• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
"Here’s an exchange that took place yesterday afternoon between Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, and Jonathan Karl, ABC News’s White House correspondent:"
Karl: Josh, just a quick one first on Yemen. I know you’re asked this every time something terrible happens in Yemen. But now that we have essentially complete chaos in Yemen, does the White House still believe that Yemen is the model for a counterterrorism strategy?

Earnest: Jon, the White House does continue to believe that a successful counterterrorism strategy is one that will build up the capacity of the central government to have local fighters on the ground to take the fight to extremists in their own country, and the United States can serve both to diplomatically offer up some political support to central governments. We can offer very tangible support to local security forces in the form of training and equipping, and we can also support the operations of those security forces through whether it’s the deployment of ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] capability, or even in the case of Iraq, military airstrikes.

And that is a template that has succeeded in mitigating the threat that we face from extremists in places like Yemen and Somalia, and is a template that we believe can succeed in mitigating the threat emanating from Syria as well.

Karl: I mean, that’s astounding. You’re saying that you still see Yemen as the model? That building up the central government, which has now collapsed; a president who’s apparently fled the country; Saudi troops amassing on one border; the Iranians supporting the rebels—you consider this is a model for counterterrorism?

Earnest: Again, Jon, what the United States considers to be our strategy when confronting the effort to try to mitigate the threat that is posed by extremists is to prevent them from establishing a safe haven. And certainly, in a chaotic, dangerous situation like in Yemen, what the United States will do and has done is worked to try to support the central government, to build up the capacity of local fighters, and use our own technological and military capabilities to apply pressure on the extremists there.

Look, there’s no doubt that we would like to see a functioning central government in Yemen; we don’t see that right now. And that is why we’re supportive of the U.N.-led process to try to put an end to the violence and instability, to bring all sides together to the table to try to resolve their differences; to build up the capacity of the central government; to build up the capacity of local forces and to continue to apply pressure to extremists.

What I will say is that we have not seen that kind of progress in terms of strengthening the central government. I think you could make a pretty strong case that we’ve seen the opposite of that. But we do continue to enjoy the benefits of a sustained counterterrorism security relationship with the security infrastructure that remains in Yemen.

Karl: Do you think the security infrastructure still remains in Yemen?

Earnest: There are elements of the Yemeni government that we continue to be in touch with that continue to further our efforts to apply pressure to extremists that seek to operate in that country. And we continue to have the capability—again, because of the planning and because of the relationships that we have in the region, we do continue to have the capability to take out extremists if they’re posing a threat to the United States.
Click to expand...
No wonder Dana Perino seems like she has PTSD.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Serious question: Is Julian Castro ready to be president day 1 if the situation arises?

1. He is 42 years old inauguration 2017
2. There will probably be pressure on Hillary to pick him
3. I worry he is too inexperienced on paper. He is competent though but does he have any real accomplishments as HUD and Mayor? where does he stand on the issues? granted he could be briefed and I have no doubt he wont be the next palin.
 
C

Cat

Member
NeoXChaos said:
Serious question: Is Julian Castro ready to be president day 1 if the situation arises?

1. He is 42 years old inauguration 2017
2. There will probably be pressure on Hillary to pick him
3. I worry he is too inexperienced on paper. He is competent though but does he have any real accomplishments as HUD and Mayor? where does he stand on the issues? granted he could be briefed and I have no doubt he wont be the next palin.
Click to expand...

On HUD, there was this piece by ThinkProgress back in November:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/20...secretary-in-us-history-plans-to-shake-up-dc/

I list him in one of my private Twitter lists and will probably switch to following him outright soon. He does appear to be actively travelling to help people/places with his current role.

For mayor, in the 2012 election, we voted on his Pre-K 4 SA program, which is supposed to help low-income families with better access to pre-k education. I read about it at the time, and it sounded really great. It's a very important time in a person's life and largely shapes who they will be in the years to come. Education is the most important thing to me too.

I believe he was asked to work in HUD for the very reason of the inexperience you describe so that he could then have some more, which he now does.

His twin brother's pretty cool too, imo. I am just outside of his district and stuck with Lamar Smith as my representative instead.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
NeoXChaos said:
Serious question: Is Julian Castro ready to be president day 1
Click to expand...
No one is.

