You know, the saying someone was “Crazy like a fox” used to be a compliment.

Does nobody else in NC-5 want to be a Congressperson?  Republican?  Democrat?  Nobody?  It seems like a woman that absolutely insane would be easy to unseat.  At the very least, you’d think some entrepreneurial GOoPer would step in and kick the legs out from under her.

I never understood what kept wackjobs like this in power.  How does she fund raise?  What collection of party officials keeps giving her their blessing?  The woman is a virtual factory of small-minded, mean tempered idiocy.  Some mildly popular mayor or city councilman should be able to unseat her without too much trouble.

“And I believe the greatest fear that we all should have to our freedom comes from this room — this very room…”

...you are correct, Virginia Foxx, President of the League of Old White Southern Republicans Who Would Never Have Been Republicans Before Lyndon Johnson’s Civil Rights Legislation.  Now please shuttup and let people with sense talk please…

The deep end of crazy just got deeper.

Meanwhile, sensible, non-batshit crazy Republicans and Conservatives everywhere are finding the nearest exit or turning and fighting the crazy.

”...the GOP…will continue to be well outside the mainstream and a severely marginalized minority party well into the future.”

From your lips to God’s ears, pal.

I just don’t understand what threat Foxx is talking about.  Of course, some people are worried about making slightly less ridiculous profits, but what is the average GOPer so afraid of?  I think they’re afraid that Democrats will do something good for our country, and then they “win” this popularity contest and Republicans lose.  Or, they believe all the lies about death panels and such.  I just can’t figure out what they are actually afraid will happen.  It’s sort of like the anti gay marriage crowd, that claims gay marriage will somehow vaguely hurt their own straight marriages, without any plausible mechanism at all.

Does nobody else in NC-5 want to be a Congressperson?  Republican?  Democrat?  Nobody?  It seems like a woman that absolutely insane would be easy to unseat.  At the very least, you’d think some entrepreneurial GOoPer would step in and kick the legs out from under her.

Incumbency may be the single biggest enabler of the status quo in our political parties - and more often than not, both parties are guilty of this.  The successful effort of Connecticut Democrats to primary Joe Lieberman in 2006 was a little encouraging, though it’s definitely the exception and not the rule.  And in the end, Lieberman still won the general election - no doubt, because of his incumbency.

NC-05 currently has a partisan voter index of R+15.  There’s no chance in hell a Democrat wins that district in 2010.  Even after Congressional redistricting in 2011, North Carolina isn’t currently expected to gain or lose any seats, so NC-05 will probably retain its current boundaries for at least the next decade.

The only chance outsiders have at defeating an incumbent is if the incumbent starts to fall too far away from the mainstream ideology of the national political party.  Up in NY-23, there was until yesterday a moderate, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage Republican candidate running in the special election for the seat tomorrow.  Thanks to the growing influence of Palin/Limbaugh/Beck/Bachmann faction within the GOP, the moderate Republican, Dede Scozzafava, is no longer a candidate.  They Republican Party is now putting all of their eggs in the basket of far-right extremist Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.

Foxx is no longer an extremist within her own party… she’s now smack dab in the middle of its rightward lurching ideology.  They are purging out all of the moderates, and many of them seem to think that is the key to future victories for the GOP.

Tomorrow, North Carolina’s neighbor to the north is going to elect a far-right extremist to be the next governor of Virginia (Democrat Creigh Deeds has no chance in hell of victory, thanks to a thoroughly incompetent and lazy campaign, and every progressive blog has already basically conceded the election as a lost cause).  In 1989, as a 34 year old grad student at Fundie Nutbag Regent University, Republican candidate Bob McDonnell penned a thesis which argued that feminism and working women were detrimental to the American family.  And tomorrow night, he’s going to be Virginia’s governor-elect.  If the GOP can win NY-23 and even perhaps the NJ governor’s race tomorrow on top of McDonnell’s victory, the message they’ll take away is that they need to become even more extremist than they already are.

The upside of this is that next year, many districts and states will likely reject this level of wingnuttosity, and the Democrats might actually manage to maintain or grow their majorities, despite conventional wisdom right now saying that they won’t.  On the other hand, if the Congressional Democrats wind up blowing it on healthcare reform and they see a big plunge in their and the president’s approval numbers over the next 12 months, we could see a whole bunch of Virginia Foxxes and Michele Bachmanns getting sworn into the 112th Congress in January 2011.

