kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 1, 2009 15:53:19 GMT -5
When Harry Reid said "Teddy's death is going to help us", I couldn't help but think he was speaking the truth for the very first time since he went into public life. I know that America's roads are safer without Senator Kennedy; that cocktail waitresses are safer now that Chris Dodd has lost his molesting partner; that women in Palm Beach are less likely to be assaulted by ne'er do well hanger on Kennedy cousins without Ted's patriarchal influence and that the world is simply a better place. Good for you Seantor Reid. Maybe he meant Teddy's death is going to help him not be the second consecutive Democrat Senate leader voted out of office. |
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Sept 2, 2009 9:28:53 GMT -5
"The philandering goes on, the lying endures, the tab is never paid and the bar will nevah close"--EMK Ted who? This just sounds like the 99 Days Club at the Tombs to me! ;D |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 2, 2009 10:11:54 GMT -5
How is moviing the special election up to November's Election Day gaming the system to help Republicans? No, really, I'm not being snarky. I mean that. I really don't see how it would be an advantage for Republicans, but if you have some thoughts on that, feel free. In all seriousness without the snark : - Money - the Democrats in MA have it, Republican candidates don't. Less time to election day means less time in which money is an advantage and less money influencing the race in an effective manner. - Shortening the game - if you're a mid-major playing Duke, and you had the option of playing 5 minute halves rather than 20 minute halves, you do it. It increases the chances that your opponent makes a costly mistake and doesn't have the time to recover, and basically the Republicans would need that to win this seat. - Turnout - people will stay home in a special election for one office where Democrats are heavily favored and there are no down-ballot races. - Health Care as a motivating factor to vote for this race may be eliminated - health care might be decided by December which would remove it as a motivating factor to go and vote in January These are honest responses. I don't know if I buy them, but thanks for the input. FWIW, here is what I think: Money: Your point is well taken, but it depends also on who the Republicans will run. I daresay if Mitt Romney decides he wants to try for this seat, the money advantage might not be what you think it is. Rachel Maddow can laugh at that prospect all she wants, but the man is a serious candidate (though I think he still has his sights set on 2012, so he probably won't go for it). Shortening the game: Isn't this also a disadvantage for a Republican who is working uphill and suddenly has much less time to do so? To take your basketball analogy, this isn't exactly the start of the game. If you are Duke and you are ahead by 20 points, wouldn't you rather that there be only 5 minutes left in the game than 20? Turnout: This one I don't understand. You say people will stay home, but wouldn't that be the case is this WASN'T on the regular Election Day, as opposed to if they moved it to a day when there are other elections scheduled? Or are you saying that people staying home is an advantage for Democrats? I'm not sure I get your point on that one. Health care: On this one I can see your point, but it's a supposition. Moreover, I think if health care is not decided by October, its not going to be decided at all this year, November OR December. (Granted, that is supposition as well). Anyway, there's a 99% chance this seat goes to a Democrat regardless of when the election is held, so I don't know that it's really all that big a deal, but thanks for the comments. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Sept 2, 2009 11:15:55 GMT -5
Money: Your point is well taken, but it depends also on who the Republicans will run. I daresay if Mitt Romney decides he wants to try for this seat, the money advantage might not be what you think it is. Rachel Maddow can laugh at that prospect all she wants, but the man is a serious candidate (though I think he still has his sights set on 2012, so he probably won't go for it). I think the assumption I had when I wrote this is that he won't run given that he's already stated he has no interest in running for the position. If he is interested in 2012, which he probably is given that he is today's frontrunner, running from the outside probably gives him an advantage in 2012 given the range of issues that will require a vote before then (see: quitting : Palin, Sarah) and the number of unpopular decisions that will have to be made. I don't think so, because you're starting at the "generic Republican" vs. "generic Democrat" scenario. None of Democratic candidates are exactly household names. Joseph Kennedy has been on MA TV a lot doing commercials advertising the Venezuelan heating oil give-away, but other than that, I don't think most people here could pick Ed Markey or Stephen Lynch or Martha Coakley out of a lineup. Doubt it, the old people will be showing up to vote down school overrides. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 2, 2009 11:26:44 GMT -5
Personally, I just hope Curt Schilling runs, just to watch Massachusetts tear itself asunder.
