Comments on: Erick Erickson Dances In End Zone After Late Field Goal By Saxby Chambliss Makes Final Score 48-3.

By: Bluetoe2

Bluetoe2 — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:20:37 +0000

Who the fuck is Erick Erickson?

By: hychka

hychka — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:26:54 +0000

I’m looking forward to a Palin/Saxby Chambliss ticket in 2012!!! Can I give money to their campaign now??!!

By: Jmac

Jmac — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:05:08 +0000

Something worth keeping in mind in all of this is that turnout for this runoff election was higher than turnout for the 2006 general election in Georgia, which had a governor’s race at the top of the ticket.

All of that said, about 10,000 fewer folks voter for Saxby Chambliss for Senate in this runoff than voter for Republican Sonny Perdue for governor. Jim Martin picked up 100,000 more votes in this runoff that Democrat Mark Taylor - the longtime Lt. Governor - had in the governor’s race.

Republicans held their own. Democrats, though, are slowly making up the ground.

By: CarlyCorday

CarlyCorday — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:59:45 +0000

We have a PBS show like this in Little Rock, but our issues-discussers are a nice round-table of rational, soft-spoken liberals and barely-centrists.

The Hot Springs through Little Rock/North Little Rock swath voted heavily Obama; I was proud. Eureka Springs, too.

Stay out of the Ozarks, though. Lieberman and Palin may have moved on to even greater power and privilege, pink-cheeked and unscathed. Not so for the handful of anti-Bushies in these hills. We are far worse off than ever since the avalanche of lies those characters set off for US FEW to deal with on our own.

(Thank you, Lord Joseph Chickenhawk of Connecticut. *wink* I know your day will be good. Good-day to you all the same. We will not forget you.)

By: john in sacramento

john in sacramento — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:48:41 +0000

Not to be confused with Eric Erikson

By: CarlyCorday

CarlyCorday — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:47:50 +0000

Hey! Tell that to California and New York.

And Connecticut.

Carly,
White (sorta) in the Ozarks

By: RickMassimo

RickMassimo — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:35:54 +0000

Yes, I love how Palin was “rallying” Republicans while Obama was “demanding” support.

By: timr

timr — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:44:10 +0000

All this election proves is that the fewer the voters the greater the chance that the rep will win, hasn’t that been the rep party stratergy(shrub speak)since Nixon and his “southern strategy”? Also, I have been interested in elections since Kennedy in 1960 when I was 10 years old. I have to say that elections have been throwing more mud every election cycle since LBJ and the “daisy” commercial about Goldwater. However my personal observation has been that over the last 10-15 years it has been the reps who have been throwing the most slime, from GHWB in 1988 to shrub in 2000(against McCain, in a very very slimy campaign in SC)and against both Gore and Kerry. McCain-to his very lasting shame-abandoned his principles, and hired the very people who slimed him in 2000. I wander away from my point. I watched a rep campaign against Bart Stupak D, MI(who was my congressman at that time)she(a very young lady from a very political family in NorthernMI-whose name I can not remember)even got Newt in to campaign with her, but all she did for the entire campaign was throw mud at Stupak, she never articulated what she would do if elected, she just slimed Bart. Well Bart won the election, every county & she even lost her own township(Bart is a dem and his entire district is very very republician) That happened when Newt was speaker, so I started paying closer attention to what the reps did in other elections. There was a trend towards going negative early and often, and not saying exactly what the rep stood for. This has now reached a pinnacle of sorts with the McCain/Palin ticket. I do not believe that I ever heard exactly what that ticket actually stood for, something about “mavericks” and stamping out earmarks-the reps were by far the worst offenders of earmarks over the last 8 years, McCain, dispite his denials, got many earmarks, as did Alaska and Palin thru Sen Stevens the earmark king-but it seemed as tho 99% of the McCain/Palin campaign was throwing mud at Obama. Given Obama’s novel approach to this and his general refusal to participate in their mud fight along with his performance in the debates where he got McCain all flustered because he refused to be drawn into a shouting/mud throwing match, does this bring to a close the extreme nastiness of all rep campaigns since 1968? Or will the reps instead take note of the chambliss victory in GA and still believe that mud is the way to go?
BTW, I read that only 65% of the registered voters actually voted in 2008. Why such a small number in such an historic election? With the economy crumbling around them, 35% of the voters stayed home. Now that is quite sad.
In the GA runoff election, turnout was very small, which always favors the reps. In fact, turnout was so small that if the Obama grass roots teams had done the same job that they did in Nov, Martin might have won because chambliss got 200,000 less votes than he did Nov 4.
It will not be war or revolution that will destroy the US, it will be voter apathy. Because in the end, the american voter is becoming less educated-30% HS drop out rate nationally & only a 39% college graduation rate. WTH have we done to our schools? What are we doing to our future?

By: puravida

puravida — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:02:22 +0000

That should be: “Oh, and one more question…”

I duz knoes grammer.

By: SouthernDragon

SouthernDragon — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:02:13 +0000

Back to the cesspool.

Namaste