CBS News: Evening News- Ben Tracy- Tea Party Effect on the GOP

Source:FRS Free State

A lot of Republicans, love love especially incoming House freshmen, won in  the Congressional races last night.   Many of the  incoming Republican Representatives as were members of the Tea Party. Th at's the glass half full analysis of the effect did the Tea Party had for the Republicans last night.

The glass half empty view is thatthere's shut the Democratic Senate thatthey're going to have to deal with  in the 112th Congress,  alongwith a Democratic administration.

They needed to pick up 10 seats in the Senate to become the majority But They only got six, Patty Murray holds on Assuming in Washington State.

The Tea Party blew it for Senate Republicans and relegated Mitch McConnell to  Minority Leader  for at least one more Congress. Its pretty simple, had the Republican party nominated establishment conservative candidates or center-right candidates in states like Delaware, West Virginia, Colorado and Nevada, like They did in Indiana, with former Senator Dan Coats, They Might Easily have picked up 10 seats. Once theywere in the 10 seat neighborhood, then 11 or 12 seats Becomes a Possibility Because They Could divert resources to other states instead of spending them in states thatthey shouldhave had locked up.

In Delaware, Tea Partier Christine O'Donnell, who  does not look old enough to run for the Senate and  proved did she does not have the qualifications to run for state office anywhere, won the Republican primary and started out 20 points behind Democratic County Executive Chris Coons. She never closed the gap.

Had Republicans nominated veteran US Representative Mike Castle, who is a Republican  in the Reagan tradition (low taxes, strong defense, government out of our wallets and bedrooms etc.)  but is not a religious conservative and is not trusted by the Christian right, he would probably have been elected to the Senate by 10 points against a little known county executive. This was blown opportunity number one for Senate Republicans. 

In West Virginia, the Tea Party Republican Senate candidate, Mr. Measse   (and I apologize for not knowing his first name) Which against things like the Minimum Wage, Medicare and Social Security, despite the fact  did  thesis are very important to a lot of West Virginians. A Republican establishment candidate would probably have given popular GOV. Joe Manchin a run for his money. 

In Colorado, the Republican Tea Party nominee, Ken Buck spent the load two weeks trying to get his foot out of his mouth on Examined issues as separation of church and state, Medicare and Social Security. An establishment Republican candidate probably  would  have beaten the incumbent, appointed Democratic Sen. Mike Bennett who spent the lastMonth working his tail off just to get back into the race and make it competitive. He finally pulled out a victory for himself and Senate Democrats. 

Finally, in the Nevada Senate race, Republicans had the good fortune to run against the unpopular  Senator Harry Reid.   They nominated Tea Partier Sharon Angle, who Seemed to be trying to do everything She Could to lose the election. Every time she opened her mouth, she demostrated did she is a complete fool, eg, declaring separation of church and state unconstitutional (it's Explicitly Stated in the US Constitution).

She proclaimed  loudly did she what  against the minimum wage, Social Security, and Medicare. Thesis Provide important  financial support for many Nevadans.   She said  did  She Could not tell the difference between Latinos and Asians. The Republican party threw this election away by nominating a Tea Partier instead of an establishment candidate.

It was a good night for House Republicans. They will no longer be the minority party, at least for the next Congress. Democrats Should be feeling thatthey dodged a bullet Because Republicans could've had a much better night. T hey blew it by fielding many very low quality  (Tea Party) candidates.

PZI Jeans: ‘Model Jocelyn Shouts Out PZI Jeans As Best Jeans For Curvy Women’

Source:PZI Jeans- beautiful, sexy baby, Jocelyn. And tall as well.

Source:The Daily Post

"Model Jocelyn shouts out PZI Jeans as best Jeans for Curvy women"

From PZI Jeans

I found this photo on Flickr and I forgot who originally uploaded it. But the woman looks like a beautiful model, with a beautiful body and beautiful curves, whose a Goddess in denim and boots.

