Support
Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Why Did Republicans Sell Out To Harry Reid?
Good question. Why not just hold off all important business until the new Senate is sworn in, where the party would have stronger negotiating position and get more of what it wants?
Harry Reid's brilliance? Um, seems to be too remote a possibility to bother considering. Blame the RINOs, pure and simple, who do in fact have Washingtonitis -- the belief that they have a sort of Divine Right of Kings to decide the affairs of men, rather than voting according to their constituents' aspirations -- and see themselves as defending the gate from the barbarians.The answer, I think, is that there are plenty of Senate Republicans who aren't too comfortable with the class of conservatives who got elected in 2010. These legislators knew they had to stick with McConnell before the election, as you can't win back the majority by handing the president lots of legislative accomplishments. But now that the election was over, the bills that had piled up were, in many cases, good bills, and if they didn't pass now, it wasn't clear that they'd be able to pass later. The incumbent -- and the outgoing -- Republicans know that the fact that Republicans will have more power in 2011 doesn't necessarily mean that they'll use that power to pass sensible legislation. So those of them who wanted to pass sensible legislation decided to get it all done now, even if that meant handing Reid and Obama a slew of apparent victories in the lame-duck session.That's Ezra Klein, but I think he's right. Culture is thicker than ideology. It is often noted by Tea Partiers (and before that, what used to just be called grassroots conservatives before they had a more evocative name) that the leadership class, even the "conservative" parts of the leadership class, shares the same basic culture -- tastes, preferences, religiosity, manners, mods of thought -- with all other members of the leadership class, and that culture is largely liberal in almost all ways. When offered a choice between their own culture -- shared with liberal senators -- and a culture to them which looks a lot like The Other, alien and frightening, they will do what human beings usually do, behave in a xenophobic, tribal fashion and align with the people they know and respect, and they respect them primarily because they agree with them so much. And that usually means selling out their putative ideology, which The Other they're so frightened of does in fact believe in, and better understand, far better than they do. And in reacting in a xenophobic, hatred-of-The-Other tribalistic fashion, they congratulate themselves on being "sophisticated" and "open-minded." This I think is the reason many grassroots conservatives hate Mitt Romney and love Sarah Palin. Even though they agree on most issues, they sense Mitt Romney is from that leadership class, and will sell them out at the drop of a hat to keep in the good graces of the culture he admires and identifies with, and Sarah Palin is definitely from their own class -- what the establishment regards as The Barbaric Other -- and will tend to support them. I don't think that's quite fair to Romney -- Ann Coulter thinks that below his chameleon act he is in fact mostly The Barbaric Other, same as we -- but that accounts for the open hostility to him. And I understand that, as he has reinforced that perception by joining the liberal leadership class (or at least ran his ship under their flag of convenience) when it served his purposes.
Comments
(Jump to bottom of comments)1
Shorter Ace:
"The Establishment Republicans care more about their dinner party invitations than actually representing those they were elected to represent. Oh, and I have to mention Sarah Palin somehow, so I'll do it in a (rolls D6) neutral/leaning approving way."
(Just having fun, Ace).
"The Establishment Republicans care more about their dinner party invitations than actually representing those they were elected to represent. Oh, and I have to mention Sarah Palin somehow, so I'll do it in a (rolls D6) neutral/leaning approving way."
(Just having fun, Ace).
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 22, 2010 12:15 PM (8y9MW)
2
First timer and first?
Posted by: Witin at December 22, 2010 12:15 PM (Wy05x)
3
History will come calling eventually, one way or another...
Posted by: Witin at December 22, 2010 12:16 PM (Wy05x)
4
Isn't this exactly the stance that was derided as being "purity police" earlier this year?
Posted by: Blue Hen at December 22, 2010 12:17 PM (R2fpr)
5
I have a better and shorter reason:
RINOS SUCK
Unfortunately, there are certain blue states where you are either gonna get a RINO or a Democrat. The benefit of the RINO is that they can give you a majority and Chairmanships. The negative is that they are foxes in the henhouse and dilute the Republican Brand.
I say it is better to expunge all RINOS even if it costs a majority. The destruction of the Republican Party since we lost our majorities can be tied directly to the fact you could no longer tell Republicans from Democrats and given a choice, America chose the Democrats because at least they hadn't tried them for a while.
Take a stand. Be hot or cold. Being luke warm just gets you spit out.
RINOS SUCK
Unfortunately, there are certain blue states where you are either gonna get a RINO or a Democrat. The benefit of the RINO is that they can give you a majority and Chairmanships. The negative is that they are foxes in the henhouse and dilute the Republican Brand.
I say it is better to expunge all RINOS even if it costs a majority. The destruction of the Republican Party since we lost our majorities can be tied directly to the fact you could no longer tell Republicans from Democrats and given a choice, America chose the Democrats because at least they hadn't tried them for a while.
Take a stand. Be hot or cold. Being luke warm just gets you spit out.
Posted by: Bill Mitchell at December 22, 2010 12:18 PM (Baf0e)
6
I think Romney is too unprincipled to belong to the leadership class, except when its convenient to him.
I say this as a Mormon who thinks that experience and competence are important and that Palin has got neither. So I should be a natural Romney supporter. But the facts have got to be faced.
The GOP Senate sell-out is disgraceful. When even Queen Rino Graham is calling you a sell-out, you're a sell-out.
I say this as a Mormon who thinks that experience and competence are important and that Palin has got neither. So I should be a natural Romney supporter. But the facts have got to be faced.
The GOP Senate sell-out is disgraceful. When even Queen Rino Graham is calling you a sell-out, you're a sell-out.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at December 22, 2010 12:18 PM (epBek)
7
I believe you have it right, Ace. And those RINO fucks have a long and deep reaming coming in the next election. I don't know if Mitt can overcome his RINO persona enough to win nomination. He will have to bolt from them rather dramatically and irreversibly and publicly to make any headway.
Posted by: maddogg at December 22, 2010 12:18 PM (OlN4e)
8
Posted by: Blue Hen at December 22, 2010 12:17 PM (R2fpr)
Probably. But, to give some credit, I think Ace has been about as outraged as the rest of us at the complete disregard for the will of the people shown in this Lame Duck session. I think he's finally figuring out that if we don't demand purity, we won't even get acceptability.
Probably. But, to give some credit, I think Ace has been about as outraged as the rest of us at the complete disregard for the will of the people shown in this Lame Duck session. I think he's finally figuring out that if we don't demand purity, we won't even get acceptability.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 22, 2010 12:18 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Joe Biden at December 22, 2010 12:19 PM (3d6oP)
Posted by: Derak at December 22, 2010 12:19 PM (CjpKH)
11
Sarah Palin is definitely . . . The Barbaric Other
Bar bar! Bar bar bar bar bar bar bar! BAR BAR BAR!
Bar bar! Bar bar bar bar bar bar bar! BAR BAR BAR!
Posted by: The Dread Pirate βάρβαρος at December 22, 2010 12:20 PM (SqJzH)
12
Ace, the only thing which will save the country is a reconstitution of fiscal responsibility and fidelity to our founding documents. Sounds trite, but we are at the edge of a fiscal cliff.
The tea party was integral in the new power dynamic however, pride is getting in the way with the old guard GOP. This is very disconcerting to say the least.
The tea party was integral in the new power dynamic however, pride is getting in the way with the old guard GOP. This is very disconcerting to say the least.
Posted by: journolist at December 22, 2010 12:20 PM (LwLqV)
13
I think people are overreacting slightly. Obama's three recent glorious victories on his triumphant return to relevance are 1) a tax compromise that gives us everything we wanted for two years and lets him campaign on a platform of raising taxes in 2012, 2) a repeal of DADT, which, lets be honest, was going to happen anyway, and 3) the START treaty, which, correct me if I'm mistaken was a product of Bush-era foreign policy, and it's not like Obama was ever gonna build missle defense sites to reign in Russia anyways. I'll take killing the DREAM act over all three of those.
Just normal lame-duck nonsense. I can't believe we can't do it like almost every other country on the planet: after the election, swear in the new reps. It's too easy and makes too much sense, I guess.
Just normal lame-duck nonsense. I can't believe we can't do it like almost every other country on the planet: after the election, swear in the new reps. It's too easy and makes too much sense, I guess.
Posted by: Paul at December 22, 2010 12:20 PM (DsHk0)
14
You peons and drones need to learn your place and take direction from your betters.
Posted by: Sir Charles of Krauthammer at December 22, 2010 12:21 PM (OlN4e)
15
And thus why RINOs are unfit for nomination, tactical considerations be damned. You're just putting a new coat of paint on the problem.
And with that, I'm out before I blow a f'n gasket. I guess it's time to get my own page up and running so I can vent on my own turf. Prolly back after the New Year once I've had a chance to settle a bit. Laters, Morons...
And with that, I'm out before I blow a f'n gasket. I guess it's time to get my own page up and running so I can vent on my own turf. Prolly back after the New Year once I've had a chance to settle a bit. Laters, Morons...
Posted by: AoSHQ's DarkLord© at December 22, 2010 12:22 PM (GBXon)
16
Isn't this exactly the stance that was derided as being "purity police" earlier this year?
Posted by: Blue Hen at December 22, 2010 12:17 PM (R2fpr)
Ok, good....I thought it was just me that noticed that.
Posted by: Blue Hen at December 22, 2010 12:17 PM (R2fpr)
Ok, good....I thought it was just me that noticed that.
Posted by: Tami at December 22, 2010 12:22 PM (VuLos)
17
One of the things that drives me nuts is how easy it would have been for Brown and the rest of the traitors is that they had an easy road here - even if they support this leftist initiatives.
Just say I can't in good conscious vote for a big change like this in the lame duck session, oh, and I gave my word I wouldn't before the budget was resolved anyway.
Then, if you want DADT repeal or START you make Obama pay for it. We will face hard fights on Obamacare, spending, and regulation. And these RINOs just gave away one obvious chip - START.
Just say I can't in good conscious vote for a big change like this in the lame duck session, oh, and I gave my word I wouldn't before the budget was resolved anyway.
Then, if you want DADT repeal or START you make Obama pay for it. We will face hard fights on Obamacare, spending, and regulation. And these RINOs just gave away one obvious chip - START.
Posted by: 18-1 at December 22, 2010 12:23 PM (7BU4a)
18
Its more simple IMO.
The entrenched Washington Oligarchs, not only see the unwashed Barbaric TEA drinking hords as outsiders... but also see them as a threat to the Game itself. But the Oligarchs I speak of are NOT the Figurehead Politicians, but their STAFFS and "Advisors".
A very smart Admiral once told me that Staff IS Policy... because they shape not only the plans, but what information you base those plans upon. This is the STAFFS of those leaving making their marks, and ensuring the special interest payoffs, so they can then use those as leverage for the next job.
Its the Washington in power/out of power job rotation... where out of power STAFFS, suddenly become the Lobbyists... until the next time their party is in power... but for this to work, they MUST help the other side, to keep their access.
The entrenched Washington Oligarchs, not only see the unwashed Barbaric TEA drinking hords as outsiders... but also see them as a threat to the Game itself. But the Oligarchs I speak of are NOT the Figurehead Politicians, but their STAFFS and "Advisors".
A very smart Admiral once told me that Staff IS Policy... because they shape not only the plans, but what information you base those plans upon. This is the STAFFS of those leaving making their marks, and ensuring the special interest payoffs, so they can then use those as leverage for the next job.
Its the Washington in power/out of power job rotation... where out of power STAFFS, suddenly become the Lobbyists... until the next time their party is in power... but for this to work, they MUST help the other side, to keep their access.
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 22, 2010 12:24 PM (AdK6a)
19
Oh, and seeing how cheaply Brown and co sold out, I think after all is said and done DE made the right choice on COD.
Now for 2012 the challenge is to find people to run against Brown and co who actually know how to campaign.
Now for 2012 the challenge is to find people to run against Brown and co who actually know how to campaign.
Posted by: 18-1 at December 22, 2010 12:24 PM (7BU4a)
20
Barack's recent 'victories' remind me of Bo's triumphant result over the Dining Room Carpet last week.
Instead of pinching a loaf right there on the floor of the Whitehouse Dining Room, he waited until he got to the Foyer before pinching a loaf.
Victory!
What a good boy.
Instead of pinching a loaf right there on the floor of the Whitehouse Dining Room, he waited until he got to the Foyer before pinching a loaf.
Victory!
What a good boy.
Posted by: Joe Biden at December 22, 2010 12:25 PM (3d6oP)
21
Posted by: Blue Hen at December 22, 2010 12:17 PM (R2fpr)Probably. But, to give some credit, I think Ace has been about as outraged as the rest of us at the complete disregard for the will of the people shown in this Lame Duck session. I think he's finally figuring out that if we don't demand purity, we won't even get acceptability.
Posted by: AllenG
You misunderstand me. The word purity needs to be dropped. The term has been co-opted to demean anyone who dares question a politician who'se allegience is to the ruling class, rather then the party that they alledgedly support.
The gag definition of RINO (someone less pure than I)has also been employed to the same end. Notice that when someone refuts this and uses the proper definition (actively undermining the party platform and/or leadership) then the purity strawman is revived.
Posted by: AllenG
You misunderstand me. The word purity needs to be dropped. The term has been co-opted to demean anyone who dares question a politician who'se allegience is to the ruling class, rather then the party that they alledgedly support.
The gag definition of RINO (someone less pure than I)has also been employed to the same end. Notice that when someone refuts this and uses the proper definition (actively undermining the party platform and/or leadership) then the purity strawman is revived.
Posted by: Blue Hen at December 22, 2010 12:25 PM (R2fpr)
22
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 22, 2010 12:24 PM (AdK6a)
Staves? Staven? "Staffs" just looks wrong to me. Maybe it's all that 2D6 . . .
Staves? Staven? "Staffs" just looks wrong to me. Maybe it's all that 2D6 . . .
Posted by: The Dread Pirate βάρβαρος at December 22, 2010 12:26 PM (SqJzH)
23
Obama has had a very successful 2 years:
- country is bankrupt
- auto, banking, healthcare industries taken over
- everyone has accepted it, is afraid to talk about it, and is ready for more
So, RINOs are simply reflecting the will of the people.
- country is bankrupt
- auto, banking, healthcare industries taken over
- everyone has accepted it, is afraid to talk about it, and is ready for more
So, RINOs are simply reflecting the will of the people.
Posted by: Cherry π at December 22, 2010 12:26 PM (+sBB4)
24
Blame the RINOs, pure and simple, -- and see themselves as defending the gate from the barbarians.
The RINOs don't know that they are the barbarians? Typical. They just aren't very smart. They only look normal in comparison with the lunatic left.
The RINOs don't know that they are the barbarians? Typical. They just aren't very smart. They only look normal in comparison with the lunatic left.
Posted by: iknowtheleft at December 22, 2010 12:26 PM (G/MYk)
25
Posted by: Paul at December 22, 2010 12:20 PM (DsHk0)
I'm good with the tax compromise (could have been better, but it could have been way worse, too).
I'm not good with DADT. Not at all. IF this were really about fairness or any of those other things, I could be sanguine about it, but it's not: it's another move in the culture war attempting to undermine the very social foundations of our country.
I'm not good with START. First off, it may be a "product of Bush-era foreign policy," but it was President BOHICA and Sec State Pants-suit who did the final negotiations. It's bad policy and should not have been ratified even if Bush had negotiated it.
And, no, it is not a "normal" lame duck session to enact sweeping legislation that will: Majorly effect the tax-code and future budgets, drastically modify the make-up and (potentially) morale and combat effectiveness of our military, and (having never been done before) ratify a treaty- especially one that only negatively effects us.
I'm good with the tax compromise (could have been better, but it could have been way worse, too).
I'm not good with DADT. Not at all. IF this were really about fairness or any of those other things, I could be sanguine about it, but it's not: it's another move in the culture war attempting to undermine the very social foundations of our country.
I'm not good with START. First off, it may be a "product of Bush-era foreign policy," but it was President BOHICA and Sec State Pants-suit who did the final negotiations. It's bad policy and should not have been ratified even if Bush had negotiated it.
And, no, it is not a "normal" lame duck session to enact sweeping legislation that will: Majorly effect the tax-code and future budgets, drastically modify the make-up and (potentially) morale and combat effectiveness of our military, and (having never been done before) ratify a treaty- especially one that only negatively effects us.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 22, 2010 12:26 PM (8y9MW)
26
And thus why RINOs are unfit for nomination, tactical considerations be
damned. You're just putting a new coat of paint on the problem.
There is a place in the Rep party whose beliefs don't fully match the full slate of conservative views, but that isn't the problem with our RINOs. They have no beliefs. At least none they will stand for. How on earth can we work with such a person?
damned. You're just putting a new coat of paint on the problem.
There is a place in the Rep party whose beliefs don't fully match the full slate of conservative views, but that isn't the problem with our RINOs. They have no beliefs. At least none they will stand for. How on earth can we work with such a person?
