Could not disagree more. This guy is such a flaming hypocrit regarding all matters of propriety, family values, adultery, that he richly deserves to go down for this. It was not just his conduct regarding Clinton's adultery but a host of other comments/claims.
His personal life certainly should not disqualify the guy from higher office, but his incredible hypocrisy and holier-than-thou behavior should.
BTW, I read that Ensign hastily arranged the fess-up press conference to preempt a pending tell-all release from his ex-staffer (Ensign's mistress' husband.) If Ensign is STILL serious about a run for president in 2012, he seriously needs his head examined. He is toast.
Reminds me of John Edwards. It seems to be always those politicians who make a big to do about the impeccable family values they possess are the most prone to affairs. Must be some kind of fascination with the enhanced danger that comes with the huge display of hypocrisy when they get caught.
Ensign is a Promise Keeper (public display of commitment reaffirmation to God, Wife and children)
I love it when these hypocrits are caught with their pants down. Generally it is not my business how the couple decides to live their private lives, but when the guy decides to make his straight-arrow family virtues his calling card and an existential cornerstone of his political existence it is just the right medicine for these holier-than-thou types to have their own hypocrisy unveiled.
I hope Ensign is defeated in 2012 by a strong Democrat, but there is a long time to go until 2012, unfortunately.
Having Haley as the Republican candidate for 2012 would be a dream come true for the Democratic party. Of course so would be Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin and Huckabee/Romney. Looking at 2012 there seems to be nobody of stature who would be at least a somewhat formidable candidate, and "Republicans" who are highly popular in general or in their states are being vilified and eeked out of the party by the base (i.e. Powell, Crist.)
This may be a blessing in disguise. Virginia is just a tad more conservative than other states. Deeds seems better positioned to have a chance in the general against McDonnell.
I think the WaPo endorsement was a HUGE deal. Sometimes it is easy to dismiss newspaper endorsements, but not only is the WaPo not any old rag, but the actual sound reasoning behind the endorsement is what catapulted Deeds to the forefront.
I never shared the opinion some on the left had expressed for years that Newt Gingrich is one of the "brighter" bulbs in the Republican universe. I always thought he was ignorant and peevish. I could not see where the adulation came from, except that perhaps his educational achievements fostered certain impressions.
I don't think anyone with a full set of brain cells would twitter to the world "Racist" about a high-profile Supreme Court nomination, at least not a former Speaker of the House who had to resign in disgrace but has expressed future aspirations for higher office. This latest "surrounded by Paganism" bit is more of that same ignorance.
It behooves to remember that in essence Newt Gingrich's ascent in 1994 and the subsequent full-tilt right-ward shift of the Republican party (architected by Gingrich and complete with eeking out and disdaining the many moderates who had felt home with the GOP theretofore) was ultimately responsible for the Republican party's current troubles and slow blood-letting. Gingrich was the artist who painted the party into a corner that it likely can't get out from for some time. Now, how short-sighted and ultimately stupid was that?
Now, instead of the "off the table" but oh-so-reasonable "single payer" option that the entire rest of the world uses with success we get "and require everyone to purchase insurance." How nice for the insurance industry. And it only cost them a pittance in bribes.
That comment is simply not correct, it is borderline ignorant. Single-payer is a solution some countries have adopted, but many successful solutions have gone the public "option" route (see Switzerland for a telling example) or a hybrid between private and public solutions overseen by the government (as in Germany.) Perhaps a look at successful implementation of solutions that are not strictly "single-payer" (in Europe) would enlighten the strict purists.
A look at one of the most crucial demographics for future elections tells the tale even more clearly:
Based on what you know or have heard about Sonia Sotomayor do you think she is a racist?
Latino: 2 83
Only 2% of Hispanics agreed with the prevailing classification of Sotomayor as a "racist," a full 83% disagrees. One can only imagine the lasting political damage the Republican party has done to itself with the Hispanic demographic by let their standard bearers go over the cliff with these unwarranted and despicable smears.
And, it continues even now with Michael Steele's fresh comments and encouragement from McConnell:
For some time now the Republican party's messaging and PR system has been thoroughly hijacked by the ultra-loons and as a result we have seen a falling-away and virtually complete silencing of the more lucent members of the party, who are no longer de-facto included in the party structure (Powell, Gergen, Snowe, etc.) That means the effectively the Republican party has become the party of loons, a fact that then manifests itself in daily loony headlines from Republican standard bearers like Limbaugh, Hannity, Liddy, Bachmann, Gingrich, Cheney with no moderating voices to soften the rhetoric. They play to an ever-shrinking base while chasing away everybody else.
