Main Menu

The one and only November election thread

This is the one and only November election thread. Comments will be closed after the election.

Allison v The Flying Spaghetti Monster

I’m facing a difficult ballot choice. No Democrat is running for the State House of Representatives in my district. I can choose between the Republican (Allison) and the independent (Tea Party-friendly) McMillan. One touts the 2nd Amendment and the other the 10th. I’ve eliminated Mr. McMillan, leaving my choice between Allison and a write-in for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Update: I decided not to write in a candidate, held my nose, and voted for a Republican. She is reputedly a nice lady.

Greene v Green

In the US Senate race there is a Democrat running, or at least he might be a Democrat. Political unknown Alvin Greene’s surprise win in the Democratic primary has left many heads scratching and a few conspiracy theories hatching. Greene is facing felony charges in connection with incident where he allegedly showed pornography to a USC student. The alternative is the Green Party candidate, Tom Clements. Republican incumbent Jim DeMint is a RINO; his real party affiliation is Tea, and he’s certain to win.

55 Responses to The one and only November election thread

  1. avatar
    misha November 1, 2010 at 12:38 am #

    DeMint is a Christofascist – the Christian Taliban. Angle, another fruitcake, is going to win in Nevada. She’ll try to wreck everything she can; she’s a Tenther.

    Sharron Angle – ‘Article VII of the US Constitution recognizes Jesus Christ as our Lord’
    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2010/06/independent_american_party_petition.php

    Mark my words: they are going to make life hell for Obama. They’ll impeach Obama, but they won’t remove him from office – 67 votes are needed.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 1, 2010 at 1:36 am #

    Orly Taitz is predicting the House will go Republican and that this, plus Obama’s low poll numbers will make the judges “less intimidated” and more likely to take cases like hers to rule on the merits. She doesn’t realize that her case doesn’t have merits (just as she didn’t understand that they lacked standing.

    As reported in WorldNetDaily.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=221373

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 1, 2010 at 1:37 am #

    misha: They’ll impeach Obama

    I don’t believe that for a minute.

  4. avatar
    misha November 1, 2010 at 1:52 am #

    misha: They’ll impeach Obama

    Dr. Conspiracy: I don’t believe that for a minute.

    We’ll see. If not, I will owe you an apology.
    http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/78198/republicans-impeach-obama?passthru=MzAwYTliMjg4MTRhYmZhOGZhZDE3OWIxMDYyNjkxMTY

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 1, 2010 at 2:09 am #

    After further study, I have ruled out the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I am now researching “The Lizard People.”

  6. avatar
    misha November 1, 2010 at 2:12 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I don’t believe that for a minute.

    Darrell Issa, an Arab and car alarm impressario, left himself an opening: “Not a chance at this point…” He did NOT say flatly ‘not a chance.’ When Pelosi was asked, she replied ‘off the table.’ Unequivocal.

  7. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 1, 2010 at 4:30 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: After further study, I have ruled out the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I am now researching “The Lizard People.”

    The Lizard people cost Obama and Al Franken a vote in Minnesota. Don’t vote for them. They’ll cost Democrats votes if they get elected!

  8. avatar
    Dave November 1, 2010 at 7:35 am #

    misha: Mark my words: they are going to make life hell for Obama. They’ll impeach Obama, but they won’t remove him from office – 67 votes are needed.

    Oh, not this. You don’t just trot out a bill of impeachment. Before you get there, you have an investigation, and for that, you need something to investigate. What are they going to investigate? There have been noises about Sestak, but I’m sure the GOP knows that Sestak works way better as a talking point than it does as a subject for investigation. It will take about 5 minutes of investigation to conclude that no law was broken by anybody.

    I think the GOP knows that an impeachment supported only by talking points will lose them the independent voters.

    That said, I won’t be surprised if they do launch an investigation of Sestek — it just won’t go anywhere.

  9. avatar
    misha November 1, 2010 at 7:53 am #

    Dave: You don’t just trot out a bill of impeachment. Before you get there, you have an investigation, and for that, you need something to investigate. What are they going to investigate?