;D
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Sept 2, 2009 12:20:02 GMT -5
Personally, I just hope Curt Schilling runs, just to watch Massachusetts tear itself asunder. ;D I live two streets away from Schilling. He and his wife probably done more for our town over the past 4 years than anyone else - the level of community involvement he's had is pretty amazing. That said, some of the stuff he buys into is pretty wacky and him running would be an all-out circus. |
|
DanMcQ
Moderator 
Posts: 32,853
|
Post by DanMcQ on Sept 2, 2009 13:20:54 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,460
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 2, 2009 13:30:49 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 2, 2009 14:01:36 GMT -5
Hey, I'm all for Reagan Day. It means I would never forget my mom's birthday.
;D
Of course, I'd argue that even if you didn't like him, Ronald Reagan was a far more influential and transformational figure in American politics - or just plain America - than Ted Kennedy (plus, he was -- you know -- President), and therefore deserving of a little bit more in terms of memorial whatchamajiggers.
Having said that though, why in God's name do we think that naming an AIRPORT -- of all places -- is a some sort of significant honor for passed leaders. An airport? (OK, granted, in Reagan's case, there is a certain ironic humor that I appreciate).
Do we really think that these men are honored by such a distinction? Sure, it means that people will remember their names, but in what context, I ask you? Certainly not a positive one.
"I'm flying out today."
"From LaGuardia?"
"S##t, no! I've got to go out to #$%&# Kennedy, dammit."
(BTW, does anyone actually call BWI "Thurgood Marshall" airport? I submit that they do not, and I further submit that Thurgood Marshall is very happy about this).
Put up a building or something for them if you want to honor them. Now the Reagan building downtown? That is a hell of a place, somthing that can truly be considered an "honor" for a passed President.
(In Clinton's case, I vote for a new casino out in Vegas. ;D )
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,853
|
Post by DanMcQ on Sept 2, 2009 14:16:09 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 2, 2009 14:20:24 GMT -5
Seriously? Holy crap, I was just kidding. Aww, this could be entertaining. Screw that Republican's Nov. 3 proposal. Let's put this baaby off as long as we can. ;D (EDIT: I should add -- in case the smiley didi not make it clear, or in case there is some humorless bastard out there who thinks I am being a hypocrite after the Al Franken election -- that I am just kidding. Curt Schilling wants to spend the next several years getting serious about public policy, that's one thing; right now, he is a celebrity candidate, and celebrity candidates -- for all the fun I will have watching them -- are just jokes.) |
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 2, 2009 14:54:56 GMT -5
So in large measure, he would be like every Kennedy who has ever run for office after 1962.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,460
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 2, 2009 15:03:09 GMT -5
Boz,
I love the irony of the Reagan Bldg. If memory serves me correctly, it is the largest federal office building built since the Pentagon -- named after the guy who said "Government isn't the solution, government is the problem!"
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Sept 2, 2009 15:05:14 GMT -5
Serious question - is there a Senator without a college degree? I think Bunning has one.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Sept 2, 2009 15:11:01 GMT -5
Serious question - is there a Senator without a college degree? I think Bunning has one. Mark Begich from Alaska does not have a college degree. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 2, 2009 15:14:43 GMT -5
Serious question - is there a Senator without a college degree? I think Bunning has one. Mark Begich ON EDIT: Dang. Too slow. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Sept 2, 2009 15:21:34 GMT -5
A compelling case can be made that Mike Enzi never went to college.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 2, 2009 15:31:35 GMT -5
Boz, I love the irony of the Reagan Bldg. If memory serves me correctly, it is the largest federal office building built since the Pentagon -- named after the guy who said "Government isn't the solution, government is the problem!" While it is owned by the federal government (GSA), calling it a "federal office building" is really a bit inaccurate, IMO. It's a trade and business center. The very few federal agencies that operate out of there are those that exist to promote trade, like USA Trade Center or USAID. |
|
paranoia2
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 847
|
Post by paranoia2 on Sept 2, 2009 15:37:03 GMT -5
Maybe thankfully the Kennedys can fade away into the sunset as the morally bankrupt clan that they are. As for their "cursed" history some would say it was simply karma.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,460
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 3, 2009 7:30:06 GMT -5
Lynn Nofziger's opinion on the GSA-owned federal building:
I frankly do not think it is a fitting memorial," former Reagan aide Lynn Nofziger says of the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center. "It's big and ostentatious. It, symbolic of big government, and he was opposed to big government." Fiscal watchdogs at Citizens Against Government Waste, an organization founded in the wake of Reagan's cost-cutting Grace Commission, find Reagan's name on the building "ironic," according to spokesman Jim Campi. "It's a clear-cut case of mistaken posterity," he says.
|
|
