Even with the advantage of having a highly competitive state-wide Senate primary going and a 2-to-1 voter registration edge in a district so stupid it voted for John Murtha repeatedly, Democrat Mark Critz still had to run against ObamaCare, Crap & Trade, etc. to win in PA-12. As Sean Trende of RCP points out, "there are over sixty districts represented by Democrats with better Republican performances than PA-12. The Republicans' path to 218 seats doesn't necessarily run through this district . . . the [GOP's] path of least resistance . . . still runs through places like OH-01, NY-29, IL-11, and NM-02: historically Republican districts that voted out GOP incumbents as part of the anti-Republican wave" of '06 and '08. Nuff said.
Anyway, that's...
My Two Cents...
"JohnHuang2"
Now I want to see Charlie Crist retired. If we can exile him from Florida it would be even better!
So long Arlen you POS! Loyalty meant nothing to you, party meant nothing to you, principles meant nothing to you, and service to your constituents meant nothing to you. You are simply an opportunist who now has only one opportunity - writing a book which will be remaindered by Amazon after your family buys fifty copies.
Specter Defeat Signals a Wave Against Democrats ...
There. Fixed it.
A couple of things to consider that make Pennsylvania even more interesting in the fall. Independents did not vote in District 12 and Altmire in district 4 may very well be defeated based on the votes cast for Rothfus. This was a closed primary. The good news is Sphincter can not run as an independent under PA law. Maybe he will become a Yankees fan. ;-)
Maybo you won’t. but I will.......
GLOAT!
There!
Unfortunately leftwing nutjob Joe Sestak is an incumbant as well -— just not for the seat he’s running for in November. Wait until independents and a respectable number of NRA Dems get wind of his record. ‘F’ NRA. ‘F’ on *all* of the Bailouts, ‘F’ to ethnic RC’s on abortion. Oh yes, Joe Sestak is very much the congressional Washington insider, and he is in for a rough ride indeed.
We need to launch and Spector independent bid. This would put Toomey in the Senate.
Ouch! Sure a lot of it is spin to portray the big loss of the Obama candidate as really a victory. But still, you would think they would be a little bit nicer to someone who was supposedly on of their own just a couple hours after the end of a 30 year political career. They basically said they used Specter and threw him away like an old dishrag and are proud of that fact.
wave against Moogly the man cub and LIARS.....
Solid analysis and I pulled the piece above to highlight something else too. I do not believe what we are seeing as “anit-incumbent” as some are pointing out, but more anti-Obama. Watch all the talking heads to day and all they talk about is this anti-incumbent mood, but what they are afraid to talk about is the fact that the one has lost his charm on the electorate. In PA-12 you had Critz (D) basically running against Obama and the beltway Dem establishment not only tolerated it, they basically endorsed it. That has to be a chilling prospect for Axelrod and the crew.
People are just doing what my husband has said he will be doing come election time. Only voting to oust incumbents!
It’s funny how Paul’s win “delivered a significant blow to the Republican establishment”, yet Sestak’s win didn’t “deliver a significant blow to the Democrat establishment”. Bias anyone?
Uh, I think the NY Slimes has it wrong.
BIG GOVERNMENT incumbents are in trouble. Not incumbents necessarily.
The electorate must become wise to these things and to America's Founding princples, which can enable them to recognize which are true ideas of liberty, and which are counterfeit ideas of tyranny. That is not easy.
In 2008, Michael Ledeen, on another subject altogether, wrote of the degree to which Americans have been "dumbed down" on some basic ideas underlying our freedom:
Ledeen said, "Our educational system has long since banished religion from its texts, and an amazing number of Americans are intellectually unprepared for a discussion in which religion is the central organizing principle."
In the Pope's speech in Germany a few years ago, he observed:
"A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures."
Ledeen put his finger on a problem that stifles meaningful dialogue and debate in America. Censors [disguised as "protectors" (the Radical Left's ACLU, NEA, education bureaucracies, etc., etc.)] have imposed their limited understanding of liberty upon generations of school children.
From America's founding to the 1950's, ideas derived from religious literature were included in textbooks, through the poetry and prose used to teach children to read and to identify with their world and their country.
Suddenly, those ideas began to disappear from textbooks, until now, faceless, mindless copy editors sit in cubicles in the nation's textbook publishing companies, instructed by their supervisors to remove mere words that refer to family, to the Divine, and to any of the ancient ideas that have sustained intelligent discourse for centuries.
Now, it is the ACLU which accuses middle Americans of "censorship" if they object to books, films, etc., that offend their sensibilities and undermine the character training of their young. Sadly, many of those books and films are themselves products of the minds that have been robbed of exposure to wisdom literaturein the nation's schools and universities.
Back to the subject at hand:
The Democrats (Progressives) ARE WHO THEY ARE. Sestak, and other Democratic candidates' "distancing" themselves (whatever that might mean) from Pelosi/Obama won't change that.
The Party stands for the right of women to determine who is born and who dies in the womb;
- the Party stands for liberalizing the definition of marriage;
- the Party stands for redistribution of wealth from those who produce it to those who don't (no matter how they label it);
- the Party stands for a belief that the U. S. Constitution is a "living," or as I heard one describe it, a "fluid" Constitution [meaning it can be changed by activist judges (instead of by the ONLY method prescribed within the Constitution itself)];
- the Party leadership at all levels is in "lock-step" on these matters, revealing a totalitarian mindset that does not allow for those of differing ideas to become leaders.
As a result, the Progressives' agendas will be adhered to by elected officials, no matter how much the PR officials of the Party may use semantic trickery to "redefine" it to the citizens described as "red staters."
When it comes down to it, even the Joe Liebermans will fall back to "lock-step" when push comes to shove. Only those like Zell Miller, who are willing to be castigated and ignored, dare speak out.
The same can be said for the "Progressives" within the Republican Party.
That's why voters need to be grounded in enduring ideas in order to recognize tyranny camouflaged in "hope" and "change" and to be able to appropriately enter into what the Pope described as "the dialogue of cultures."
So much for Scottish law....
Not a wave, more like a one-finger salute.