Discoball help us all if that happens.

Miss Pam, I’m in NYS 23rd district that is in a uproar. The GOP runner Dede Scozzafava, dropped out and is now backing Owen, the *Democrat. The GOP is in a uproar because OMG she didn’t back the right wing Hoffman, who is running as a conservative. She is far too moderate for todays GOP. I’m sick to death of these fanatics.

*There hasn’t been a Dem in this seat since 1854!

I just don’t understand what threat Foxx is talking about.

What are you, blind?  She’s talking about the sort of death and destruction unleashed by Medicare, times ten!

What are you, blind?  She’s talking about the sort of death and destruction unleashed by Medicare, times ten!

zOMG! People getting treated for diabetes?  The horror!  How dare the government take away our right to die slow, painful deaths while our bank accounts are drained by insurance company bureaucrats?  It’s all so clear now.

“zOMG! People getting treated for diabetes?  The horror!”

catgirl, some of the people getting those benefits might be those people (you know “Canadians”, wink, wink, nudge, nudge), and therefore undeserving of any benefits whatsoever from society.  So even if it harms ourselves, we must band together to stop the senseless caring and empathy, which will otherwise, of course, result in the mass gayification of America…

This is the new normal. They’ll be calling her a DIABLO and primarying her from the right in another couple of cycles.

@#7:  Definitely incumbency protection.  Remember that national Dems refused to support Lamont to any great degree, since they didn’t really want to spread the message that incumbents could lose.  If the masses got the crazy notion that they could actually evict an incumbent, then how would our oligarchs keep their sinecures?

@#8:  Even if Owens wins, we won’t have a Dem in the seat.  He was an independent right up until the Dem insiders picked him to run, and his positions on social and labor issues are decidedly less progressive than Scozzafava’s.  He’s not batshit insane, like Hofffman, however, so would still be better.

The successful effort of Connecticut Democrats to primary Joe Lieberman in 2006 was a little encouraging, though it’s definitely the exception and not the rule.  And in the end, Lieberman still won the general election - no doubt, because of his incumbency.

That, the the fact that the DSCC still rather supported their old pal Joey.

I think the net roots learned a lessson…we very much can primary assholes, but the fight isnt’ over then.  We have to continue to fight just as hard and without any support from the national party until the election.

The national party is bereft of good sense and a spine.  We need to weed out the chaff, and it’s going to take time.  But Lamont’s primary victory was a lesson, as was the Rahming of the general.

That, the the fact that the DSCC still rather supported their old pal Joey.

The “old boy” part, yes, the “Joey” part, no…

I don’t think the DSCC stood by Lieberman because he was Lieberman, but rather because he was the incumbent.  Had he been the outsider and Lamont the insider, Lamont would have been the one with the national party support.

The problem is essentially that once elected the first time, the national party more or less gives lifetime loyalty to the sitting Senator… or at least gives them loyalty so long as they are in the job.  Had Lamont managed to pull off the coup and won the seat, and Lieberman attempted a comeback in 2012, the DSCC would be backing Lamont the second time around.

And as far as term limitations goes, forget about it.  Whatever one’s opinion of the matter is, the people whose job it would be to decide such a thing will NEVER put time limits on their own Congressional careers.

I’ve heard arguments on both sides of the issue, and while I think there are some merits to allowing people to gain some tenure, I still think there should be limits.  Three term maximum for Senators (18 years), six term maximum for Congresspeople (12 years)... and grandfather an exemption to all incumbents at the time the bill is passed.  It’s generational legislation and would take a few decades to see its impact, but I think in the long run everyone would be better served if these folks couldn’t become so entrenched and unaccountable to their constituents.

There have been some really good members of Congress who served very long careers as legislators, and served their constituents well - Ted Kennedy comes to mind.  But there have also been many who were allowed to keep their jobs for waaaaaay too long - ie Jesse Helms.  If the man were still alive and somewhat sentient, Democrat Kay Hagan would not have been elected to the U.S. Senate last November.  Ted Stevens did get dumped, but his political ideology isn’t what did him in, but rather his rampant corruption being exposed.  And he just barely lost.