Especially if the former President ignores you and keeps you completely in the dark about everything.

You know who did that? FDR. And to who?

TRUMAN.

1. He is 42 years old inauguration 2017.
Click to expand...
TR and JFK were basically 43, Clinton and Grant were 46, Obama and Cleveland were 47. And they were the Presidents.

Nixon was 40, Quayle was 42, Gore was 45.
 
S

Sobriquet

Member
benjipwns said:
EDIT: Just remembered when Johm McCain hosted SNL. And they did that amazing Lifetime drama skit where he was the creepy husband.
Click to expand...

I still remember this one from when he hosted in 2002:

A5yJg5X.jpg


He was actually really funny IIRC.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Since it's only a paragraph long and since I want to bold something I found amusing I will post it for ya Trouble:
Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to expanding and protecting Social Security.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES—114th Cong., 1st Sess.
S. Con. Res. 11

Setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2016 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2017 through 2025.

Referred to the Committee on llllllllll and ordered to be printed

Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed

AMENDMENT intended to be proposed by Ms. WARREN (for herself, Mr. MANCHIN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, and Mr. SCHATZ)
Viz:
1 At the appropriate place, insert the following:
2 SEC. lll. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO EXPANDING AND PROTECTING SOCIAL SECURITY.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to the sustainable expansion of benefits under the Social Security program and promoting the complete long-term actuarial solvency of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, by the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2020 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
Click to expand...

Also:
promoting the complete long-term actuarial solvency
Click to expand...
lol
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Thought this might be a fun article for some on here: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/politics/policamp/insider.htm

A July 1988 election analysis focusing on the key swing states. Illinois, New York, Texas and California.

There are two theories about the 1988 presidential election. One is that the Democrats can't lose unless they do everything wrong. The other is that they can't win even if they do everything right.

According to the first theory, the Democrats hold all the trump cards--the Iran-contra scandal, the stock-market crash, public disenchantment with Ronald Reagan, and George Bush's high negatives in the polls. All they have to do is play their cards right. The other theory says that the Democratic Party is in such a parlous condition that none of these advantages really matters. "The unpleasant truth is this," the political consultant Patrick H. Caddell wrote in a memorandum to major party contributors last year. "The party has never been weaker in our lifetime and the array of obstacles and trends never more alarming." Horace W. Busby, formerly a confidant of Lyndon B. Johnson's and now a Washington consultant, offered this prophecy one month before the 1980 election: "The hard-to-accept truth is that Democratic candidacies for the White House may no longer be viable. The Republican lock is about to close; it will be hard for anyone to open over the four elections between now and the year 2000." I interviewed Busby late last year and asked him if he saw any prospect that the Democrats could break the Republican lock in 1988. "No, I don't," he replied. Who did he think would be the strongest Democratic standard bearer in 1988? "Michael Dukakis," he said. "Why Dukakis?" I asked. "Because," Busby replied, "he is the Democrat most likely to carry his own state."

It's fairly easy to find evidence for the theory that the Democrats are headed for a victory. Just look at the polls--and not only the "horserace" polls, showing Dukakis with a healthy lead over Bush. Gallup polls taken earlier this year showed the Democrats regaining a lead, of 42 to 29 percent, over the Republicans in party affiliation. In 1985, shortly after President Reagan's re-election victory, the parties were nearly equal in strength. In October of 1987 a Time magazine poll asked people which party would handle various issues better. The Democrats were rated five points ahead on "keeping the country out of war." Two years earlier the Republicans had been five points ahead. On "keeping inflation under control" the Republican advantage had shrunk from 10 points in 1985 to an insignificant one point by 1987. The Republicans were still ahead on "keeping the country strong and prosperous," but the margin was six points in 1987, down from 18 points in 1985. And this was before the stock market crash.

The revolt against government is over. According to a CBS-New York Times poll taken in May, the American public is now evenly divided when asked whether it prefers a "bigger government providing more services" or a "smaller government providing fewer services." The Times reported, "Bigger government has not been this popular since November 1976, which is also the last time the Democrats won a presidential election." Moreover, tax resentment, a key source of public support for the Reagan revolution, has clearly diminished. From 1978 to 1986, according to polls taken by the Roper Organization, the percentage of Americans who felt that their federal income taxes were "excessively high" dropped from 41 to 26 percent.

