|
The Right Wing Jumps the Shark
|
| wait for it... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
12:56 6.24.10 |
jd hayworth: you only held the award for a few days.
this guys may hold it forever.
a farmer with one of those semi-rig signs along the highway calling democrats parasites. fair enough. except for the fact that the dude has taken over a million dollars in farm subsidies in the last 15 years.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/06/23/farmer-democrats-parasites-subsidies/
is this tea-bagging thing a movement or a nihilistic death cult? sometimes it's really, really hard to tell.
|
|
| the new definition of chutzpah |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
16:57 6.21.10 |
(replacing the old one lawyers always use about the kid who kills his parents)
jd hayworth. all-american goon who is challenging (and will lose to, but make it semi-respectable) to mccain in the arizona senate republican primary.
after being booted from congress in 2007, what did this red-blooded, tax-cut loving, tea partyin' fool do? he appeared in infomercials for one of those shady companies touting how much "free money" the government has to give away.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4ENUSbGsd8&feature=player_embedded
this guy is the definition of grifter.
my favorite part (beyond his oafishness, the insantiy of a "conservative" touting the company, and that look in his eye) is when -- ignoring the gargantuan level of obvious cognitive dissonense going on -- he tells us all that "government money is not government money, it's *your* money!" |
|
| probably doesn't fit here... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
17:34 5.28.10 |
and yet, it's precious anyhow.
http://wonkette.com/415702/but-could-saint-ronald-reagan-possibly-be-as-corrupt-as-barack-obama#more-415702 |
|
| it seems quaint... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
16:22 5.10.10 |
nearly two years ago i began this thread by assuming that the republicans would have to -- well, because logic pretty much dictates it -- whether obama was a marxist or a islamic terrorist.
what a difference a few years make.
now, the tea party is going around and picking off right-leaning republicans and hijacking state party platforms to advocate for "austrian economics" (which makes the chicago school look like liberals) and the repeal of the law of the sea treaty.
http://www.mainepolitics.net/content/maine-republicans-adopt-tea-party-platform
that the republicans are going to "win" 2010 is a given. and by going over the edge into crazy canyon they may even win it "more", by getting the nutcases involved.
but this is jesse jackson-1984 all over again.
and just imagine what 1992, 1996, and 2008 (let alone 2000 and 2004) would have looked like for the dems if the typical jesse jackson supporter had been choosing the candidates and calling the shots.
victory in 2010, right off the cliff in 2012 and beyond. man, i'm telling you i'm really beginning to wonder if these folks are democratic plants. |
|
| the beast must be fed... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
16:47 4.22.10 |
and, really, since you've already gone to 11 when it comes to obama, you have to find another way to stand out:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/04/20/alipac_calls_lindsey_graham_gay
crist is toast.
mccain is going to get past hayworth in a primary challenge, but it will be by single digits.
graham is getting gay-baited.
mark kirk can't open his mouth because he'll either be too conservative for illinois or too liberal for the base.
i'm telling you: as we've seen, movements like this don't get *less* crazy. they become crazy magnets, going entirely off the reservation.
and unless there's tens of millions of people out there who are about to: (1) change their skin color to white / their place of birth to the us; or (2) become much more socially conservative ... I have no fucking idea where this party is heading.
|
|
| i get to contribute to this thread!!! |
| posted by: horsebeater |
12:50 4.22.10 |
god bless tom coburn
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/fox-news-its-very-finest |
|
| well as long as cliff clavin says it's true.... |
| posted by: publius |
00:11 11.6.09 |
"These are Woodstock Democrats," he said at the rally. "We have to remember where their philosophy comes from. It doesn't come from America. It comes from overseas. It comes from socialism. And socialism is a philosophy of failure."
the best summation of what the right is about is encapsulated in the "insult" "it comes from overseas".....i bet they speak 7 languages too!