    There are always mini-scandals – the WH travel office, Whitewater, take your pick. Sestak did not have any traction because Reagan did it.

    “50 Impeachable Crimes and Counting”
    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26650

    They’ll start by giving Orly and Mario a hearing, and they’ll build up from there. Just ask Clinton. Remember how Roy Cohn destroyed careers? A witch hunt is coming. These people are out for blood. When neocons and evangelicals get in the same room together, they have an orgasm that hits 10 on the Richter scale.

  10. avatar
    misha November 1, 2010 at 8:20 am #

    “If Republicans are to enjoy a midterm triumph in 2010 as they did in 1994, McConnell said his party should say: “Those of you who helped make this a good day, you need to go out and help us finish the job.”

    “Asked what that “job” was, McConnell explained that “the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

    McConnell is the one who has a shark in the family tree – at least, that’s what he looks like.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/27/news/la-pn-obama-mcconnell-20101027

  11. avatar
    Bovril November 1, 2010 at 8:37 am #

    Misha,

    The point is that, whilst there are no rational, Constitutional or legal grounds for impeachment, the Mad Party will gee up a one termer to try.

    It’ll be shot down in flames but will serve to consume ridiculous amounts of time, effort and energy of the Adminstration.

    The party of the insane will see this as a “good” thing but IMHO it will backfire nastily come the next election cycle.

    I would WELCOME the Republicans trying to give the Mad Moldavian and Mario the Putz an attempt, it would demonstrate to the people who really count, moderate T Party’ers (there do exist), moderate Republican voters (again they do exist), independants and the vast expanse of Democratic supporters of just how badly F’d up the Party of Mad are……”By their friends you shall know them”…..

    An Orly meltdown on C-Span…priceless….Which is why it’ll never happen so long as the RNC machine wants to stay in power

  12. avatar
    Lupin November 1, 2010 at 12:28 pm #

    We had a rather snarky article in my local rag today mocking your more, shall we say, colorful candidates: Witchy Witch, of course, Zoophile Paladino and the guy who likes Nazi uniforms. The word “circus” was used, and not in a good way.

    We do have our own batch of eccentric running for office here, of course, but fairness compels me to say that (a) they’re not at all that funny, (b) they run on loony parties platforms, not mainstream parties, and (c) they poll usually at 2& to 5% of the vote, maybe a tad more if they’re unrepentant hardcore lefties.

    I wish your country well in this time of trials.

  13. avatar
    misha November 1, 2010 at 12:42 pm #

    Lupin: I wish your country well in this time of trials.

    Sharron Angle is going to be elected. Here are some gems:

    – “That many Americans have ignored the laws of God.”
    – ‘Article VII of the US Constitution recognizes Jesus Christ as our Lord’
    – “I would tell you that I have the same feelings about legalizing marijuana, not medical marijuana, but just legalizing marijuana. I feel the same about legalizing alcohol.”
    – Earlier in her career she spoke out strongly against fluoride, the substance known alternately for improving dental health and as a Communist plot to undermine Western democracy.
    – “You know, I’m a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.” Angle explaining why she is opposed to abortion, in any circumstance including rape, incest, and maternal mortality.

    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2010/06/independent_american_party_petition.php

    France is starting to look really good.

    True story: Robert Crumb was harassed by the moral squad in the States. So he went to live in small village near Sauve.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauve

  14. avatar
    Lupin November 1, 2010 at 12:50 pm #

    misha: True story: Robert Crumb was harassed by the moral squad in the States. So he went to live in small village near Sauve.

    I know — he’s something of a local celebrity — too much by his account, especially since that movie about him.

    Sauve isn’t too far from where we are. We’re near Carcassonne:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcassonne

  15. avatar
    Lupin November 1, 2010 at 12:51 pm #

    misha: France is starting to look really good.

    There will always be a bowl of soup and croutons at our table for our American friends and future political refugees. 🙂

  16. avatar
    misha November 1, 2010 at 12:57 pm #

    Lupin: We’re near Carcassonne:

    I figured you were near Marseille. Not bad, I was off by 313 km – living across the pond.