Americans are in a mood for change. When people are asked in various ways whether they want the next President to continue Ronald Reagan's policies or change direction and follow different policies, a majority consistently opts for change.

If the evidence for Democratic optimism comes from the polls, the electoral college provides ample support for Democratic pessimism. "The electoral college, which Democrats prefer to ignore, is a Republican institution," Horace Busby wrote in 1980. "If a Democratic incumbency cannot hold it, it must be considered unlikely that a Democratic challenge can retake it." In Busby's view, the Republicans dominated the electoral college from the Civil War through the 1920s (the "Lincoln lock"); the Democrats held the advantage briefly, during the 1930s and 1940s (the "Roosevelt lock"); and the Republicans have dominated presidential politics since the 1950s (the "Eisenhower lock"). In the nine presidential elections from 1952 to 1984, thirty-nine states have gone Republican at least five times. Those states account for 441 electoral votes, or 171 more than the majority needed to win the presidency. "So long as the GOP holds that lock, Democrats are not competitive at the presidential level."
Click to expand...

What the Democrats have to do in 1988 is turn themselves into a usable opposition. If they present themselves as a liberal party, the electoral college will do to them exactly what it did in 1968, 1972, and 1984. But they can't become a conservative party either. Liberals are right when they say that faced with a choice between two Republican parties, the voters will choose the real thing every time. The answer is for the Democrats to define themselves as the party of change. Instead of posing an ideological choice, in which people are asked to vote their beliefs and values, the Democrats must do exactly what Ronald Reagan did in 1980- forget ideology and turn the election into a referendum, a choice between continuity and change. Once the Democrats win, they will have ample opportunity to convince the voters that their principles are correct. All they have to do is show that they work.
Click to expand...

During 1984, according to Public Opinion magazine, Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale were matched against each other in 101 "trial heats" published by various polling organizations. A hundred of these polls showed Reagan ahead; Mondale was ahead just once, by two points, in a Newsweek poll taken on the day after the Democratic National Convention. In March and April of this year seven polling organizations published trial heats between George Bush and Michael Dukakis. Dukakis led in two polls, Bush led in two, and the other three were too close to call. In May the CBS-New York Times poll showed Dukakis beating Bush by 10 points, while the Gallup poll, which showed Bush ahead in April, gave Dukakis a 16-point lead.
Click to expand...

I'm leaving out any quotes from 60+% of the article that visits and talks about each of the "battleground" states except for this snippet from the Illinois section with a name who seems familiar:
While conservatives and racist whites were leaving the Democratic Party in the South, "urban populists" were drifting toward the Republican Party in the North: George Wallace, meet Archie Bunker.

"There was no future for Ed Vrdolyak in the Democratic Party," David Axelrod, a Democratic political consultant from Chicago, told me. "The question is whether he can persuade ethnic whites that his case is exemplary, that there's no place for them in the Democratic Party either."
Click to expand...

Back to the "national" focus sections:
Both political parties have become more ideological and less populist over the past twenty-five years. Barry Goldwater and George McGovern have finally won. Their movements took control of the parties away from the old bosses--the Democratic Party regulars, the Republican eastern establishment--and turned it over to "the people," which is to say, primary voters and caucus participants. But most people do not participate in primaries and caucuses. Those who do tend to be upper-middle-class activists with an ideological agenda. As a result, liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats have become virtually extinct. More to the point, middle-class voters no longer feel entirely comfortable in either party; the Democrats are too liberal and the Republicans too conservative. In every state I visited, politicians talked about how partisanship has been declining since the 1960s. There are fewer and fewer reliable Republican and Democratic voters. The white middle class has become a swing vote.