Posted by: 18-1 at December 22, 2010 12:27 PM (7BU4a)
Posted by: leftist brick of shit at December 22, 2010 12:28 PM (2rOwc)
28
So wait.. Ace... You're dumping on RINOs now, but come election time, you're all about "electability." o_O
Posted by: Farmer Joe at December 22, 2010 12:28 PM (z4es9)
29
Posted by: Blue Hen at December 22, 2010 12:25 PM (R2fpr)
Meh. I don't argue to much about what words to use (unless I'm feeling especially pedantic).
I agree with the principle of your argument, though.
Meh. I don't argue to much about what words to use (unless I'm feeling especially pedantic).
I agree with the principle of your argument, though.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 22, 2010 12:30 PM (8y9MW)
30
And in reacting in a xenophobic, hatred-of-The-Other tribalistic
fashion, they congratulate themselves on being "sophisticated" and
"open-minded."
Close. They're "sophists" and "empty-headed" and they are well aware of it.
Interesting how American culture can be seen as "The Other" in America. There's not much further to go once we've arrived at this point. The Founders would have dealt with these types in a very quick and decisive and final fashion.
And in reacting in a xenophobic, hatred-of-The-Other tribalistic
fashion, they congratulate themselves on being "sophisticated" and
"open-minded."
Close. They're "sophists" and "empty-headed" and they are well aware of it.
Interesting how American culture can be seen as "The Other" in America. There's not much further to go once we've arrived at this point. The Founders would have dealt with these types in a very quick and decisive and final fashion.
Posted by: iknowtheleft at December 22, 2010 12:30 PM (G/MYk)
31
When President Romney signs away the last of my Second Amendment Rights, he will be smiling and talking about the Call of History.
Posted by: SurferDoc at December 22, 2010 12:31 PM (o3bYL)
32
So, RINOs are simply reflecting the will of the people.
Posted by: Cherry π at December 22, 2010 12:26 PM (+sBB4)
I would say the problem is that whatever the views of the electorate are, only a handful of legislators are actually willing to fight for them.
This leads to apathy. Vote for the D - more socialism. Vote for the R - more socialism. Then why vote?This is actually one of the core problems in Europe. The technocratic left controls all of the elements of governing - the mainline parties, the media, the bureaucracy, etc.
Arguably the tea party revolt is our last shot to avoid such a fate ourselves.
Posted by: Cherry π at December 22, 2010 12:26 PM (+sBB4)
I would say the problem is that whatever the views of the electorate are, only a handful of legislators are actually willing to fight for them.
This leads to apathy. Vote for the D - more socialism. Vote for the R - more socialism. Then why vote?This is actually one of the core problems in Europe. The technocratic left controls all of the elements of governing - the mainline parties, the media, the bureaucracy, etc.
Arguably the tea party revolt is our last shot to avoid such a fate ourselves.
Posted by: 18-1 at December 22, 2010 12:31 PM (7BU4a)
Posted by: Cherry π at December 22, 2010 12:31 PM (+sBB4)
34
Mitt Romney would sell out conservatism for a few pieces of silver. His finger will not and never has left the wind. If we nominate him all is lost.
Posted by: Big T Party at December 22, 2010 12:33 PM (FfyYt)
35
>>>Isn't this exactly the stance that was derided as being "purity police" earlier this year?
It is. It's not the stance that's wrong but the application. Sometimes you just don't have a choice.
Look: The Northeast hates the South and Heartland, by and large, culturally. And the feeling is mutual. If you want to make a point by running a Southern-type or Heartland-type candidate in the Northeast, that's your business, but don't confuse what you're doing with sound electoral strategy.
Suppose I moved to and then ran for office in Georgia. And I ran fully embracing my yankee/urban/cosmopolitan sort of cultural biases.
You think I'd have a chance? AT ALL? No, I wouldn't.
The mistake many make is that while they accept that part as the natural order of things they don't accept that the situation is symetrical. They think it is asymetrical, in fact, that a Yankee Sophisticate Bohemian like myself would get trounced in Gerogia but somehow a Tea Party True Believer -- plainly embracing the culture of the Heartland or South -- could win in the Northeast because, it is asserted, "teh doctrine of Reagan can win anywhere."
no it can't. Culture is thicker than ideology. Ideology is merely intellectual while culture is visceral and emotional.
It is. It's not the stance that's wrong but the application. Sometimes you just don't have a choice.
Look: The Northeast hates the South and Heartland, by and large, culturally. And the feeling is mutual. If you want to make a point by running a Southern-type or Heartland-type candidate in the Northeast, that's your business, but don't confuse what you're doing with sound electoral strategy.
Suppose I moved to and then ran for office in Georgia. And I ran fully embracing my yankee/urban/cosmopolitan sort of cultural biases.
You think I'd have a chance? AT ALL? No, I wouldn't.
The mistake many make is that while they accept that part as the natural order of things they don't accept that the situation is symetrical. They think it is asymetrical, in fact, that a Yankee Sophisticate Bohemian like myself would get trounced in Gerogia but somehow a Tea Party True Believer -- plainly embracing the culture of the Heartland or South -- could win in the Northeast because, it is asserted, "teh doctrine of Reagan can win anywhere."
no it can't. Culture is thicker than ideology. Ideology is merely intellectual while culture is visceral and emotional.
Posted by: ace at December 22, 2010 12:34 PM (nj1bB)
36
We need to cut Ace a little slack. He comes to and smells the coffee, but zones out for long periods. He finally realized what was going on with the TEA party (after months) and he is starting to become cognizant of the incredible stench of RINOs. Give him a little time to realize that smell isn't Value-Rite induced.
Posted by: maddogg at December 22, 2010 12:34 PM (OlN4e)
37
Posted by: Blue Hen at December 22, 2010 12:25 PM (R2fpr)Meh. I don't argue to much about what words to use (unless I'm feeling especially pedantic).I agree with the principle of your argument, though.
Posted by: AllenG
Normal people don't. But such tricks are tactics that delay, obfuscate and enable this stupidity.
Posted by: AllenG
Normal people don't. But such tricks are tactics that delay, obfuscate and enable this stupidity.
Posted by: Blue Hen at December 22, 2010 12:35 PM (R2fpr)
38
I supported the DADT repeal.
Since then, though, we've had the food bill on a unanimous-consent resolution, START...are they rummaging around through Harry's bag of tricks looking for some really evil stuff to pass now?
Since then, though, we've had the food bill on a unanimous-consent resolution, START...are they rummaging around through Harry's bag of tricks looking for some really evil stuff to pass now?
Posted by: JEM at December 22, 2010 12:35 PM (o+SC1)
39
Now for 2012 the challenge is to find people to run against Brown and co who actually know how to campaign.
Posted by: 18-1 at December 22, 2010 12:24 PM (7BU4a)
And this needs to happen y e s t e r d a y.
Please please please Ace get this blog back up and running like you did for the '10 midterms. We just have to turn right backaround and keep our gains in the House again, and then go for the next Senate seats that are up for grabs. And oh yeah, the White House.
Help crank up the Blogosphere. The MFM isn't as irrelevant as we'd like to think, but they're not invincible unless we let them.
Posted by: 18-1 at December 22, 2010 12:24 PM (7BU4a)
And this needs to happen y e s t e r d a y.
Please please please Ace get this blog back up and running like you did for the '10 midterms. We just have to turn right backaround and keep our gains in the House again, and then go for the next Senate seats that are up for grabs. And oh yeah, the White House.
Help crank up the Blogosphere. The MFM isn't as irrelevant as we'd like to think, but they're not invincible unless we let them.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 22, 2010 12:35 PM (fLHQe)
40
Posted by: 18-1 at December 22, 2010 12:27 PM (7BU4a)
I guess it depends on your definition of what the Republican party believes. Or your definition of "Conservative Dogma."
I see these as required, non-negotiable items:
1) Our country is based on a moral/social fabric which is unique or nearly unique to the United States. As such, it should be upheld and defended until and unless someone can give good, practical reasons why some part of that tradition is actively bad. Event then the default setting should be "if it's not broke, don't fix it."
2) Fiscal and economic liberty demand that the people keep as much of their own money as it is possible to let them keep. "Services" should be kept to a minimum in order to facilitate this economic liberty, and people should be expected to take care of themselves as much as possible.
3) Our National Sovereignty requires a vigorous national defense which must be effect based, not motivation based. We are not playing some "game" with people who want to kill us, we're fighting for our very existence. As such, anything that makes us weaker, or even just less effective, has no place in public policy.
If a candidate doesn't support all of those things, they need to go away. You and I might disagree on them, or at least disagree on which is most important, but any politician who can't get on board with all three does not deserve to be nominated in the only party that is a home to Conservatives.
I guess it depends on your definition of what the Republican party believes. Or your definition of "Conservative Dogma."
I see these as required, non-negotiable items:
1) Our country is based on a moral/social fabric which is unique or nearly unique to the United States. As such, it should be upheld and defended until and unless someone can give good, practical reasons why some part of that tradition is actively bad. Event then the default setting should be "if it's not broke, don't fix it."
2) Fiscal and economic liberty demand that the people keep as much of their own money as it is possible to let them keep. "Services" should be kept to a minimum in order to facilitate this economic liberty, and people should be expected to take care of themselves as much as possible.
3) Our National Sovereignty requires a vigorous national defense which must be effect based, not motivation based. We are not playing some "game" with people who want to kill us, we're fighting for our very existence. As such, anything that makes us weaker, or even just less effective, has no place in public policy.
If a candidate doesn't support all of those things, they need to go away. You and I might disagree on them, or at least disagree on which is most important, but any politician who can't get on board with all three does not deserve to be nominated in the only party that is a home to Conservatives.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 22, 2010 12:35 PM (8y9MW)
41
Posted by: Paul at December 22, 2010 12:20 PM (DsHk0)
And passage of a huge increase of the FDAs power to regulate Food.
And LACK of action on getting rid of the soon to be in place 1099 requirement for anything over $600 (starts Jan 1).
FCC moving forward on Net Takeover? Lots of Congressional Talking points, but no action to stop them?
EPA still moving forward on Regualting CO2?
NOW rules from the HHS yesterday which says they have oversite of ALL Health insurance plan 'increases'... somthing the States historicly did?
One of Congress's MAIN duties is oversite of the rest of Governent... and while they are 'Lameduckin' their way through their Social Agenda... the Fed Government is out of Control...
And passage of a huge increase of the FDAs power to regulate Food.
And LACK of action on getting rid of the soon to be in place 1099 requirement for anything over $600 (starts Jan 1).
FCC moving forward on Net Takeover? Lots of Congressional Talking points, but no action to stop them?
EPA still moving forward on Regualting CO2?
NOW rules from the HHS yesterday which says they have oversite of ALL Health insurance plan 'increases'... somthing the States historicly did?
One of Congress's MAIN duties is oversite of the rest of Governent... and while they are 'Lameduckin' their way through their Social Agenda... the Fed Government is out of Control...
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 22, 2010 12:36 PM (AdK6a)
42
will sell them out at the drop of a hat to keep in the good graces of the culture he admires and identifies with,
BINGO!
I don't think that's quite fair to Romney -- Ann Coulter thinks that
below his chameleon act he is in fact mostly The Barbaric Other, same as
we -- but that accounts for the open hostility to him.
I think you are being too generous to him. A good part of the hostility to due to his apparent inability to eat crow and admit he was an idiot for ever signing or trying to moderate Romneycare. I think he is, like Reid and others, personally very conservative but has no problem chucking that out the window if the public is even barely liberal on a subject. For the constituents of course.
It's amazing how "conservative Republican pols go on about what their constituents want when it comes to a liberal position being popular but go AWOL when it's a conservative one.
BINGO!
I don't think that's quite fair to Romney -- Ann Coulter thinks that
below his chameleon act he is in fact mostly The Barbaric Other, same as
we -- but that accounts for the open hostility to him.
I think you are being too generous to him. A good part of the hostility to due to his apparent inability to eat crow and admit he was an idiot for ever signing or trying to moderate Romneycare. I think he is, like Reid and others, personally very conservative but has no problem chucking that out the window if the public is even barely liberal on a subject. For the constituents of course.
It's amazing how "conservative Republican pols go on about what their constituents want when it comes to a liberal position being popular but go AWOL when it's a conservative one.
Posted by: Rocks at December 22, 2010 12:36 PM (Q1lie)
Posted by: Cherry π at December 22, 2010 12:36 PM (+sBB4)
Posted by: The Scorpion at December 22, 2010 12:36 PM (AdK6a)
45
These new republicans are the pitiful tard spawn of the 90s republicans who were about as useful as syphilis.
Posted by: Follower of Cthulhu, former republican at December 22, 2010 12:38 PM (F/4zf)
46
I'm OK with bagels and stuff.
Posted by: Cherry π at December 22, 2010 12:38 PM (+sBB4)
47
But now that the election was over, the bills that had piled up were, in many cases, good bills,
Um, excuse me?
Which ones were "good bills"?
Um, excuse me?
Which ones were "good bills"?
Posted by: Jay at December 22, 2010 12:38 PM (zz1BZ)
48
Two words: politicians suck.
Every last friggin' one of them feels divinely empowered to rule. It's not enough that they do the Constitutionally mandated job, oh no. They have to fix everything for everyone. At least everyone they believe will re-elect them so they can continue to enjoy the benefits they are sure they deserve.
Politics has become the socially acceptable version of the Mafia.
Every last friggin' one of them feels divinely empowered to rule. It's not enough that they do the Constitutionally mandated job, oh no. They have to fix everything for everyone. At least everyone they believe will re-elect them so they can continue to enjoy the benefits they are sure they deserve.
Politics has become the socially acceptable version of the Mafia.
Posted by: MrScribbler© at December 22, 2010 12:38 PM (Ulu3i)
49
Posted by: Rocks at December 22, 2010 12:36 PM (Q1lie)
A large part of my Problem with Romney is the Schmarm factor he radiates...
I've never seen him even serious.... let alone Angry... he is too polished... and shiny... aka comes across as Fake.
A large part of my Problem with Romney is the Schmarm factor he radiates...
I've never seen him even serious.... let alone Angry... he is too polished... and shiny... aka comes across as Fake.
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 22, 2010 12:38 PM (AdK6a)
50
Signs of the Apocalypse: CBS headline - Banks Break Into Homes
Of course, these are foreclosed homes
Of course, these are foreclosed homes
Posted by: Cherry π at December 22, 2010 12:40 PM (+sBB4)
Posted by: Soothsayer at December 22, 2010 12:40 PM (uFokq)
52
This I think is the reason many grassroots conservatives hate Mitt
Romney and love Sarah Palin. Even though they agree on most issues,
they sense Mitt Romney is from that leadership class, and will sell them
out at the drop of a hat to keep in the good graces of the culture he
admires and identifies with, and Sarah Palin is definitely from their
own class -- what the establishment regards as The Barbaric Other -- and
will tend to support them.
I don't think so. I think the reason grassroots conservatives hate Romney can be summed up in one word: Romneycare. If he'd sign that, then he would likely have signed Obamacare if it got to his desk. And if he'd sign that, what wouldn't he sign? In other words, how is Romney any different from a Democrat (in practice, not in rhetoric)?
Romney and love Sarah Palin. Even though they agree on most issues,
they sense Mitt Romney is from that leadership class, and will sell them
out at the drop of a hat to keep in the good graces of the culture he
admires and identifies with, and Sarah Palin is definitely from their
own class -- what the establishment regards as The Barbaric Other -- and
will tend to support them.
I don't think so. I think the reason grassroots conservatives hate Romney can be summed up in one word: Romneycare. If he'd sign that, then he would likely have signed Obamacare if it got to his desk. And if he'd sign that, what wouldn't he sign? In other words, how is Romney any different from a Democrat (in practice, not in rhetoric)?
Posted by: Farmer Joe at December 22, 2010 12:41 PM (z4es9)
53
It is. It's not the stance that's wrong but the application. Sometimes you just don't have a choice.
Posted by: ace at December 22, 2010 12:34 PM (nj1bB)
This seems to be resigning yourself to the dictates of the media and the left. As if we're damned if we do or don't.
Maybe I'm reading you wrong.
Posted by: ace at December 22, 2010 12:34 PM (nj1bB)
This seems to be resigning yourself to the dictates of the media and the left. As if we're damned if we do or don't.
Maybe I'm reading you wrong.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 22, 2010 12:41 PM (fLHQe)
54
Look: The Northeast hates the South and Heartland, by and large,
culturally. And the feeling is mutual. If you want to make a point by
running a Southern-type or Heartland-type candidate in the Northeast,
that's your business, but don't confuse what you're doing with sound
electoral strategy.--Ace
The problem is that people in the Northeast never hear a conservative message. They are cocooned and get to choose between two liberals in almost every election. So they will never change as long as this is our philosophy.
And make no mistake, the political order in the Northeast is as corrupt as one can imagine - the notion that government is a family business is a running joke (listen to Howie Carr). People will eventually get tired of voting for crooks if they are given the alternative.