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/05/tea-party-activists-hit-the-hill-arrested-outside-pelosis-office/ |
|
| shocker... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
00:19 11.4.09 |
va goes R. no shocker.
nj goes R. slight shocker.
ny-23 (is about to go)es D? shocker.
this was such a wacky race, that it's tough to draw any real inferences from it.
that said, ny-23 had not elected a democrat to congress since BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR.
The real story is not that Owens looks like he's going to win. The real story isn't a Hoffman comeback, which is still possible.
The real story is that, with @85% reporting, if you put together the Hoffamn/Scuzzafava Conservative/Repubican Party vote, it equals about 50.5% to Owens' Democratic vote of 49.5%.
In other words, the real story is that yet another once uber-reliable Republican NE congressional district is now a 50-50 proposition. The ebbs and flows will come and go, but this is a structural change that is happening everywhere through the NE and upper Midwest.
I mean, I read today that one of the tea-baggers' next targets is mark kirk. In other words, the tea-baggers are going to force the only republican i will vote for this year (if he's running against giannioulius, and it looks like he will be) to become some conservative that i won't for him. And I'm not alone. They are going to take a really, really good, strong moderate candidate and ruin his chances to win OBAMA's senate seat.
I just don't get it. |
|
| shocker... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
23:59 11.3.09 |
va goes R. no shocker.
nj goes R. slight shocker.
ny-23 (is about to go)es D? shocker.
this was such a wacky race, that it's tough to draw any real inferences from it.
that said, ny-23 had not elected a democrat to congress since BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR.
The real story is not that Owens looks like he's going to win. The real story isn't a Hoffman comeback, which is still possible.
The real story is that, with @85% reporting, if you put together the Hoffamn/Scuzzafava Conservative/Repubican Party vote, it equals about 50.5% to Owens' Democratic vote of 49.5%.
In other words, the real story is that yet another once uber-reliable Republican NE congressional district is now a 50-50 proposition. The ebbs and flows will come and go, but this is a structural change that is happening everywhere through the NE and upper Midwest.
I mean, I read today that one of the tea-baggers' next targets is mark kirk. In other words, the tea-baggers are going to force the only republican i will vote for this year (if he's running against giannioulius, and it looks like he will be) to become some conservative that i won't for him. And I'm not alone. They are going to take a really, really good, strong moderate candidate and ruin his chances to win OBAMA's senate seat.
I just don't get it. |
|
| there was a nice quote... |
| posted by: publius |
14:52 11.3.09 |
as part of today's nyt crossword puzzle from none other mario cuomo, ex governor of new york...
"you campaign in poetry. you govern in prose."
if you're lucky like reagan, all anyone ever wants to talk about it the poetry (such as it was from the demented old fruit...) |
|
| this guy nails it... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
14:42 11.3.09 |
and he ain't no liberal:
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2009/11/02/the-anti-reason-conservatives/
especially cogent is his list of "un-conservative" things that republican presidents have done.
i doubt 1 in 10 of the "reagan was god" republicans have any idea that he invented cutting-and-running when we left lebanon, that he raised taxes (or more accurately, allowed them to be raised), that he did nothing to end any of the big agencies he railed against, that he offerred amnesty (in it's truest sense) to illegal immigrants, that the deficit got bigger on his watch.
i'm not even criticizing any of these things, or even taking a stance on them. i'm just saying that in the political arena you've got ideology and you've got governance ... but it is IMPOSSIBLE to always reconcile the two.
and by demanding fealty to ideology over the realities of governance, you are going to get a lot of the first and very little of the second.
bad night for the dems if they lose nj.
medicore night of the dems if they win nj and lose ny-23.
good night for the dems if they win nj and ny-23.
