Free Republic

stealth? I know we're supposed to think Kerry was the most liberal member of the Senate, but Corzine is nearly a socialist, if you look at his voting record, he's to the left of Kennedy, Hillary, just about everybody.

I'd heard McGreevey had evidence of a (straight) affair. But it's interesting the media can allude to this stuff but not have the guts to put it out there. It's rumor until proven.

For the last several years, I've done most of my shopping online in the middle of the night. I hate crowds, and malls.

Tweakers everywhere, it's really getting out of hand.

This shouldn't be to surprising. Unless you're talking about a separation of a couple hundred votes, from what I've seen the margins generally hold through recounts, counts of absentee ballots and the like, so why should provisional ballots be any different? I don't like it that we had so many problems that so many people, including many on our side, had to cast provisional ballots (I'd like to see a completely mail-in system or a lot more early voting, everywhere). But if this doesn't put the tinfoil hats in the drawer, I don't know what will.

I don't know about credible, but try dailykos.com or the slightly wackier Eschaton at atrios.blogspot.com.
I think it's the same 400 people on all these sites.
50 percent crank rate

Every conservative should put one on the bumper, cause if the RATS nominate her, they will lose, lose, lose. Oh, they'll lose anyway, never mind. Probably they will say we stole it. BWAAAAAA!

So let it backfire on the hack. I'm not concerned about one leftist rag's editorial, but I do think it looks bad, like beltway business as usual, to the public at large. Delay could easily keep power behind the scenes without the title and emerge stronger once he beats the case, which he almost certainly will, if there is even an indictment.

Our side created the rule and should abide by it. It was adopted when the RATS had actual criminals in their leadership. We know this particular indictment -- if it even happens -- will be a partisan sham, but it has to be fought under the rule of law. I am disappointed; I think the House GOP is acting like typical politicians in this case. It's the kind of beltway behavior that lets the Senate decide against impeaching Clinton even though the case was there beyond a shadow of a doubt. There would be no practical harm in Delay setting aside the title temporarily -- he could still call the shots, as he did before he had the actual title. I doubt there will even be an indictment.

I like Tom Delay and I doubt he will be indicted. Nevertheless, this rule was passed because the Democratic leaders at the time were actually criminals. It was a good rule and it should stand. We have to be on the right side of things, even if it is occasionally inconvenient. That is what makes us different from THEM. And it would have zilch effect on daily business: Delay effectively ran the Republican caucus in the House long before he had the title, and he still could, and even if there is an indictment, it will be revealed for the partisan attack that it is. A man who has done nothing illegal has nothing to fear, and a job title is not that important. It is better to do the right thing.

I agree. We really need to reform the system so that nobody can question the outcomes. If we had a competent system in place in 2000, we would not have put up with four years of people questioning Bush's legitimacy. It is disturbing to see errors of thousands of votes, regardless of who the error favored (and it's not much consolation that the errors are caught). I'm trying to step back from this a bit as a partisan and simply consider the problem itself. Why don't we have reliable counts? We won't be lucky enough in every election to have a wide margin, especially in the midterm elections when races are closer and turnout is lower.

Actually, Republicans did use the filibuster against Democratic appointees. There were a couple of cloture votes in 2000. I wouldn't get too worked up about this -- eventually, once the point has been made, the filibusters tend to go away. It's all a show for the folks at home.

The more interesting question here is, how many votes does it take to change the Senate rules? Looks like they need a two-thirds majority to change the filibuster rule, which means they need some Democratic votes.

Well, thinking about it some more, I really don't care how this one goes, but don't be too disappointed if the Washington ways win out. They're a superstitious lot, and they love the certainty of seniority and perks. The more I see Specter sweating every talk show in sight, though, the more I think he might actually be going down. I can't imagine anyone will really come to his defense -- he has betrayed everyone in his attempts to please everyone. Still, as a Pennsylvania voter who supported Toomey in the primary, I still think he was the best choice for me last week. I don't want my party to give up on this state despite the recent disappointment here.

I saw Thune's appearance on Georgie's show. He also said that if the leadership decided Specter should be chairman, he would support that decision. I don't think he hurt himself either way. He said he would ask tough questions. Nothing wrong with that.

In all the hoohah, I've missed something -- who is considered the likely alternative to Specter as chairman?

bump

There was a similar plotline last year in an episode of the West Wing, which I am sorry to even admit I watched. So yes....

this is an idea from Hollywood

Well, there's a claim that some voting machine in Ohio had 4,000 votes on it for Bush even though only 600 some odd people are registered to vote there.
Anybody hear of comparable errors in favor of Kerry? My thinking is that a certain number of mistakes (heck, maybe even free-lance fraud) are likely in a given election. These machines really ought to have a paper trail. After reading how easily they could be hacked, I was actually a bit worried that we'd be seeing mysterious chunks of votes for Kerry on Tuesday. Hey, wait a minute... !!

We are in agreement; he must move fast. And be on the lookout for meaningless efforts intended to secure Bush's legacy and place in history -- that's usually code for moderation and crowd-pleasing gestures. I will be worried if I see proposals that smack of liberal spending and entitlement,
aimed at getting the approval of the MSM and DemocRATS.

Please elaborate on the "divorce cohabitation industry" and how that pertains to this particular discussion. I don't always follow every line of argument in these forums.

My general view on this subject is people are wasting a lot of energy that could used more productively elsewhere. Specter will get in line.

I respect your point of view, but I also know politics as it is played in that town. This will just give the RATS the excuse they need to put up a wall of obstruction for the next two years -- not that they need much excuse, of course, but it can't hurt for the Republicans to extend an olive branch. Specter is sounding so chastened -- I was misunderstood, I have voted for all of the president's nominees -- he wouldn't dare go against the White House on anything. But I understand those who feel differently, and there is no need to use uncivil language or for us to start tearing into each other. We won, remember. Let the rats each other alive.