And until we can find "moderate Republicans" who will at least stand on some principles, we gain very little by supporting them.
culturally. And the feeling is mutual. If you want to make a point by
running a Southern-type or Heartland-type candidate in the Northeast,
that's your business, but don't confuse what you're doing with sound
electoral strategy.--Ace
The problem is that people in the Northeast never hear a conservative message. They are cocooned and get to choose between two liberals in almost every election. So they will never change as long as this is our philosophy.
And make no mistake, the political order in the Northeast is as corrupt as one can imagine - the notion that government is a family business is a running joke (listen to Howie Carr). People will eventually get tired of voting for crooks if they are given the alternative.
And until we can find "moderate Republicans" who will at least stand on some principles, we gain very little by supporting them.
Posted by: 18-1 at December 22, 2010 12:42 PM (7BU4a)
55
I supported the DADT repeal.
Why? At the very least if we punted on it for a couple of weeks we could have gotten a lot more in return.
I supported the DADT repeal.
Why? At the very least if we punted on it for a couple of weeks we could have gotten a lot more in return.
Posted by: 18-1 at December 22, 2010 12:43 PM (7BU4a)
56
The Repubs who voted for these lame duck session laws did so for the same reason the Dems did -- they wanted to, but had to wait till the lame duck because they knew these were unpopular with actual voters.
There's no trickery by Reid. A fair # of Repubs, especially Senate Repubs, are in favor of Start treaties, DADT repeal, higher estate taxes, more FDA regulation, etc, etc.
I think we're lucky DREAM died because a lot of Senate Repubs are in favor of that, too.
Some Repubs didn't openly support these laws, but they did nothing to stop them. They wanted them to pass, they just didn't want the blame. And they knew they had to pass them now before a more conservative batch of Repubs took power (esp. in the House).
Lame duck congresses should be banned. They are total bullshit and violate the spirit of a representative Republic.
Also, fuck Obama sideways with a rusty tire iron.
There's no trickery by Reid. A fair # of Repubs, especially Senate Repubs, are in favor of Start treaties, DADT repeal, higher estate taxes, more FDA regulation, etc, etc.
I think we're lucky DREAM died because a lot of Senate Repubs are in favor of that, too.
Some Repubs didn't openly support these laws, but they did nothing to stop them. They wanted them to pass, they just didn't want the blame. And they knew they had to pass them now before a more conservative batch of Repubs took power (esp. in the House).
Lame duck congresses should be banned. They are total bullshit and violate the spirit of a representative Republic.
Also, fuck Obama sideways with a rusty tire iron.
Posted by: bobbo at December 22, 2010 12:43 PM (QcFbt)
57
>>But now that the election was over, the bills that had piled up were, in many cases, good bills, and if they didn't pass now, it wasn't clear that they'd be able to pass later.
That's the "cultural" problem right there. The biggest problem that most politicians face, and I don't think it's as much a right/left thing as a political thing, is they believe that once in power they have to do something big. Anything. That's why so many on the left have been running around congratulating Obama/Reid/Pelosi on their super productive lame duck session, they got shit done!
Few seem to care about what they got done just that the did something.
I'd be a lot happier if politicians of all stripes would stop trying to fix shit that isn't broken and actually fulfill their clearly limited constitutional duties even if it didn't get them on the nightly news.
That's the "cultural" problem right there. The biggest problem that most politicians face, and I don't think it's as much a right/left thing as a political thing, is they believe that once in power they have to do something big. Anything. That's why so many on the left have been running around congratulating Obama/Reid/Pelosi on their super productive lame duck session, they got shit done!
Few seem to care about what they got done just that the did something.
I'd be a lot happier if politicians of all stripes would stop trying to fix shit that isn't broken and actually fulfill their clearly limited constitutional duties even if it didn't get them on the nightly news.
Posted by: JackStraw at December 22, 2010 12:44 PM (TMB3S)
58
It's a good thing we don't need to worry about what 'sells' in NY , MA, CA, etc. in 2012.
Electability means shit in 2012. Remember that.
It's all about electoral votes. Two-hundred seventy, to be exact.
It's a good thing we don't need to worry about what 'sells' in NY , MA, CA, etc. in 2012.
Electability means shit in 2012. Remember that.
It's all about electoral votes. Two-hundred seventy, to be exact.
Posted by: Soothsayer at December 22, 2010 12:45 PM (uFokq)
59
Posted by: Farmer Joe at December 22, 2010 12:41 PM (z4es9)
This.
One of the reasons for wanting candidates with records (which can, and sometimes has to, be secondary) is that actions do speak louder than words.
He can say he wouldn't sign it all day long, but he signed Romneycare and still, to this day, won't admit that it's a piece of crap legislation. If he's not willing to do that, it makes it look like he's proud of it. If he's proud of it, why would we believe for a second that he wouldn't support it's national equivalent: if only it had been suggested by Republicans?
The other major way Palin is different for Romney is that her (admittedly abbreviated) record shows someone who is willing to take on the entire establishment in order better to represent the people who elected her. This is not to defend (directly) her resignation, but to point out that- such record as exists- shows a very different approach to the Place of Government than Romney showed in MA.
This.
One of the reasons for wanting candidates with records (which can, and sometimes has to, be secondary) is that actions do speak louder than words.
He can say he wouldn't sign it all day long, but he signed Romneycare and still, to this day, won't admit that it's a piece of crap legislation. If he's not willing to do that, it makes it look like he's proud of it. If he's proud of it, why would we believe for a second that he wouldn't support it's national equivalent: if only it had been suggested by Republicans?
The other major way Palin is different for Romney is that her (admittedly abbreviated) record shows someone who is willing to take on the entire establishment in order better to represent the people who elected her. This is not to defend (directly) her resignation, but to point out that- such record as exists- shows a very different approach to the Place of Government than Romney showed in MA.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 22, 2010 12:45 PM (8y9MW)
60
Sounds like Tami wants to go back on The Shitlisttm.Posted by: Soothsayer at December 22, 2010 12:40 PM (uFokq)
Pffft....I've been on far better shitlists than Ace's.
I was taught by Dominican nuns....Ace don't scare me.
Pffft....I've been on far better shitlists than Ace's.
I was taught by Dominican nuns....Ace don't scare me.
Posted by: Tami at December 22, 2010 12:45 PM (VuLos)
61
My impression is that Congress believes that it has accomplished something if it passes a bill. ["I wanta thank my good friend . . . for all the hard work that went into . . ." ]Whether there is an actual problem or whether the bill fixes it or whether the fix is even constitutional is not even an afterthought.
These days what passes for representation is passing a bill with a catchy name or a name that creates a neat acronym. No hearings. No public discussions. The asshats don't even read the god damned bills. But they do have time for the photo ops and congratulatory ceremonys.
My Christmas prayer is that God decidesthat the work of many members of Congress is done here and that He calls themHome to the eternal reward which they are due and truly deserve.
These days what passes for representation is passing a bill with a catchy name or a name that creates a neat acronym. No hearings. No public discussions. The asshats don't even read the god damned bills. But they do have time for the photo ops and congratulatory ceremonys.
My Christmas prayer is that God decidesthat the work of many members of Congress is done here and that He calls themHome to the eternal reward which they are due and truly deserve.
Posted by: Mr. Barky at December 22, 2010 12:47 PM (qwK3S)
Posted by: Soothsayer at December 22, 2010 12:47 PM (uFokq)
63
It's not just that the Republicans sell-out.It's that they're so damn cheap.Posted by: Soothsayer at December 22, 2010 12:47 PM (uFokq)
Hey Harry Reid was nice enough to give me a monogrammed towel after I was done working on, uh, with him.
Hey Harry Reid was nice enough to give me a monogrammed towel after I was done working on, uh, with him.
Posted by: Sen Scott Brown - Proudly Sitting in the Kennedy Seat at December 22, 2010 12:48 PM (7BU4a)
64
I'd be a lot happier if politicians of all stripes would stop trying to fix shit that isn't broken and actually fulfill their clearly limited constitutional duties even if it didn't get them on the nightly news.
Posted by: JackStraw at December 22, 2010 12:44 PM (TMB3S)
Very good point.
The meme that "we must do somthing" is very prevalent in the DC culture... and I include the pundits in this.
Yet out here in REAL America, we are currently paralyzed by the pace and amount of change coming at us. No business can make plans, because we KNOW they are going to be changing stuff...
We need stability, not an overactive Government.... but those in Washington don't see that.
Posted by: JackStraw at December 22, 2010 12:44 PM (TMB3S)
Very good point.
The meme that "we must do somthing" is very prevalent in the DC culture... and I include the pundits in this.
Yet out here in REAL America, we are currently paralyzed by the pace and amount of change coming at us. No business can make plans, because we KNOW they are going to be changing stuff...
We need stability, not an overactive Government.... but those in Washington don't see that.
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 22, 2010 12:48 PM (AdK6a)
65
If politics was like championship hurdling, John McCain would be our President!
Posted by: Fritz at December 22, 2010 12:49 PM (GwPRU)
66
Isn't this exactly the stance that was derided as being "purity police" earlier this year?Posted by: Blue Hen at December 22, 2010 12:17 PM (R2fpr)
You don't have to be all that "pure" to understand how stupid, self-centered, and short-sighted these worthless RINO fucks are. Even Lindsey Fuckin' Grahmnesty gets it. These people are self-important, self-entitled, worthless sacks of shit.
You might notice that Rasmussen has Obozo's approval rating at +1 today for the first time in, well, forever. You can thank the motherfucking turncoat RINO shitstains who voted for this. I can see both sides on the DADT repeal (we could repeal it and let the Pentagon handle the transition on their own timeline or let the courts strike it down and throw the entire military into chaos), but this START thing is fucking unforgivable (as is that fascist "Food Safety" abomination). They didn't even bother to try and make a case against START, they didn't wring any concessions out of the Dems (who didn't wring any concessions out of Russia_, they didn't get jack fucking shit, they just handed Obozo and the dems a huge, high-profile, and completely unnecessary victory.
And I'm starting to think Palin or Pence or any other "real" conservatives who want to run should think about waiting until 2016. They need to primary every one of these fuckers in 2012 and 2014 (which will be hard to do while running for President and trying to unify the party) or they'll just conspire with the Dems to fuck them over and destroy their presidency at every point. Hell, they'll probably campaign for Obozo out of spite. That Eleventh Commandment and
"Be a Team Player" shit apparently only applies to people with principles, as the RINOs and establishment hacks seem to be given free reign to backstab and fuck the rest of the party over at their leisure with no consequences from the pathetic limp-dicked party "leadership".
And they can start with Cornyn and McConnel. Their failed leadership is largely to blame for this clusterfuck. They've been in DC too long and have become to close to the enemy, and it's time for both of them to return to private life.
You don't have to be all that "pure" to understand how stupid, self-centered, and short-sighted these worthless RINO fucks are. Even Lindsey Fuckin' Grahmnesty gets it. These people are self-important, self-entitled, worthless sacks of shit.
You might notice that Rasmussen has Obozo's approval rating at +1 today for the first time in, well, forever. You can thank the motherfucking turncoat RINO shitstains who voted for this. I can see both sides on the DADT repeal (we could repeal it and let the Pentagon handle the transition on their own timeline or let the courts strike it down and throw the entire military into chaos), but this START thing is fucking unforgivable (as is that fascist "Food Safety" abomination). They didn't even bother to try and make a case against START, they didn't wring any concessions out of the Dems (who didn't wring any concessions out of Russia_, they didn't get jack fucking shit, they just handed Obozo and the dems a huge, high-profile, and completely unnecessary victory.
And I'm starting to think Palin or Pence or any other "real" conservatives who want to run should think about waiting until 2016. They need to primary every one of these fuckers in 2012 and 2014 (which will be hard to do while running for President and trying to unify the party) or they'll just conspire with the Dems to fuck them over and destroy their presidency at every point. Hell, they'll probably campaign for Obozo out of spite. That Eleventh Commandment and
"Be a Team Player" shit apparently only applies to people with principles, as the RINOs and establishment hacks seem to be given free reign to backstab and fuck the rest of the party over at their leisure with no consequences from the pathetic limp-dicked party "leadership".
And they can start with Cornyn and McConnel. Their failed leadership is largely to blame for this clusterfuck. They've been in DC too long and have become to close to the enemy, and it's time for both of them to return to private life.
Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at December 22, 2010 12:50 PM (IoUF1)
67
The only real solution (which many will come to in the ensuing year) is to let the left have their American Socialist Superstate and for us conservatives to establish a new Constitutional Union of American States. There is no other solution, since it is impossible for anyone to live under leftists without being a leftist (as leftists demand that the federal government be national and that all policies come directly from Washington and dictate everyone's behavior - and thoughts, if the left can swing that insanity) yet leftists can be leftists and turn their own states into socialist shitholes under conservatives, because we're federalists.
This asymmetry and the extreme friction it causes cannot go on for much longer. Either the US will just be broken or we will choose less difficult breakup, along the lines of Czechoslovakia. Either way, it's clear that the left won't stop pushing until the deed is done. This Hussein Lame Duck and its scorched-earth actions should drive this point home to any who have dismissed this possibility in the past.
This asymmetry and the extreme friction it causes cannot go on for much longer. Either the US will just be broken or we will choose less difficult breakup, along the lines of Czechoslovakia. Either way, it's clear that the left won't stop pushing until the deed is done. This Hussein Lame Duck and its scorched-earth actions should drive this point home to any who have dismissed this possibility in the past.
Posted by: iknowtheleft at December 22, 2010 12:50 PM (G/MYk)
68
>>>m. A good part of the hostility to due to his apparent inability to eat crow and admit he was an idiot for ever signing or trying to moderate Romneycare.
that's more of an ego flaw I would say than an ideological one, or his belief that he has to come off as Mr. Never Been Wrong (comptence is his primary selling point) and any such admission would be fatal to his candidacy.
Or, that would be my guess.
that's more of an ego flaw I would say than an ideological one, or his belief that he has to come off as Mr. Never Been Wrong (comptence is his primary selling point) and any such admission would be fatal to his candidacy.
Or, that would be my guess.
Posted by: ace at December 22, 2010 12:52 PM (nj1bB)
69
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 22, 2010 12:48 PM (AdK6a)
Stability... right... what was that again?
I'm 31 years old. I don't remember a single year where some major law, rule, or regulation didn't vastly change how things were run in some part of my life. Now, part of that is that, for as long as I can remember, my dad was senior officer at a state bank. But everything from the tax code, to various drug approvals, to when they started allowing drugs to advertise on radio and tv. All kinds of things change all the freaking time.
Don't misunderstand, I'm with you, I'm just a little cynical about it ever happening.
Stability... right... what was that again?
I'm 31 years old. I don't remember a single year where some major law, rule, or regulation didn't vastly change how things were run in some part of my life. Now, part of that is that, for as long as I can remember, my dad was senior officer at a state bank. But everything from the tax code, to various drug approvals, to when they started allowing drugs to advertise on radio and tv. All kinds of things change all the freaking time.
Don't misunderstand, I'm with you, I'm just a little cynical about it ever happening.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 22, 2010 12:52 PM (8y9MW)
70
Sarah will be running against the Dems, the MSM, and the Republicans. Count on it.
Posted by: SurferDoc at December 22, 2010 12:52 PM (o3bYL)
71
Unfortunately, there are certain blue states where you are either gonna get a RINO or a Democrat. The benefit of the RINO is that they can give you a majority and Chairmanships. The negative is that they are foxes in the henhouse and dilute the Republican Brand.
The only way that is a benefit is if the RINOs are not the ones who get the Chairmanships. But, if they do, then having a "GOP majority" and "GOP Chairmanships" means diddly squat, since RINOs are one step away from becoming DIABLOs. And all they do is put us on a slow and steady path to European socialism instead of on a Democrat warp speed path.
I say it is better to expunge all RINOS even if it costs a majority. The destruction of the Republican Party since we lost our majorities can be tied directly to the fact you could no longer tell Republicans from Democrats and given a choice, America chose the Democrats because at least they hadn't tried them for a while.
Take a stand. Be hot or cold. Being luke warm just gets you spit out.
Posted by: Bill Mitchell at December 22, 2010 12:18 PM
100% agreed.
The only way that is a benefit is if the RINOs are not the ones who get the Chairmanships. But, if they do, then having a "GOP majority" and "GOP Chairmanships" means diddly squat, since RINOs are one step away from becoming DIABLOs. And all they do is put us on a slow and steady path to European socialism instead of on a Democrat warp speed path.
I say it is better to expunge all RINOS even if it costs a majority. The destruction of the Republican Party since we lost our majorities can be tied directly to the fact you could no longer tell Republicans from Democrats and given a choice, America chose the Democrats because at least they hadn't tried them for a while.
Take a stand. Be hot or cold. Being luke warm just gets you spit out.
Posted by: Bill Mitchell at December 22, 2010 12:18 PM
100% agreed.
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 22, 2010 12:53 PM (NITzp)
72
This I think is the reason many grassroots conservatives hate Mitt Romney and love Sarah Palin. Even though they agree on most issues, they sense Mitt Romney is from that leadership class, and will sell them out at the drop of a hat to keep in the good graces of the culture he admires and identifies with, and Sarah Palin is definitely from their own class -- what the establishment regards as The Barbaric Other.
