Jackson Jambalaya

As one of his former constituents, I know he's hard working, a blue dog dem, etc. HOWEVER-if a candidate has a "D" behind their name they are NOT conservative. If he was so conservative he would've changed his party affiliation long ago. Yes I voted for him in the past but would NOT anymore.

I've said the same thing about Childers and any other Blue Dog Democrat. Both Childers and Taylor would have been welcomed into the GOP with open arms and would have easily won reelection had they switched parties. I hate to take the party over person approach, but in this election that's the way to go if you want to turn things in a different direction. Bill Billingsley

How long before Palazzo comes out with an ad showing everyone the party?

If you want Pelosi to keep running things in Congress then vote for Democrats. That is the inevitable result, no matter what stance a particular candidate takes on a particular issue.

My only question would be: Why hasn't he come out with that ad already?

Bill, my friend, I disagree. Travis Childers would not necessarily have been welcomed into the GOP with open arms. Before someone can be "welcomed" they have to actually have the beliefs of the party. I do agree that in years past, Taylor would have been welcomed into the party, since he has never really been a Dem or a Repub. But Travis has been a true-blue Dem since his entry into politics decades ago, and his 2-year tenure into the Congress hasn't changed his stripes. I for one would much rather defeat him at the polls than "welcome him" into the tent.
Pete Perry

Pete, I'm sure you're right and will retract my statement based on my certainty that you know more about the topic than I do. I've never met Travis and I was speaking in general terms. I assumed that our party would be amenable to accepting a conservative Democrat into our ranks, as we have in the past (my father in law being a good example). I further assumed that Travis, in his desire to keep the job, had voted along the Blue Dog lines and probably would fit under the tent somewhere. People I know who live in the district have said he votes with the Republicans as much as he does the Democrats, so I didn't take the time to research it before I made my comment. I have no knowledge of his Chancery Clerk days, and it probably was an irresponsible thing for me to say. Let me put it another way - I bet on November 3 Travis Childers will be wishing he'd switched parties. BB

What is funny in all of this is that there is very little difference between the two parties. Both have increased spending tremendously. Now that the Democrats are in control, the are criticized for everything they do and don't do, like the border. Hello? Who controlled the federal government from 2000 - 2006? In the name of Homeland Security, Bush and company could not have fixed the border?
Fair is fair, both parties are running US in the ground.

Yes, 8:14, but it's the Democrats who are doing it now. If the Republicans gain control of Congress and win the Presidency in 2012 and fail to make the people happy, then they'll get the backlash at that point, just like they did in 2006 and 2008. That's the way it works - the party in power has to produce or they will find themselves out of power. BB

Well, it was such a close vote...definitely the time to buck the party ...since you shouldn't care if you get good committee appointments for your district ( sarcasm)

Boehner is such a fine alternative to Pelosi with his helmet hair,perpetual tan, and intellect and the GOP Congress for 8 years did such a good job ( sarcasm)

The whole notion that a district should vote based on unseating the Majority leader rather than their district's interests is laughable.

The idea that we'd have these two choices for leadership of Congress speaks to the sorry state our country is in.

God forbid competence and character and courage to do the right thing for the Nation despite what your party dictates should matter.

God forbid we should be discussing how to solve the serious problems that face us.

No, let's vote on personalities and pretty faces and party affliation and who is most emotional;y glib in expressing our frustrations rather than do ANYTHING to fix what is broken.

That'll work ( sarcasm)

Funny, you bring nothing up specifically to detail where Boehner falls short in the job as a legislator besides attacking his personal appearance and his intellect which I'm sure you know nothing about.

You might believe you are superior but you aren't. No sarcasm intended.

Boehner not a bad fellow, just not a leader. Needs someone telling him what to do. Dems make a mistake demonizing him because he's frankly too damn dull. Ryan is probably the best cookie of the House Republican leadership; has some brains and is articulate. Cantor is a weasel and I don't trust him. He's the first one that would turn into a Bush republican if he thought he could get an advantage out of it. He's extremely vain and is not someone I would trust. I don't trust either party for that matter.