The big story of the past twenty-five years has been the Democratic Party's loss of the white middle-class vote. Everett Ladd, a political scientist, noticed it in the early 1970s, when he wrote about "the inversion of the New Deal class order" "In the party system which FDR built, the top had been decisively more Republican than the bottom," he wrote. By the early 1970s he found evidence that "in many...instances, groups at the top are now more Democratic than those at the bottom." Indeed, he identified a new pattern, "with the top more Democratic than the middle but the middle less Democratic than the bottom." The Democrats have been losing northern white ethnics and southern conservatives. They are becoming a top-down coalition of elite professionals and the dependent poor. In the 1988 presidential primaries the Democratic Party seemed to be reduced to two core constituencies-- blacks and white liberals.
Click to expand...

If the Democrats are under pressure because they have been losing votes, the Republicans have had problems because they have been gaining votes. Old-line Republicans have had difficulty accepting some of the new groups that have been moving into their party--urban populists, racists, and religious fundamentalists. "The deal is, we will endorse your positions and take your votes, but please don't try to challenge us for control of our party," Republican leaders seem to be saying. Blacks didn't accept that deal from the Democratic Party, and religious fundamentalists are not likely to accept it from the Republican Party
Click to expand...
heh

What the voters seem to want in 1988 is change, but not too much change. They want the new President to deal with Reagan's mistakes. But they do not want to endanger the two things Reagan is credited with having achieved: lower inflation and a greater sense of military security. The Democrats cannot do anything that threatens to put those achievements at risk. To Jackson voters and liberal activists, Dukakis is a timid choice. Instead of posing a direct ideological challenge to everything Reagan stands for, Dukakis promises only to make government work better In Jesse Jackson's words, "Dukakis will manage the damage." That is called "me too" politics, and activists don't like it. On the Republican side, many conservatives are critical of Bush for the same reason--"He's bland, he's dull, he isn't saying anything." But conservatives, like liberals, get into trouble when they say too much.

What both parties have to offer is a safe alternative for voters who are unhappy with the status quo. Dwight Eisenhower was a safe alternative in 1952. Richard Nixon was believed to be safe in 1968, especially since everywhere Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace went that year, riots broke out.
Click to expand...

Both Dukakis and Bush are fairly safe candidates. In fact, they have similar strengths. Both are pragmatists. As a result, they are distrusted by ideological activists in their respective parties. But neither is regarded as dangerous or divisive. They also share a weakness. Neither Bush nor Dukakis has a populist bone in his body. Because Bush was born to wealth and privilege, he has a serious "silver spoon" problem. Voters can forgive that shortcoming in Democrats (FDR, JFK), but it is always a problem for Republicans. Dukakis is a suburban reformer, a man who believes in good government and high moral purpose. He is totally committed to process. He will use government to manage economic growth, and he will use Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government to manage the government. Not for him the passionate advocacy politics of Hubert Humphrey or Walter Mondale.

The voters face a choice this year between two establishment candidates, both "safe," both pragmatic. One proposes to be chairman of the board, the other sees himself as chief executive officer. What kind of contest is this going to be? What the voters want is a Big Ten game. Instead, the 1988 election is shaping up as Harvard versus Yale.
Click to expand...
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Reid's done:
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced Friday he would not seek reelection, a decision that upends the hierarchy in the Senate Democratic Caucus and the political landscape in Nevada.

In a farewell video, Reid, 75, cited his brutal eye injury in January as the reason he decided to forgo a Senate race next year.

"I've had time to ponder and to think," Reid said.
Click to expand...
 
N

NobleXenon

Member
Well, here's hoping the successor to Reid will at least consider building a Thorium Nuclear Recycling Plant at Yucca Mountain.

It would be very interesting if UNLV would specialize at the storage of nuclear technology while UNR would specialize in the storage of green technology.
 
A

AndyD

aka andydumi
Rhomega Beta said:
I'm sure they could pick out 100 other stories of people whose premiums doubled or are forced to buy insurance they can't afford.
Click to expand...

Poodlestrike said:
Considering that they couldn't find 4 people suffering demonstrable harm to put in front of the Supreme Court, I wouldn't be so certain.
Click to expand...

It would not matter if the stories are true. Anyone can post something on Facebook about horrors, and then she can quote Facebook to the media saying "my constituents say XYZ" without really needing to verify the story.
 
