Tuesday, August 08, 2006

See ya CyMc-Try to stay gone this time.

U.S. House - District 4 - Dem Runoff
Georgia 167 of 167 Precincts Reporting - 100.00%

Name Votes Pct

Johnson , Hank 41,178 58.82

McKinney , Cynthia (i) 28,832 41.18

**UPDATE** In what has to be one of the strangest "concession" spectacles ever Cynthia McKinney managed to hold the local TV feeds hostage for over half an hour, gather and name all her supporters, play and sing holler Pink's Dear Mr. President after telling all of us to pay special attention to the words, blame the press for maiming her mother and a staffer, tell us she would not put up with any more stolen elections (look at the numbers above. I'll assume she didn't mean that election), list various countries that were more like what she envisions for the United States (Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba, etc), walk us through the perceived ills of both Presidents Bush, play politics with the deaths of a few American heroes, make the obligatory Haliburton reference, level a bizarre sounding threat to take back the country, and toward the end wish her replacement in Congress well. I guess she forgot her opponents name or maybe she didn't want to prejudge November.

I'm sure I'm missing some of this and hopefully there will be video upcoming, but I really doubt anyone will have a full video report of the whole thing. It also appears that her people attacked a local news crew. All in a night's work for the former 4th district Congresswoman.

CyMc hits the highlights

I just wanted to be the first commenter.

That's the easy part. See if you can be 9th too.
Hell, RW -- send her up here. . .if this state has no problem voting Lamont, it should be a breeze for CyMc.

There really is NO accounting for the ignorance of the voting public.

Signed, disgusted in Connecticut

She just gave the most bizarre concession speech you could ever imagine. The only person she never named was the man that beat her.

We tried to liveblog it at Hot Air. Luckily a poster named labwrs was able to type most of it in as it went on.
Hi RW -- sorry for that abrupt post. Don't usually start that way -- hope you are well and had a nice day.

Okay -- what is up with the AJC -- big headline screams "McKinney delivers firey speech. . .but no details??? As you were listening to her, I had to hear Lieberman's concession and Lamont's playground victory cheer. Then the idiot who thinks he's going to upset Rell in November. . ."fat" chance. Disgusted doesn't even begin to describe. . .

But here's some good news; my little town of South Windsor claims an 80% voter turn-out. Well, at least that's what the nice little old folks running my polling place told me.

I'm clicking on your link now - thank you in advance.
Oh ya, I forgot about this. Lieberman is threatening the Independent route. So it was a non-concession, as your article said. Have you found anywhere else for me to listen/read McKinney's speech?

When you get back from the link you should have a much better idea of what happened. Does Joe have a chance running as an independent up there?

Good job on 80% turnout as long as they knew what they were voting for. I've seen get out the vote drives where the people had no idea who or what was on the ballot.

Start by reading the comments at the link I left. Starting a little after midnight.
Yes, RW -- that's where I've been, and I just figured out the comment section was more informative. (Loved your play-by-play!)

Well, the little old folks (whom I love) would not say who the 80% were -- all their buddies I suspect -- but it just felt like a Lieberman crowd to me.

The news is reporting a 52% voter turn-out state-wide. Pretty impressive for a primary. Your question re Joe's chances. . .I'm thinking they don't look very good if that many folks came out for a "mere" primary and soundly kicked him out. Perhaps media frenzy and the beautiful day today helped?

When they say 52% turnout, is that of all registered voters? That's Presidential election type numbers.
Just finished the comments. . .am truly laughing out loud. You are a hoot, RW -- gees, we really ARE going to miss Cynthia's adventures, aren't we? But now we have Lamont. . .
RW -- yes, I believe that's what they meant. It was very confusing around midnight so this should probably be clarified in the morning. Just checked the Courant and no results on total voter turnout.
RW -- okay -- Courant update said total turn-out over 40% w/Lamont receiving 52% of the votes. Maybe that's what the news folks meant to say. Still pretty impressive for a primary.

That is still a huge number. Even with all eyes on the 4th district I bet it wasn't 25% here. I know statewide it was only about 12%, but there were really no races that mattered outside of this one.
Yes, RW -- I read in the AJC that there was a 12% turn-out in Fulton. Pretty sad, huh? Wonder if all those nutty folks on MLs blog -- who hate everything -- even vote? I'd have to guess no.

Oh well. . .I'll send you CT updates tomorrow evening. Have a wonderful night, RW, I'm taking my sad little middle political self to bed.

Goodnight from the Nut-job State!
I thought that was Nutmeg, goodnight!
Well now congrats are in order. If you haven't read the comments in the AJC online regarding "voting irregularities", you must. It is funny.

Our voters down here did a good job for the most part. A couple of unfortunate victims of the "clean sweep" approach. A Victor Hill supporter was elected to the commission board though. I'm curious what will happen to "Little Napoleon" when he's up for re-election. We're a political circus down here, no doubt.

My heart went out to Lieberman. He asked for exactly what this country needs...unity. Followed by Lamont's childish tantrum calling for division. The radical left must take control, they must...???

Maybe it's too early, but I can't find the comment section you're talking about.
I'm sorry RW, it was yesterdays's online.

"I voted for McKinney, but the opponent's name popped up" was a nice try, but the election official's response was, for me, a hoot.

You know I actually think that voter has a point. The only thing that should change the name should be touching within the vote box. If touching the name outside the vote box changes it they need to fix that now.