Thank you for getting it and putting it so succinctly.
Thank you for getting it and putting it so succinctly.
Posted by: Tonawanda at December 22, 2010 12:54 PM (bN5ZU)
73
I'm still waiting for Scott Brown to vote with "us" on 20 percent of the legislation, let alone cross the 50percent RINO threshold.
Posted by: Luca Brasi at December 22, 2010 12:56 PM (YmPwQ)
74
A good part of the hostility to due to his apparent
inability to eat crow and admit he was an idiot for ever signing or
trying to moderate Romneycare. I think he is, like Reid and others,
personally very conservative but has no problem chucking that out the
window if the public is even barely liberal on a subject. For the
constituents of course.
Posted by: Rocks at December 22, 2010 12:36 PM (Q1lie)
Romney had problems with much more than just RomneyCare. He was bad with illegals and amnesty - which is a total deal-breaker - and was soft on other issues. He changed his tunes as he ran for the primary, but I really doubt people who have epiphanies during campaigns.I would have gladly voted for Romney over McShame, but I didn't trust Romney - and I still don't. I like him, but I don't trust him, politically.
inability to eat crow and admit he was an idiot for ever signing or
trying to moderate Romneycare. I think he is, like Reid and others,
personally very conservative but has no problem chucking that out the
window if the public is even barely liberal on a subject. For the
constituents of course.
Posted by: Rocks at December 22, 2010 12:36 PM (Q1lie)
Romney had problems with much more than just RomneyCare. He was bad with illegals and amnesty - which is a total deal-breaker - and was soft on other issues. He changed his tunes as he ran for the primary, but I really doubt people who have epiphanies during campaigns.I would have gladly voted for Romney over McShame, but I didn't trust Romney - and I still don't. I like him, but I don't trust him, politically.
Posted by: iknowtheleft at December 22, 2010 12:56 PM (G/MYk)
75
The meme that "we must do somthing" is very prevalent in the DC culture... and I include the pundits in this.
That's just prevalent in our culture. You see it in the corporate world, the military, academia,and in politics - it's all about leaving your mushroom stamp on whatever you can. They do it by working for resume bullets, or award bullets, or performance review bullets or names on bridges/airports/legislation.
They say "we must do something", when it's really "I must do something for my legacy". If these fuckers ever did something that was truly for the public good, they'd probably implode.
That's just prevalent in our culture. You see it in the corporate world, the military, academia,and in politics - it's all about leaving your mushroom stamp on whatever you can. They do it by working for resume bullets, or award bullets, or performance review bullets or names on bridges/airports/legislation.
They say "we must do something", when it's really "I must do something for my legacy". If these fuckers ever did something that was truly for the public good, they'd probably implode.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 22, 2010 12:56 PM (fLHQe)
Posted by: J. DeMint-Hardass at December 22, 2010 12:57 PM (EL+OC)
77
I have lost hope that anything will be done to rectify the situation, including the new tea party reps coming in January. Until the point that there is a total crisis that forces austerity by the govt, they will just keep spending maybe slower, but still debts and deficits. The political class is immune and will just pay off everybody they need to with taxpayer money.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at December 22, 2010 12:58 PM (xQAv5)
78
...and they said I was a bad Senate GOP leader. I'm fucking Conan the Barbarian next to Mitch Capitulate McConnell.
Posted by: Bill Frist at December 22, 2010 12:59 PM (K/USr)
79
I think he's finally figuring out that if we don't demand purity, we won't even get acceptability.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 22, 2010 12:18 PM
That is the major difference between liberals/Democrats and Conservatives/Republicans.
Liberals/Democrats don't worry about what is possible, they shoot for "purity"/100% of what they want. They don't achieve that, but end up with 80% of what they want.
Conservatives/Republicans care WAY too much about what is "possible" and don't even bother to shoot for "purity". They decide that "the best we can hope for is 50% of what we want, afterall, we have to cater to 'the middle' blah blah blah". So then Conservatives/Republicans shoot for 50% and then end up settling for 30% of what they want. (which means that the left end up getting 70%).
So either way, we're losing. But some on the right lecture the "purity police", saying "it's better to get some of what we want with RINOs than nothing at all with Democrats". Well, woopie doo dah. We're getting 30% of what we want instead of 20%. Big deal. We're still moving the country leftward, so we're not progressing at all, except in the way "progressives" want.
We have to start shooting for 100% and accepting 80% like the Democrats do. Enough of this shooting for 50% BS.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 22, 2010 12:18 PM
That is the major difference between liberals/Democrats and Conservatives/Republicans.
Liberals/Democrats don't worry about what is possible, they shoot for "purity"/100% of what they want. They don't achieve that, but end up with 80% of what they want.
Conservatives/Republicans care WAY too much about what is "possible" and don't even bother to shoot for "purity". They decide that "the best we can hope for is 50% of what we want, afterall, we have to cater to 'the middle' blah blah blah". So then Conservatives/Republicans shoot for 50% and then end up settling for 30% of what they want. (which means that the left end up getting 70%).
So either way, we're losing. But some on the right lecture the "purity police", saying "it's better to get some of what we want with RINOs than nothing at all with Democrats". Well, woopie doo dah. We're getting 30% of what we want instead of 20%. Big deal. We're still moving the country leftward, so we're not progressing at all, except in the way "progressives" want.
We have to start shooting for 100% and accepting 80% like the Democrats do. Enough of this shooting for 50% BS.
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 22, 2010 01:00 PM (NITzp)
80
The answer, I think, is that there are plenty of Senate Republicans who
aren't too comfortable with the class of conservatives who got elected
in 2010.
I have to agree...look at how hard Lisa Muskoxky fought to keep her Senate seat.
They really do think they know what's best for us - and to hell with what we really want. We're just average Americans, after all.
aren't too comfortable with the class of conservatives who got elected
in 2010.
I have to agree...look at how hard Lisa Muskoxky fought to keep her Senate seat.
They really do think they know what's best for us - and to hell with what we really want. We're just average Americans, after all.
Posted by: antisocialist at December 22, 2010 01:00 PM (Rwudm)
81
>>Very good point.
It's really not mine. That was the genius of Ronald Reagan.
During his term the left pounded on him for doing nothing or being lazy but his core philosophy was that government was not the solution it was the problem.
The left never tires of bashing conservatives or better people right of center for saying they want the government to reflect the values the founding fathers espoused, a limited government that takes care of a very few limited tasks such as national defense and let people be free to run their lives. This is anathema to the left who believes that the central goal of government is to equalize the outcome, not the opportunity, for all.
Government is rarely the solution for anything and it should stop trying to be.
It's really not mine. That was the genius of Ronald Reagan.
During his term the left pounded on him for doing nothing or being lazy but his core philosophy was that government was not the solution it was the problem.
The left never tires of bashing conservatives or better people right of center for saying they want the government to reflect the values the founding fathers espoused, a limited government that takes care of a very few limited tasks such as national defense and let people be free to run their lives. This is anathema to the left who believes that the central goal of government is to equalize the outcome, not the opportunity, for all.
Government is rarely the solution for anything and it should stop trying to be.
Posted by: JackStraw at December 22, 2010 01:01 PM (TMB3S)
82
A young Arab boy asks his Father:
What is this weird hat that we are wearing?
Why, it's a "chechia" because in the desert it protects our heads from the sun!
Ans what is this type of clothing that we are wearing?
It's a "djellabah" because in the desert it is very hot and it protects your body!
And what are these ugly shoes that we have on our feet?
These are "babouches", which keep us from burning our feet when in the desert!
Tell me Abba...
Yes my son?
Why are we living in Dearborn, Michigan and still wearing all this shit?
What is this weird hat that we are wearing?
Why, it's a "chechia" because in the desert it protects our heads from the sun!
Ans what is this type of clothing that we are wearing?
It's a "djellabah" because in the desert it is very hot and it protects your body!
And what are these ugly shoes that we have on our feet?
These are "babouches", which keep us from burning our feet when in the desert!
Tell me Abba...
Yes my son?
Why are we living in Dearborn, Michigan and still wearing all this shit?
Posted by: maddogg at December 22, 2010 01:01 PM (OlN4e)
83
Why Did Republicans Sell Out To Harry Reid?
The better Q is why conservatives continue to vote R and expect different results?
The better Q is why conservatives continue to vote R and expect different results?
Posted by: Louis Tully at December 22, 2010 01:01 PM (K/USr)
84
Could some of the "reasoning" from the fuckwad RINOs, be that they saw the Tea Party candidates in CO, DE, NV get beaten and they assumed that they would be safe if primaried regardless of how they voted??
Posted by: opus at December 22, 2010 01:05 PM (IebeI)
85
Well, I don't think it's too soon to declare the great Scott Brown experiment to be a dismal, crushing failure. I only wish I had back the dozens and dozens of hours I spent back in January freezing-off my nut sac trying to get him elected over someone who would also have supported the repeal of DADT, passing START, the food bill, etc.
Scott Brown is officially dead to me. Let him get all those much-courted "Moderates" to push his carcass over the finish line in 2012.
Scott Brown is officially dead to me. Let him get all those much-courted "Moderates" to push his carcass over the finish line in 2012.
Posted by: DocJ at December 22, 2010 01:07 PM (dt6br)
86
Lame duck congresses should be banned. They are total bullshit and violate the spirit of a representative Republic.Also, fuck Obama sideways with a rusty tire iron.Posted by: bobbo at December 22, 2010 12:43 PM (QcFbt)
We have an executive branch to handle day-to-day business (well maybe not currently, but you know what I mean). Congress should be in session for a month or two out of the year. If they can't get their work done in that timeframe they should be thrown out of office. That might encourage them to cut the shit-sniffing, meaningless resolutions, endless self-congratulation, and grandstanding show-hearings down to a reasonable level. Cut their pay to $20,000 a year, eliminate all their benefits, and limit their other income to 30 or $40k per year. Make public all meetings, phone calls, emails, and other communications with lobbyists. Put that shit on C-SPAN and the internets. Limit Congressional staffers to ten years of service and then send them back to the private sector. Ban ex-politicians and their staffers from becoming lobbyists and ban foreign entities from lobbying completely. The right to petition and redress of grievances is granted to American citizens, not foreign interests.
Then we might actually get people who are interested in serving somebody other than themselves. I know it probably won't happen without a revolution and a massive purge with mutilated bodies hanging from every lamppost like Mussolini, but a guy can dream.
We have an executive branch to handle day-to-day business (well maybe not currently, but you know what I mean). Congress should be in session for a month or two out of the year. If they can't get their work done in that timeframe they should be thrown out of office. That might encourage them to cut the shit-sniffing, meaningless resolutions, endless self-congratulation, and grandstanding show-hearings down to a reasonable level. Cut their pay to $20,000 a year, eliminate all their benefits, and limit their other income to 30 or $40k per year. Make public all meetings, phone calls, emails, and other communications with lobbyists. Put that shit on C-SPAN and the internets. Limit Congressional staffers to ten years of service and then send them back to the private sector. Ban ex-politicians and their staffers from becoming lobbyists and ban foreign entities from lobbying completely. The right to petition and redress of grievances is granted to American citizens, not foreign interests.
Then we might actually get people who are interested in serving somebody other than themselves. I know it probably won't happen without a revolution and a massive purge with mutilated bodies hanging from every lamppost like Mussolini, but a guy can dream.
Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at December 22, 2010 01:07 PM (IoUF1)
87
My jaw is on the floor...
Just found out my own Senator (Isakson) from GA has joined the RINOs on START!
What the hell was HE thinking?
Just found out my own Senator (Isakson) from GA has joined the RINOs on START!
What the hell was HE thinking?
Posted by: Scott at December 22, 2010 01:10 PM (0oZb8)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 22, 2010 01:11 PM (8y9MW)
89
28 So wait.. Ace... You're dumping on RINOs now, but come election time, you're all about "electability." o_O
Posted by: Farmer Joe at December 22, 2010 12:28 PM (z4es9)
Exactly. I am going to call this the Electric Ewok Acid Test post.
So where on the irony scale does accusing Romney of being a chameleon fall?
Posted by: Farmer Joe at December 22, 2010 12:28 PM (z4es9)
Exactly. I am going to call this the Electric Ewok Acid Test post.
So where on the irony scale does accusing Romney of being a chameleon fall?
Posted by: alexthedude at December 22, 2010 01:11 PM (NS5S0)
90
85, DocJ,
I think there are probably lots of people who helped get Scott Brown elected, who share the same view and not sure that he is going to get re-elected without their help.
I think there are probably lots of people who helped get Scott Brown elected, who share the same view and not sure that he is going to get re-elected without their help.
Posted by: opus at December 22, 2010 01:11 PM (IebeI)
91
Can I just mention that the probability of a Republican being a RINO is much higher if they're a lawyer?
And, yes, it's part of the culture thing.
And, yes, it's part of the culture thing.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 22, 2010 01:12 PM (T0NGe)
92
Agree...time for Johnny to go!
Posted by: Scott at December 22, 2010 01:12 PM (0oZb8)
93
Don't misunderstand, I'm with you, I'm just a little cynical about it ever happening.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 22, 2010 12:52 PM (8y9MW)
Yes, but I think the Pace of change has increased dramatcly.
It used to be they would tinker around the edges... now its fundamental change all over the landscape.
In the last year, they destroyed basic Free Enterprise and Bankruptcy law (GM takeover), took over parts of healthcare (though no one is sure how much), more regulation on banks (to where banks are complaining that THEY don't know what the regulators are looking for), started to change Tax Law, then quit, Stopped drilling off the Coasts, will force every business to tell the IRS anytime they spend more than $600 (maybe), bailed out some companies but not others, bailed out some foreign banks but closed US smaller banks, printed money (which everyone but the Government says will lead to inflation), tried to take over the Net, tried to impose Cap and Trade through Regulatory rules (still MAY happen)... oh, and now my Active Duty Navy Son will be showering with Openly Gay men...
I could continue... but you can see they are changing EVERYTHING, not just one thing at a time like they used to...
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 22, 2010 12:52 PM (8y9MW)
Yes, but I think the Pace of change has increased dramatcly.
It used to be they would tinker around the edges... now its fundamental change all over the landscape.
In the last year, they destroyed basic Free Enterprise and Bankruptcy law (GM takeover), took over parts of healthcare (though no one is sure how much), more regulation on banks (to where banks are complaining that THEY don't know what the regulators are looking for), started to change Tax Law, then quit, Stopped drilling off the Coasts, will force every business to tell the IRS anytime they spend more than $600 (maybe), bailed out some companies but not others, bailed out some foreign banks but closed US smaller banks, printed money (which everyone but the Government says will lead to inflation), tried to take over the Net, tried to impose Cap and Trade through Regulatory rules (still MAY happen)... oh, and now my Active Duty Navy Son will be showering with Openly Gay men...
I could continue... but you can see they are changing EVERYTHING, not just one thing at a time like they used to...
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 22, 2010 01:13 PM (AdK6a)
94
Blame the RINOs, pure and simple, who do in fact have Washingtonitis
That's letting them off the hook. They don't suffer from any disease. They haven't been turned, or perverted, or somehow fallen under any spell ... They are just despicable people who don't have two brain cells to rub together. They were despicable pieces of shit before they got into office and they are being who they are now that they are in office.
They deserve to be jailed for the fraud they are committing, as would happen to them if they had tried to pull any of this shit in the private sector.
That's letting them off the hook. They don't suffer from any disease. They haven't been turned, or perverted, or somehow fallen under any spell ... They are just despicable people who don't have two brain cells to rub together. They were despicable pieces of shit before they got into office and they are being who they are now that they are in office.
They deserve to be jailed for the fraud they are committing, as would happen to them if they had tried to pull any of this shit in the private sector.
Posted by: iknowtheleft at December 22, 2010 01:14 PM (G/MYk)
95
Posted by: ace at December 22, 2010 12:34 PM (nj1bB)
I think you are beating the whole culture thing to death when it doesn't really apply. We ran a lot of very moderate candidates in the NE the last election. Despite many claiming Tea Party connections most were solidly moderate and most got there asses handed to them despite record cash and support. Why? They simply weren't sufficiently different enough from the liberals. They couldn't ALL of been bad candidates. It's a little hard to run against the status quo when you announce from the gitgo you are mostly fine with 80% of it and you are 100% on board with how the status quo operates.
It has nothing to do with the Tea Party either. It has to do with being principled. Does anyone here seriously think there would have been a single Democrat that would have crossed the aisle after signing a letter saying it wouldn't happen in that session till after a certain thing took place?Or that the Democrats would have voted for ANYTHING a Republican majority put up in a lame duck session?The problem America faces is we have 2 major parties. One, the Democrats, have no principles but are principled. Two, the Republicans, have principles, but are not principled.Why would anyone vote to switch to the other when the state is solidly controlled locally by one party?
The Republicans need only do one thing to kill the Democratic party. Have principles AND be principled about it. Whatever those principles are.
