bjbj More election news. I want to continue in the Senate. We talked to Joe Sestak a few
months ago, I really felt good about Joe Sestak's campaign. And early on last night, it seemed
that he was going to win. No such luck. There was a turnaround with the later counties that
were tallied, and Pat Toomey won. I kid you not. This was the former Club for Growth derivatives
trader, Pat Toomey, who won. After derivatives were the subject of controversy, and they're
at the center of the collapse of many financial institutions' scruples and their profits,
the guy in charge of derivatives for a conservative group wins. Disappointing, Louis, and certainly
an indicator of the pulse of the election. Also, Marco Rubio won in Florida, let's take
a look at a little bit of his acceptance speech. And this was a three-way race, and you know
what, in the end, we were thinking that the three-way component was going to possibly
swing the election. Rubio got over 51% of the vote by himself. [CLIP] Megyn Kelly: ... Marco
Rubio is offering his victory speech, let's take a listen. Marco Rubio: [Simultaneous]
And I'll never forget that the next morning, my children showed up, and they had collected
their allowance, which was largely quarters and single dollar bills, and handed it to
me. I didn't tell them that, they overheard me. And it was in that moment that I was reminded
of what this race and election was really all about: It was not about any of our individual
ambitions, but it was about the future as represented by them and their generation.
[END CLIP] David: All right. So Marco Rubio winning there. And bizarre moment with Marco
Rubio that I noticed, Wolf Blitzer, after they watched some of his speech, referred
to Marco Rubio, the Republican Senate winner in Florida, as "very attractive", and it was
really a little bit awkward, I have to say. It was one of the stranger moments in CNN's
election-night coverage. Louis: Wolf Blitzer says a lot of weird things, though. David:
He does, he does say a lot of weird things. And OK, so Joe Miller and Ken Buck, we're
still waiting on those. Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, who had the courage to vote
against the Patriot Act, against essentially what everybody was doing at the time, lost
to Ron Johnson, so that's not good. I want to move on to the governors' races, and then
there's so much to follow up on in terms of what is next here in the United States. A
lot of people are not talking about Republican gains in governorships, which as we go to
air is about plus nine right now. And that's a big deal. For whatever reason, it's not
making the same headlines. We did get, fortunately, in California, Meg Whitman did not win and
Jerry Brown is back to being the governor of California. But the governor, you know,
at a different level, these governors' races are just as or more important in terms of
what goes on in each individual state. And here in Massachusetts, it was close, Louis.
Deval Patrick, the Democrat who was up for reelection, it was not clear even until probably
9:00 pm yesterday that he was going to win reelection against Charlie Baker. Again, just
an indicator of just how, how risky the situation was to Democrats. Louis: Right. But of course,
Massachusetts has a long history of Republican governors. David: That's right. It wouldn't
have been unprecedented in the sense that even when the entire country wasn't voting
for Republicans, Massachusetts has often voted for Republican governors. Louis: Yeah. David:
It would've just added more and more to the claim, for sure. Now, I think that this election
represents the start of a change in American politics. Not the election itself, but I think
it will end up being the catalyst. And I'm very curious, Louis, I mean, we've had in
the last few years a lot of things go on. We've gotten rid of one of the first just
bizarre presidents with certainly just questionable basic intelligence. He left. We elected the
first black president. We now have, are going to have the first orange Speaker of the House.
We had the first real significant plethora of bizarre candidates, like Carl Paladino
and Christine O'Donnell. I don't know exactly what will happen in 2012, but I'm pretty sure
it's going to be different and it's going to be fascinating. Louis: Different in terms
of the candidates we'll see? David: The candidates we'll see, how the elections will be run.
I mean, we already saw in this election a little bit that it was acceptable -- the level
of racism that was acceptable certainly was ratcheted up. That was a change. The amount
of crazy personal background that could still get you onto the final ballot certainly was
slackened. I mean, we saw big changes this time around. Louis: Right. Would you call
that a dumbing down of politics, though? David: You know, those aren't necessarily terms that
I like to use, but certainly there's an infotainment component that is going on in news that we
have seen. I mean, who is doing the best in news? The news that is visually the most compelling
and most entertaining is what is doing the best. Louis: And who are the candidates that
get the most attention? The candidates that are the most outrageous, usually. David: The
ones that get... Well, you know, I don't know that I agree with you. They do get attention,
but the candidates that actually end up winning aren't the craziest, most outrageous ones.
