Ted Stevens Loses Senate Re-Election Bid

JakartaDean writes "Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, famed Internet regulator, has lost his Senate seat. The AP is reporting that 'Stevens was declared the loser in Alaska on Tuesday night after a two-week-long process of counting nearly 90,000 absentee and early votes from across Alaska. With this victory, Democrat Mark Begich (the mayor of Anchorage) has defeated one of the giants in the US Senate by a 3,724-vote margin, a stunning end to a 40-year Senate career marred by Stevens' conviction on corruption charges a week before the election.' It's probably too early to tell what this means for Internet regulation, but at least there's a > 0 chance that the next committee chair will understand something about the Net."

Comments

Re:I'm amazed

[NoPantsJim]

(though, to be fair, he would have probably resigned and been replaced with a better candidate by appointment or special election, had he won.)

Yeah, or a worse candidate could have been appointed, and we'd have to put up with "Senator Palin"'s bullshit for years to come.

Re:I'm amazed

[MichaelSmith]

(though, to be fair, he would have probably resigned and been replaced with a better candidate by appointment or special election, had he won.)

Yeah, or a worse candidate could have been appointed, and we'd have to put up with "Senator Palin's bullshit for years to come

So what? You are going to have to put up with Governor Palins bullshit for years to come anyway.

While we are on the subject why would she want to run anyway. Aren't Governers > Senators?

Re:I'm amazed

[philspear]

Well of course, after all, republicans find plenty of ways to rationalize their own use of tax money while throwing a hissy fit about anyone else using it. That's one of the reasons red states more tax money than they give.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

Re:Poor Sarah

[Just Some Guy]

Excellent show of bipartisanship! It's great to see that the election's sexism and ignorance are of the past and that we've moved ahead as a nation. Keep up the good work!

Consider the dates...

[ovu]

Perhaps the Republican party of 1964 is not the same as in 2008? Those stats are laudable. However, party value systems change over time, and the GOP has been pretty shameless about its current priorities while in power.

Re:Are you sure about that?

[zippthorne]

Has it occurred to you that there haven't been any prominent, obviously named, "civil rights bills" passed since then which also happen to have wikipedia articles and voting breakdown by party?

Show me some recent votes that support your claim of "Rs were good then, but have changed now"

Re:Who's The Fool

[je ne sais quoi]

And it is possible that Poppa Bush was in the same vein, just not caught.

Go read about what Lee Atwater did to Dukakis in the 1988 election (link). I saw a frontline special about him the other day and absolutely astounded me how long these "Rove-like"* tactics have been used and have worked. *I say Rove-like, but since Nixon the Republicans have been using similar strategies. Maybe people just haven't caught on until now?