The past 2 years the Rs in Congress haven't been principled. They were just irrelevant so why not be obstinate if it helps with the base? This lame duck session shows that.
Posted by: ace at December 22, 2010 12:34 PM (nj1bB)
I think you are beating the whole culture thing to death when it doesn't really apply. We ran a lot of very moderate candidates in the NE the last election. Despite many claiming Tea Party connections most were solidly moderate and most got there asses handed to them despite record cash and support. Why? They simply weren't sufficiently different enough from the liberals. They couldn't ALL of been bad candidates. It's a little hard to run against the status quo when you announce from the gitgo you are mostly fine with 80% of it and you are 100% on board with how the status quo operates.
It has nothing to do with the Tea Party either. It has to do with being principled. Does anyone here seriously think there would have been a single Democrat that would have crossed the aisle after signing a letter saying it wouldn't happen in that session till after a certain thing took place?Or that the Democrats would have voted for ANYTHING a Republican majority put up in a lame duck session?The problem America faces is we have 2 major parties. One, the Democrats, have no principles but are principled. Two, the Republicans, have principles, but are not principled.Why would anyone vote to switch to the other when the state is solidly controlled locally by one party?
The Republicans need only do one thing to kill the Democratic party. Have principles AND be principled about it. Whatever those principles are.
The past 2 years the Rs in Congress haven't been principled. They were just irrelevant so why not be obstinate if it helps with the base? This lame duck session shows that.
Posted by: Rocks at December 22, 2010 01:14 PM (Q1lie)
96
@90 - Opus...
Just to be clear, I'm not saying Scott Brown won't get re-elected (though I'd put that at far below even money at this point). What I'm saying is he'll do it without my vote, my money or my time and energy.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying Scott Brown won't get re-elected (though I'd put that at far below even money at this point). What I'm saying is he'll do it without my vote, my money or my time and energy.
Posted by: DocJ at December 22, 2010 01:15 PM (dt6br)
97
66And I'm starting to think Palin or Pence or any other "real" conservatives who want to run should think about waiting until 2016. They need to primary every one of these fuckers in 2012 and 2014 (which will be hard to do while running for President and trying to unify the party) or they'll just conspire with the Dems to fuck them over and destroy their presidency at every point. ...And they can start with Cornyn and McConnel. Their failed leadership is largely to blame for this clusterfuck. They've been in DC too long and have become to close to the enemy, and it's time for both of them to return to private life.
amen odb
I'm going a step further at this point.I like Palin and Pence, but I'm torn as to whether they should run as Republicans. The GOP is rotten and weak at the core. The party as such is dead, they just don't know it yet. Hate to see talents like P, P and others wasted on the GOP. Time to start up a new opposition party to replace the walking dead GOP.
amen odb
I'm going a step further at this point.I like Palin and Pence, but I'm torn as to whether they should run as Republicans. The GOP is rotten and weak at the core. The party as such is dead, they just don't know it yet. Hate to see talents like P, P and others wasted on the GOP. Time to start up a new opposition party to replace the walking dead GOP.
Posted by: Louis Tully at December 22, 2010 01:17 PM (K/USr)
98
Ace, I hear you, but you're just not looking far enough ahead. You get fixated on the next election. The shit's going to hit the fan soon, and we all know it. Certainly within 10 years, you'd have to think. We HAVE to be party that runs the 'crazies' (better crazies that Christine O'Donnell, but that was still a huge win in my book in terms of knocking out Mike Castle) because when the crap hits and the public actually starts to wakes up, we need to be able to say, "This is what we've been talking about." Otherwise the Democrats are going to be able to say, "Well, they were just as much of the problem as we were," and they're going to be right. Time to start laying some groundwork.
Posted by: Ken Begg at December 22, 2010 01:18 PM (0pNdu)
99
And the REAL reason???
Even with the Hurricane proportions of the last election... the HISTORIC changes...
87% of House incumbents who actually ran, got re-elected.
84% for the Senate...
They are not scared yet folks.
Even with the Hurricane proportions of the last election... the HISTORIC changes...
87% of House incumbents who actually ran, got re-elected.
84% for the Senate...
They are not scared yet folks.
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 22, 2010 01:20 PM (AdK6a)
100
"constituents aspirations" you mean like by what polls show ?
Posted by: archie bunker at December 22, 2010 01:21 PM (0YS61)
101
The left never tires of bashing conservatives or better people right of center for saying they want the government to reflect the values the founding fathers espoused, a limited government that takes care of a very few limited tasks such as national defense and let people be free to run their lives. This is anathema to the left who believes that the central goal of government is to equalize the outcome, not the opportunity, for all.
Government is rarely the solution for anything and it should stop trying to be.
Posted by: JackStraw at December 22, 2010 01:01 PM
THIS.
Government is rarely the solution for anything and it should stop trying to be.
Posted by: JackStraw at December 22, 2010 01:01 PM
THIS.
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 22, 2010 01:22 PM (NITzp)
102
I'm going a step further at this point.I like Palin and Pence, but I'm torn as to whether they should run as Republicans. The GOP is rotten and weak at the core. The party as such is dead, they just don't know it yet. Hate to see talents like P, P and others wasted on the GOP. Time to start up a new opposition party to replace the walking dead GOP.
Posted by: Louis Tully at December 22, 2010 01:17 PM (K/USr)
Welcome to the Dark Side Third Party, we have cookies...
Posted by: Louis Tully at December 22, 2010 01:17 PM (K/USr)
Welcome to the Dark Side Third Party, we have cookies...
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 22, 2010 01:23 PM (AdK6a)
103
" ...Ann Coulter thinks that below his chameleon act he is in fact mostly The Barbaric Other, same as we... "
Romney - Barbaric Other?
if by barbaric you mean he fore goes the little plastic sword in the olive of his martini.
Romney - Barbaric Other?
if by barbaric you mean he fore goes the little plastic sword in the olive of his martini.
Posted by: Shoey at December 22, 2010 01:23 PM (ehKDD)
104
Scott Brown is officially dead to me. Let
him get all those much-courted "Moderates" to push his carcass over the
finish line in 2012.Posted by: DocJ at December 22, 2010 01:07 PM (dt6br)
I can understand having somebody like Brown in a state like Mass. What I don't understand is why we have to have squishy limp-dicks from states like Indiana (Lugar), Texas (Cornyn and Hutchison), Kentucky (McConnel), Tennessee (Alexander), and Alaska (and yes, Miller would have won if the Cornyn's NRSC had gone after Sleeza McCokewhore instead of McAdams).
him get all those much-courted "Moderates" to push his carcass over the
finish line in 2012.Posted by: DocJ at December 22, 2010 01:07 PM (dt6br)
I can understand having somebody like Brown in a state like Mass. What I don't understand is why we have to have squishy limp-dicks from states like Indiana (Lugar), Texas (Cornyn and Hutchison), Kentucky (McConnel), Tennessee (Alexander), and Alaska (and yes, Miller would have won if the Cornyn's NRSC had gone after Sleeza McCokewhore instead of McAdams).
Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at December 22, 2010 01:24 PM (IoUF1)
105
#59....Palin v Romney
The interesting thing about Palin is her political risk taking...some could even call it reckless. (as when she burned bridges by exposing a bunch of Rs as corrupt)
She faced the Kobayashi Maru scenario in AK...did she want to be labeled a "quitter" or have a suspicion of corruption and unethical (unwarrented by the ct, as we now know) hanging over her for another 2 years? Which headlines could her reputation tolerate?
And which "cannot win" scenario will damage her career the least. She chose quitter.
With Romney, when faced with hard decisions...he decided to side with the liberals to further his career....which was a good choice because he gets excellant press for all those liberal decisions.
In my view, he risks only the base of his party, but his approval with the overall voting public is better.
Deciding between them, on this particular chacter issue may be just a matter of timing.
Just on this one issue....which one would be right for our time?
I know which one I would choose, hands down.
The interesting thing about Palin is her political risk taking...some could even call it reckless. (as when she burned bridges by exposing a bunch of Rs as corrupt)
She faced the Kobayashi Maru scenario in AK...did she want to be labeled a "quitter" or have a suspicion of corruption and unethical (unwarrented by the ct, as we now know) hanging over her for another 2 years? Which headlines could her reputation tolerate?
And which "cannot win" scenario will damage her career the least. She chose quitter.
With Romney, when faced with hard decisions...he decided to side with the liberals to further his career....which was a good choice because he gets excellant press for all those liberal decisions.
In my view, he risks only the base of his party, but his approval with the overall voting public is better.
Deciding between them, on this particular chacter issue may be just a matter of timing.
Just on this one issue....which one would be right for our time?
I know which one I would choose, hands down.
Posted by: pam at December 22, 2010 01:25 PM (uDwml)
106
If he's proud of it, why would we believe for a second that he wouldn't
support it's national equivalent: if only it had been suggested by
Republicans?
I would hope that he would stand up and say "It's not the Federal Government's responsibility". He can defend his decision to sign RomneyCare all he wants, as long as he can convince me that he believes it is a state issue at best, and never a national issue.
Same thing with Chris Christie: I don't mind his support for NJ gun laws, if he is serious that it be left up to the states to decide, and doesn't want to push it on the national stage.
support it's national equivalent: if only it had been suggested by
Republicans?
I would hope that he would stand up and say "It's not the Federal Government's responsibility". He can defend his decision to sign RomneyCare all he wants, as long as he can convince me that he believes it is a state issue at best, and never a national issue.
Same thing with Chris Christie: I don't mind his support for NJ gun laws, if he is serious that it be left up to the states to decide, and doesn't want to push it on the national stage.
Posted by: Alex at December 22, 2010 01:27 PM (yY28H)
107
104,
Well, we here in Texas are going to take care of Hutchison in 2012, but have to wait until 2014 to get rid of Cornyn.
Well, we here in Texas are going to take care of Hutchison in 2012, but have to wait until 2014 to get rid of Cornyn.
Posted by: opus at December 22, 2010 01:27 PM (IebeI)
108
103
" ...Ann Coulter thinks that below his chameleon act he is in fact mostly The Barbaric Other, same as we... "
Romney - Barbaric Other?
if by barbaric you mean he fore goes the little plastic sword in the olive of his martini.
Posted by: Shoey at December 22, 2010 01:23 PM (ehKDD)
Hey now, someone could poke an eye out...
" ...Ann Coulter thinks that below his chameleon act he is in fact mostly The Barbaric Other, same as we... "
Romney - Barbaric Other?
if by barbaric you mean he fore goes the little plastic sword in the olive of his martini.
Posted by: Shoey at December 22, 2010 01:23 PM (ehKDD)
Hey now, someone could poke an eye out...
Posted by: Ralphy's Mom at December 22, 2010 01:29 PM (AdK6a)
109
" ...Ann Coulter thinks that below his chameleon act he is in fact mostly The Barbaric Other, same as we... "
Romney - Barbaric Other?
if by barbaric you mean he fore goes the little plastic sword in the olive of his martini.
Posted by: Shoey at December 22, 2010 01:23 PM
So are Coulter/ace saying that Mitt Romney is Benjamin Linus from LOST? That would make sense, I think, since no one could trust Benjamin Linus on LOST either. And, in the end, when he had a choice for redemption, he decided to go ahead and kill Jacob for his own benefit. Hell, Ben let his own daughter get killed for his own benefit. Sounds pretty much like all Democrats, RINOs and DIABLOs.
Romney - Barbaric Other?
if by barbaric you mean he fore goes the little plastic sword in the olive of his martini.
Posted by: Shoey at December 22, 2010 01:23 PM
So are Coulter/ace saying that Mitt Romney is Benjamin Linus from LOST? That would make sense, I think, since no one could trust Benjamin Linus on LOST either. And, in the end, when he had a choice for redemption, he decided to go ahead and kill Jacob for his own benefit. Hell, Ben let his own daughter get killed for his own benefit. Sounds pretty much like all Democrats, RINOs and DIABLOs.
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 22, 2010 01:30 PM (NITzp)
110
>>Deciding between them, on this particular chacter issue may be just a matter of timing.
It would be interesting if we could go back in time and put Palin in Mass and Romney in Alaska.
Do you think Palin would have moderated her views or just settled for losing every election by about 25 points? And if she didn't moderate her views, you think anyone would have heard of her?
It would be interesting if we could go back in time and put Palin in Mass and Romney in Alaska.
Do you think Palin would have moderated her views or just settled for losing every election by about 25 points? And if she didn't moderate her views, you think anyone would have heard of her?
Posted by: JackStraw at December 22, 2010 01:30 PM (TMB3S)
111
@104 - states like MA are simply not worth the GOP's time and effort, ODB. Concentrate on the places where we have Dems representing what should be GOP states first and then go after the squishy, "we can only win if we nominate a RiNO" states like MA, NY and CA.
I mean, if we couldn't win a single race in MA with the line-up we had this election, then (and it kills me to say this as I'm sort of stuck here for at least a while longer) there's simply no point in contesting anything in this sh*thole at all seriously. Any resources dumped here would be much better spent trying to turn the likes of Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Colorado, Wisconsin and Minnesota from blue/purple to purple/red and eventually red.
I mean, if we couldn't win a single race in MA with the line-up we had this election, then (and it kills me to say this as I'm sort of stuck here for at least a while longer) there's simply no point in contesting anything in this sh*thole at all seriously. Any resources dumped here would be much better spent trying to turn the likes of Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Colorado, Wisconsin and Minnesota from blue/purple to purple/red and eventually red.
Posted by: DocJ at December 22, 2010 01:31 PM (dt6br)
112
And that is why the base went with O'Donnell over Castle, Miller over Murky, and Angle over Lowden.
And that is why many of us were perplexed when this blog (and others) went all in for Castle, and continued to bash O'Donnell after the primary.
And that is why I am hoping for more primaries in 2011-2012 to get rid of Luger, Collins/Snowe (whichever one that is up), and others. Any one of these RINO Senators voting for this legislation (DADT, FDA Food Reg. Auth., and START) needs to be PRIMARIED.
And that is why many of us were perplexed when this blog (and others) went all in for Castle, and continued to bash O'Donnell after the primary.
And that is why I am hoping for more primaries in 2011-2012 to get rid of Luger, Collins/Snowe (whichever one that is up), and others. Any one of these RINO Senators voting for this legislation (DADT, FDA Food Reg. Auth., and START) needs to be PRIMARIED.
Posted by: Scoob at December 22, 2010 01:31 PM (T7+JL)
113
Memo:
To: GOP Establishment
From: Conservative Base TEA Party
If you want to keep your jobs you will start doing things OUR way, starting yesterday.
This is not an option, you don't get to choose, we are watching everything you are doing and we will remember.
See You at the Primaries.
To: GOP Establishment
From: Conservative Base TEA Party
If you want to keep your jobs you will start doing things OUR way, starting yesterday.
This is not an option, you don't get to choose, we are watching everything you are doing and we will remember.
See You at the Primaries.
Posted by: Shoey at December 22, 2010 01:34 PM (ehKDD)
114
Posted by: Alex at December 22, 2010 01:27 PM (yY28H)
That's a trite phrase offered up as a not-a-defense of a poor policy.
Again, actions speak louder than words. His actions show that he's willing to expand Government because people can't be trusted to run their own lives.
And, remember, in 2008 he was proud of Romneycare. It was his major accomplishment. He could beat Obama in the healthcare debate BECAUSE OF ROMNEYCARE. He said that multiple times on Hannity's radio show.
So, he was running on Romneycare when he thought it was popular. He has done nothing that would convince me for a second that he believed the words he would be saying if he were to make the call for Federalism.
That's a trite phrase offered up as a not-a-defense of a poor policy.
Again, actions speak louder than words. His actions show that he's willing to expand Government because people can't be trusted to run their own lives.
And, remember, in 2008 he was proud of Romneycare. It was his major accomplishment. He could beat Obama in the healthcare debate BECAUSE OF ROMNEYCARE. He said that multiple times on Hannity's radio show.
So, he was running on Romneycare when he thought it was popular. He has done nothing that would convince me for a second that he believed the words he would be saying if he were to make the call for Federalism.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 22, 2010 01:34 PM (8y9MW)
115
Serious question: Other than being a huge boost to morale for the base, what has Scott Brown prevented that Marsha Coakley would've helped pass?
Serious question: Other than being a huge boost to morale for the base, what has Scott Brown prevented that Marsha Coakley would've helped pass?
Posted by: Soothsayer at December 22, 2010 01:34 PM (uFokq)
116
Same thing with Chris Christie: I don't mind his support for NJ gun laws, if he is serious that it be left up to the states to decide, and doesn't want to push it on the national stage.
Posted by: Alex at December 22, 2010 01:27 PM (yY28H)
Sorry, but someone who does not understand that to "Keep and BEAR Arms" entitles you to transport guns, unloaded, in your trunk????
He should have pardoned the guy, and slapped around the DA who brought the charges in the First place...
I like the way he is pretty Fiscally Conservative, but the President does NOT really run the Budget... that is Congress's Job... so without a Line Item Veto (not going to happen anytime soon)... he would be pretty powerless.
