So Rep. Anthony Weiner of NY - who is understandably upset that the Democrats were not able to take advantage of Mayor Bloomberg’s revealed weakness in yesterday’s election - made a somewhat passive-aggressive suggestion that the administration spent too much time on Jon Corzine and pretty much no time at all on Bill Thompson. Such things are inevitable in the aftermath of a lost election, particularly when it’s actually the aftermath of lost elections. The double hammer-blow of losing both Virginia and New Jersey’s governors’ seats is going to make a number of Democrats say some unfortunate things for a while. A prudent or experienced administration will let those things slide.
Fortunately for the GOP, the current one is neither.
“Maybe Anthony Weiner should have manned-up and run against Michael Bloomberg,” shot back a White House official, who attributed the night’s results across the board to anti-incumbent fervor.
…which apparently was not enough to actually eliminate the incumbent in NYC*, but never mind that right now. Anyway, if one is going to trade ‘maybes,’ here’s one: maybe the White House should stop letting people willing to act and talk like a thirteen-year-old speak for it? Even if it’s off the record.
Moe Lane
PS: See also Hot Air and JammieWearingFool.
*Including NYC’s - which I wasn’t, until this came up - there were five major races yesterday. Two had incumbents. One won, one lost.
Crossposted to Moe Lane.
First of all, I know it looks impossible to even say, so let’s clear up that last name. It’s pronounced An-gee-ef-ski. I know, I know, that means here in Illinois we could possibly go from a Governor Blagojevich to an Andrzejewski. But the difficult last name should stand as the only similarity between the two men, for Adam seems to have some ideas on how Illinois might get out of its fiscal nightmare. I interviewed him not long ago and he had some very interesting thoughts on how to fix Illinois. (
A few of our newly minted spokesmen for all those seemingly ubiquitous new Republican moderates out there are starting to say that if we oppose Sotomayor, we do so at our own risk. By this they mean that if we are seen to oppose a strong Hispanic woman we will be hurting our chances further with Hispanic voters. To this one can only say poppycock. Sotomayor should be opposed and vigorously but not because of anything other than her rather un-judicial judicial philosophy.![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=78f7f031-dd9b-4b04-8be3-d0e582b863f2)