What has it brought them?
Huge, ongoing, losses in virtually all demographics and regions.
Moderates and Independents are now strongly opposed to the Republican party by a factor of 2 to 1. On the other hand the conservative "base" that is meant to be placated and appeased is the most likely group to throw the party and the country under the proverbial bus. Their ill-fated support for state's secession from the United States and with that their stomping on the constitution and American flag "if the country does not come to its senses" (translated: "votes conservative Republicans into power positions") is a hilarious reminder of the blatant hypocrisy that is so prevalent with the right. Whatever happened to "these colors don't run" and their clarion calls of "jail those who would burn the American flag or desecrate it in any way"? The "base" with their blind followership of colorful rabid radio personalities would also be most likely to dump the GOP for another party that would seek to filter out far-right-conservatives from other centrist or right-of-center groups and persons currently counting themselves part of the Republican party.
So, is this going to work? Highly unlikely. Chances are very good that it will continue to backfire and make Democrats and the Obama administration look like the grownups who should be entrusted with running the government. As it should be, truth be told. Conservative Republicans have proclaimed that they distrust and dislike "government" and want it to be diminished and "get out of the way." Why in the world should they be asked to actually RUN what they despise?
Pretty sad. What could possibly be wrong with putting Gitmo detainees into high security prisons in your state? Is Moran also afraid of putting a particular nasty domestic murderer in one of Virginia's prisons? I guess the idea is NIMBY, but the Gitmo detainees are LOCKED UP behind secure walls, for crying out loud.
Well, yes, you don't get an argument from me never to be complacent or "fat," or, worse, let unfettered power become the catalyst for greasy palms leading to illegal corruption. I just think there is no harm commenting with some schadenfreude on the daily train wrecks we are seeing from the Republican party and wondering when they finally get the message the American people have handed them over the last few cycles.
Once they put Limbaugh, Beck and Coulter in their place and find themselves embracing moderates who can see where the country is headed (extremely popular Florida governor Crist is a parade example of such a Republican) then we have reason to worry that the people might look to replace our many incumbents, but since they went the other way things have to go extremely awry for a very long time economically, and even then I can't see the American people embracing the ugly GOP as it currently exists. Rather they give us the benefit of the doubt for much, much longer than otherwise would be typical.
The democgraphic changes and future projections for the varied demogroups sure look extremely scary for Republicans, though. I agree that politics are often cyclical, but long-term the Republican party as it exists today can't survive. Furthermore, the party has been taken over by exactly the wrong group to provide renewal, in the process blasting and eeking out people who are the key to party renewal (Specter, Snowe, Collins, Powell, Charlie Crist.)
I don't have a crystal ball, but IMO after the 2008 debacle the Republican party HAD to cut the conservative umbilical cord and embrace highly popular moderates in their party like Powell and Crist for speedy renewal. That they went sharply in the other direction appears to bode well for us, short-term and long-term.
The GOP has already lost Florida (and other states') Hispanics at an alarming rate, so much so that there seems to be basically no way to regain a portion of them unless the GOP makes a complete 180 degree reversal on their fiercely anti-immigration policy stances. Since such a drastic change is obviously not in the cards for at least another decade the prospects for Republicans in states like Florida, Nevada, New Mexico and other states with growing Hispanic populations will continue to become weaker and weaker.
Politically speaking, selecting Sotomayor was as close to a perfect, genius move as one can think of. The historical aspect of the nomination will align Hispanics even closer to Obama and by default the Democratic party, all but assuring further gains for Democrats in states with high and growing Hispanic populations. But if that wasn't already enough, the sure to come nomination "battle" with the party of NO fighting against confirmation will chase even more Hispanics from the Republican party.
Fighting the nomination will also further chase Independents away, because all they have to hear is that Sotomayor was nominated to the lower court by former president Republican George H.W. Bush and sailed through Senate approval with a large majority, making it all too obvious that the motivation behind opposing the candidate now is purely political grandstanding and opposition for opposition's sake.
1. Making history: First Hispanic on the SC.
Another woman to provide a baby step towards some semblance of balance.
Pleases a pivotal voting block, which endears the administration to them even further.
Republicans are stuck opposing a historic appointment of a strongly qualified candidate at their long-lasting peril with most "sane" Americans.
Break out the popcorn for this one, but there is no question that Democrats will be strongly helped by this selection while Republicans will go down even more (unless they approve the nomination without a fight.) For the Democrats, politically that is where you want to be as a party and as the administration.