And stances he has on OTHER issues, which ARE in the Presidents control (like slapping around the Justice Department at time)... are not that great...
Posted by: Alex at December 22, 2010 01:27 PM (yY28H)
Sorry, but someone who does not understand that to "Keep and BEAR Arms" entitles you to transport guns, unloaded, in your trunk????
He should have pardoned the guy, and slapped around the DA who brought the charges in the First place...
I like the way he is pretty Fiscally Conservative, but the President does NOT really run the Budget... that is Congress's Job... so without a Line Item Veto (not going to happen anytime soon)... he would be pretty powerless.
And stances he has on OTHER issues, which ARE in the Presidents control (like slapping around the Justice Department at time)... are not that great...
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 22, 2010 01:34 PM (AdK6a)
117
You gotta love how Chris Christie has become a hero for conservatives for simply doing what is right and sensible.
Oh how our standards have fallen.
You gotta love how Chris Christie has become a hero for conservatives for simply doing what is right and sensible.
Oh how our standards have fallen.
Posted by: Soothsayer at December 22, 2010 01:37 PM (uFokq)
118
So, he was running on Romneycare when he thought it was popular. He has done nothing that would convince me for a second that he believed the words he would be saying if he were to make the call for Federalism.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 22, 2010 01:34 PM
Yep. We have to remember that Obamacare really was Reid-Pelosicare. Obama was the salesman, but the product belonged to Reid, Pelosi and the rest of the radical liberal Democrats in Congress.
So let's say that Romney won the 2008 Presidential election. Does anyone believe that if Reid-Pelosicare were sent to his desk instead of Obama's, Romney would veto it? Not a chance.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 22, 2010 01:34 PM
Yep. We have to remember that Obamacare really was Reid-Pelosicare. Obama was the salesman, but the product belonged to Reid, Pelosi and the rest of the radical liberal Democrats in Congress.
So let's say that Romney won the 2008 Presidential election. Does anyone believe that if Reid-Pelosicare were sent to his desk instead of Obama's, Romney would veto it? Not a chance.
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 22, 2010 01:37 PM (NITzp)
119
113
Memo:
To: GOP Establishment
From: Conservative Base TEA Party
If you want to keep your jobs you will start doing things OUR way, starting yesterday.
This is not an option, you don't get to choose, we are watching everything you are doing and we will remember.
See You at the Primaries.
Posted by: Shoey at December 22, 2010 01:34 PM (ehKDD)
Reply, from the Oligarchy;
Dear Sirs/Maam;
You reelected 84% of running Senators, and 87% of running House members... in this Historic election.
So, to use the recently Re-elected Barney Franks favorite saying, "Blow me".
Signed,
The Oligarchy
Memo:
To: GOP Establishment
From: Conservative Base TEA Party
If you want to keep your jobs you will start doing things OUR way, starting yesterday.
This is not an option, you don't get to choose, we are watching everything you are doing and we will remember.
See You at the Primaries.
Posted by: Shoey at December 22, 2010 01:34 PM (ehKDD)
Reply, from the Oligarchy;
Dear Sirs/Maam;
You reelected 84% of running Senators, and 87% of running House members... in this Historic election.
So, to use the recently Re-elected Barney Franks favorite saying, "Blow me".
Signed,
The Oligarchy
Posted by: Discovered by a Freedom of Information Act Request at December 22, 2010 01:38 PM (AdK6a)
120
No, a ruling class aura is not Mitt's problem. It's the creepy-phony thing along with bad ideas that is his problem and will continue to be his problem.
I'd vote for a Cheney, for example, and it's not because of his/her grass-roots appeal.
I'd vote for a Cheney, for example, and it's not because of his/her grass-roots appeal.
Posted by: SarahW at December 22, 2010 01:38 PM (Z4T49)
121
We are weak and spineless. Reagan would be ashamed.
Posted by: Cherry π at December 22, 2010 01:39 PM (+sBB4)
122
I'm going a step further at this point. I like Palin and Pence, but I'm torn as to whether they should run as Republicans. The GOP is rotten and weak at the core. The party as such is dead, they just don't know it yet. Hate to see talents like P, P and others wasted on the GOP. Time to start up a new opposition party to replace the walking dead GOP.Posted by: Louis Tully at December 22, 2010 01:17 PM (K/USr)
What's especially disgraceful is that Palin worked to keep the Tea Partiers from going third party, and the Repubs repaid her with nothing but backstabbing, undermining, anonymous insults, rumors, and gutter-sniping. Fuck the whole lot of them up the ass sideways with a fucking traffic cone.
What's especially disgraceful is that Palin worked to keep the Tea Partiers from going third party, and the Repubs repaid her with nothing but backstabbing, undermining, anonymous insults, rumors, and gutter-sniping. Fuck the whole lot of them up the ass sideways with a fucking traffic cone.
Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at December 22, 2010 01:40 PM (IoUF1)
123
Memo:
To: GOP Establishment
From: Conservative Base TEA Party
If you want to keep your jobs you will start doing things OUR way, starting yesterday.
This is not an option, you don't get to choose, we are watching everything you are doing and we will remember.
See You at the Primaries.
Posted by: Shoey at December 22, 2010 01:34 PM (ehKDD)
ROFLMAO! As if people are going to remember our treasonous acts two years from now. You make us laugh. We're in and much will happen over the next couple of years. We can do anything we want during this un-Constitutional Lame Duck and there's not a GD thing you peons can do about it. It's not as if you can recall us or have any of us removed.See us at the primaries? LOL. That's a lifetime away and the damage we'll do before then will just make your head spin. And you can't stop it, you idiots.You fucked up. You voted for us. Now take it and smile. Until we see a million people ringing Capitol Hill with pitchforks and all, we don't care what anyone says or does. Stop wasting both of our time with these silly threats that mean nothing to despicable, lying scumbags like us who don't have to worry about anything for 2 years.
To: GOP Establishment
From: Conservative Base TEA Party
If you want to keep your jobs you will start doing things OUR way, starting yesterday.
This is not an option, you don't get to choose, we are watching everything you are doing and we will remember.
See You at the Primaries.
Posted by: Shoey at December 22, 2010 01:34 PM (ehKDD)
ROFLMAO! As if people are going to remember our treasonous acts two years from now. You make us laugh. We're in and much will happen over the next couple of years. We can do anything we want during this un-Constitutional Lame Duck and there's not a GD thing you peons can do about it. It's not as if you can recall us or have any of us removed.See us at the primaries? LOL. That's a lifetime away and the damage we'll do before then will just make your head spin. And you can't stop it, you idiots.You fucked up. You voted for us. Now take it and smile. Until we see a million people ringing Capitol Hill with pitchforks and all, we don't care what anyone says or does. Stop wasting both of our time with these silly threats that mean nothing to despicable, lying scumbags like us who don't have to worry about anything for 2 years.
Posted by: GOP Establishment at December 22, 2010 01:40 PM (G/MYk)
124
Other than being a huge boost to morale for the base, what has Scott Brown prevented that Marsha Coakley would've helped pass?
Posted by: Soothsayer at December 22, 2010 01:34 PM (uFokq)
DREAM Act- the 5 Democrats that voted no were waiting for an OK from Brown. Collins was too. They all play that stupid "ill vote if you vote" shit. Despite bribes, Brown stayed put. It failed.
Also his election gave a lot of "longshot" races a big boost, spreading the Democratic resources terribly thin and ensuring a massive victory in November of 2010.
I have no problem with Brown or Collins or Snowe. I have a problem when you have CLEARLY red states but their Senators are total RINOs. Stop bitching about Brown and aim your sites at the REAL traitors like Lugar.
If we had 2 R senators from the 22 states that voted for McCain, we wouldn't even be arguing about the Rinos.
Aim for the R states first. We made great improvements in Utah, Florida, and Ohio in 2010. Do the same in the R states in 2012, and PURGE THE FUCKING DEMOCRATS out of states like Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Florida, Missouri, Virginia and Ohio.
Posted by: Soothsayer at December 22, 2010 01:34 PM (uFokq)
DREAM Act- the 5 Democrats that voted no were waiting for an OK from Brown. Collins was too. They all play that stupid "ill vote if you vote" shit. Despite bribes, Brown stayed put. It failed.
Also his election gave a lot of "longshot" races a big boost, spreading the Democratic resources terribly thin and ensuring a massive victory in November of 2010.
I have no problem with Brown or Collins or Snowe. I have a problem when you have CLEARLY red states but their Senators are total RINOs. Stop bitching about Brown and aim your sites at the REAL traitors like Lugar.
If we had 2 R senators from the 22 states that voted for McCain, we wouldn't even be arguing about the Rinos.
Aim for the R states first. We made great improvements in Utah, Florida, and Ohio in 2010. Do the same in the R states in 2012, and PURGE THE FUCKING DEMOCRATS out of states like Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Florida, Missouri, Virginia and Ohio.
Posted by: CAC at December 22, 2010 01:41 PM (lV4Fs)
Posted by: Soothsayer at December 22, 2010 01:44 PM (uFokq)
126
"Reply, from the Oligarchy;
Dear Sirs/Maam;
You reelected 84% of running Senators, and 87% of running House members... in this Historic election.
So, to use the recently Re-elected Barney Franks favorite saying, "Blow me".
Signed,
The Oligarchy"
Re: The Oligarchy
We've got time, it's about all we have left after your rapings, but we do have time, in fact it's the one thing we never run out of.
The Masses
Dear Sirs/Maam;
You reelected 84% of running Senators, and 87% of running House members... in this Historic election.
So, to use the recently Re-elected Barney Franks favorite saying, "Blow me".
Signed,
The Oligarchy"
Re: The Oligarchy
We've got time, it's about all we have left after your rapings, but we do have time, in fact it's the one thing we never run out of.
The Masses
Posted by: Shoey at December 22, 2010 01:49 PM (ehKDD)
127
125 Castle is a RINO and drags other Repubs and RINOs with him. He waters down the brand (more than it already has). Hurts the case to ask conservatives to support Republicans when Castle stabs them in the back.
Coons--Let the Dems own him. Go after him again in 2016.
Coons--Let the Dems own him. Go after him again in 2016.
Posted by: Scoob at December 22, 2010 01:49 PM (T7+JL)
128
She faced the Kobayashi Maru scenario in AK...did she want to be
labeled a "quitter" or have a suspicion of corruption and unethical
(unwarrented by the ct, as we now know) hanging over her for another 2
years? Which headlines could her reputation tolerate?Posted by: pam at December 22, 2010 01:25 PM (uDwml)
It's more than just that. She would have been millions of dollars in debt, accomplished nothing in the final 18 months, finished with an approval rating lower than Bush finished with, and probably lost the Governorship to a Dem. Instead, she now has plenty of money and Parnell was able to continue her policies and win reelection by a huge margin.
labeled a "quitter" or have a suspicion of corruption and unethical
(unwarrented by the ct, as we now know) hanging over her for another 2
years? Which headlines could her reputation tolerate?Posted by: pam at December 22, 2010 01:25 PM (uDwml)
It's more than just that. She would have been millions of dollars in debt, accomplished nothing in the final 18 months, finished with an approval rating lower than Bush finished with, and probably lost the Governorship to a Dem. Instead, she now has plenty of money and Parnell was able to continue her policies and win reelection by a huge margin.
Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at December 22, 2010 01:49 PM (IoUF1)
129
The RINOs are a plague, but for you blue staters, I will admit the possibility of a third category - Blue State Con, if you like. But there has to be some hill that this guy will die on visible and obvious. Like Christie and his spending cuts, or Rudy and crime in the 1990s. Otherwise odds are high this guy will be a RINO in the end.
So for Mitt, what is that issue? Where is the fire in the belly? I supported him last time out and he got rolled over by other Republicans. There may be an issue like that for Mitt, but I don't know what it is.
So for Mitt, what is that issue? Where is the fire in the belly? I supported him last time out and he got rolled over by other Republicans. There may be an issue like that for Mitt, but I don't know what it is.
Posted by: Oldcat at December 22, 2010 01:52 PM (z1N6a)
130
Re: The Oligarchy
We've got time, it's about all we have left after your rapings, but we do have time, in fact it's the one thing we never run out of.
The Masses
Posted by: Shoey at December 22, 2010 01:49 PM (ehKDD)
Really? yes you have plenty of time, before we take over the Internet, and drilling, and the Banks, and the car industry (oh, wait, already did), and Healthcare (work in Progress)... and soon the Very AIR you Exhale...
Mu haa haa
We've got time, it's about all we have left after your rapings, but we do have time, in fact it's the one thing we never run out of.
The Masses
Posted by: Shoey at December 22, 2010 01:49 PM (ehKDD)
Really? yes you have plenty of time, before we take over the Internet, and drilling, and the Banks, and the car industry (oh, wait, already did), and Healthcare (work in Progress)... and soon the Very AIR you Exhale...
Mu haa haa
Posted by: Ming, the Merciless Beurocrat, the Oligarchy at December 22, 2010 01:54 PM (AdK6a)
131
Forget about O'Donnell. She was simply the instrument of Castle's destruction. It didn't matter what was happening in the country Castle needed to be destroyed if conservatism was to remain in control of the psyche of the republican party.
To allow a guy like Castle, the most liberal Republican in the House, to get what essentially is a promotion and a life time achievement award by walking into the R nomination is just plain nuts.
To allow a guy like Castle, the most liberal Republican in the House, to get what essentially is a promotion and a life time achievement award by walking into the R nomination is just plain nuts.
Posted by: Rocks at December 22, 2010 01:58 PM (Q1lie)
132
"Posted by: Sir Charles of Krauthammer at December 22, 2010 12:21 PM (OlN4e)"
You forgot "Dr." Gotta work that in to further emphasize his "smarter than you" credentials.
You forgot "Dr." Gotta work that in to further emphasize his "smarter than you" credentials.
Posted by: tsj017 at December 22, 2010 01:59 PM (4YUWF)
133
At what point does "torches and pitchforks" become a viable option?
Posted by: tsj017 at December 22, 2010 02:00 PM (4YUWF)
134
You thought the Russians would be happy after we ruined their economy? This is about flooding our system with entitlements that we can't pay for.
Posted by: Cherry π at December 22, 2010 02:02 PM (+sBB4)
135
DREAM Act soothie. They only needed one more and Brown was a no. That was huge...
Posted by: The Mega Independent at December 22, 2010 02:05 PM (NRjN+)
136
of RINO Washingtonian "bipartisans"
"they have a sort of [atheistic convoluted to self appointment] Divine Right of Kings to decide the affairs of men,
rather than voting according to their constituents' aspirations -- and
see themselves as defending the gate from the barbarians."
"they have a sort of [atheistic convoluted to self appointment] Divine Right of Kings to decide the affairs of men,
rather than voting according to their constituents' aspirations -- and
see themselves as defending the gate from the barbarians."
Posted by: maverick muse at December 22, 2010 02:05 PM (H+LJc)
137
Ace - ...and Sarah Palin is definitely from their own class -- what the establishment regards as The Barbaric Other
Whoa. Sarah Palin, Barbarian Queen. (Obligatory Conan
I am sooooWhat is Best in Life with this (obligatory Conan Youtube clip link).
Whoa. Sarah Palin, Barbarian Queen. (Obligatory Conan
I am sooooWhat is Best in Life with this (obligatory Conan Youtube clip link).
Posted by: davis,br at December 22, 2010 02:05 PM (uCShA)
138
The only real solution (which many will come to in the ensuing year) is to let the left have their American Socialist Superstate and for us conservatives to establish a new Constitutional Union of American States.
I agree, and I think it's going to happen. The big question is going to be, is going to happen peacefully or violently, and sadly, I think the latter.
There's a world war coming. When all this debt hits the fan and governments start pumping money into their economies to get out from under it ("quantitative easing", anyone?), severe inflation is going to kick in. Ask Hindenburg how that worked out.
I agree, and I think it's going to happen. The big question is going to be, is going to happen peacefully or violently, and sadly, I think the latter.
There's a world war coming. When all this debt hits the fan and governments start pumping money into their economies to get out from under it ("quantitative easing", anyone?), severe inflation is going to kick in. Ask Hindenburg how that worked out.
Posted by: Farmer Joe at December 22, 2010 02:06 PM (z4es9)
139
...and such a non-edit b4 you post idjit.
Posted by: davis,br at December 22, 2010 02:06 PM (uCShA)
140
Posted by: davis,br at December 22, 2010 02:05 PM (uCShA)
TO CRUSH THE OBAMTRONS, SEE THE RINOS DRIVEN BEFORE YOU, AND HEAR THE LAMENTATIONS OF THE BETA-MALES
TO CRUSH THE OBAMTRONS, SEE THE RINOS DRIVEN BEFORE YOU, AND HEAR THE LAMENTATIONS OF THE BETA-MALES
Posted by: Sarah Palin at December 22, 2010 02:09 PM (IoUF1)
141
Isn't this just the subject the co-bloggers reamed us peons about all this year?
RINOs are an infestation of cockroaches and they need to be exterminated from the party. Enough already.
RINOs are an infestation of cockroaches and they need to be exterminated from the party. Enough already.