  17. avatar
    Lupin November 1, 2010 at 1:01 pm #

    misha: I figured you were near Marseille.

    I was born in Toulon, which is near Marseille, but alas the Cote d’Azur and even the Provencal back country have been severely despoiled during the last 20 years. (It’s a long story.) Our region is just as pretty and far less exploited.

  18. avatar
    misha November 1, 2010 at 1:05 pm #

    Lupin: Our region is just as pretty and far less exploited.

    My e-mail is in my profile. Contact me. Warning: my French is rusty.

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/11/its-for-you.html

  19. avatar
    Expelliarmus November 1, 2010 at 3:29 pm #

    Lupin: We had a rather snarky article in my local rag today mocking your more, shall we say, colorful candidates:….

    We do have our own batch of eccentric running for office here, of course, but fairness compels me to say that (a) they’re not at all that funny, (b) they run on loony parties platforms, not mainstream parties, and (c) they poll usually at 2& to 5% of the vote

    Some of us here in the US are not all that fond of Le Pen & the FN — and it appears that the FN took 12% of the vote during recent elections. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7448051/Far-Right-National-Front-performs-well-in-French-regional-elections.html

    I will concede, however, that he and his followers are not at all funny.

  20. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 1, 2010 at 4:11 pm #

    I haven’t seen mention of this Taitz request to SCOTUS for a writ anywhere on here.

    No. 10-541
    Title:
    Orly Taitz, Petitioner
    v.
    Thomas D. MacDonald, et al.
    Docketed: October 25, 2010
    Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
    Case Nos.: (09-15418)
    Decision Date: March 15, 2010
    Rehearing Denied: May 14, 2010

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Aug 12 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 24, 2010)

    ~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
    Attorneys for Petitioner:
    Orly Taitz 29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy (949) 683-5411
    Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
    Party name: Orly Taitz

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-541.htm

    The birthers on gretawire are portraying it as an eligibility case, but I have some doubts. First of all, it’s the old Rhodes v. MacDonald case that she has renamed Taitz v. MacDonald. Rhodes told Taitz that she did not want Taitz to pursue the case anymore, and that’s probably why it was renamed. No court has ever ruled on a Taitz v. MacDonald case, yet she is asking SCOTUS to review the ruling. Moreover, Rhodes v. MacDonald was the case that she got the fine from Judge Land on.

    I have two questions.

    1. Can she just rename the case so that her former client is no longer the plaintiff and have the justices review the ruling on the original case in which her former client was named as the plaintiff?

    2. Is this just the appeal of her Judge Land fine in which she is just trying to sneak in eligibility questions in order to keep the PayPal button busy?

  21. avatar
    Whatever4 November 1, 2010 at 5:40 pm #

    She’s appealing the sanctions, not the case. It’s not technically a birther case, except to Orly, they’re all birther cases. And an EMERGENCY!

  22. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 1, 2010 at 5:51 pm #

    That’s what I thought. Thanks for the info, Watever4

  23. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 1, 2010 at 6:04 pm #

    dunstvangeet: he Lizard people cost Obama and Al Franken a vote in Minnesota. Don’t vote for them. They’ll cost Democrats votes if they get elected!

    Yes, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster also got votes in the Minnesota election.

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 1, 2010 at 6:06 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: 2. Is this just the appeal of her Judge Land fine in which she is just trying to sneak in eligibility questions in order to keep the PayPal button busy?

    I think this is the case.

  25. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 1, 2010 at 6:32 pm #

    Yeah, that’s what I thought, Doc. Thanks

  26. avatar
    HellT November 1, 2010 at 8:35 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: After further study, I have ruled out the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I am now researching “The Lizard People.”

    If I can inject a serious note, Doc – please don’t write in joke candidates. All it does it make more work for the election judges, who are required to treat even joke votes seriously. It adds up to a lot of paperwork. If you can’t decide between Tweedledum and Tweedledumber, just skip over that race.

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 1, 2010 at 10:02 pm #

    HellT: If I can inject a serious note, Doc – please don’t write in joke candidates. All it does it make more work for the election judges, who are required to treat even joke votes seriously. It adds up to a lot of paperwork. If you can’t decide between Tweedledum and Tweedledumber, just skip over that race.