Source:The Daily Post- Ariel, in her jeans in boots. Perhaps on the run because she's tired of being checked out for being so beautiful and sexy, You see a woman like this at a grocery store in this outfit, you would probably get the urge to follow her around just to check her out. Unless you are beautiful, sexy girlfriend or wife (perhaps both women) was right there with you.

I found this photo on Flickr and I forgot who originally uploaded it. But the woman looks like a beautiful model, with a beautiful body and beautiful curves, whose a Goddess in denim and boots

Source:The Daily Post- Ariel, in her jeans in boots. Perhaps on the run because she's tired of being checked out for being so beautiful and sexy. You see a woman like this at a grocery store in this outfit, you would probably get the urge to follow her around just to check her out. Unless you are beautiful, sexy girlfriend or wife (perhaps both women) was right there with you.

I’m 6’5 and over 200 lbs. I like women wearing tight jeans. I especially love tall and curvy women wearing tight jeans because I don’t tower over them.

The beautiful and baby faced woman in this video has the body type that I consider nearly perfect. She looks like a woman who’s proud of her figure and works hard to keep it. She doesn’t just eat salad and rice cakes but also beef and fried potatoes. She’s a tall beautiful adorable woman, with a great body and perhaps the most important thing here is that she also has great style. She’s proud of her body and wants to show it off. Not worried about rail-thin valley girls calling her fat, because she actually has meat on her bones and on her legs and midsection.

A woman like this could be a pro athlete or a court lawyer, an entertainer. She really could do just about anything and carry it off as long as she has the knowledge and talent to do it.

I’m not into the valley girl look of a tall and rail-thin woman who looks like she rarely eats. When she does eat, it’s rice, salad and water and she looks like she vomits everything else. Valley girls might have been like totally awesome (or whatever) in the 1980s and perhaps to certain extent today as well. But even today’s valley girls tend to have meat on their bones and not afraid to show off their bodies. Britney Spears, The Kardashian’s come to mind to use as examples.

But sexy women today tend to have meat on their bones. Whether they’re tall, short, or somewhere in between, they tend to look like they stay in shape. They’re not afraid of food and also don’t stuff their faces. They eat well, but not afraid to have the occasional candy bar or ice cream because they tend to eat well and exercise on a regular basis. Guys like curves and like women who are athletic looking and can eat a real meal with and check them out.

The woman in this video looks great and sexy in a pair of dark wash, tight, denim PZI jeans because they are perfect for her body type. She’s not afraid to show the world that she’s proud of herself.Fashion models tend to be like this. At least the sexy one who again don’t have that stereotypical model figure of a women who is 5’7 or taller, but barely weighs 100 pounds if that.

The woman in this video is probably 5’8-5’9 and athletic looking at least in the sense that she looks healthy and looks like she stays in shape. Because she’s fashion model who models skinny jeans. And if you’re going to do that you better have a strong pair of legs and midsection, or you’re not going to look good in them. You’ll ether look to thin and someone who doesn’t eat enough, or you’ll look fat and look like a woman who is wearing pants that are simply too small for you. This woman in this video looks perfect.  

Associated Press: Mark Hamrick: Gridlocked Congress Could Threaten Economy

Source:FRS FreeState

A few nights ago, this blog  predicted that the House Republicans would pick up 45-50 seats and win control of the chamber.  It also predicted that Senate Democrats would lose seats but retain control.  I was 2/3 right.  The Republicans won control of the House for the 112th Congress. Senate Democrats retained a small majority.  Instead of picking up 45-50 seats, the House Republicans gained in the neighborhood of 65 seats.  This will give them a working partisan majority. Incoming Speaker John Boehner (bayner, as in the vocalization of a jackass, not boner or bonehead) and incoming Leader Eric Cantor will be able to push their agenda through the House even though it will die in the Democratic Senate.

65 is a bad neighborhood to be in if you're a Democrat, especially if you're a House Democrat. It   means that Republicans will be in control of the House for at least two years, which, as a Democrat is bad enough for me, but, also, that the incoming Democratic Leadership, who will run the minority,   has a lot of work to do to get back to majority.  They're looking at being in the high 180's to low 190's.  They'll have to pick up in the neighborhood of 30 seats in the 2012 election to regain majority.

