is the best antidote to the truly crazy people on the fringes of both major parties.

I am more abortion-neutral, but the effect is the same as pro-choice. Otherwise, we seem similar, except that I tend to vote Republican rather than third party. I would be more likely to go with a third party if I felt they actually had a chance of getting in there and doing something. I know, a catch-22 - I'll support them when they become more viable, but they won't become more viable without support.

If the Republicans would emphasize certain social issues less, i would like them better. If the Democrats would ... well, I'm not sure what it would take to make them attractive to me. Other than a few minor (to me) social issues, they are either opposed to what I think or way too extreme on issues on which we are in basic agreement. Come on, third party!!! I did hear a prediction on national TV that we would have a true third party by 2012 if the two current majors kept on their respective courses.

As for gridlock, it looks better and better. Certainly better than the runaway train (another railroad reference!!) we have now.

(10-30-2009 06:31 PM)Sleepy Owl Wrote:  

(10-30-2009 10:52 AM)gsloth Wrote:  Obviously, the governor races in NJ and VA are interesting. VA is almost definitely flipping back to a Republican governor. Hard to get a handle on whether Christie has lost all momentum in NJ or whether he can get something back.

According to Gov. Corzine's TV ads, all Chris Christie needs to get momentum is a little velocity.

I read the national story in the Chronicle this morning looking at the VA and NJ Governor elections for signs of the national sentiment. I thought they missed a chance to look right here - at the Houston Mayoral election. Brown seems to be running a "less government, more business" campaign that is taking hold. That message seems to be at odds with current events in Washington.

(11-02-2009 06:48 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Dede Scozzafava is a prime example of a RINO.

Actually, I would say that the clearest example of a RINO that I know is George W. Bush. Or maybe Dick Cheney.