    That’s a good point. While I have never done a write-in, I understand that in SC the write-in is electronic, but it still could be extra work.

  28. avatar
    Dave November 2, 2010 at 12:05 am #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP:
    1. Can she just rename the case so that her former client is no longer the plaintiff and have the justices review the ruling on the original case in which her former client was named as the plaintiff?

    First of all, Taitz is creating some confusion with the captioning of this case. I believe the appeal was captioned Taitz v. MacDonald, but her cert petition was captioned Rhodes v. MacDonald, which apparently the clerk corrected to Taitz v. MacDonald on the docket.

    As one has come to expect, the cert petition basically makes the argument that her filings were not frivolous because the President is ineligible, which shows a basic misunderstanding of what frivolous means. But via this error she has imagined that her case is still about the President’s eligibility. The petition also seems to imagine that the Court is going to ask her to relitigate the case in front of them, which shows a basic misunderstanding of the role of the Supreme Court.

  29. avatar
    Zixi of Ix November 2, 2010 at 2:30 am #

    mishaMark my words: they are going to make life hell for Obama. They’ll impeach Obama, but they won’t remove him from office – 67 votes are needed.

    I seriously doubt that they will.

    For one thing, they can count and will know that they won’t have the 67 votes. Anything less would make any attempt worse than doing nothing. The economy is in the toilet, and a wasted effort in this regard would not be looked at in favourable terms.

    Secondly, “being in favour of stuff we don’t like” isn’t an impeachable offence and the American public knows it. The GOP otherwise don’t have anything on which to hang articles of impeachment and they know it.

    Thirdly, giving Obama and the Democrats the chance to stand up and say “See, the GOP wants to undo the election that you voted in. They hate Democracy. They hate you as voters. And they hate black people and can’t stand that one was elected.” is something they really don’t want.

    What would be the point of it all anyway? There is no guarantee that Obama will win re-election in 2012. From the standpoint of the GOP, they’re better off letting him do what he’s going to do (much of which has not proven popular so far) and smack his agenda around in Congress for the next two years.

  30. avatar
    Lupin November 2, 2010 at 3:05 am #

    Expelliarmus: Some of us here in the US are not all that fond of Le Pen & the FN — and it appears that the FN took 12% of the vote during recent elections.

    In my post I was treating the National Front as a more mainstream party of the Right, just like, say, the Communist Party is a mainstream party on the Left. So the analogy does apply. The more eccentric candidates are either to the right of the FN (we still have candidates wanting to restore the Monarchy but they’re divided between two pretenders) or to the left of the PC such as the Maoist Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire.

  31. avatar
    Rob November 2, 2010 at 11:36 am #

    “Sauve isn’t too far from where we are. We’re near Carcassonne:”

    We visited the fortress at Carcassonne when we lived in Duesseldorf Germany. We had a very nice picnic on the grounds and really enjoyed the city. Our kids were especially impressed by all the torture chamber implements they saw.

    I really loved the French countryside in this area. I can see why you would choose to live there.

  32. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett November 2, 2010 at 12:03 pm #

    Well, we could have an upset of the upset. Remember that pollsters don’t call cell phones unless they’re listed, and most are not. So there’s a whole generation of folks out there who have no land lines, or don’t answer them until they’ve gone to the message machine and then pick up. Plus I doubt the Hispanic and recent immigrant vote has been entirely accounted for. But it will be close, and we are bound to have some disappointments on the Left side of things.

    As for impeachment, there’s been no real cause. That does not mean they could not start crawling up Obama’s behind with a spoon and a flashlight looking for dirt. That’s what they did to Clinton, and when it all shook out it turned out the reason for the investigation itself was groundless, but they caught him in a lie about his sex life and that’s what they impeached him for. So never discount the possibility.

    Anyway, I voted. I hope everyone here who is eligible has done the same.

  33. avatar
    Lupin November 2, 2010 at 1:09 pm #

    Rob: I really loved the French countryside in this area. I can see why you would choose to live there.

