Yeah, she just needs a new wardrobe.

Of course, there's tons of white people in the South who don't call themselves Republicans, but vote Republican in any federal election.

Sarah Palin said her new leadership PAC shouldn't necessarily be interpreted as the first step towards a presidential campaign.

Did you know the sun rises in the west now?

As Sarah's PAC is not necessarily to be interpeted as the first step towards a presidential campaign, maybe the funds can used for early retirement for journalism majors, then they would have ample time to read "all of em" newspapers and periodicals.

"[J]ust five states, collectively containing about 2 percent of the American population, have statistically significant pluralities of adults identifying themselves as Republicans."

Truly, we are a center-right nation! wait a minute.....

[J]ust five states, collectively containing about 2 percent of the American population, have statistically significant pluralities of adults identifying themselves as Republicans.

Mark Halperin says this is bad news for Democrats and Obama.

Like John said...

Here in Oklahoma, the reddest state in the recent presidential election, we have a majority of voters who self-identify as Democrats. Many of those "Democrats" haven't voted for a Democrat in a state or federal election in over 20 years.

The poll is badly designed and meaningless.

Blago's closing statement, which coincidentally is also his opening statement, fails to impress.

Peter King. What a joke!

Did you see him on TV this week? He praised various elements of the stimulus bill and even said he'd vote FOR it when it "came back" (from the Senate, I suppose) but he'd vote against it now.

Just another member of the ReDittohead Party.

Can these doofi (that's the plural of doofus if I remember my Latin correctly) make it any more obvious that they let Rush think for them?

They are doomed and they deserve to be doomed.

BTW, I disagree about Blago -- I think he's pretty impressive considering the picture painted by the media that makes him out to be an incoherent crazy. He makes some good points about not being able to present evidence.

Is that even Constitutional? Doesn't seem like due process to me.

Not that I don't think he's a crook. I just think they should have to prove it rather than taking a criminal complaint as some kind of evidence.

Is that even Constitutional? Doesn't seem like due process to me.

You might be less impressed by Blago if you understood the difference between a criminal trial and an impeachment trial, and if you didn't take at face value Blago's oft-repeated lie that he wasn't allowed to present evidence. I'm not surprised that you're confused--aren't you the poster who watches cable news day and night?

For others a little better versed in this case, the gist from Blago so far: If loving old people and children is wrong, I don’t want to be right. Dad = immigrant. Me = American success story. Sure, I did all that stuff, but most of it was in the first term, so why didn’t you impeach me then? If I go down, Rahm Emanuel goes with me, because he did a lot of bad stuff I can’t tell you about right now. Ted Kennedy and John McCain should be named coconspirators, because they were for health care for old people, too. I didn’t go to fancy schools like all of you. I know I can be brash, but I just love the citizens so much I get too excited sometimes. If this can happen to me, every one of you private citizens could be impeached at any moment.

Claiming Oklahoma "leans Democratic"? Yeah, right.

And, right-o on Blago. Dems in the Ill. Senate are trying to railroad him to cover up their own connections to him. Obama Administration certainly has no problems with that, and Fitz continues to shit on his halo, as he has ever since refusing to indict Rove over the Plame leak.

statistically significant pluralities of adults identifying themselves as Republicans.

If only self-ID actually mattered. As John noted about the south in general, Kentucky has an almost 2-1 Democratic ID advantage, which in the last eight years has translated into repug victories.

""[J]ust five states, collectively containing about 2 percent of the American population, have statistically significant pluralities of adults identifying themselves as Republicans. These are the 'Mormon Belt' states of Utah, Idaho and Wyoming, plus Nebraska, plus Alaska."

And if you look at the map, Nebraska is just "tending" that way. Only four are solid.

Sounds like Romney/Palin in 2012.

I can't wait to see Palin go rogue on Mitt.

Bring 'em on!

Blago's closing statement...fails to impress. - shortstop

Actually, it kind of reminds me of Palin's debate in the Alaska gubenatorial race. If you don't know any of the facts, it sounds pretty impressive. He's a heroic champion of the little people, surrounded by petty politicians.

Heath Shuler??? The guy who just jumped ship to vote against the stimulus package? I'll contribute to any primary opponent who supports the President in a flash.

"You might be less impressed by Blago if you understood the difference between a criminal trial and an impeachment trial"

I think you missed my point, shortstop. Due process doesn't apply just to criminal trials, it applies to any government action, and this impeachment is, I think, subject to due process as would be an eminent domain action, for example.

And I don't think the ad hominem "aren't you the poster" snark was deserved, btw.

I mainly spend day and night reading blogs, but yes I do watch things like this in real time rather than relying on others' interpretation of them.

"Rep. Peter King (R) plans to run for the Senate in New York next year, but according to a new Marist poll, he'll start as a serious underdog to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D)."

