Posted on 06/24/2017 6:09:35 PM PDT by ForYourChildren
A dozen or so House Democrats want Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to go after a dispiriting loss in a House election in Georgia. They just don't know how to make it happen.
"We can't keep losing races and keep the same leadership in place. You have a baseball team that keeps losing year after year. At some point, the coach has got to go, right?" said Rep. Kathleen Rice, D-N.Y., on Friday.
The frustrated Democrats met in Rice's office a day earlier to discuss their options as they face long odds of knocking out the woman who has led the Democratic caucus for nearly 15 years from minority to majority and back, raised tens of millions of dollars and has had multiple legislative successes. Their action plan: Keep talking. Keep raising the concern that something needs to change within the ranks of the party's leadership.
..
The main argument against Pelosi from her Democratic detractors is that more than 30 years in Washington and hundreds of millions of dollars in attack ads against her have taken their toll when it comes to public opinion. Millions were spent in Georgia with ads linking Pelosi to Jon Ossoff, who lost to Republican Karen Handel on Tuesday. They argue that Democratic candidates will have a better shot on Election Day if they're not tied to Pelosi.
"The issue I think strategically is that Trump energizes their base and Leader Pelosi energizes their base," said Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, who was unsuccessful last year in trying to unseat Pelosi.
Said Rice: "The Republican playbook has been very successful. It's not fair. It's not accurate in its attacks on our leader, but it's effective. They keep winning and we keep losing."
{..snip..}
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted2.ap.org ...
This one is easy, tell HRC that PELOSI is going to the FBI to blab on her and she will soon be found shot 3 times in the back.
I hope she stays until she is 100. Long live Nan!
Heck, I hope that after she goes (whenever that is) they prop her up like the dude from Weekend at Bernie’s.
Maybe she’s imponderable.
So Ann Kirkpatrick, who foolishly gave up her seat to challenge McCain and got thomped by 13 points, (with a massive 5.5% going to the Green for some reason) can’t win her old House seat back for a third time cause the rats held it (even though 6% voted Green in that race!), cause the GOP nominated a homo Sheriff with ethical problems who only got 43% of the vote. I hope that bald SOB gets HIV.
So anyway the witch is thinking of carpetbagging into district 2 and running against McSally.
Now I already hear Steve and maybe DJ saying “***k that RINO McSally” but GD it, no, no Ann Kirkpatrick, you can’t have that district, you disgusting ****ing slime.
I saw that. Although Kirkpatrick represented the adjacent district, she lives 250 miles away from the heart of the SE corner-to-Tucson-centered district of McSally’s. If I were a Dem in that district, I wouldn’t be very happy about that sort of carpetbagging less than 2 years after she was a long standing resident of the Flagstaff area, especially when the Butcheress narrowly carried it (although Trump probably would carry it now), which should give an opportunity for a local Dem.
Of course, she could follow Ossoff’s playbook and remain a resident of Flagstaff while running for the seat...
BTW, that wasn’t foolish of her at all to run against a weak and unpopular incumbent in McQueeg. That did take courage to do (in fact, I’d say she probably got the votes of a lot of disgruntled Conservatives looking to dump his ass, much like those who voted against Goldwater in 1980). I might’ve voted for her just to rid the Senate of that malignant cancer.
“I might’ve voted for her just to rid the Senate of that malignant cancer.”
________________________
As bad as McCain has been on some issues, he voted to eliminate the SCOTUS filibuster and confirm Justice Gorsuch. He also voted to confirm Betsy DeVos, who was confirmed only because of VP Pence’s tiebreaker and thus would have been defeated without McCain’s vote. You know damn well that Ann Kirkpatrick would vote against anything that comes from the Trump Administration, including Obamacare repeal (or even “repeal”), increased border security, etc.
If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times: The time and place to get rid of a Republican is in the GOP primary, the instances in which it is preferable to vote for someone other than the Republican are few and far between (e.g., a conservative third-party candidate like Joe Miller running against RINO Lisa Murkowski in AK, the one state where beating a RINO in the primary isn’t enough to get rid of her; or a NY Conservative Party nominee with a real chance of winning when the GOP nominee is a RINO or a DIABLO, such as when Hoffman ran in NY-23 against RAT Owens and DIABLO Scozzafava (or whatever her name was)), and the only time in which a conservative can vote for a Democrat nominee without doing more harm than good is when a more conservative Republican than the GOP nominee somehow wins the Democrat nomination (as happened with Halvorson in PA-09 in 2016, and as might have occurred with Bill Marcy (who ran as “Plan B” in case liberal Thad Cochran survived the GOP primary) in the 2014 U.S. Senate election in MS had prominent Democrat Travis Childers not entered the race). It is never justified to vote for a liberal Democrat like Ann Kilpatrick against a Republican.
Although I strongly DISAGREE with McCain's votes to confirm Betsy "pay no attention to the fact I loved Common Core" DeVos and Neil "abortion and gay marriage super duper settled law" Gorsuch... I would nevertheless hold my nose and support McCain over a socialist Democrat.