(and it's going to be a bad or a medicore night.)
|
|
| i think hoffman will win... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
17:54 11.2.09 |
and i'm not even sure it'll be close. when you're party is out of power / you are a true believer, you'd pay money to come out and vote in something like this. everyone else is half-aware there's even an election.
and while it's bad for democracy in the long term to have the republicans paint themselves further into a corner of wingnuttery, i have to say i'm now endorsing hoffman.
cause i like me some crazy. and anything that brings the republican party closer to being run by the nuttiest of the wingnuts means we're gonna see a lot more of it.
|
|
| just when you thought... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
20:15 11.1.09 |
it couldn't get any weirder: it gets weirder.
the "replublican" nominee endorses the democrat in ny-23.
huh?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/house/ny-23-scozzafava-endorses-owen.html
this election has gone from foregone republican hold, to bellweather, to curiosity, to freak show.
i'm not sure what lessons anyone could draw regardless of the outcome.
|
|
| this shit gets better and better... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
11:56 10.31.09 |
the republican drops out!
http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/1009/BREAKING_Scozzafava_drops_out_of_NY_23.html#
i gotta believe hoffman wins the seat...incredible. |
|
| NY 23rd |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
12:35 10.30.09 |
...proof positive i'm a dork.
i'm fascinated.
in an off-year election, could hoffman pull it out? scazzafava is dead in the water. and ownens is a bit of a lame-o.
i'm actually wondering, from a purely partisan point of view, what would be best for the dems?
obviously, owens winning.
but if a hoffman election convinces the republicans to get more and more wingnutty ... well, it's bad for america but great for the dems coming into 2010.
i think owens is going to win a close one, but the extreme excitement of the hoffman camp, with the assist of glen beck, etc. leading up the election, could easily push him over the top by a few points.
man, this is going to be gooooood. |
|
| NY 23rd |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
12:39 10.22.09 |
Deeds will get smoked in Virginia.
Corzine (yuuuuuuuuuuck) will be in a squeaker in New Jersey.
But the real story is going to be in upstate NY-23, where's the special election to replace a Republican congressman:
The Republican heads chose a moderate (who admittedly seems like more than a bit of an idiot).
The Democrats ran some doofus.
And the Tea Parties are running an insurgent.
It's pretty much a swing-type district, but the Republicans have held it for the last 15 years. In other words, a moderate to center-right candidate should roll here.
And the Republican chosen by the party elders would surely have won.
But now it's totally up in the air.
---
In 1998, the Republicans held half of NY's congressional seats.
Today, it's down to 3 for 29.
And in a week, it could be 2.
That's no less breathtaking than the Dems loss of the South in the 1980s and 1990s.
There's plenty of reason to see a resurgence for the Republicans in 2010. But there's only so many seats the South and rural West that aren't already held by Republicans. Once again, the tantrums of the tea partiers may make them feel better, but the idea that going harder and harder right is somehow going to result in a national comeback is a joke. I'm beginning to wonder if these jokers aren't Dem plants. |
|
| this warms my heart... |
| posted by: publius |
09:37 9.22.09 |
| http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2009/09/22/2009-09-22_crazier_than_sarah_palin_tom_delay_in_precarious_position_on_dancing_with_the_st.html |
|
| nothing more represenative of the title of this thread... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
22:13 9.9.09 |
obama has a health care mess on his hands, and a republican congressman yells "you lie!" - loud enough for me to hear the interruption -- when obama was addressing congress.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/09/cnn-confirms-rep-wilson-the-congressional-heckler/
the republicans have a winning hand and they can't stop themselves from heckling the president during a joint session? fucking insane. |
|
| Joe Klein reads the fort. |
| posted by: spacehippie |
02:57 8.21.09 |
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1917525,00.html
Check the last sentence of the fourth paragraph for proof. |
|
| Here's her interview prior to the "Hitler" incident: |
| posted by: spacehippie |
00:26 8.19.09 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcRr5xA-K80&feature=channel
I swear, I think she's PROUD of the fact that her husband works three jobs and has no health insurance.