A

Averon

Member
My only question is will the next leader be a fire breather like Reid post-2012, or be someone more willing to capitulate to the GOP.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
I would just like to say I had a dream last night where Hillary Clinton was making some speech on video, and then got pissed off at someone asking questions and got really defensive to the point where it was a trainwreck. Elizabeth Warren was there and got up to try and calm her down, but Clinton started yelling at her and after the fact Warren said she was thinking about running.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
I want to say somebody like Durbin has the inside track for leader. IIRC, Schumer prefers a different role within the caucus. Maybe not a fan of dealing with process and scheduling.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Sandoval running does not guarantee the seat becomes Republican. He will be running in a Presidential Election and the result will highly correlate with the presidential result.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Reid has already said he wants Catherine Cortez Masto to succeed him. She'd be a formidable candidate.

I'd also prefer Durbin over Schumer but neither of them come close to my ideal Majority Leader.

Al Franken

Just saw Reid wants Schumer. Welp. At least NY is so blue it's hard to imagine a Republican beating him - IL is still prone to electing Republicans (Kirk, Rauner). Reid and Daschle being from purple states (red in Daschle's case) is such unnecessary heartburn.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
Reid has already said he wants Catherine Cortez Masto to succeed him. She'd be a formidable candidate.

I'd also prefer Durbin over Schumer but neither of them come close to my ideal Majority Leader.

Al Franken

Just saw Reid wants Schumer. Welp. At least NY is so blue it's hard to imagine a Republican beating him - IL is still prone to electing Republicans (Kirk, Rauner). Reid and Daschle being from purple states (red in Daschle's case) is such unnecessary heartburn.
Click to expand...

I'm with Yglasias on this. It doesn't matter what their stances are, they can change.

The next leader matters — but not for policy
Click to expand...
There are real differences between Schumer and Reid. As a New York legislator, Schumer takes a kinder view of Wall Street as something of a hometown industry. He also is a genuinely passionate and fired-up hawk on Israel-related issues. But it would be a mistake to think his ascension would lead to a massive Democratic Party reorientation in favor of Bibi Netanyahu and Jamie Dimon. If anything, the opposite. If he becomes leader, Schumer will have to sand down the edges of his personal approach to politics in order to better fit the posture of generic Democratic leader. This is one reason the Warren idea is so ridiculous — if your passion in life is picking intra-party fights, a leadership job would be a disaster.

Precisely because the new leader will back the caucus's policy agenda regardless of who the new leader is, policy ideas likely won't loom large in the fight. Democratic senators want a leader who can do a good job of fundraising, a good job of message coordination, and a good job of representing the caucus's views in talks with the House and the White House. This is harder for outsiders to evaluate than policy positions, but much more important to actual senators.
Click to expand...

He points to his anti-abortion views and gun rights views which have radically changed as he got further up in leadership.

Remember how he loathed the idea of changing the filibuster? Until he went nuclear.

How he was pro-compromise and appeasing nelson, until he didn't and stood strong against the shutdown.

And has cruz as proved you can have a leadership role and shape the direction of the senate without being in leadership.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
ivysaur12 said:
He's sort of seemed averse to it before. I honestly don't see what he would really achieve by going from governor of a Republican trifecta to a freshman senator?
Click to expand...
He's also apparently pissed off a bunch of Republicans by signing off on tax increases. Dunno if it would be enough for him to lose a primary but he'd still be up against Club for Growth/Norquist/etc.

It'd be great to see more women of color in the Senate. Cortez-Masto, Edwards, Harris would quadruple that number, in fact.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
He's also apparently pissed off a bunch of Republicans by signing off on tax increases. Dunno if it would be enough for him to lose a primary but he'd still be up against Club for Growth/Norquist/etc.

It'd be great to see more women of color in the Senate. Cortez-Masto, Edwards, Harris would quadruple that number, in fact.
Click to expand...

Anti-white Misandry!

I'm with you
 
D

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
Averon said:
Reid's 75 years old and has been banged up with injuries. Not surprising he would retire.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't be surprising, but this is American politics, where old people frequently hang around long past the time they should.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
APKmetsfan said:
I'm with Yglasias on this. It doesn't matter what their stances are, they can change.




He points to his anti-abortion views and gun rights views which have radically changed as he got further up in leadership.

Remember how he loathed the idea of changing the filibuster? Until he went nuclear.