Peter King knows that come 2010, with the Democrats in charge of the New York Senate, Assembly and Governorship, he's going to be redistricted/ungerrymandered out of a House seat. He's literally got nothing to lose by running for the Senate.

If you don't know any of the facts, it sounds pretty impressive.

Precisely. His media blitz actually did him some good in that regard. Very few interviewers were even remotely prepared; almost none challenged him on the "I'm not allowed to bring any witnesses" BS, for example.

It's pretty hard, however, to make the case that you're the only person standing up for the little guy and that every single Republican AND Democratic legislator is out to screw the citizens of Illinois. Our General Assembly does suck in numerous ways, but arguing that the entire lege is against you and the citizens of Illinois (who, sadly for Rod, are agin him, too) is hilarious.

Some of those legislators, of course, will go down with Blago in the criminal trial, as well they should. And others, like Lisa Madigan, have conducted themselves outrageously. Doesn't change Blago's culpability at all.

Cal Gal, we may be talking about two different people. I'm referring to the poster of a thousand handles who posts reports on cable news happenings all day and evening? "Posted by: Bill O'Reilly is an idiot!" "Posted by: Chris Matthews doesn't get it!"--that sort of thing. Is that you? The "Remember Gov. Seligman [sic]" handle made me think so.

If memory serves me right, Rep. Peter King (R) supported the IRA before 9/11

Rep King supported their tactics (i.e. terrorism) before 9/11

Has he changed his views on terrorism ?
Has he changed his views on the IRA ?

Um. Since when was Wyoming a "Mormon Belt" state? Idaho, Utah, Arizona, yes. Maybe even Nevada. Wyoming? No.

No, shortstop, that is not I.

But remembering what the ReThugs did to Gov. Seligman should make us Dems careful to use actual facts rather than allegations.

You may also note that in my original post I said that I had no doubt that Blago is a crook.

And I don't think it matters WHO I am if my point about due process is correct.

I generally think snark about who a poster is rather than what they say is a sign of typing without thinking. I say "generally" because in the case of true trolls, it is not even worth the time to read their comments.

But from you I expect more. Too much coffee this morning?

P.S. Bill O'Reilly IS an idiot. And Chris Matthews DOESN'T get it, as shown by his idiotic comments about the stimulus bill paying for condoms clearly demonstrates.

But remembering what the ReThugs did to Gov. Seligman should make us Dems careful to use actual facts rather than allegations.

Siegelman, Cal Gal. Seligman was a governor of New Mexico, I believe. Somewhere in the Southwest, anyway.

Apples and oranges. Siegelman was the subject of a demonstrably partisan prosecution. Blago, not so much.

And I don't think it matters WHO I am if my point about due process is correct.

But it isn't. Again, I urge you to read up on what the process of impeachment and conviction actually involves. You seem still to be confusing it with a criminal trial.

P.S. Bill O'Reilly IS an idiot. And Chris Matthews DOESN'T get it, as shown by his idiotic comments about the stimulus bill paying for condoms clearly demonstrates.

LOL--who's arguing with that? I'm making fun of the person who sits in front of cable news all day and night and reports breathlessly on every on-air conversation, changing her handle every time to recap her generally banal points.

Sure glad that isn't you.

Ugh, Shuler? Please, no. A Blue Dog is better than the Republican we'd otherwise get in his House district, but we do not need him in the Senate. We can do a lot better.

Shortstop, we seem to disagree about whether what the Illinois legislature is doing meets the constitutional definition of due process.

I do realize it's not a criminal prosecution.

I don't think that it's due process if the legislature uses unsupported allegations to fire the governor.

BTW, how do you know it's a "her"?

Peter King has almost no chance against any Democrat unless my party descends into the viciously suicidal war that got Bloomberg elected.

King is really a 'legend in his own mind' type, who's never had the respect he's imagined. He'll undoubtedly face a strong primary opponent, because he is far too 'liberal' for the increasingly more absurd NYS Republicans.

Pataki and D'Amato may have been poor examples of political rectitude, but they at least exerted a pull towards the center. Without them, the party has returned to a classic 'upstate Conservatism' that has been losing them elections since FDR.

Throw in some classic scandals, including Vito "I'm so pro-family I've got two of them' Fossella. (And remember their first choice for his successor was so bad even his own son threatened to run against him as a Libertarian.)

And remember the clownish campaign of TV Judge Pirro against Hillary, which was so bad that even though she had the votes to be the candidate, even the Republicans begged her to drop out.

And our Republicans follow the lead of the National party in insisting that the problem is that they haven't been Conservative enough.

'Wiser heads might prevail' though it is unlikely, and King is the only Republican who stands even a chance if the Democrats form their circular firing squad, but he'll be ducking bullets of his own, and NYS is one of the few where 'minor parties' can make a difference by supporting or opposing a major party candidate.