You have to fuck up pretty bad as a U.S. Senator to get the boot from the voters once you’ve made it through two terms in office.  And with members of the House, except in swing districts, the only time the seat changes hands is if the incumbent retires or dies, or the district lines get gerrymandered to swing the seat to the opposite party.  They virtually never get primaried by someone in their own party.

Foxxy BS like this

We could buy her a Foxy Grandma t-shirt.

http://www.cafepress.com/niftywares.367894986

I just realized: Mt. Airy, NC, was the prototype for Mayberry of the Andy Griffith show. Let’s get Aunt Bee to run against this woman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:First_Episode_Aunt_Bee_10101.JPG

Maybe she took that stat about how 100,000 people die every year from medical errors and ran with it…

But in a way she’s right: It’s unlikely that any terrorist group could do as much as a good health reform bill to dismantle the class hatred, bigotry and corporatism that she thinks of as the nation’s founding principles.

Oh, god, don’t talk about the VA race, it just makes my heartburn even worse. So many of us who volunteered in the last election were ready to work, and have been completely under-utilised. It’s fucking embarrassing, not to mentioned Deeds content-free campaigning. I’m terrified to see what McDonnell is going to do to my state, especially after the fuck-ton of misery that was Gilmore.

Not that it’s much consolation I’m sure, but at least progressives in VA won’t have to worry about suffering a heartbreaking loss in a close race.  You’ve at least had some time to emotionally prepare for what’s generally considered an inevitable outcome over there.  Not that he could possibly be as bad as McDonnell is gonna be, but from everything I’ve read about him, Creigh Deeds is the very epitome of a milquetoast DINO.  Like I said, very small consolation, but losing the really close ones often hurts even more.

I can’t believe I’m gonna say this, but you probably would have had better odds if you had nominated Terry McAuliffe instead.  And I can’t stand Terry McAuliffe.  But at least he would have made the race interesting.  I’m just stunned that Deeds couldn’t figure out how to capitalize on his wingnut opponent’s thesis on the supposed benefits of keeping women barefoot and pregnant.  Was Deeds actively trying to lose this election?

Oh well, look on the bright side… your state’s gubernatorial term limit rules are set up so that you will only have to suffer from this wingnut’s rule for four years, not eight.

I’m simply gobsmacked that this kind of ridiculous assertion could be even within spitting distance of the mainstream.

You’ve simply got to get public healthcare entrenched, cos when it is, there’s no going back. 

Over in the UK, after a decade of the Conservatives bleeding the NHS dry in the 80’s, the public got so sick of it that the Conservatives are now vying to be the most NHS-friendly party.  Not that they actually are, but the rhetoric is all about saving the national treasure that is the NHS.  That battle at least is won.

I can’t believe I’m gonna say this, but you probably would have had better odds if you had nominated Terry McAuliffe instead.  And I can’t stand Terry McAuliffe.

Just curious, why don’t you like McAuliffe?  I’ll admit that I don’t know a whole lot about him, but I voted for him in the primary election because I thought he might show a token interest in environmental stuff.  I also thought he had a better chance of winning the general election.  The thing I like most about Democrats is that they are slightly less bad than Republicans, and keeping McDonnell out was the most I dared to hope for.

I’m just stunned that Deeds couldn’t figure out how to capitalize on his wingnut opponent’s thesis on the supposed benefits of keeping women barefoot and pregnant.  Was Deeds actively trying to lose this election?

Deeds had all kinds of commercials about how terrible McDonnell is, and then McDonnell made some commercials saying basically that Deeds is a big meanie, and besides he can’t be a raving misogynist because see, he let his daughter have a job, and some of his best friends are women.  And those ads worked just fine for the conservative people that agree with McDonnell about how women are evil, but are too ashamed to admit it in public.  Deeds really dropped the ball on this one, and now I just have to hope desperately that I don’t end up pregnant within the next for years unless I really want to have a kid.

Am I the only one who remembers the collective right-wing ragegasm when Paul Krugman suggested that the Enron meltdown would have longer-term consequences than 9/11?  OMG he was disrespecting the fallen!!!  At least he was talking about a genuine disaster, something that everyone could agree was a Bad Thing. 

Now it’s policy disagreements that are worse than 9/11?

Just curious, why don’t you like McAuliffe?