8:50, you make some very good points. Unfortunately, they're more academic than practical, as are most of the suggestions from the left. Whether we like it or not, we have a two party system. Sure, there are two Independents in the Senate, but everyone else in Congress is either Democrat or Republican. Partisan politics has dominated good sense in Congress since I can remember, and I was born when Truman was President. We have to play with the cards we're dealt, and the only way to change the leadership in Congress is to elect representatives from the other party and hope the majority changes. You and I can differ in our opinions of how effective the current Speaker is, and whether the current Minority Leader would be an improvement, but the majority will rule no matter what we think. Yes, character and the willingness to do the right thing despite party mandates would be nice characteristics for our elected representatives to have, but not many would be elected if they bucked their party too often. So the academic arguments may sound good in theory, but they're out of place in the real world. Sorry...BB

You're a cheap date Bill if you believe 8:50 made any points at all.

Harper speaks highly of Ryan.

9:41, I was mostly being polite - a character weakness I can't seem to conquer. I agree with him that competence and character should matter, and we should be all working together to solve the problems of the nation. However, as I pointed out, that discussion belongs in a freshman political science class. The political reality is you gotta get elected before you can do anything. BB

That's the nice rationalization used for despicable tactics , lack of respect for anything resembling truth and the reality of the current sorry state of affairs, BB.

The end justifies the means, winning is everything...it's out of control and that's WHY we're in such a mess. The partisanship has gotten so absurd that good men and women can't cooperate to do the right thing when the party political position is WRONG.

Sam Ervin and Everett Dirkson actually use to get together and work out what was best for the country. They also liked to win at election time.

Once upon a time could win an election without tearing the country apart with lies in the process.

Now we completely agree. I too wish things were as they used to be. Hell, Kennedy would be considered a conservative President under today's rules. I wish lawmakers would be more like Bill Frist and Fred Thompson and step down voluntarily when they've completed their public service. I'm all for a Congress - and a state legislature, for that matter - composed completely of true citizen legislators. However, I can't fault either party for doing what it takes to get elected, and don't act like Republicans are the only ones who stretch the truth during a campaign. You can't make any laws sitting at home, so I'm not surprised that campaigning and raising money has become such a big part of our political system. BB

BB, I didn't say Republicans were the only ones, just , frankly, the most successful at those kind of tactics.

I do fault BOTH parties.

You can pretend all you want that this is OK because winning is all that matters.

I'm sure every athlete on steriods and every coach that cheats to win and every Wall Street crook agrees with that ethical code.

Uh, nobody here advocated cheating, stealing or lying. If you don't understand the difference maybe you;d be better off at the JFP blog.

5:43, I'm not pretending that anything is OK. I'm simply stating facts as they exist in our political world today. I wasn't talking about steroids or Wall Street or anything else, and it's inaccurate for you to infer that my ethical standards are somehow inferior to yours because I recognize reality and try to work within it. Politics is nasty, it's always been nasty, and it will always be nasty. If you want it to change you need to help the people who you believe to be the best candidates get elected to office. Copping out and criticizing everyone is easy - getting involved and trying to make a difference takes some work. BB

Funny actually...I was involved in politics. I saw the change Lee Atwater brought. It's not like it used to be. What's going on now is different than " dirty tricks" and exaggerating the positives and negatives of candidates and you know it.

I did try very hard to change it from within. But, as national people from both parties said, negative campaigning works.

Now, I'm trying to change it from without by challenging those within the parties to see what you have wrought. It's about all us elderly, decrepit folks can do.

If you can't see that those in leadership set a moral and ethical tone for the Nation...that the message of winning is everything, the end justifies the means, and money is power has infected our culture and filtered down to our children...well...

And, I think it's more than a little insulting for either party to imagine that they can tell bald face lies, spend enormous sums to get into power and think I will trust them to " do the right thing" once they take the oath of office. Past behavior predicts future behavior.

If your ethics are " convenient" during a campaign they will be " convenient" when you are in power.