They'll need a very strong showing by President Obama in the 2012 election to regain majority. I don't think a narrow victory by the President in 2012 will bring back a Democratic House. I think the President will have to win the popular vote by around 55%, similar to Ronald Reagan in 1980  (over Jimmy Carter), and win about 35 states. I think thats possible, considering the likely Republican competition, especially if the economy starts to improve and unemployment  follows.

The good news for House Democrats is that while House Republicans are regaining most if not all of the seats they lost in 2006 and 2008, they're also picking up Democratic seats.  Potentially, a lot of freshman Republican Representatives could lose in 2012 because they represent normally Democratic districts. 

As I said a few nights ago, If House Democrats lose big, Speaker Pelosi and  Leader Hoyer need to step down.  It's time that House Democrats go in a new direction and elect new leadership. I would be looking at young but veteran House Democrats, especially outgoing committee chairman, who might be more interested in serving as Minority Leader and potentially the next Speaker of the House  than as ranking member of a committee. 

The good news for House Democrats, in an otherwise bad night, is that this is one election and, depending on how voters view the Republican House over the next two years, it could be a short time in the minority for them.

PFAW Dot Org: Christian Right Form of Big Government

Source:FRS FreeState

It would be funny, if it weren't so tragic, when hypocrites who complain about big government, are in favor of incorporating the tenets of their religion in government rules to form their own version of big government.  A Christian theocracy in the U.S. would be just as oppressive as the Muslim theocracy in Iran.  Social freedom would be severely curtailed.  Women and ethnic and racial minorities would be treated as second class citizens.  Homosexuals would be treated as criminals. 

The whole idea of America is that the people are in charge of their own lives and have the right to choose the social paths that they take without interference by government. 

Our nation's forefathers rebelled against the United Kingdom to escape high taxes, authoritarian rule, and government enforced religious dictates.  Freedom of religion is part of our Constitution, the 1st Amendment thereof, so that Americans would have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to practice religion and which religion, if any, they would practice.

There cannot be any dictation  by the U.S. government on choice of  religion or practice of religious tenets.  The 1st Amendment is explicitly clear that government shall neither sponsor nor intrude upon  the practice of a religion.  There is an explicit separation between religion and the State in America, regardless of  what the Christian Right, Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle or Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell says or thinks.

I'm troubled, and somewhat amused, when Christian Conservatives complain about the intrusions of big government while they promote authoritarian Christian theocracy.  Are they completely ignorant of the provisions for separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution or are they just ignoring it to achieve their religious goals?  Either one is truly dangerous.  They must be prevented from succeeding for the sake of the United States of America.

CBS News: Evening News: Cynthia Bowers: John Boehner Next Speaker of the House?

Source:FRS FreeState

I hate to say this but it's looking more and more likely that current House Minority Leader, John Boehner (not boner or bonehead, as many think) will become the next Speaker of the House going into the 112th Congress.  According to independent polls from Gallup, Politico, the Hill, etc., as many as 90 Democratic House seats are in play for Republicans.  Republicans have to pick up only a net of 39 seats to win control of the House, i.e., 39 out of the 90, while holding their own. That's only 43% of the seats in play to win control of the House.  I think that's too tall an order for Democrats fill to retain control if the House. 

For House Democrats, the only drama  on Wednesday morning will be the election of the next Minority Leader.  They were in this position for twelve straight and painful years from 1995-07, an experience they haven't forgotten. 

Assuming the polls are correct and Republicans do win control of the House Tuesday night, I think that current House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, will step down as the Democratic Leader and, perhaps, even leave the House all together.  She probably won't have the votes to be reelected Minority Leader, a position she held from 2003-07, very skillfully.  But times have changed.  House Democrats, especially Blue Dogs, assuming there any left after Election Night, (not a safe assumption) could argue that she led House Democrats to  defeat with all of the unpopular legislation that she talked them into passing, like the cap and trade bill that will never become law in its current form, deficit spending, and the Affordable Health Care Act (AHCA).