    It is very beautiful. Here is a photo taken near our village:

    http://www.randylofficier.com/Htevallee/picture051.htm

  34. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 2, 2010 at 1:25 pm #

    J. Edward Tremlett: Well, we could have an upset of the upset. Remember that pollsters don’t call cell phones unless they’re listed, and most are not. So there’s a whole generation of folks out there who have no land lines, or don’t answer them until they’ve gone to the message machine and then pick up. Plus I doubt the Hispanic and recent immigrant vote has been entirely accounted for. But it will be close, and we are bound to have some disappointments on the Left side of things.

    One hopes that good pollsters take these things into consideration.

  35. avatar
    Bovril November 2, 2010 at 1:44 pm #

    In general the pollsters don’t as there has been a lot of statistician infighting over the last few years in this very area. Much anguish and tears before bedtime over confirmation bias, implicit assumptions, demographic spread, pollee tolerance, etc etc etc.

    As such the reputable pollsters have a problem with extrapolation as the figures start to go from formally acceptable to “squishy” very quickly

    The ASSUMPTION is that the (semi) randomized samples that are picked are representative as a whole but as JET notes there is no real common or hard and fast rule over the “Great Unpolled”.

    For example, pollsters HATE the No Call List not because it removed their ability to call, but that rather it explicity decreased peoples tolerance for cold calling of ANY type.

    This along with other factors such as cell phones, VoIP such as Sype etc has led to the pollee universe gradually tending to the older, more static and less mobile populace.

    Once again this is a tendency not a hard and fast invariant but it leads to much less confidence in the results.

    Not that you will ever get the polling firms to admit that their figures are anything other than wonderfully predictive……8-)

  36. avatar
    Dave November 2, 2010 at 1:58 pm #

    J. Edward Tremlett: Well, we could have an upset of the upset.

    Nate Silver over at 538 has gone on and on about how uncertain the outcome of this election is, with somewhat of the tone one takes when obviously nobody is listening to you. His point is that people who pore over polls tend to report the most probable outcome — and there is some consensus that that is the GOP taking about 55 House seats — but don’t generally discuss how far off it might be. And his point is, it could be far off. I think his estimate is that the number of seats the GOP takes will most likely be between 20 and 80. He estimates a 16% chance that the Dems keep control of the House. So it’s unlikely, but not really all that unlikely.

  37. avatar
    Rickey November 2, 2010 at 3:18 pm #

    Bovril: In general the pollsters don’t as there has been a lot of statistician infighting over the last few years in this very area. Much anguish and tears before bedtime over confirmation bias, implicit assumptions, demographic spread, pollee tolerance,etc etc etc.As such the reputable pollsters have a problem with extrapolation as the figures start to go from formally acceptable to “squishy” very quickly

    The best analyst of polling is Nate Silver at the New York Times. While his computer models, which analyze all of the polls, show the Republicans picking up about 50 House seats, he says that so many of the House races are tight that their gains could be significantly higher or significantly lower.

    That said, whatever the outcome we should keep in the mind that this election is not a referendum on Obama’s eligibility. The subject has rarely come up in the campaigns, and most Tea Party candidates who have flirted with it quickly backed off. But that won’t keep birthers such as Sven from crowing that the birthers have been vindicated if the Republicans take control of the House.
    t

  38. avatar
    Expelliarmus November 2, 2010 at 3:35 pm #

    Lupin: In my post I was treating the National Front as a more mainstream party of the Right…The more eccentric candidates are either to the right of the FN

    I figured you might say that– but I don’t see how you can take pride in that fact or use it as a point of ridicule. The rise of the tea party is partly because there currently is no “mainstream” party in the US to the right of the GOP — you know, the party headed by Michael Steele, that nominated John McCain during the last election.

  39. avatar
    Dave November 2, 2010 at 4:53 pm #

    Well, this is the election thread, and as usual, Wonkette has the most cogent analysis of what this election is all about:

    And since this vote is not actually a complex array of hundreds of individual elections, and nothing a “Congress” has done the past two years will affect it in any way, we can totally say this is a direct referendum on the president. And that guy sucks, doesn’t he?