Posted by: mpfs, I sniff sharpies at December 22, 2010 02:12 PM (iYbLN)
142
Isn't this just the subject the co-bloggers reamed us peons about all this year?RINOs are an infestation of cockroaches and they need to be exterminated from the party. Enough already.
Posted by: mpfs, I sniff sharpies at December 22, 2010 02:12 PM (iYbLN)
Usually the chickens take longer to come home to roost.
Posted by: mpfs, I sniff sharpies at December 22, 2010 02:12 PM (iYbLN)
Usually the chickens take longer to come home to roost.
Posted by: Oldcat at December 22, 2010 02:13 PM (z1N6a)
143
Posted by: davis,br at December 22, 2010 02:05 PM (uCShA)
Speaking of Palin, her personal lawyer Tom Van Flein just went to work for newly-elected AZ Rep. Paul Gosar as his deputy chief of staff and it appears she encouraged him to do so. So hopefully she'll have her own inside man on Capitol Hill to spy for her and thwart the RINOs.
Posted by: davis,br at December 22, 2010 02:05 PM (uCShA)
Speaking of Palin, her personal lawyer Tom Van Flein just went to work for newly-elected AZ Rep. Paul Gosar as his deputy chief of staff and it appears she encouraged him to do so. So hopefully she'll have her own inside man on Capitol Hill to spy for her and thwart the RINOs.
Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at December 22, 2010 02:14 PM (IoUF1)
144
True Oldcat, true.
Amazing though isn't it that Ace had to ask why the Republicans caved to Harry Reid.
Why the fuck do you think they did? It isn't that difficult to figure out.
Amazing though isn't it that Ace had to ask why the Republicans caved to Harry Reid.
Why the fuck do you think they did? It isn't that difficult to figure out.
Posted by: mpfs, I sniff sharpies at December 22, 2010 02:15 PM (iYbLN)
145
So for Mitt, what is that issue? Where is the fire in the belly?
Goes to show it was just another plastic façade, Romittens' crap shot way to impolitely tell Fred Thompson he wasn't "young" enough to be a great POTUS.
I'd still vote for Thompson, as if he'd put up with the likes of stoopid demands to spill blood to prove he's not plastic like Romney, plastic being the supposed preferred substance in '08 when Thompson's campaign was the ONLY constitutional conservative platform offered, the American Original "common sense conservative" candidate.
There's the Tea Party now, not that Thompson ever acted as if he "owned" or managed that movement.
Nonetheless, Thompson remains my favorite Republican.
Goes to show it was just another plastic façade, Romittens' crap shot way to impolitely tell Fred Thompson he wasn't "young" enough to be a great POTUS.
I'd still vote for Thompson, as if he'd put up with the likes of stoopid demands to spill blood to prove he's not plastic like Romney, plastic being the supposed preferred substance in '08 when Thompson's campaign was the ONLY constitutional conservative platform offered, the American Original "common sense conservative" candidate.
There's the Tea Party now, not that Thompson ever acted as if he "owned" or managed that movement.
Nonetheless, Thompson remains my favorite Republican.
Posted by: maverick muse at December 22, 2010 02:16 PM (H+LJc)
146
Usually the chickens take longer to come home to roost.Posted by: Oldcat at December 22, 2010 02:13 PM (z1N6a)
Yes, but when they do come home, we'll always be there to fuck them.
Yes, but when they do come home, we'll always be there to fuck them.
Posted by: The Media at December 22, 2010 02:16 PM (IoUF1)
147
What exactly did they do to sell out? They stopped the omnibus bill. They did get the tax cuts extended...maybe people think that if they had just said no to the deal and let those taxes go up after years of swearing they would not do anything of the kind...that people would have been ok with that. No they would not have and there is no way of being sure that Reid and Obama would have gone with any other plan anyway. I know that conservatives think there is no way Obama would have vetoed a bill that only Republicans supported and that there is no way Reid would have filibustered such a deal...but that is just pure fantasy.
And what is the other big sell out? START? Well up until a week or so ago Graham was king of the Rinos and so far as I know he has not been a big supporter of this deal.
Or is it the repeal of DODT? Well, the other kind of of the Rinos, McCain did not support that repeal while plenty of libertarians did and a lot of those libertarians are part of the Tea Party movement.
In fact, anyone who does not do exactly what certain pundits say they should do seems to be a RINO and that membership is subject to change.
Guys like Brown never pretended to be exactly like guys like Coburn, who actually did support the debt panel recommendations which means he supports tax increases, so maybe he is not a good example...how about Inhofe? No, he supports earmarks...let me see...oh yeah there is DeMint and he is a part of Washington too..
I think the whole RINO thing is kind of over used myself.
And what is the other big sell out? START? Well up until a week or so ago Graham was king of the Rinos and so far as I know he has not been a big supporter of this deal.
Or is it the repeal of DODT? Well, the other kind of of the Rinos, McCain did not support that repeal while plenty of libertarians did and a lot of those libertarians are part of the Tea Party movement.
In fact, anyone who does not do exactly what certain pundits say they should do seems to be a RINO and that membership is subject to change.
Guys like Brown never pretended to be exactly like guys like Coburn, who actually did support the debt panel recommendations which means he supports tax increases, so maybe he is not a good example...how about Inhofe? No, he supports earmarks...let me see...oh yeah there is DeMint and he is a part of Washington too..
I think the whole RINO thing is kind of over used myself.
Posted by: Terrye at December 22, 2010 02:16 PM (tYKoa)
148
107 Well, we here in Texas are going to take care of Hutchison in 2012, but have to wait until 2014 to get rid of Cornyn.
Do you know who is up to primary Hutchison? My checkbook is ready already.
Do you know who is up to primary Hutchison? My checkbook is ready already.
Posted by: Avogadra at December 22, 2010 02:17 PM (dtIOD)
Posted by: maverick muse at December 22, 2010 02:18 PM (H+LJc)
150
Posted by: Terrye at December 22, 2010 02:16 PM (tYKoa)
I'd get that checked out by a professional, if I were you.
Posted by: Terrye at December 22, 2010 02:16 PM (tYKoa)
I'd get that checked out by a professional, if I were you.
Posted by: GOP Establishment at December 22, 2010 02:21 PM (G/MYk)
151
The truth is some people are just too partisan.The truth is the most important thing that the Senate can do is vote the way their constituents want them to. I realize that some people think that the most important thing they can do is to make life difficult for Harry Reid and screw the constituents, but I think that some of these Senators are actually thinking about how these votes will be viewed by the folks back home...not whether or not Harry Reid had a good week...and thanks to Sharon Angle's lack of political viability Reid will be coming back in January...and the people who supported her the most and made sure Harry got another term were not the Rinos.
Posted by: Terrye at December 22, 2010 02:21 PM (tYKoa)
152
The truth is some people are just too partisan [stupid and have no respect for the nation, its institutions or traditions].
Posted by: Terrye at December 22, 2010 02:21 PM (tYKoa)
There you go. You're finally on the right track, now.
Posted by: Terrye at December 22, 2010 02:21 PM (tYKoa)
There you go. You're finally on the right track, now.
Posted by: iknowtheleft at December 22, 2010 02:23 PM (G/MYk)
153
I think the whole RINO thing is kind of over used myself.
Posted by: Terrye at December 22, 2010 02:16 PM (tYKoa)
The fact that any particular RINO might not stab us in the back starts not to matter a lot when you have ten or twenty of them waiting on any particular vote.
Posted by: Terrye at December 22, 2010 02:16 PM (tYKoa)
The fact that any particular RINO might not stab us in the back starts not to matter a lot when you have ten or twenty of them waiting on any particular vote.
Posted by: Oldcat at December 22, 2010 02:24 PM (z1N6a)
154
I realize that some people think that the most
important thing they can do is to make life difficult for Harry Reid and
screw the constituents, but I think that some of these Senators are
actually thinking about how these votes will be viewed by the folks back
home...
Posted by: Terrye at December 22, 2010 02:21 PM (tYKoa)
You really shouldn't flaunt your insanity in public. It's unseemly.Do you just not understand the basic idea that major legislation is not supposed to be handled in a lame duck, most especially the lamest lame duck of the past 70 years? Are that dense that this simple, obvious fact escapes you?
important thing they can do is to make life difficult for Harry Reid and
screw the constituents, but I think that some of these Senators are
actually thinking about how these votes will be viewed by the folks back
home...
Posted by: Terrye at December 22, 2010 02:21 PM (tYKoa)
You really shouldn't flaunt your insanity in public. It's unseemly.Do you just not understand the basic idea that major legislation is not supposed to be handled in a lame duck, most especially the lamest lame duck of the past 70 years? Are that dense that this simple, obvious fact escapes you?
Posted by: iknowtheleft at December 22, 2010 02:25 PM (G/MYk)
155
Posted by: Terrye at December 22, 2010 02:21 PM (tYKoa)
You might want to check with the citizens of states like AZ, AK and other RINO locations to see what they actually wanted before deciding that these types are the will of the people.
You might want to check with the citizens of states like AZ, AK and other RINO locations to see what they actually wanted before deciding that these types are the will of the people.
Posted by: Oldcat at December 22, 2010 02:26 PM (z1N6a)
156
I know I had some principles around here somewhere. Wherever did they go?
Posted by: RINO at Large at December 22, 2010 02:27 PM (8nf3A)
157
Who is this uncircumcised Philistine? 1 Samuel 17:26
It sure as hell isn't Palin playing Washingtonian Goliath, defying the US Constitution, demoralizing our Military, denying American citizens our Rights.
It sure as hell isn't Palin playing Washingtonian Goliath, defying the US Constitution, demoralizing our Military, denying American citizens our Rights.
Posted by: maverick muse at December 22, 2010 02:27 PM (H+LJc)
158
Good question. Why not just hold off all important business until the
new Senate is sworn in, where the party would have stronger negotiating
position and get more of what it wants?
Which means what? Let everyone's taxes go up? What exactly does it mean to hold off? Filibuster everything? They did kill the spending bill...what else are we complaining about? START? Really? Most of the conservatives I heard complaining about this were upset that Reid waited so long to bring the bill up because Obama had signed it 8 months ago and they thought it could have been voted on long ago?
I just think people are looking for things to complain about this, which means that nothing will be enough for them. They will get their majority and it still won't be enough. Any compromise will be seen as betrayal.
When the new Congress comes in there will be plenty of things for these people to wrangle about, like the new budget for instance.
Good question. Why not just hold off all important business until the
new Senate is sworn in, where the party would have stronger negotiating
position and get more of what it wants?
Which means what? Let everyone's taxes go up? What exactly does it mean to hold off? Filibuster everything? They did kill the spending bill...what else are we complaining about? START? Really? Most of the conservatives I heard complaining about this were upset that Reid waited so long to bring the bill up because Obama had signed it 8 months ago and they thought it could have been voted on long ago?
I just think people are looking for things to complain about this, which means that nothing will be enough for them. They will get their majority and it still won't be enough. Any compromise will be seen as betrayal.
When the new Congress comes in there will be plenty of things for these people to wrangle about, like the new budget for instance.
Posted by: Terrye at December 22, 2010 02:28 PM (tYKoa)
159
155
Posted by: Terrye at December 22, 2010 02:21 PM (tYKoa)You might
want to check with the citizens of states like AZ, AK and other RINO
locations to see what they actually wanted before deciding that these
types are the will of the people.
I grew up in Oklahoma and most of my family still lives there. I am not sure what your statement even refers to. I did not say anything about Arizona or Arkansas.
Posted by: Terrye at December 22, 2010 02:21 PM (tYKoa)You might
want to check with the citizens of states like AZ, AK and other RINO
locations to see what they actually wanted before deciding that these
types are the will of the people.
I grew up in Oklahoma and most of my family still lives there. I am not sure what your statement even refers to. I did not say anything about Arizona or Arkansas.
Posted by: Terrye at December 22, 2010 02:30 PM (tYKoa)
160
07 Well, we here in Texas are going to take care of Hutchison in 2012, but have to wait until 2014 to get rid of Cornyn.
Do you know who is up to primary Hutchison? My checkbook is ready already.
Posted by: AvogadraTime to reject the neoconservative ownership of TX GOP that wrongly smeared Medina, and prove they've lost monopoly on TX conservatives. She'd do right by Texans serving the Constitution from Washington.
Do you know who is up to primary Hutchison? My checkbook is ready already.
Posted by: AvogadraTime to reject the neoconservative ownership of TX GOP that wrongly smeared Medina, and prove they've lost monopoly on TX conservatives. She'd do right by Texans serving the Constitution from Washington.
Posted by: maverick muse at December 22, 2010 02:31 PM (H+LJc)
161
Surely of all the idiot notions Ace has written (and they are legion), the idea that Palin and Romney agree on most (policy) issues is in the most ridiculous, e.g., santity of life - different, amnesty for illegal immigrants - different, Cap Trade - different, government run healthcare - different and on and on -
Posted by: phaedrus at December 22, 2010 02:32 PM (u5o70)
162
---START? Really? Most of the conservatives I heard
complaining about this were upset that Reid waited so long to bring the
bill up because Obama had signed it 8 months ago and they thought it
could have been voted on long ago?
When it would have been voted down, as it would have been voted down in the 112th. The only possible time to pass that incredibly stupid START Treason was in this lame duck - which is the reason why lame ducks are NOT the place for any serious legislation.
---I just think people are
looking for things to complain about this, which means that nothing will
be enough for them. They will get their majority and it still won't be
enough. Any compromise will be seen as betrayal.
I tried to warn you about flaunting your insanity in public.
---When the new
Congress comes in there will be plenty of things for these people to
wrangle about, like the new budget for instance.
Posted by: Terrye at December 22, 2010 02:28 PM (tYKoa)
That has to be one of the dumbest comments I've ever seen. Congratulations.
complaining about this were upset that Reid waited so long to bring the
bill up because Obama had signed it 8 months ago and they thought it
could have been voted on long ago?
When it would have been voted down, as it would have been voted down in the 112th. The only possible time to pass that incredibly stupid START Treason was in this lame duck - which is the reason why lame ducks are NOT the place for any serious legislation.
---I just think people are
looking for things to complain about this, which means that nothing will
be enough for them. They will get their majority and it still won't be
enough. Any compromise will be seen as betrayal.
I tried to warn you about flaunting your insanity in public.
---When the new
Congress comes in there will be plenty of things for these people to
wrangle about, like the new budget for instance.
Posted by: Terrye at December 22, 2010 02:28 PM (tYKoa)
That has to be one of the dumbest comments I've ever seen. Congratulations.
Posted by: iknowtheleft at December 22, 2010 02:32 PM (G/MYk)
163
They will get their majority and it still won't be enough. Any compromise will be seen as betrayal.
Posted by: Terrye at December 22, 2010 02:28 PM (tYKoa)
You want to compromise on healthcare? government takeovers of industries? I don't see anything to compromise on. We are world's apart.
Posted by: Terrye at December 22, 2010 02:28 PM (tYKoa)
You want to compromise on healthcare? government takeovers of industries? I don't see anything to compromise on. We are world's apart.
Posted by: Cherry π at December 22, 2010 02:35 PM (+sBB4)
164
154
I realize that some people think that the most
important thing they can do is to make life difficult for Harry Reid and
screw the constituents, but I think that some of these Senators are
actually thinking about how these votes will be viewed by the folks back
home...
Posted by: Terrye at December 22, 2010 02:21 PM (tYKoa)
You really shouldn't flaunt your insanity in public. It's unseemly.Do
you just not understand the basic idea that major legislation is not
supposed to be handled in a lame duck, most especially the lamest lame
duck of the past 70 years? Are that dense that this simple, obvious
fact escapes you?
Posted by: iknowtheleft at December 22, 2010 02:25 PM (G/MYk)
Oh really? Speaking of insanity, we do not do legislation based on basic ideas...we do it based on the rules and laws pertaining to the legislature and the truth is if they should not do legislation such as this in the lame duck, then the rules should be changed to reflect that...just getting pissy does not change a thing.And most Americans supported the tax deal...most Americans did not want to see their taxes go up in Jan. Most Americans supported the repeal of DODT. If they had refused to repeal it in this Congress, I think the courts would have done it or a future Congress would have done it.I don't like Reid, I was hoping he would get beat last November. But that does not mean that I think making him look bad should be the only focus of the Republicans in the Senate.
I realize that some people think that the most
important thing they can do is to make life difficult for Harry Reid and
screw the constituents, but I think that some of these Senators are
actually thinking about how these votes will be viewed by the folks back
home...
Posted by: Terrye at December 22, 2010 02:21 PM (tYKoa)
You really shouldn't flaunt your insanity in public. It's unseemly.Do
you just not understand the basic idea that major legislation is not
supposed to be handled in a lame duck, most especially the lamest lame
duck of the past 70 years? Are that dense that this simple, obvious
fact escapes you?