How he was pro-compromise and appeasing nelson, until he didn't and stood strong against the shutdown.

And has cruz as proved you can have a leadership role and shape the direction of the senate without being in leadership.
Click to expand...

I agree to some extent, but wasn't Reid basically the driving force behind making sure the democrats didn't cave during the shutdown, while the white house was open to giving in on something? Isn't Ried the major block from Obama fast tracking TPP?

Will Chuck Schumer really put the same check on Hillary that Reid put on Obama? Sure, he's shown the ability to fall in line when democrats need him to, but would he ever break the line when democrat voters need him to?
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Currently listening to a story on NPR about thr funding cut to the IRS and how it negatively impacts the poor and elderly.

Fuck the GOP and their crusade against the IRS.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
thepotatoman said:
I agree to some extent, but wasn't Reid basically the driving force behind making sure the democrats didn't cave during the shutdown, while the white house was open to giving in on something? Isn't Ried the major block from Obama fast tracking TPP?

Will Chuck Schumer really put the same check on Hillary that Reid put on Obama? Sure, he's shown the ability to fall in line when democrats need him to, but would he ever break the line when democrat voters need him to?
Click to expand...

I'm not too worried about Schumer. Yes he's a camera whore, but my experience with him is he tends to put the needs of the voters and his constituents first. When something goes wrong in NY he's either the one leading the charge to fix it or the one shining the light on it in the first place.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
thepotatoman said:
I agree to some extent, but wasn't Reid basically the driving force behind making sure the democrats didn't cave during the shutdown, while the white house was open to giving in on something? Isn't Ried the major block from Obama fast tracking TPP?

Will Chuck Schumer really put the same check on Hillary that Reid put on Obama? Sure, he's shown the ability to fall in line when democrats need him to, but would he ever break the line when democrat voters need him to?
Click to expand...

He wasn't during the fiscal cliff. He changed when the party changed. Senators and party leaders are the ones that force these movements and have forced Reid left. Look how cruz can force McConnell to defend certain things. Warren can do the same.
 
T

Teggy

Member
Grover Norquist is married to a devout Muslim and may have converted to Islam himself? What an amazing story, I can't believe I hand't heard this before.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Duckworth to announce Senate bid

FL - Murphy
OH - Strickland
IL - Duckworth
PA - Sestak

Then we just need

WI - Feingold
NH - Hassan
NC - Hagan? Could probably get someone better. But I kind of want her to come back and win because PD
IN - Bayh
AZ - Sinema

And we get my dream team.

Along with Edwards (MD), Harris (CA) and Cortez Masto (NV) in open Dem-held seats.

And then just hoping Isakson (GA) and Grassley (IA) retire.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
When Pope Francis last year effectively demoted U.S. Cardinal Raymond Burke by moving him out of a senior post in the Vatican to a largely ceremonial role as head of a Rome-based Catholic charity, it was viewed as a way to sideline one of the pontiff’s most outspoken critics on the right.

But the move seems to have left Burke free to air his conservative — and pointed — views on efforts to change church practices, not that he was ever terribly hesitant about speaking his mind.

Now the American churchman has spoken out again, telling an interviewer that gay couples and divorced and remarried Catholics who are trying to live good and faithful lives are still like “the person who murders someone and yet is kind to other people.”
Click to expand...

Those demoted Catholic bishops say the darndest things.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
Duckworth to announce Senate bid

FL - Murphy
OH - Strickland
IL - Duckworth
PA - Sestak

Then we just need

WI - Feingold
NH - Hassan
NC - Hagan? Could probably get someone better. But I kind of want her to come back and win because PD
IN - Bayh
AZ - Sinema

And we get my dream team.

Along with Edwards (MD), Harris (CA) and Cortez Masto (NV) in open Dem-held seats.

And then just hoping Isakson (GA) and Grassley (IA) retire.
Click to expand...

I just want anyone else besides him.

Also, is Murphy officially in?
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
ivysaur12 said:
I just want anyone else besides him.

Also, is Murphy officially in?
Click to expand...
Sestak ran a really good campaign in 2010. Iirc he did much better than the gubernatorial candidate.

And yes Murphy is in. Feingold is also pretty much a lock, but I won't count him until he makes it official.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Top Bottom