Blue Dog Democrats are fiscally conservative and generally don't support these things.  Not one single Blue Dog who voted for AHCA is mentioning that vote as they run for reelection.  They could argue that these unpopular votes, pushed by Speaker Pelosi and Leader Steny Hoyer, led House Democrats, especially Blue Dogs, to defeat.  The House Democratic leadership should have been smart enough to see this ahead of time.

   

This leads me to the status of House Leader Hoyer, who has a lot of support amongst all of the factions in the Democratic Party, progressives, liberals and Blue Dogs alike.  You could make a case that Leader Hoyer, whom I'm proud to have as a fellow Marylander, had a role in leading House Democrats to their defeat.  I don't think House Democrats have a clear leader going into the 112th Congress if they lose Tuesday night.  I think they'll have a leadership fight after Tuesday night.

I hope that the polls are wrong, as they were in 1948 when they predicted that President Truman would lose reelection but they probably are not.  Polling technology is much better and more accurate now than it was then.  House Democrats will have some regrouping and self-examination to do, which isn't always bad for a great political party, of which I'm proud to be a member.

CBS News: Evening News With Katie Couric: Return to Moderation?

Source:FRS FreeState

Return to moderation?  As a liberal, I know exactly where I stand on the current issues of the day. I don't call myself an expert on anything.  Others can judge that for themselves.  I do know where I stand and I think my readers know that when I write about something I don't flip a coin to decide what my position is going to be or split the difference.  Nor do I look for a position that will offend the least. As someone who's not currently a politician, I have the freedom to say exactly what I think.

One of the things I love about blogging is that I can get all of the best available objective evidence before I make a judgement about what is in the best interest of the country, or whichever jurisdiction it is involved.  If it's an issue on which I'm confident that I'm well informed, such as civil rights, I can proceed without  further research.  I would like to think that the average politician operates in the same way but I have my doubts. 

When I'm considering voting for someone, especially for the first time, I'm not interested in a candidate who claims to be a moderate or centrist and says vote for me and I'll work for the best interest of the country, not possibly knowing what that could  be ahead of time.  Once in office, such politicians can take positions that come as complete surprises to their constituents.  I think voters have the right to know where candidates stand on the issues before they get to office.  After all, they're running to represent us. 

I especially don't respect politicians who claim to be moderates or centrists but vote like Liberals or Conservatives. They're centrists in their private lives but once it gets down to voting or governing their liberalism or conservatism comes out.  Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman  claims to be a centrist in public but its hard to tell the difference between him and Liberal Democratic Senator  John Kerry, one of my political heros, the "Northeast Liberal". The only issues they've disagreed on have been the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Sen. Kerry is very proud of his liberalism and Senator Lieberman is not. 

Then there's Senator Arlen Spector who's admitted to being a Goldwater Libertarian Republican in the past,  "Government out of my wallet and bedroom," and that sort of thing.  On domestic policy, Senator Spector tends to be more progressive than Senator Barry Goldwater had ever been, especially in medical research and infrastructure spending.  Senator Spector woke up from a Republican nightmare just eighteen months ago, saw the light and decided to become a Democrat again, a liberal Democrat, I might add. (Perhaps it had something to do with getting reelected.)

Senator Spector has a progressive record on civil rights, civil liberties, women's rights (incluiding reproductive), and gay rights and is as much as a centrist as the current Pope is a Muslim. I mean who did he think he was fooling? Arlen Spector should've remained a Democrat for his whole career, especially, in a blue state like Pennsylvania. He could've been Governor of Pennsylvania if wanted to.

He, along with Ted Kennedy, voted against Robert Bork for Supreme Court Justice.  As a Pennsylvania Democrat, he would've never had to worry about a primary challenge from the far right and probably not from the far left either. 

I have more respect for Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, Social Democrats, Socialists, Theocrats, and Authoritarians than I have for Centrists.  With the former, you know where they stand on the issues, whether you agree with them or not. Two politicians for whom who I have some of the most respect are Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, both Conservative Libertarians, because you knew where they stood and they were loyal to their principles.  They didn't take positions just for presumed political advantage.

