February 16, 2010
PA should have a good number of GOP pickups this year, but I guarantee our gains will be modest because of failures in leadership. I don't think the Tea Partiers will run 3rd candidates in any significant way PA, but they will stay home if it's made clear they aren't wanted.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at
02:09 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: cbullitt at February 16, 2010 04:27 AM (gwh5D)
I'm also significantly less concerned about the Corbett endorsement than some are. It isn't like Corbett is Arlen Specter or anything. I know of very few serious complaints against him, and he actually managed to win in 2008 statewide as a Republican -- the only one to win, in fact.
A lot of people just want to bitch at the party, which is (very) often warranted, but some people are even pissed about the Toomey endorsement. God bless Peg Luksik, but she hasn't a snowball's chance in hell.
There's another development I'm actually rather concerned about, which is the potential backlash against Tim Burns in PA-12, should he be selected for the special election. Tim Burns has attended multiple tea parties, is a solid conservative as far as I can tell., You'd think the way people are taking that the PAGOP is going to turn the district into NY-23, which would imply Burns is the second coming of Dede. And that, he isn't.
Posted by: JoeCollins at February 16, 2010 09:30 AM (jtJig)
Posted by: alexthechick at February 16, 2010 09:34 AM (8WZWv)
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at February 16, 2010 09:41 AM (zgZzy)
atc, so long as at least one prong goes up their asses, I'm all in favor of a two-pronged approach.
But then, I'm used to NY politics so perhaps I'm more angry at- and cynical about- politicians than normal.
Posted by: Veeshir at February 16, 2010 10:30 AM (aFnZ8)
Posted by: doubleplusundead at February 16, 2010 10:34 AM (GcfAO)
A-frickin'-men to that. Arrogance and resentment define PA Republicans, and have for some time.
And here's an "arrogance" story -- A year ago, if somebody asked me how I'd feel about the PA Lt. Gov race, I'd say I didn't care one bit about it. Today is a different story. The state committee straw votes came back one-third for Cawley, and two-thirds divided among a slew of others. So despite 2/3 of the state committee people voting for somebody OTHER than Cawley, they went ahead and endorsed him at the convention. Problem being, Cawley is a self-described "progressive" (--shades of McCain, anyone?) and has other things he needs to do some 'splainin' for.
Given this, it's fairly arrogant to jam him through because he balances out the ticket geographically, or because Bob Asher and/or Rob Gleason like him, and the state committee did a fairly big disservice to us on that one.
Posted by: JoeCollins at February 16, 2010 12:09 PM (jtJig)
My basic criterion for judging a state committee action is "did we get a reasonably good candidate?" On this race, there are some serious doubts, and the insider guy got everybody's benefit of the doubt precisely because he was the insider pick and for no other reason. Sometimes the insiders get it right, sometimes they get it wrong. This time I think "wrong".
Posted by: JoeCollins at February 16, 2010 01:16 PM (jtJig)
Posted by: Alice H at February 16, 2010 03:40 PM (qJHYy)
Facebook scares and confuses me.
Posted by: alexthechick at February 16, 2010 04:49 PM (8WZWv)
Posted by: alexthechick at February 16, 2010 04:49 PM (8WZWv)
thats ok, cause you scare and confuse Veeshir!
I keed I keed
Posted by: mrfixit at February 16, 2010 05:03 PM (Bsm1s)
And turn you on?
Hence, my confusion.
Posted by: Veeshir at February 16, 2010 05:46 PM (zuey5)
Posted by: Buy cheap sunglasses at September 16, 2011 05:18 AM (6zpWb)
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.








