The Louisiana win kinda cancels out the loss in KY from a few weeks ago. Good for all the Louisianians who will finally get Medicaid next January.
I guess it is possible for Dems to win in the South, but I don’t know whether Edwards’s win can necessarily be replicated in other Southern states.
Medicaid expansion isn’t going to happen. The legislature won’t do it.
The Louisiana legislature is already on board with Medicaid expansion. HCR 75 gives the next LA governor (Edwards) until April 1 to do it on his own.
Sucks that he HAD to say that, else lose the race to that customer of prostitutes. The governors’ opinions on immigration carry as much weight as mensroom graffiti, so his comments really hurt nobody. The Dems will take what we can in LA.
I’m not so sure. The bill passed unanimously and seems to open the door for Medicaid expansion, but the House Speaker, a Republican says that it doesn’t:
http://theadvocate.com/news/12364183-123/house-passes-resolution-that-could
Okay, care to explain that a little better, Mr. Speaker?
Note taken: We don’t have to be tough on security, so long as we pander to the xenophobes instead. Personally, I’d prefer to be tough on security, instead, like the national Democratic party, even if it does cost us some votes.
The national Democratic Party isn’t tough on security either. That’s part of their problem. I do agree on the xenophobe thing, I respect the Democratic Party’s stance on the Syrian refugees, at least the Democrats who didn’t chicken out and stood by their principles. But a party that thinks that containment of a terrorist threat is a viable policy instead of eradication of that threat is not being tough on national security. During the Bush years, the Democrats did a lot of posturing about agreeing 100% with Bush on goals, and HOW DARE YOU question their agreement on those goals, but Bush was being dumb and they were going to be smart. So they take office, and the goals change in exactly the way Republicans predicted.
I know. I was completely pissed when Obama undid Bush’s policy of not giving a rat’s ass about where Osama bin Laden was.
Please. There was no leadership from the Oval Office on bin Laden, all that work was done way down the chain of command, just like it was under Bush. Bush was trying to cravenly explain away his inability to get bin Laden because of his big talk earlier by acting like it didn’t matter.
Obama’s willingness to go after individual terrorists is fine. What’s not fine is his unwillingness to deal with the larger problem. He’s actually pursuing “Whack-a-mole” with more vigor than his predecessor and done even less to address root causes.
You really think it’s coincidence that Bush said things like ‘Bin Laden doesn’t matter any more’, and never got him, while Obama said he’d order the military to focus on finding Bin Laden, and actually found him? The President had nothing to do with it?
Sounds awfully convenient… but you’d never believe something bad about Obama without evidence just to confirm your dislike about him, would you?
This. And in addition to saying that he didn’t think much about bin Laden anymore, a mere six months after the towers fell, he backed that up by redirecting special forces from Afghansistan to Iraq in early 2002 to start scouting out the invasion. To make it doubleplusstupid, these were special forces who’d already learned the Afghan languages like Pashto to enable them to better get info on bin Laden’s whereabouts. And of course, somewhere around 2006, Bush shut down the bin Laden unit altogether. Obama insisted on its being re-established when he got into office, and kept close tabs on its progress.
In short, the Democrats already ARE the party that has both the right goals and strategies with respect to national security, and the skills to carry them out. The Republicans have degenerated into empty posturing.
The Dems are the Daddy Party and the Mommy Party. The GOP is the “I’ve got a wife and kids in Baltimore, Jack” party.
True, Obama has yet to order a completely unnecessary invasion that destabilized the entire Middle East. Oh wait, you said “address” the root causes, not “create” them. My bad.
Of course, all these national-security and foreign-policy issues are outside the scope of the Governor of Louisiana’s duties.
What kind of Gov is Edwards going to make? Anyone care to speculate?
His resume is certainly impressive and he’s not a machine Democrat. If the Democrats were willing to consider moderates anymore he’d be a future Presidential prospect, but instead he’ll just be someone the party finds useful to trot out in the South to prove that Democrats ain’t so bad, we’re with ya and we respect yore traditions!
The Democrats are certainly willing to consider moderates – Obama, Biden, and Hillary Clinton come to mind. A big chunk of the Democrats in the Senate are moderates, as are most Democratic governors.
Are we to believe that if we wipe out ISIS, terrorism will stop? Have you extraordinary evidence to support this extravagant insinuation?
Yeah, sure, right. The decision “if Pakistan gets its nose out of joint after we bag Osama inside their borders, too damn bad” popped up somewhere in the middle-management levels of the chain of command. :rolleyes:
Anyway, this election of a Dem in solidly red Louisiana means that the Dems will march forward to massive victory! Unless the Pubbies nominate Kasich. Then, they’re doomed. The Dems. Doomed.
The Democrats could very well win the Senate seat if they get a good candidate. As in, not a Blanco.