Alright, can’t stand was too strong a characterization, but my dislike for him stems from several things, one related directly to his run for governor of Virginia:

1) He’s a DLC member, the “third way” faction of the Democratic Party that has given us people like Blanche Lincoln, Tom Carper, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieux.  Democrats so “moderate” you have to drag them kicking and screaming to get them on board with anything resembling progressive legislation.  And they’ll typically demand you water it down a ton before they’ll get on board.

2) He’s a proponent of “50%+1” campaign strategy.  The strategy emphasizes focusing solely on what are deemed “winnable states”, and basically writing off as many swing states as you can afford to.  It worked to the extent that it got Bill Clinton elected twice… and no other Democrats along with him.  As a matter of fact, the Democrats lost more Congressional seats in the 90s than they have at any other time in the last 50 years.  During his tenure as head of the DNC from 2001-2005, McAuliffe accomplished virtually nothing in terms of getting Democrats into office… which is the primary job of the Chair of the DNC.

3) This one relates to Virginia only… he’s a carpetbagger who came into VA riding on national name recognition and his affiliation with the Clintons alone.  Carpetbagging U.S. Senate campaigns aren’t always the worst thing in the world, but they should be geared towards states with highly dynamic populations, like NY and CA.  It’s kind of offensive to the locals for some out of towner to come into your state and tell you what a great Senator he is gonna be for you, even though he may know zilch about the day-to-day needs of local constituents.

Hey I see Doug Hoffman over there!

Anyway, I’ll give McAuliffe this much… he’s an incredibly charismatic guy and has a tremendous acumen for political showmanship, and when he lost the primary, he handled it with tremendous class and magnanimity.  He is a good party loyalist, and while he’ll often fight to the bitter end, in the end, if his side loses, he gets fully behind his party’s winner.  He did it with Obama last year, and he did it again with Deeds this year.  If he establishes some roots in VA and develops some real relationships with the constituents of the state over the next 4 years, the folks of Old Dominion may give him a second chance in 2013.  Particularly when they realize what a ginormous asshole their new governor really is.

Look, I’ll be honest with you. I think Foxx is on to something - not because health care reform is a threat, but because terrorism is not much of a threat. Think about it from our side - if we had to decide between fixing health care and fighting the “war on terror,” which would you choose? I sure as hell know I’d choose the former, because it’d do far more good and save a lot more lives in the long run.

She’s obviously wrong.  The real danger is Marmots.  Little bastards.  Never trust a rodent.

“She’s obviously wrong.  The real danger is Marmots.  Little bastards.  Never trust a rodent.”

moles. little f*cks will just tear your lawn apart.

This information comes from a press release by the American Association of Community Colleges.  Ok, here goes:

In September, the House passed H.R. 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act.  (Yeah!)

H.R. 3221 contains the American Graduation Initiative, an historic federal investment in community colleges, as well as guaranteed increases in the Pell Grant maximum, and funding for HBCUs and Hispanic-Serving Institutions.  The legislation derives funds for these initiatives by requiring that all institutions begin participating in the Direct Loan program by July 1, 2010. (It should pay for itself)

The House approved several amendments that the AACC worked with representatives on. 

The House rejected amendments that would have stripped the American Graduation Initiative and construction funds from the bill.  The amendment to eliminate the American Graduation Initiative was offered by Rep.Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and received 126 votes, all Republican.

Not surprised?  Well here’s the kicker - Virginia Foxx used to be a community college President in the western part of the state.  So here’s something that is going to benefit community college students unlike anything every before, and a former community college president votes against it.  She is absolutely nuts and completely shameless.

Democrats so “moderate” you have to drag them kicking and screaming to get them on board with anything resembling progressive legislation.

So basically, all of them?  Sorry, but I have a cynical view of the whole Democratic party.  There are a few progressive Democrats, but it’s certainly not a progressive party.  Just look at the health care reform that’s going on right now.  We’re putting so much effort into something that’s just marginally better than what we have right now.  That’s why I can’t bring myself to vote register as a Democrat, and I only vote for Democrats because they tend to be slightly less bad than Republicans.  I know I’ve been ranting a lot about this lately, but it’s really irritating when Obama and congressional Democrats are so lukewarm on issues that they could really make a difference with: things like DADT, marriage equality, Guantanamo Bay, and even the Cuban trade embargo.  Sure, they’ll talk about it a little but then do nothing because it doesn’t effect them.  It only seems progressive to us because we’re used to reactionaries.