    There you have it.

  40. avatar
    misha November 2, 2010 at 5:07 pm #

    Dave: Well, this is the election thread

    GW Bush: God told me to invade Iraq. That guy sucks, doesn’t he?

  41. avatar
    obsolete November 2, 2010 at 6:19 pm #

    Has anybody seen a chart or list that tallies administration officials who have been indicted for crimes?
    I don’t recall anyone under Obama to face criminal charges (I’m sure someone will correct me if needed), and I wonder how his administration compares at the midway point with past President’s.
    If I remember correctly, Reagan’s was the most corrupt (based on criminal charges) followed by Nixon. Clinton is pretty far down the list of modern Presidents, much to the disbelief of the howling right.
    It just seems to me that Obama’s team is, so far, pretty much clean of corruption. I think impeachment will be harder than the teabagger’s imagine.

  42. avatar
    misha November 2, 2010 at 6:26 pm #

    obsolete: I think impeachment will be harder than the teabagger’s imagine.

    All they have to find is another travel office, or Whitewater. Obama makes one misstep, and…

    They don’t have 67 votes? Who cares – they’ll try to hound him out of office. Calling Roy Cohn.

    Andy Rooney: ‘He made a career out of destroying the careers of others.’

  43. avatar
    Sean November 2, 2010 at 6:38 pm #

    Alvin Greene is a good choice. He plans to create jobs by putting people to work making Alvin Greene action figures. That’s better than the “New Deal.”

  44. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 2, 2010 at 6:59 pm #

    Dave: Well, this is the election thread, and as usual, Wonkette has the most cogent analysis of what this election is all about:

    And since this vote is not actually a complex array of hundreds of individual elections, and nothing a “Congress” has done the past two years will affect it in any way, we can totally say this is a direct referendum on the president. And that guy sucks, doesn’t he?

    There you have it.

    Well I think it is a referendum on the Troubled Assets Relief Program (the TARP) that many voters mistakenly think was adopted under the Democratic Congress and signed by Obama.

  45. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 2, 2010 at 8:17 pm #

    The South Carolina “Right to hunt and fish” amendment is leading 92% to 8% in early results.

  46. avatar
    misha November 2, 2010 at 8:28 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The South Carolina “Right to hunt and fish” amendment is leading 92% to 8% in early results.

    That’s so libruls can’t take away real Murican’s rights, y’know?

  47. avatar
    Majority Will November 2, 2010 at 11:14 pm #

    Here’s what happened. I prayed really, really hard O’Donnell would lose. Go figure. It was Open Jew night in heaven. Coincidence? Well, it’s always on a Tuesday.

  48. avatar
    Majority Will November 2, 2010 at 11:19 pm #

    “If God had intended for us not to masturbate, He would have made our arms shorter.”
    – George Carlin

  49. avatar
    Majority Will November 2, 2010 at 11:47 pm #

    “A Victorious Paul Vows to Stick to Message”

    More women will be stomped on guaranteed. That’s a priority.

  50. avatar
    misha November 3, 2010 at 1:38 am #

    Majority Will: More women will be stomped on guaranteed.

    “If you can’t beat them at the ballot box, stomp on their heads.” – Tea Party handbook, page 2

  51. avatar
    misha November 3, 2010 at 1:39 am #

    Since O’Donnell has been defeated, will she be in The Aristocrats?

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/11/odonnell-in-aristocrats.html

  52. avatar
    sponson November 3, 2010 at 2:15 am #

    Neil Abercrombie wins by quite a large margin in Hawaii. This means a new Hawaii Governor who is openly hostile to birthers. I understand that he was personally friends with Stanley Dunham and Barack Obama Sr., and knew Obama’s grandparents well.

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 3, 2010 at 8:10 am #

    misha: That’s so libruls can’t take away real Murican’s rights, y’know?

    I personally voted against the Hunt and Fish amendment. It’s not that I have anything against hunting and fishing; it just seemed an unnecessary thing to add to the Constitution and may make game management more difficult.

  54. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 3, 2010 at 8:10 am #

    The election is over.

    Thread closed.