Did I leave a response to your 11:17 post? I would have sworn I did. Sometimes I hesitate to speak my mind and delete. Maybe I did that or.......

Did you delete my post RW? ;)

It was within the bounds of decency.

I never saw a response to it. Maybe Hugo is over here running his censorship routine.

I didn't have time earlier to thank you for your posts on Canada. Great links.

Does anyone have a clue what Huge Infant was talking about when he said that he mentioned Canada because of.....Motown? It had something to do with me being a bigot, but the astonishing thing is that I don't "get" his dot connecting. Is it him or me? Ha Ha.

I left him a Huge Challenge tonight.
Buy Danish,

A million cyber mangoes that he says for you to do your own research.

I think his Canada problem is that it's close to Detroit, so if you mention Dearbornistan you are somehow disparaging Canadians.

I don't know how many of them are really different people, but they are like little identical robots to deal with and they use the Midori's, Goldie's, and getalife's as human shields.
Hey RW! Hope you are well this evening and had a nice day. I like your mango reference (my favorite fruit. . .they're only $1.99/ea up here in the Nut-Job state).

Buy Danish. . .thank you for that link to "Truth is Not Bigotry". Really liked the interview with the author, a truly unlikely source. Am going to go get his book tomorrow.

RW -- I think Huge is that OOT person. He/she threatened to never come back to the blog (remember?) and I think he/she has. Huge also posts at JW's, and consistently agrees with the Nazi Susan (the one Dusty soundly put in her place today and the one whose face I want to rip off).

It seems like they have both been there at the same time in the past, but I guess that doesn't mean much.

One thing they have in common is an almost identical claim that they are only there because the bully Republicans are supposedly being unfair to someone and they claim to be riding in as some sort of saviour. It makes no sense whatsoever, but they have both said it.
RW - the guy that was threatening us on the AI blog. . .he was there under different names, at the same posting time or one minute apart. So we didn't think it could be the same person either. Turns out, he had several IPs, which would mean several different computers, right? Still don't know how that was possible.

Then there's this horrible person named "Rednecks" at JWs; I know you don't read that blog, but he's the worst kind of racist. And today, JW defended him! What does that say about an associate editorial editor of the AJC? I'm at a loss.

Y'all hold your own so well against Huge, et al, at MLs. It's better I'm always late to the dance, because I don't know that I could be so civil.

So Joe is going against party lines and is gearing up for the second half of the game for "Team Connecticut". . .what do you think?

There are several ways to either mask or change IP's from session to session, but it can be fun to let someone that you know is using multiple names get away with it for a while. If you are subtle about it you can get them to argue with their self which is always amusing.

I like Joe running as an Independent. Being independent is what has caused him trouble so far, but I'm glad he's stuck to his principles. As a Republican it works out great for my party, because the Lamont folks are going to pull the Democrats way left which will be good for Republicans in most areas. Lieberman will probably win, but he will no longer have any influence because the Dems abandoned him like a hot potato today.
They sure, did, RW -- I know how he feels. It's not always easy taking your own road.

So if Joe runs as an independent, does he not have a voice in congress? Or is it he has not given the dems the seat they may need for a majority rule? I'm not clear on this.

I just went over and read that. I don't think Wooten was standing up for the guy as much as he was trying to play to his ego and get him to be more serious.

He would still probably position himself as a Democrat as far as committees and things go, it would just be hard for the Democrats that dropped him today to act like he was their best buddy once he got elected.

When Jim Jeffords jumped from the Republican party he called himself an independent, but he aligned himself with Democrats so they got to count him when it came to majority status.

Democrats are not going to win a majority of the Senate this time around. I don't even think they will have a chance to take the House with the far left suddenly feeling emboldened. Michael Moore was already issuing threats to moderate Democrats today.
I didn't read it that way, RW. To even acknowledge Redneck's existence is well below the high road that I would expect a man in his position to take. But you, Fair Wind (smile) would see it from both points of view. I gotta ask, though, did you read anything Rednecks wrote? Perhaps you wouldn't be so magnanimous? Maybe?

And why DO we have to declare a party in a primary? What if I liked Joe, but didn't like the dem gubernatorial candidate? What do I do (that happened, you know).

In most States you have to declare a party because it is a party primary.

I haven't read enough of what that guy says to know if Jim was being overly magnanimous. I try to ignore the bold capitalizers. That's why they are in the Ricktionary. :-)

I'm going to turn in. Have a good rest of the evening!
Thanks RW, and goodnight. Maybe one of these days I'll be able to log on earlier so I can talk more to you and everyone else.

You never saw a response. O.K., I must be losing my mind.

I agree with the reasoning behind a change in the voting system, but at some point "common sense" needs to take the helm. Losers like Gore & McKinney will complain no matter what you do to the machines.

Hell, a stylus on a chain would be the quick solution, but can you imagine?

Buy Danish:

You're welcome for the Canada links. I was having a hard time figuring out Huge's objective yesterday. Anti-American is Anti-American, but no doubt about it...it's always fueled by the objective of the left mindset.
I'm reading where the Jewish community is re-examining their loyalty to the Democrats because of the party's willingness to let Israel remain a victim in the region through lame U.N. sanctions that don't address the root cause.

That would be a great gift.
By the way, I noticed that little crack you made on me this morning. Don't think you'll be allowed to get away with that. ;)

I was looking out for your honor, not making a crack about you. ;-)
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?