And also, calling Carly a semi-moderate? Hardly. She’s less conservative than Chuck DeVore who’s about as far right as they can get.

As to your last point, well, it seems you define anyone to the right of Susan Collins a whack job.

Fascinating how you need to twist the facts and my words to make your points, but you do provide endless sport for me–and give me a chance to practice my writing when I am having trouble starting a post. Kind of like the warm up before a race.

Huh?????? The evidence was loud and clear. It was prosecutors being idiots when they didn’t HAVE to what screwed it up.

“pay attention to what people were reading in the Last Frontier ”
They were reading the facts, he was a corrupt bribe taking senator.

“You tell me I only care about the number of Republicans in office, while you’re predicting a Democratic sweep when even the most optimistic Democrats are forecasting losses”
If unemployment can get down to do 7.5% things will be fine for Dems.

“If job growth doesn’t improve significantly, gillie, Democats will likely be routed”
If Repubs puts up candidates like Hoffman, maybe not. – that is the Dems hope here. If you let the the whack jobs of your party run the show, I don’t think Dems lose too badly. – And you KNOW this, why else do you support semi-moderates like Carly.

gillie’s lamenting that only if President Obama’s ties to racist organizations, to terrorists, to Chicago corruption and to his own racist tirades in his books had been exposed sooner, he’d not be president.

No… wait…

Without the prosecution, this would not have dominated the state’s news in the weeks before the election. Stevens would have been in Alaska campaigning intead of in DC defending himself.

As to the bungling of the case, let’s see it was a Republican AG which allowed the prosecution to go forward. And a Democratic AG who dismissed it. Career prosecutors handled the case. If anyone bungled it, it was they. But, then again, they may never have had much of a case anyway. And while I grant Stevens did many things wrong in his career–which we have criticized on this blog–he may well not have broken any laws.

Given who it’s coming from, that accusation is really something. All you seem to care about is “proving” we’re narrow-minded partisans. Yet, you’re the one who spends so much time on a blog of people you claim are so narrow. If you want to argue out points, great, we welcome different viewpoints. But, if you want to nitpick one point in a post (as you do on numerous occasions) while ignoring the overall point of the post, you merely prove your readiness to insult. A really juvenile way of going about things. And then, in your nitpicking, as in the above, you get yours facts wrong.

Without the news going against Stevens and with him promoting himself, he surely would have won.

So, please check the facts before leveling your insults. And quick buying left-wing spin which you spout while accusing us of partisan hackery. How rich that.

If you want to counter my point, fine, even a nitpicking point, well, then fine, counter it. But, you didn’t do that. You insult us and make silly claims. I’m no fan of Ted Stevens as anyone who reads this blog knows all too well. But, just because I don’t like him doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have won.

Go look at Charlie Rangel, just as corrupt, if not more so, than Stevens. And he keeps winning election. Go back and check the election returns and do some research in other places besides left-wing blogs; you might learn something.

Go look at the margin of the Alaska race and let me repeat, pay attention to what people were reading in the Last Frontier in the weeks leading up to the election.

Then, look into your own heart and ask yourself why you spend so much time on a blog commenting to the posts of a blogger who, you claim, lacks principles.

And then compare, your comment #4 to your comment #3. You tell me I only care about the number of Republicans in office, while you’re predicting a Democratic sweep when even the most optimistic Democrats are forecasting losses.

If job growth doesn’t improve significantly maybe not? Maybe not? Maybe the Democrats won’t sweep. If job growth doesn’t improve significantly, gillie, Democats will likely be routed.

So, who’s the partisan hack here?

Proof yet again, that you are not a financial conservative but instead a partisan Hack.

Pay no attention to Helmet Head Dorgan’s Abramoff ties and partisan hackery. Nor his ties to William Oldaker, an appropriations lobbyist who served as treasurer for Helmet Head’s PAC as well as nine others while serving as treasurer for 24 campaign committees.
Neither pay attention to his funneling millions of defense dollars to Sioux Manufacturing, maker of Kevlar helmets for our soldiers, who fudged their QA tests. Forget also Helmet Head getting an $8 million fed contract for the parents of one of his staffers.

Shall I go on?

That is bad. Reminds me of when you could see people falling out of the World Trade Center.

Proof yet again, that you are not a financial conservative but instead a partisan Hack.
He lost because he took bribes.
He lost because he stole money for the National Park and put it in his aides hands.
The only reason he is not in jail is because the republican led AG office bungled the investigation and lawyered like a pack of idiots.

But you don’t care because you have no principles. You only care about the number of repubs in office.