Sorry, but I have a cynical view of the whole Democratic party.  There are a few progressive Democrats, but it’s certainly not a progressive party.

Agreed 100%.

But, you deal with the best of what you have to work with, and on a sheerly pragmatic level, it’s the Democrats in almost every statewide or federal-level elections.

The real problem is the campaign finance system.  I actually believe that there are more elected officals with progressive ideology than it appears, but in order to get elected, these folks have to make deals with the devil and wind up becoming beholden to corporate interests along the way.  The alternative is try to run a campaign that is 100% free from any corporate influence, and good luck with that.  In most races, you won’t have a prayer of winning the election without a little help from some Fortune 500 folks.

As much as I often hear people make the assertion that Obama isn’t at all a progressive, I think that is only halfway true.  I think deep down, he probably does share a lot of our progressive beliefs about the world.  And while I give him credit for being able to raise a huge amount of money from the grassroots to help fund his campaign, you’d have to be totally naive to not realize that he also garnered a pretty sizeable chunk of change from the corporate interests as well.  That $600 Million didn’t all come from enthusiastic college kids throwing $10 and $20 donations his way.  He did raise more money on a grassroots level from small donations than anyone ever before him, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t also raise a lot of money from some seriously rich power players who threw huge checks at him as well.

I don’t necessarily think he is as progressive in his ideology as most of the Netroots, but I do think his personal beliefs are further left than his moderate record indicates.  I just think he believes his hands are tied by the same corporate folks who have partially funded every successful presidential candidate in the past 50+ years, regardless of party.

The biggest risk to Obama’s re-election chances in 2012 is the possibility of being seen by the progressive base as an ineffective president.  It’s not that many of us will change sides and vote for his Republican opponent, it’s that many of the first-time voters who placed so much hope and expectation on him in 2008 will be disappointed by what they got and not bother voting again in 2012.  Apathy is the one thing that could make him a one-termer.  I’m not particularly worried about that at this point, nor do I presently see a prominent Republican who I think could beat him right now.  But a lot can happen, or not happen, in the next 3 years.  If he doesn’t get much done and the unemployment numbers are still hanging around 10%, he could be in deep trouble.  And as for next year’s mid-terms, the same things apply.  We don’t necessarily have to be back down to 6% unemployment, but if it’s still above 9%, it could be ugly for Democrats.  People voted for change the last two election cycles, and if they don’t feel like they’re getting it, they’ll be a lot less motivated to give Democrats a third shot.  Many will just stay home, and if that happens, the GOP is gonna have a field day, and the nation will take an ugly step backwards.

I don’t think the DSCC stood by Lieberman because he was Lieberman, but rather because he was the incumbent.  Had he been the outsider and Lamont the insider, Lamont would have been the one with the national party support coldfusion hosting.

The problem is essentially that once elected the first time, the national party more or less gives lifetime loyalty to the sitting Senator… or at least gives them loyalty so long as they are in the job.  Had Lamont managed to pull off the coup and won the seat, and Lieberman attempted a comeback in 2012, the DSCC would be backing Lamont the second time around java hosting.

And as far as term limitations goes, forget about it.  Whatever one’s opinion of the matter is, the people whose job it would be to decide such a thing will NEVER put time limits on their own Congressional careers.

I’ve heard arguments on both sides of the issue, and while I think there are some merits to allowing people to gain some tenure, I still think there should be limits.  Three term maximum for Senators (18 years), six term maximum for Congresspeople (12 years)… and grandfather an exemption to all incumbents at the time the bill is passed.  It’s generational legislation and would take a few decades to see its impact, but I think in the long run everyone would be better served if these folks couldn’t become so entrenched and unaccountable to their constituents frontpage hosting.

There have been some really good members of Congress who served very long careers as legislators, and served their constituents well - Ted Kennedy comes to mind.  But there have also been many who were allowed to keep their jobs for waaaaaay too long - ie Jesse Helms.  If the man were still alive and somewhat sentient, Democrat Kay Hagan would not have been elected to the U.S. Senate last November.  Ted Stevens did get dumped, but his political ideology isn’t what did him in, but rather his rampant corruption being exposed.  And he just barely lost.