Posted by: iknowtheleft at December 22, 2010 02:25 PM (G/MYk)
Oh really? Speaking of insanity, we do not do legislation based on basic ideas...we do it based on the rules and laws pertaining to the legislature and the truth is if they should not do legislation such as this in the lame duck, then the rules should be changed to reflect that...just getting pissy does not change a thing.And most Americans supported the tax deal...most Americans did not want to see their taxes go up in Jan. Most Americans supported the repeal of DODT. If they had refused to repeal it in this Congress, I think the courts would have done it or a future Congress would have done it.I don't like Reid, I was hoping he would get beat last November. But that does not mean that I think making him look bad should be the only focus of the Republicans in the Senate.
Posted by: Terrye at December 22, 2010 02:36 PM (tYKoa)
165
Remarkable analysis, Ace. Let me shed my quasi lurker status and congratulate you.You nailed it perfectly.
Posted by: Call me Lennie at December 22, 2010 02:41 PM (GOsSG)
166
They will get their majority and it still won't be enough. Any compromise will be seen as betrayal.
Posted by: Terrye at December 22, 2010 02:28 PM (tYKoa)
You
want to compromise on healthcare? government takeovers of industries? I
don't see anything to compromise on. We are world's apart.
This is apples and oranges. I did not say anything about anyone compromising on healthcare. They did not do that in lame duck. In fact the Republicans voted in rather amazing solidarity on issues like tax cuts and health care.
I am saying that every now and then there might be something come along that some people will compromise on based on what the values of their own constituencies are. I am just pointing out that the idea of what people think of as Rinos is fluid, based on individual votes more than philosophy...such as Graham standing against START and McCain standing against DODT repeal...and yet both of these Senators have been seen as Rinos at one time or another.
Posted by: Terrye at December 22, 2010 02:28 PM (tYKoa)
You
want to compromise on healthcare? government takeovers of industries? I
don't see anything to compromise on. We are world's apart.
This is apples and oranges. I did not say anything about anyone compromising on healthcare. They did not do that in lame duck. In fact the Republicans voted in rather amazing solidarity on issues like tax cuts and health care.
I am saying that every now and then there might be something come along that some people will compromise on based on what the values of their own constituencies are. I am just pointing out that the idea of what people think of as Rinos is fluid, based on individual votes more than philosophy...such as Graham standing against START and McCain standing against DODT repeal...and yet both of these Senators have been seen as Rinos at one time or another.
Posted by: Terrye at December 22, 2010 02:42 PM (tYKoa)
167
Send this article to your dim-sucking rino Senators and let them know that they will be primaried in 12 or 14.
#66 hits these asshats right square on their lillie-livered arses.
Give 'em a long, permanent trip back to their putrid palaces back home.
#66 hits these asshats right square on their lillie-livered arses.
Give 'em a long, permanent trip back to their putrid palaces back home.
Posted by: TennDon at December 22, 2010 02:45 PM (o6Yv2)
168
I think the whole RINO thing is kind of over used myself.
I'd say that RINO used to be viewed as a label for weenies without guts. We'd have to specify these days that they haven't the guts to do what's right, but certainly are shit full of audacity to do wrong and abuse egregiously as authoritarians.
"The Republican Party" was said to be kind of over used as in dead after GWB completed its transformation into a RINO party in time for the '08 elections.
"Bipartisan" does not include constitutional conservatism. "Centrist" is another misnomer, since the Constitution is the ONLY point upon which Americans are centered for a square off. "Progressive" transposed atop RINO hardly updates the content of "in name only" as they function for SOCIALISM. And the indecent mutation of meaning that Bush squandered upon "compassionate" doesn't describe conservancy of anything "traditional"/conservative. Obama's name is over used, as well. So what else is tiring? As if exhaustion of a label requires "no labels" for relief.
I'd say that RINO used to be viewed as a label for weenies without guts. We'd have to specify these days that they haven't the guts to do what's right, but certainly are shit full of audacity to do wrong and abuse egregiously as authoritarians.
"The Republican Party" was said to be kind of over used as in dead after GWB completed its transformation into a RINO party in time for the '08 elections.
"Bipartisan" does not include constitutional conservatism. "Centrist" is another misnomer, since the Constitution is the ONLY point upon which Americans are centered for a square off. "Progressive" transposed atop RINO hardly updates the content of "in name only" as they function for SOCIALISM. And the indecent mutation of meaning that Bush squandered upon "compassionate" doesn't describe conservancy of anything "traditional"/conservative. Obama's name is over used, as well. So what else is tiring? As if exhaustion of a label requires "no labels" for relief.
Posted by: maverick muse at December 22, 2010 02:47 PM (H+LJc)
169
The Food Safety bill, that puts family farms out of business, the SALT bill which has mouldering for the better part of a decade, the siloviki (Russian ruling class)
can't believe there are people stupid enough to care, DADT, another trumped up
piece of crap, sent up by the Journolisters, Fenton's archipelago of public relations,
can't believe there are people stupid enough to care, DADT, another trumped up
piece of crap, sent up by the Journolisters, Fenton's archipelago of public relations,
Posted by: justin cord at December 22, 2010 02:47 PM (c0+w5)
170
Most Americans supported the repeal of DODT.
What's that? Don't Ogle, Don't Tell?
The fact is that DADT repeal now means that the military will be unable to form any groups for which internal sexual attrraction and problems are inconsequential issues. Allowing gays with heterosexuals means that no group can be formed that cannot be expected to have internal sexual politics going on (which are extremely damaging and cause major problems). The fact that it wasn't even mentioned that gays stand out as a group that is impossible to form non-sexual subgroups from - unlike heteros, who can be split into male and female groups which are essentially free of sexual tensions and politics. But, this simple fact didn't seem to matter to the homophilliacs. You know there's a reason why the few gay militaries of the past were quite distinct from hetero units - as with the Sacred Band of Thebes, all gay men, all paired with their lovers in the unit. Why did they do that? Because that is one of the only ways to mitigate gay sexual interest in others in the unit, which never amounts to anything good.
But, keep screaming about how all this stuff is great and you're happy it was shoved down America's throat in a lame duck ...
The fact that you excuse dem treachery (and aiding and abetting by dipshit RINOs) with 'the rules' just shows how little you understand or respect this nation. We shouldn't have needed a Constitutional amendment declaring that people cannot hold the Presidency for more than two terms. George Washington established that tradition and any decent person followed it without having to be forced by law. It wasn't until the selfish, tyrant-wannabe prick FDR refused to leave the White House that the Constitution had to be changed to guard America against such selfish pricks in the future. Now, the same will have to be done for lame ducks, because these despciable dems (and RINOs) are too contemptuous of America to be trusted to act with integrity. But, you think it's all great ...
What's that? Don't Ogle, Don't Tell?
The fact is that DADT repeal now means that the military will be unable to form any groups for which internal sexual attrraction and problems are inconsequential issues. Allowing gays with heterosexuals means that no group can be formed that cannot be expected to have internal sexual politics going on (which are extremely damaging and cause major problems). The fact that it wasn't even mentioned that gays stand out as a group that is impossible to form non-sexual subgroups from - unlike heteros, who can be split into male and female groups which are essentially free of sexual tensions and politics. But, this simple fact didn't seem to matter to the homophilliacs. You know there's a reason why the few gay militaries of the past were quite distinct from hetero units - as with the Sacred Band of Thebes, all gay men, all paired with their lovers in the unit. Why did they do that? Because that is one of the only ways to mitigate gay sexual interest in others in the unit, which never amounts to anything good.
But, keep screaming about how all this stuff is great and you're happy it was shoved down America's throat in a lame duck ...
The fact that you excuse dem treachery (and aiding and abetting by dipshit RINOs) with 'the rules' just shows how little you understand or respect this nation. We shouldn't have needed a Constitutional amendment declaring that people cannot hold the Presidency for more than two terms. George Washington established that tradition and any decent person followed it without having to be forced by law. It wasn't until the selfish, tyrant-wannabe prick FDR refused to leave the White House that the Constitution had to be changed to guard America against such selfish pricks in the future. Now, the same will have to be done for lame ducks, because these despciable dems (and RINOs) are too contemptuous of America to be trusted to act with integrity. But, you think it's all great ...
Posted by: iknowtheleft at December 22, 2010 02:54 PM (G/MYk)
171
@35: "Look: The Northeast hates the South and Heartland, by and large, culturally. And the feeling is mutual...Culture is thicker than ideology. Ideology is merely intellectual while culture is visceral and emotional."
Kind of a good argument for not sharing a country with one another, then. If the cultures are that diametrically opposed, not much good is going to come from it. Let everyone go their own way and make the best of it.
Kind of a good argument for not sharing a country with one another, then. If the cultures are that diametrically opposed, not much good is going to come from it. Let everyone go their own way and make the best of it.
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at December 22, 2010 02:57 PM (xy9wk)
172
i like this , look forward to new works
منتدى بلاك بيري - بلاك بيري - بوابة بلاك بيري - مركز تحميل بلاك بيري - بلاك بيري - منتديات كوكتيل - دليل مواقع - اقتصاد منزلي - صور رمزية بلاك بيري - ثيمات بلاك بيري - خلفيات بلاك بيري - برامج بلاك بيري - بلاك بيري العرب - العاب بلاك بيري - برودكاست بلاك بيري
منتدى بلاك بيري - بلاك بيري - بوابة بلاك بيري - مركز تحميل بلاك بيري - بلاك بيري - منتديات كوكتيل - دليل مواقع - اقتصاد منزلي - صور رمزية بلاك بيري - ثيمات بلاك بيري - خلفيات بلاك بيري - برامج بلاك بيري - بلاك بيري العرب - العاب بلاك بيري - برودكاست بلاك بيري
Posted by: ss at December 22, 2010 03:00 PM (NhKvJ)
173
somehow a Tea Party True Believer -- plainly embracing the culture of
the Heartland or South -- could win in the Northeast because, it is
asserted, "teh doctrine of Reagan can win anywhere."
Not arguing with your argument, ace. Regional aesthetics matter. Teh Fred wasn't hung up on those, btw, despite being a Tennessee boy. He made his conservative way through Washington, leaving his Senate mark having demanded competency from government employees. There are all sorts of Republicans. He wins hands down on across the board common sense, smart to hold dear the constitution with states rights, good nature including diplomatic ties with those whose ideologies are RINO, experienced FISCAL CONSERVATIVE, and brave in the face down against national destruction.
Finally, note that Reagan was never the definition or motivating force behind the Tea Party movement, though one from an assortment of rallying cries that neoconservatives utilized while meaning to usurp the Tea Party.
the Heartland or South -- could win in the Northeast because, it is
asserted, "teh doctrine of Reagan can win anywhere."
Not arguing with your argument, ace. Regional aesthetics matter. Teh Fred wasn't hung up on those, btw, despite being a Tennessee boy. He made his conservative way through Washington, leaving his Senate mark having demanded competency from government employees. There are all sorts of Republicans. He wins hands down on across the board common sense, smart to hold dear the constitution with states rights, good nature including diplomatic ties with those whose ideologies are RINO, experienced FISCAL CONSERVATIVE, and brave in the face down against national destruction.
Finally, note that Reagan was never the definition or motivating force behind the Tea Party movement, though one from an assortment of rallying cries that neoconservatives utilized while meaning to usurp the Tea Party.
Posted by: maverick muse at December 22, 2010 03:01 PM (H+LJc)
174
I will, never again, contribute another dime to a senatorial candidate. They heard the message of the people and decided their invitations to the right cocktail parties were more important.
Damn them. Damn them all to hell.
Damn them. Damn them all to hell.
Posted by: Yankee Mechanic at December 22, 2010 05:26 PM (SsNRK)
175
Look, the reason for the string of Dem victories is simple. They are not running scared anymore. They could have always passed these bills, but didnt want to for electoral reasons. They were hamstrung before the election and wanted to help guys like Evan Bayh and Tom Periello by not putting them on the spot.
Second, there are new moderates, who feel they dont owe anything to conservatives because of the primary. Where before you had the Maine girls and maybe Scott Brown. Now, you have Maine girls, Murkowski and maybe Bill Bennett and Scott Brown.
By the way, I love people jumping in to "evil northeast versusreal Americadichotomy"
Umm, lastt I checked Murkowski, Voinovich, Lugar, Bennett, Corker, Isakson, Cochron, Alexander and others who have voted with the Dems are not from the Northeast.
In Mass and Maine, Obama's policies remain very popular. Its not that odd that politicians listen to their constiuents, but what are the others thinking? Look in the mirror.
Second, there are new moderates, who feel they dont owe anything to conservatives because of the primary. Where before you had the Maine girls and maybe Scott Brown. Now, you have Maine girls, Murkowski and maybe Bill Bennett and Scott Brown.
By the way, I love people jumping in to "evil northeast versusreal Americadichotomy"
Umm, lastt I checked Murkowski, Voinovich, Lugar, Bennett, Corker, Isakson, Cochron, Alexander and others who have voted with the Dems are not from the Northeast.
In Mass and Maine, Obama's policies remain very popular. Its not that odd that politicians listen to their constiuents, but what are the others thinking? Look in the mirror.
Posted by: swamp_yankee at December 22, 2010 08:48 PM (3DIBw)
176
Hello,
Send Christmas Gifts. Buy more to send. On this site==== == http://www.1shopping.us/ ,
good place for shopping, fashion, sexy, personality, maturity, from here to begin. Are you ready?
===== http://www.1shopping.us/ ====
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i dg) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $15
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $15
New era cap $12
accept paypal and free shipping
====== http://www.1shopping.us/ ====
Hello,
Send Christmas Gifts. Buy more to send. On this site==== == http://www.1shopping.us/ ,
good place for shopping, fashion, sexy, personality, maturity, from here to begin. Are you ready?
===== http://www.1shopping.us/ ====
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i dg) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $15
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $15
New era cap $12
accept paypal and free shipping
====== http://www.1shopping.us/ ====
Posted by: shopping at December 23, 2010 09:00 AM (nqMEz)
177
onitsuka tiger
asics tiger asics kayano
asics tiger asics kayano
Posted by: asics shoes at December 24, 2010 02:04 AM (Uw8og)
Posted by: garden gate plans at March 26, 2011 11:33 PM (uUsYL)
179
دردشة عراقية
دردشه عراقيه
دردشة بغداد
دردشة موصل
استضافة عراقية
منتدى
مركز تحميل
مركز تحميل صور
مركز تحميل ملفات
مركز تحميل فلاش
مركز تحميل اكس بي
اكس بي
مركز
xp
جافا سكربت
مكتبة جافا سكربت
دردشة كربلاء
دردشة ديالى
دردشة ميسان
حرب التتار
ترفيان العرب
بوابة العراق
دردشة كركوك
دردشة اربيل
دردشة تكريت
دردشة رمادي
دردشة ناصرية
دردشة البصرة
نكت العراق
دليل مواقع العراقية
مسك كلمات
ارشفة
خبراء الارشفة
ارشفة
SEO
ارشفه
دردشة النجف
فيديو
دردشة بابل
العاب فلاش
دردشة الانبار
شركة استضافة عراقية
شركة عراقية
دردشة سامراء
درشة ذي قار
دردشة دهوك
فنر
منتديات غرام العشاق
دردشة غرام العشاق
غرام العشاق
العشاق غرام
دردشة المثنى
شط العرب
عالم الرومانسية
دردشة العراق
دردشة عراقنا
روعة الخليج
4shared
روعة الخليج
دردشة تعب قلبي
دردشة الخليج
youtube
google
4shared
مركز تحميل عراق اب
دردشة فلسطين
استضافة خدماتي
خدماتي
استضافه عراقيه
دردشه عراقيه
دردشة بغداد
دردشة موصل
استضافة عراقية
منتدى
مركز تحميل
مركز تحميل صور
مركز تحميل ملفات
مركز تحميل فلاش
مركز تحميل اكس بي
اكس بي
مركز
xp
جافا سكربت
مكتبة جافا سكربت
دردشة كربلاء
دردشة ديالى
دردشة ميسان
حرب التتار
ترفيان العرب
بوابة العراق
دردشة كركوك
دردشة اربيل
دردشة تكريت
دردشة رمادي
دردشة ناصرية
دردشة البصرة
نكت العراق
دليل مواقع العراقية
مسك كلمات
ارشفة
خبراء الارشفة
ارشفة
SEO
ارشفه
دردشة النجف
فيديو
دردشة بابل
العاب فلاش
دردشة الانبار
شركة استضافة عراقية
شركة عراقية
دردشة سامراء
درشة ذي قار
دردشة دهوك
فنر
منتديات غرام العشاق
دردشة غرام العشاق
غرام العشاق
العشاق غرام
دردشة المثنى
شط العرب
عالم الرومانسية
دردشة العراق
دردشة عراقنا
روعة الخليج
4shared
روعة الخليج
دردشة تعب قلبي
دردشة الخليج
youtube
4shared
مركز تحميل عراق اب
دردشة فلسطين
استضافة خدماتي
خدماتي
استضافه عراقيه
Posted by: حرب التتار at June 25, 2011 07:19 PM (zWx7q)
Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.0441 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0171 seconds, 187 records returned.
Page size 146 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Primary Document: The Audio
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Top Top Tens
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
Greatest Hitjobs
The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat