Stevens (R-Alaska) loses his Senate seat

Fox

[Jean S]

Final count, Stevens loses his seat.

[jackinbox]

too bad he didn’t let the Lt Gov run, the GOP could have held the seat.

I agree. I wish the RNC would have applied pressure for him to step down. With any other Republican on the ticket, we would have certainly held that seat. The fact that he would have been expelled from the Senate even if he had won makes me think Stevens doesn't care at all about the party.

[ErnBatavia]

I was half hoping he would hold it and perhaps Sarah would get it. but that would take away her credentials as a D.C. outsider

I was hoping he would eke it out, then be sh*tcanned from the senate, and that Sarah - as governor - could appoint his replacement.

[Stunned]

“too bad he didn’t let the Lt Gov run, the GOP could have held the seat.”

Lt. Gov. Parnell ran for Don Young’s house seat in the primary. Sarah came out for him but didn’t do any follow-through campaigning. Parnell is really lack-luster and lost to Young who retained his seat in the general. Alaska’s a mess. We have no conservative/Republican leadership here—and unfortunately that includes Sarah.

[Free Vulcan]

I think we reached filibuster proof at 55 Dem seats.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

...too bad he didn’t let the Lt Gov run, the GOP could have held the seat.

Yep. Arrogant scumbag to the end.

[ConservativeMan55]

Agreed

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

Stevens had no shot of going back to the Senate, regardless of the outcome of this election. What you’re all cheering is the absolute certainty that he’ll be replaced with a democrat.

This election had nothing to do with Ted Stevens. It was about having the chance to retain the seat.

[ErnBatavia]

Hell with it all....let 'em get their super majority, and see if Americans are smart enough to know when they're getting bitchslapped upside, downside, and sideways.

This may be the only way to get the pendulum swinging back our way, short of 40 years of pussyfooting around the issues. Give the 'rats their head for awhile.

[Neu Pragmatist]

Well in that case we need to lean on Conservative Dims . There are certain issues that I think we can peel off some Dim support on .

[Verginius Rufus]

Yes, the way to have saved the seat would be to have someone other than Stevens as the Republican nominee. If he had won and then been forced to give up his seat anyway, which seemed likely, the Democrat who just won (Begich) might well have won the special election, unless Sarah ran, and that looked unlikely.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

I was hoping he would eke it out, then be sh*tcanned from the senate, and that Sarah - as governor - could appoint his replacement.

I think the rules call for a special election in this situation.

Still, we would have had the opportunity to field a good candidate in GOP stronghold. Instead, we get another rat in the senate.

[Neu Pragmatist]

My fear is that the Second Amendment will be shredded by the time the pendulum swings back our way . There are some Conservative Dims and we need to lean on them when each issue calls for it . It’s our only hope ...

[mthom]

It doesnt matter. When his vote counts he will vote with the Dems. So , yes, exactly like John McCain.

[Rational Thought]

This is an excellent example of the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Democrats believe in party first, rallying behind anyone with a D next to their name, regardless of the circumstances.

Republicans are the opposite, quickly throwing overboard anyone with problems, allowing the opposition and media to define what it should do.

I don't know which way is right, but we can see which party holds all the cards now.

In regards to Senator Stevens, I still question why he wished such a quick trial and with a suspect DC jury, unless he felt he was indeed innocent.

Regarding this magic number of 60, it really doesn't mean all that much for the filibuster. With the number of “Liberal” Republicans and the possibility that the Democrats could simply change the rules (55 perhaps), the number itself means little.

[JLS]

I would agree with you about “crooks” except I believe his trial was in DC. When we have trials of political figures in an overwhelmingly one party area, what are we to make of the results? I suspect that Libby was prosecuted just beecause they could get a conviction. I suspect prosecutors drag their feet on even indicting Dims because they struggle to get an overwhelmingly Dim area to convict. So while I know he was an old time pork guy, I am as I said earlier unsure of what to make of the Stevens conviction.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

Hell with it all....let 'em get their super majority, and see if Americans are smart enough to know when they're getting bitchslapped upside, downside, and sideways.

The problem is, they're now on the verge of absolute, unchecked power. And they're not big fans of the "one man, one vote" concept.

We're about to cross the point of no return.

[BrianE]

Quote: Hell with it all....let ‘em get their super majority, and see if Americans are smart enough to know when they’re getting bitchslapped upside, downside, and sideways.
This may be the only way to get the pendulum swinging back our way, short of 40 years of pussyfooting around the issues. Give the ‘rats their head for awhile.

But why oh but why does everyone keep thinking that we will get things back? Don’t see it happening, especially w/ the mass immigration most of these voting the D ticket by an approx. 60 to 70% margin.

[MilspecRob]

In regards to Senator Stevens, I still question why he wished such a quick trial and with a suspect DC jury, unless he felt he was indeed innocent.

Federal prosecutors rarely go to trial without a slamdunk case.

[Cyber Ninja]

Winning with turds like Stevens is not winning. Winning like that is, well, like WhistlingPastTheGraveyard.

Look, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits another revolution.

[Rational Thought]

while that’s true, why would Stevens want such a quick resolution just weeks prior to an election?