There are no solutions being proffered. You know and I know the " contract with America" bunch who actually did some good got run off by their own party because they wouldn't tow the party line and put party success ahead of national interests. And, the recycled version is just a marketing ploy.

The political reality is what those of you in politics today have made it . It's not the reality of Gil Carmicheal or Ted Smith who could actually solve problems and cared about Mississippi more than their personal interests.

I'm urging you and anyone else to stop rationalizing this unethical behavior away. I'm asking those who are Christian to remember that " bearing false witness" has no exceptions listed.

I know you know that, for example, Obama is a citizen ( because his mother was if for no other reason) and to call BS on your own people, like Boehner, who further such nonsense. I'm asking you to consider that there's a difference between destroying respect for a person and destroying trust in the system. Don't you see that those who believe a non citizen was elected President believe the system failed...that the FBI, CIA, and both parties couldn't protect them from that?

It's gone too far. Stop it.

Funny actually...I was involved in politics. I saw the change Lee Atwater brought. It's not like it used to be. What's going on now is different than " dirty tricks" and exaggerating the positives and negatives of candidates and you know it.

I did try very hard to change it from within. But, as national people from both parties said, negative campaigning works.

Now, I'm trying to change it from without by challenging those within the parties to see what you have wrought. It's about all us elderly, decrepit folks can do.

If you can't see that those in leadership set a moral and ethical tone for the Nation...that the message of winning is everything, the end justifies the means, and money is power has infected our culture and filtered down to our children...well...

And, I think it's more than a little insulting for either party to imagine that they can tell bald face lies, spend enormous sums to get into power and think I will trust them to " do the right thing" once they take the oath of office. Past behavior predicts future behavior.

If your ethics are " convenient" during a campaign they will be " convenient" when you are in power.

There are no solutions being proffered. You know and I know the " contract with America" bunch who actually did some good got run off by their own party because they wouldn't tow the party line and put party success ahead of national interests. And, the recycled version is just a marketing ploy.

The political reality is what those of you in politics today have made it . It's not the reality of Gil Carmicheal or Ted Smith who could actually solve problems and cared about Mississippi more than their personal interests.

I'm urging you and anyone else to stop rationalizing this unethical behavior away. I'm asking those who are Christian to remember that " bearing false witness" has no exceptions listed.

I know you know that, for example, Obama is a citizen ( because his mother was if for no other reason) and to call BS on your own people, like Boehner, who further such nonsense. I'm asking you to consider that there's a difference between destroying respect for a person and destroying trust in the system. Don't you see that those who believe a non citizen was elected President believe the system failed...that the FBI, CIA, and both parties couldn't protect them from that?

It's gone too far. Stop it.

Your argument has come a long way from a simple disagreement with me as to my taking a "convenient" approach to analyzing the current state of elections in America. Funny...the more you move away from the original subject the more I agree with what you say. OF COURSE I'm for more honesty in politicians. OF COURSE I'm for more bipartisan solutions to the problems that face us. OF COURSE I'm against either party telling lies just to get elected. I believe President Obama is both native born and a Christian. I with with all my heart that our system could go back in time to when we had true citizen legislators who could put in their time without being hounded by lobbyists and unions and then go back to the farm and let someone else have a chance. The only difference between you and me is that I've reluctantly accepted that the system has flaws and I'm trying to make the best of it and not abandoning it because it's not the way I think it should be. Your philosophy still leaves out one very important point - how do you effect change if you don't get elected? The professional politicians have made the rules, but they voters have continued to affirm them, so I'd rather get behind the candidate I think is best even if he has a few warts.

I'm not sure if you mean the system has gone on long enough or this thread has gone on long enough. I agree with you on both counts...Bill Billingsley

It's gone too far. Stop it.

You are right. Please turn off your pomposity. It has gone too far. Stop it.

hehehehe
Telling deliberate lies to the American people while touting Christian values isn't pompous?

Demonizing anyone who disagrees with you isn't pompous?

I love it!