Looks like there is a shake up afoot in Congress. Dan Coats, the Once & Future Senator, has reclaimed his seat. Dan Burton has held his seat in the Fifth Congressional District. Watch out D.C.! Reform is on its way! (Just throwing this out there, a new Washington reality show: “The Two Dans.” Maybe have a running gag featuring Vince Foster pumpkins.)
In other news, the 9th District has cooled in its on-again, off-again relationship with Baron Hill. Larry Bucshon will be occupying the seat for Indiana’s 8th District, following Brad Ellsworth’s ill-advised decision to chase after the Senate seat abandoned by Evan Bayh. Jackie Walorski couldn’t displace Joe Donnelly, even in this environment. That kind of rejection has to sting a little. Mike Pence, Todd Rokita, Pete Visclosky, and Andre Carson cruised. So, the Indiana Congressional delegation moves to a 6-3 split.
Nationally, it looks like the Republicans will take control of the House of Representatives but not the Senate. As a philosophical matter, split control of the government isn’t generally a bad thing. It’s just that I’m fairly confident that this bunch will go right back to their predilection for stupid investigations. (E.g., the Vince Foster pumpkin; impeachments for blowjobs, etc.)
Roger Bennett says
Everyone’s entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. It was impeachment for perjury, not for being on the receiving end of the Lewinsky maneuver.
Mary says
I heard an interview on the radio with an Indiana voter as she left the polling place. She claimed to be an independent who flip-flops between parties. So her predicament was that she was laid off her job and lost her health care insurance. Therefore she decided to vote a straight Republican ticket this year. Go figure.
Doug says
Oh, if you want to get right down to it, Roger; I think he was impeached for being a Democratic President. Whether it was a blowjob or lying under oath was pretty much incidental to the people trying to bring him down. I never voted for Clinton, but the impeachment is when I started supporting him and opposing Congressional Republicans.
daron says
Perjury for lying about a blowjob. Same same.
murr brewster says
In some economies, an impeachment for a blow job is a good deal. I really should get out more.
varangianguard says
Well, the specific incident was lying, but the real underlying cause was payback for Watergate (which was revenge served cold). Former President Clinton was just the first real opportunity for that particular pendulum to swing inevitably back the other way.
Still, former President Clinton could have avoided it by just being a stand-up guy and admitting upfront that, “yeah, I did her”. The embarassment would have been earlier, but weaker (especially for Hillary), and he could have avoided looking like a four-year old caught with his hand in the proverbial cookie jar.
Doug says
Probably. But, then it would have been murdering Vince Foster or something.
varangianguard says
Too much political teflon for that. lol
T says
Republicans really don’t like people who lie about sex. In other news, David Vitter won handily in Louisiana last night.
Chuckcentral says
Um Roger. This just in. Bush stood up in front of Congress and the Country and read bogus information about Iraq that he knew was false to justify an illegal invasion of a Country that was not a threat. Are you really going to go down that road?
varangianguard says
I don’t think he swore any oaths to tell Congress the “truth”, Chuckcentral. That just makes him a poor President, leader and person.
Doghouse Riley says
Just for the record, everyone not under oath is entitled to characterize actions for effect without being held–uniquely, at that–to standards beyond the justifiable approximate.
We might add here that bare fact itself is often a less that adequate explanation, as in “The Clinton perjury trap wasn’t even set until Ken Starr had received two extensions of his IC tenure by swearing to the Congress that indictments were right around the corner.”
Buzzcut says
I agree, the Wallorski loss stings. Really, really stings. It would have been an almost perfect night if she had won. That a libertarian was more than the margin of victory kind of sucks.
I’m just happy that the GOP got control of the state houses. I look forward to saying, “So Long!” to townships, as well as the 7.6 cents per hundred I pay for that outdated POS form of government.
I also look forward to a redistricting that really screws the hell out of Democrats. Just making districts that actually cover actual towns and cities, instead of cutting them apart, should be good for 3 or 4 Republican state Reps in Lake County alone.
And IF they could get rid of elected county assessors, auditors, treasurers, surveyors, etc. etc. etc. and go with a singular county executive… I’d be forever in Mitch’s debt. I’d vote for him in a Republican Presidential primary, even.
Paul says
Interestingly, the numbers suggest that Bucshon would probably have won the 8th District, even if Ellsworth had chosen to defend his seat, rather than run for the Senate. I wonder if Ellsworth made the right call in running for Senate, but it is possible he made the right decision. The real question for Ellsworth is, what next? Try for the 8th in 2012? Or go back to law enforcement?
Paul K. Ogden says
I don’t recall an impeachment for getting a blowjob. I recall an impeachment for repeatedly lying under oath and obstructing justice. I’m pretty sure the law regarding those crimes isn’t different if what your lying about or obstructing justice about involves sex.
And let’s not forget that Monica Lewinsky was a subordinate in the workplace upon whom Clinton bestowed favors. I’m pretty sure it’s not right to do that.
Doug says
So you’re telling me that the House Republicans were motivated by an impartial respect for the law rather than simply attempting to bludgeon Clinton with any tool close to hand? If so, that’s just wrong. They would not have treated one of their own in the same fashion.
Buzzcut says
I can’t believe that you guys are refighting the impeachment. Fucking get over it.
Next, we should argue about who really won the Civil War.
varangianguard says
Can we? Those discussions always bring out the Nathan Bedford Forrest in more people than one might have thought 145 years after the end of the war. Akways illuminating.
Buzzcut says
And Doug will still be arguing about the impeachment when he’s 90 in 2060.
Doug says
Hey, Buzz, the 150th anniversary of South Carolina’s decision to commit treason in defense of slavery is right around the corner. You can bet I’ll be commenting on that!
But, seriously, if the House Republicans restrain themselves, focus on trying to pass legislation they regard as sound policy, and don’t throw around subpoenas in a political witch hunt, I’ll figure they learned their lesson about the impeachment and won’t hold it against them.
But, I think we all know that ain’t gonna happen.
Doug says
Oh, and as far as my inability to let an argument go, you don’t know the half of it. I still frequently vent about how my kindergarten teacher caused me untold trouble by her inadequate explanation of how to draw a “5.” (You see, “down, around, and put a hat on top” gives you something like a “j” with a horizontal line on top. It should have been “down, *out and around,* and put a hat on top.”)
Buzzcut says
Thanks for the self-psychoanalysis, Doug. I think I’m going to stop goading you and move on to another topic. ;)
Which I tried to do ON THIS THREAD!
varangianguard says
Let’s talk about this. SarahPalinAK victory video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xr3sj8q5lfY
At the end, I think I can see Russia off there in the background.