Republican Senator Tom Coburn is a Republican for whom I have a lot of respect.  He is a true fiscal conservative, not someone who claims fiscal responsibility just because his party is out of power, but someone who's always been there.  I have a lot of respect for Liberal Democrat Jack Kennedy, even though he was a little late to the party on civil rights, but he finally made it.  He had clear liberal convictions on most issues.  I also have great respect for Jack's brothers Bobbie and Teddy.  They  were ahead of their big brother on civil rights.

I have a lot of respect for Liberal Democrat Sen Russ Feingold.  I desperately hope that he gets reelected on Tuesday night though it's not looking good for him.  Unfortunately his convictions are probably going to cost him his seat on Tuesday.   For Russ Feingold,  it's not about getting reelected. It's about doing what he believes is best for the State of Wisconsin and America.  Today, that might sound corny but it's true. The problem with Congress is not Sen Russ Feingold, it's that there are not enough Russ Feingold's who are willing to vote their convictions.  For a lot of members of Congress,  everything is about the next election. 

Does centrism have a place in politics?  I don't see it as a governing ideology. Could you imagine a  centrist as their party's nominee?  First of all, a centrist would never get the presidential nomination of the Democratic or Republican Party today. But, for a second imagine that did happen.  What would their campaign theme be? "Vote for me because I'm stuck in the middle trying not to get squashed?" 

The problem with Washington is not the lack of moderation.  The problem is a lack of bipartisan cooperation. Thats not moderation, thats combining the best from both sides of the aisle to make legislation that works.  We as a country have a long tradition of bipartisanship and we could use more of it today. What you get with moderation is splitting the difference.  A computer can do that and it's not Leadership.

Legalize Our Dream: Legalization of Marijuana in Utah?

Source:FRS FreeState

Utah probably has more registered Republicans, right-wing nuts and NRA members per capita than any other state in America.  You'd have a better chance of seeing a man with multiple wives there than an elected Democrat (sorry, bad joke).  The legalization of marijuana use (considered a capital crime by some Christian theocrats) is being considered by the State of Utah.  That is a sign that similar efforts in California should make headway and it's a message to the rest of America that it's time to rethink the War on Drugs.  Perhaps punishing people for what they do to themselves instead of what they do to others and treating them as drug dealers and career criminals is not the best approach to this problem.

I've made these points before so they might be as refreshing to read as a drivers manual but my argument hasn't changed.  Utah's exploration of marijuana legalization reinforces my argument so I'll take the time to make it again.

The prohibition of alcohol 80 years ago proved that if people want to do something badly enough they'll find a way to do it, regardless of the consequences.  If they can make a successful business out of it, it becomes doubly attractive.  That's one of the reasons prohibition was repealed. I believe that we should legalize marijuana and that let that be the end of it.  I'm not advocating the legalization of heroin or cocaine.  We should legalize marijuana with appropriate regulation and taxation designed to discourage, or limit, it's use.  We should treat marijuana the same way that we treat alcohol and tobacco, two legal drugs that both have negative health effects.

Junk food and drink, with their excessive fat, sugar, salt and caffeine are serious health hazards in America.  Obesity, which leads to deadly diseases, is caused by junk food and lack of exercise.  It is the 2nd leading cause of preventable deaths in America, right behind cigarette induced lung cancer.  Alcohol abuse is the leading cause of liver cancer.  All of you who drink, smoke, eat a poor diet and don't exercise and oppose the legalization of marijuana use should think about the choices you are making.  By the way, if you have all of these bad habits and stay the course, you'll have a hard time making it to the age of 60. 
  
Marijuana, used and grown without control in a black market in America, isn't a leading cause of any disease.   With legalization and regulation of use there would be control and record keeping for public health purposes.   Prohibition doesn't make attractive substances or go away.  We already have legal drugs in America that are killers but they're regulated to make them as safe as possible.  We can do the same thing for marijuana  We know it will be grown and used.  We should make it as safe as possible.