:-p
Well, so far, Justice Gorsuch has been joined at the hip with Justice Thomas. And did you read Gorsuch’s dissent (joined by Thomas and Alito) in Pavan v. Smith, in which Gorsuch says that legal issues involving same-sex “parents” are by no means “settled and stable”? https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-992_868c.pdf
Gorsuch still has 40 years to go wobbly and prove you right, but you must admit that he’s off to a good start.
More on Gorsuch’s performance so far: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/
More on Gorsuch’s performance so far: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/
Direct link
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-hasen-gorsuch-scalia-20170627-story.html
What’s up with this Hicks V US case?
I have to agree with Gorsuch, you’re not an accomplice just for being there. Once my dad got in a dispute with a tenant and the cops arrested him, and arrested my uncle just for standing near by.
Anyway, are you doubting your doubts Billy? He’s sounding pretty solid. He even sided against the fags already, which IIRC was a key worry cause his church likes fags.
While it was true McCain hadn’t faced a real opponent in some time (other than Obama who kicked his *ss) he was not “weak” and not an easy target either in the primary or general election.
I never thought she had a chance, and indeed she lost badly, barely getting 40% of the vote, this was no 1980 Goldwater situation where it was actually close and the rat was not terrible (I still would have supported Goldwater, you don’t vote rat in the year the GOP finally takes the Senate).
So I stand by my statement it was foolish, at best it was a HUUUGE risk for someone like Kirkpatrick who is obviously unwilling to not be in office to risk her seat for an underdog Senate bid.
As for her chances in CD-2, a local rat former State Rep. released a poll showing him leading her 40% to 30%.
https://www.scribd.com/document/352026564/AZ-02-PPP-for-Matt-Heinz-June-2017
I think DeVos was one of the best cabinet picks. Rats shiite their pants with fury over it because she supports school choice.
I understand all that, but McQueeg is a special case. His willful and deliberate participation and collaboration with the bipartisan (AKA Deep State) cabal to install Zero in 2008 is utterly unforgiveable. The damage done to this country as a result of his treason is incalculable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hez7W9pAS5k
Kirkpatrick would be better as a general election challenger. Heinz lost by a solid 14% to McSally even as the Butcheress won the district. A rematch with Heinz won’t likely differ much in an end result (if anything, Heinz might lose by a wider margin).
I don’t think Kirkpatrick actually counted on McCain being the nominee. At the time, McCain was being challenged in the primary by Kelli Ward. Kirkpatrick likely gambled that she could be the next Joe Donnelly: run in the hopes that an incumbent GOP senator gets bumped off by a tea party insurgent and then run a competitive race against said insurgent. Of course, her hopes were flushed down the toilet when McCain got the nod, and she was pretty much screwed with a general election she couldn’t win.
She had a shot either way. If McQueeg got renominated, count on the countless angry Conservatives voting for her in protest or not voting in that race (or both). If Ward upended McQueeg, the angry McQueegbots vote for Kirkpatrick (hoping for something along the lines of Indiana when Mourdock knocked off Lugar - although he had it in the bag until he and the MO Senate candidate Akin got caught in the media trap on the issue of rape/abortion).
I’ve said it before I have to reiterate that I think your theory that McCain and Romney, two men with an obvious, long-standing, and deep-seated hunger for the White House (and related daddy issues for Romney) would put themselves through the immense hoopla of a campaign with the intention of deliberately losing to be up there with “Bush did 9/11” in terms of likelihood.
Occam’s razor states they were just idiots who ran shiitey campaigns. They hardly lack for company, on either side of the aisle. One could in the same vain argue that Shillery lost to Trump on purpose, after all her campaign was the biggest epic fail in history, but of course that notion is ridiculous.
The “don’t be scared bro” comment from McCain was disgusting but he knew he was gonna lose at that point and was looking for the ego boost of the media/left kissing his butt for saying it, or alternatively was stupid enough to think it made him look statesmanlike and might somehow help him win.
Heh. And you accuse me of double standards for not supporting RINO Tom Cross when he lost (yes, lost, the election was not "stolen". And that would remain true if he was an ideological clone of Calvin Coolidge and had the same numbers on election night)
Bottom line, if Obama had nominated someone with DeVos "credentials" (I wanna hold the highest education office in the country and I've never even served in a classroom), conservatives would have rightfully ridiculed the choice.
But since its "our guy" picking an unqualified ditz, we gotta rally behind it. Right.
>> Rats shiite their pants with fury over it because she supports school choice. <<
This seems to be the lone argument why we should support her and it makes zero sense to me. So out of 400+ million Americans, DeVos is apparently the ONLY one of them out there capable of implementing school vouchers, I guess. Man, that sucks, if she didn't get confirmed, there would be no other person out there who could do so. We're so lucky Trump found the lone person in America who would stand up for this.
Excellent point, I’m sure he hoped Ward would be the nominee instead and there was a chance of that. McCain only ended up getting 51% of the primary vote (with Ward at 40% and a couple would be spoilers splitting the rest, imagine if McCain had ended up with 48% Ugh.)
Still, a big gamble. If she wanted out of the House anyway I’d say go ahead and take a stab, but obviously she wants back in the House. Perhaps she only wants back in cause she thinks a bolsehvik majority is on the table.
I agree with DJ that she’d likely be a stronger candidate for CD-2 than the other rat, despite being carpetbagger. So I hope she loses the primary, or gets eaten by a giant scorpion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.