I mean, Jimmy McMillan... Louis: That's true, but I was just talking strictly in terms of
media coverage. David: In terms of quantity of coverage. Louis: Right. David: I don't
think I agree with you. I mean, Jimmy McMillan, for the amount of coverage he got compared
to, for example, I don't know, Marco Rubio, you would think Jimmy McMillan, if it was
about media attention, would have won; obviously he didn't, he didn't even come in second.
Louis: Well, I'm not saying that, you know, their elections depended on the media coverage
that they received, I'm just saying, I mean, who did you see more media coverage of more
than anybody this entire election? Christine O'Donnell. Right. David: [Simultaneous] Christine
O'Donnell. Right. And it didn't help her. Louis: Clearly the most outrageous candidate.
David: Yeah. Yeah, I guess you're... And we have to figure in, how much of a factor is
it that she's a woman, as well? I mean, is there more interest because she was a crazy
female candidate versus a crazy male candidate? Maybe that attracted to the amount of attention.
Louis: I think so. It's like the Sarah Palin effect. David: Exactly. So let's... We'll
talk about what's next, first though, Louis, winners and losers. Obvious loser in this
election, Democratic incumbents. I mean, no question about it. We saw in blue counties,
in red counties, we can find Democratic incumbent losers just about anywhere. Winner: Wall Street.
Many of the biggest Wall Street recipients won, Wall Street money recipients that is.
And we know, Louis, what that will mean for Wall Street, do we not? Louis: What's that?
David: We know exactly what more Wall Street money recipients' winning will mean for Wall
Street. More of the same, more favorable legislation, more pats on the back, less regulation. Louis:
Well, Wall Street... I mean, Obama did Wall Street a lot of favors, too. David: Well,
we're opening a whole other can of worms there, astutely so, Louis, but I don't want to get
bogged down in that discussion. Louis: OK. Agreed. David: I want to continue, winners
and losers. You know who I was glad to see in the losers list, the self-funders. Carly
Fiorina, Meg Whitman, Linda McMahon, they all spent a ton of their own money, millions,
$170 million, I believe, in Meg Whitman's case. Didn't win. Now, some women's groups
have been getting some emails. Some women's groups are not particularly happy with this.
But they should be, since none of these women were really going to do anything for women's
rights anyway. I mean, if we talk about reproductive rights, if we talk about income equality,
Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, and Linda McMahon, trust me, I believe are not the prominent
female politicians that the women's rights movement should want. Louis: And not that
it's not important, but I mean, is women's rights really a priority, you know, in the
Senate right now? David: It's not, no. Louis: Yeah. David: But certainly... And, you know,
Whitman was trying to be the governor of California, but you're right. And certainly, these women
winning would not have made it a priority. And other clear losers: progressives. I mean,
as Huffington Post's Ryan Grim reported, this was a clear loss for progressives. Tom Perriello,
hard-working freshman whose progressive values are deeply held, worked hard as anyone in
Congress, passionately articulated and defended his votes, raised a ton of money, lost to
literally an empty-headed country-club Republican who didn't take a position on anything other
than cut taxes, cut spending, cut taxes, cut spending. Who does that sound like? And Alan
Grayson. Again, Joe Sestak. I mean, it was... Progressives certainly the losers, winner,
Sarah Palin. Even though her doppleganger, Christine O'Donnell, did lose as did Sharron
Angle, the perception is, after doing poorly in the general election, Sarah Palin swept
in and delivered victories across the country. And you know that Sarah Palin has power when
she can get incompetent people who have no business making political decisions for anybody
onto the final ballot. And regardless of what happens, Louis, in the next two years, the
2010 midterms have helped Sarah Palin in her potential run for 2012, as scary as that is.
So let's take a break. Last loser, as we go out here, gladly, the Nazi reenacters, witches,
and people who say rape and incest are God's will. Take a break, we'll be back. Announcer:
You're listening to The David Pakman Show. hR.W :pR.W [Content_Types].xml Iw}, $yi} _rels/.rels
theme/theme/themeManager.xml sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml w toc'v )I`n 3Vq%'#q :\TZaG L+M2 e\O* $*c?
)6-r IqbJ#x ,AGm T[XF64 E)`# R>QD =(K& =al- 4vfa 0%M0 theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels
6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK
theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1"
accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink"
folHlink="folHlink"/> David Pakman Normal.dotm David Pakman Microsoft Office Word Title Microsoft
Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8