Contumelious liberal columnist Joel Connelly writes in today's P-I:
The Senate received a blood transfusion in 2006.Connelly is the very model of an opinion writer who delivers cogent analysis without descending into name-calling or nasty personal attacks. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 26, 2007 07:50 AM | Email ThisSeveral of its reactionary and intellectually challenged members -- Sens. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., Conrad Burns, R-Mont., and George Allen, R-Va. -- went down to defeat.
More need to be sent where they just went. Craig and Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., are on their way out. Stevens will -- it is hoped -- get frog-marched out of the World's Greatest Deliberative Body.
Political tides are turning. We can hope for protectors of the West and fewer strumpets of the oil, timber and mining industries -- more Cantwells, fewer Craigs.
Does he really think Cantwell and Murray are going to start spending capital? They haven't done it yet and they were in the majority for a long time.
Bridge to Nowhere? Everyone was against it except a certain Senator, so that one is a no-brainer.
Bush himself is pushing an initiative to help find new energy sources. So, Cantwell doesn't need to "spend" any capital on that one.
And my bottom line and it is not PC: when it comes to cheap energy versus fish, I take the fish anyday.
Posted by: swatter on September 26, 2007 08:18 AMOr imagine what punishment and humiliation Mr. Connelly would call to be rained upon Senator Diane Feinstein, who's caught up in a multi-BILLION dollar scandal involving - the horror - defense companies!
Or, the most troubling of all, the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, not only condemned by the Chairman of the Democrat Party for illegal campaign contributions, but for property fraud and graft far exceeding that claimed for Senator Stevens.
I'm just waiting for Mr. Connelly, who claims to be the paragon of fairness, to lambaste these criminals serving in the Congress!
Methinks we'll wait a while for that column...
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on September 26, 2007 08:22 AMAnd the choice you offered was fish vs. cheap energy, not fish vs. humans. Are humans cheap energy? (Fish vs. soylent green?) I'd say humans first, fish second, cheap energy third.
Posted by: Tom on September 26, 2007 08:42 AMI was wrong.
Posted by: Michele on September 26, 2007 08:47 AMHow much is it worth now?
But, Joel should bring up all the politicians that need to be frog-marched out of office, including the two senators from California and their corruption.
Thinking big picture, wouldn't it be great to get rid of all those that entered as middle class and left office as multi-millionaires? Wouldn't it be great to start over? Methinks, Mr. Joel is too short-sighted.
Posted by: swatter on September 26, 2007 09:19 AMYou all are doing such a good job of supporting the GOP!!!
Lets see ..
Dino is going to run for Guv on a ticket that has such critical issues as :
: wuz robbed"
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 26, 2007 09:51 AMkat, thanks for the rant. Is this the time to talk about Bushes 34% or whatever it is? The liberals and Democrats say the poorest ratings of all time, etc., is because of his failed Iraq policy.
I have a different read. He will have 40% disapproval right off the bat from Democrats. And then at least 10-15% of the centrists. So, of the Republicans, he is getting 30% or so of them that weren't happy with what he was doing. What was he doing? Big spending for one, but it is also a time he was pushing immigration amnesty without fencing and the Iraq strategy was then only beginning to work (even though Harry Reid said it was dead on delivery). No wonder the overall ratings were low. I think if I had been polled, I would have expressed disapproval even though I support Bush in Iraq and the terrorism threat.
That is why the ratings were so low- it was the Republicans grumbling about Iraq and immigration. Immigration amnesty is dead for the moment and the US military was finally allowed to take the gloves off. I am now happy and my vote is reflected in the higher poll numbers.
Posted by: swatter on September 26, 2007 10:16 AMThe papers in this town are so liberally biased that it's hard to believe anything they print.
Where's the other side of the story, PI/Times?
Posted by: Smoley on September 26, 2007 11:37 AMAt under 3%, Congress's "trustworthiness" standing is astonishingly low. It is noteworthy that bloggers edge out "the media," whose standing, at under 5%, is only slightly higher than that of the Congress. Alone at the top, with a lofty 14% trustworthiness rating, is the President.Posted by: SouthernRoots on September 26, 2007 11:45 AM