Put NY in the 'safe Democratic' column unless a major disaster happens.

Btw, Seligman was from Alabama, which hasn't been the "Southwest" since the Louisiana Purchase.

Cal Gal: I don't think that it's due process if the legislature uses unsupported allegations to fire the governor.

Are you aware of the actual breadth of allegations in the Blago impeachment, or are you under the misconception that these are limited to Fitz's criminal charges? I'm getting the impression that it's the latter. Again, I really urge you to check all of this out a little further--we're wasting our time until you do.

Prup: Btw, Seligman was from Alabama, which hasn't been the "Southwest" since the Louisiana Purchase.

Sigh. This is getting comical. Siegelman was the governor of Alabama and the person to whom I assume Cal Gal was referring. Seligman was a governor of New Mexico.

Back to another interesting topic in this thread: The incidence of Republican voters self-identifying as Democrats is fascinating. I ran into some of this myself canvassing for Obama in Indy. In a neighborhood in which residents stood to gain a lot by an Obama presidency and lose big with a McCain administration, a lot of the registered Democrats I visited were openly hostile to Obama and said they were voting for McCain.

I don't know how many of them never actually vote for Democrats. But I got the impression from some that McCain was their first Republican vote.

Would like to know more about the Kentucky and Oklahoma voters discussed above. I've seen the opposite happen, too: My mom, a recovering Republican who now votes Dem all the way and was a very strong supporter of Obama, still holds on to old chestnuts about "tax and spend liberals" and the "old" Republican party being all laissez faire. It took me running through a long list of individual issues for her to admit that on 90 percent of them, she really does support the Democratic view and believes that government can have a positive role in people's lives.

Weird how people hang on to their tightly held characterizations of the parties so long after they've been disproven. Maybe the economic downturn will, as many note above, be the deciding factor in turning people around. But if they don't get it after the last eight years, what could possibly convince them that their self-identity or their voting patterns need a little freshening up?

Prup - I suppose it's possible NY will look for a more conservative Republican, but I wouldn't bet on it. I recently googled an old schoolmate who is now one of the higher ranking assemblymen in NY. I was shocked to learn he got middling grades from pro choice groups and labor groups. The only issue he got extreme grades on was pro-gun. In another state he could be left of a Blue Dog Dem, judging from these ratings.

"Siegelman was the governor of Alabama and the person to whom I assume Cal Gal was referring. Seligman was a governor of New Mexico."

My bad on the spelling, but YOU know who we're all talking about. Sorry I missed the New Mexico reference, teacher.

Your bad on not understanding my due process point, or at least not responding to it.

I guess (because there's no evidence to allow a discussion on the point) that you think political differences are enough to impeach an elected official. Even if Illinois law allows that, I think there is an interesting due process point, as Blago is being fired from a government job.

But as we're talking across each other, I will not mention due process again.

Sorry I missed the New Mexico reference, teacher.

As should have been obvious by my use of the word "Prup," I was actually addressing Prup, who also seems to be having trouble reading today.

Your bad on not understanding my due process point, or at least not responding to it.

You haven't given me anything to respond to, CG. You haven't shown a) how Blago's constitutional rights are being subverted, b) what "due process" means to you in the context of a political trial, c) that you understand the difference between depriving a man of his job in a political process and depriving a man of his freedom in a criminal trial, d) that you are even aware of what all the allegations against Blago are, e), what "supporting" them would entail in an impeachment trail, f) what the process for mounting a defense in an impeachment trial is and whether Blago bothered to avail himself of any of his many options for calling witnesses and introducing statements, g) an understanding of the difference between elected office and other "government jobs." And that's just for starters.

You just keep repeating generalities about "due process." What do you mean by it? Tell me specifically and I'll respond--but you're not going to be able to say anything more precise unless you learn something about this trial and the legal process for impeachment. You seem inexplicably reluctant to do that.

"[J]ust five states, collectively containing about 2 percent of the American population, have statistically significant pluralities of adults identifying themselves as Republicans. These are the 'Mormon Belt' states of Utah, Idaho and Wyoming, plus Nebraska, plus Alaska.

Oh, but by the time we're done dismantling Dean's 50-states strategy and Whistling Past Dixie, old style... there'll be more, for sure.

Like I keep asking, where is Tripp?

"her new leadership PAC shouldn't necessarily be interpreted as the first step towards a presidential campaign."

No, it's the last step. There will be so little response that Palin will end up having to pay the salaries of the people involved out of Alaskan taxpayer funds. After that, she won't be able to get any traction whatsoever.

I just wish that people were smart enough that this scenario were true, but knowing that a lot of people think with their engorged urinary organs, she will still attract support.