How uniquely American... |
|
| jesus christ... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
22:41 8.18.09 |
on cue re: health care.
but more importantly...
you want to know why i'm so fucking suspicious of the right wing religious fanatics who go on and on about how much they love israel and jews?
here's why ... and watch how this lady realizes what she just said and immediately switches gears to start on the whole obama is not a friend of israel bullshit.
i expect that the "we love jews and israel" nonsense would normally come before the "heil hitler" ... but i appreciate this woman demonstrating it so aptly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVS4Zgjm8HE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2009%2F08%2F18%2Fwoman-shouts-heil-hitler_n_262554.html&feature=player_embedded#t=94
there is so much about the democratic party to despise, belittle and disturb anyone paying attention.
but there isn't a sane jew in this country who would align themselves with these fucking nutbags. |
|
| there comes a point... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
12:18 8.18.09 |
where you just have to accept the fact that the people pulling this shit, and the birther shit, and the marxist shit, and the islamic terrosist shit are just an irreducible base of racist, nativist, marginalized, angry nutballs.
there's plenty of reason to oppose or dislike obama from a political standpoint.
but there is absolutely no explanation for the instantaneous, irrational, insane hatred obama has stirred.
really, there simply isn't.
taxes haven't been raised, guns haven't been restricted, gays haven't been married on the white house lawn, he's more hawkish on iraq than most would have thought, he's doubling down on afghanistan, he even is supporting some of bush's less-popular eaves-dropping / terrorism policies.
it's totally irrational.
and it's being stoked by right wing tv and radio.
and i'd say it's getting to the point where i actually believe -- for the first time -- that there's a 50/50 chance that there's going to be a credible attempt on his life before it's all said and done.
and of course, if you listened to the right wing media you'd also believe this was a good thing: after all, he's a sleeper agent communist, who is friends with terrorists, who's not an american citizen, who has a "deep seated hatred of white people", who wants to kill your grandma and your diabled kid.
|
|
| this is lunacy |
| posted by: publius |
09:07 8.18.09 |
i like guns. i grew up around guns. i respect guns. they have their place in american society.
that place is most definitely not presidential rallies, and that gun is certainly not an assault rifle.
you have got to be kidding me...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.html |
|
| subject line... |
| posted by: publius |
18:12 7.30.09 |
of my seemingly daily emails from gopusa...
Obamacare = Government Funded Euthanasia and Abortion |
|
| i'm absolutely fascinated and repulsed... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
10:38 7.24.09 |
the birther hit parade...
cheney's daughter (who didn't embrace it, but wouldn't refute it).
lou dobbs (man he's even further off the cliff than with bush).
and now g. gordon liddy in what has to be one of the weirdest, most subdued, most bizarre things i've seen in awhile. i link to wonkette because's it's little description is so fucking right on (and the comments are, as always, delightful).
http://wonkette.com/410063/watergate-criminalbirther-g-gordon-liddy-almost-dies-on-teevee
|
|
| the birthers.... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
12:23 7.21.09 |
watch this video:
http://wonkette.com/409982/birther-gal-goes-nuts-on-republican-congressman
this is the republican base. it's appallingly bad for the republicans, really, because a level-headed moderate would be in perfect position to beat obama if the economy doesn't turn around by 2012. hell, such moderates could clean up in 2010 mid-terms, even.
but instead, this is the face of the republican base: they are *booing* a *republican* congressman for saying the President is an American citizen. and these are the people that are going to give the most time and money to fringe-right candidates in 2010 and 2012. the death spiral continues.
as for the birthers in general, the absurdity of their claims are simple:
it isn't that barack obama wasn't born an american citizen. you can be born anywhere in the world to an american parent and you will become an american citizen. it's that barack obama wasn't born a "natural born" american citizen, as is required by the constitution if one wants to be president.
in other words, barack obama was born in africa, but his parents -- knowing he would one day run for president -- decided to quickly fly back to the united states, fake his birth location, fake the birth announcements in two newspapers, and lie forever about where he was born. of course, this also means that numerous officials in kenya and hawaii were/are/will be in on the scam.
of all the indications that right-wing, white, fundamentalist american is engaged in some sort of self-immolation, this is perhaps my favorite. instead of taking the lessons from 2008 (most of which were george bush was a shitty president who left the country in a mess and 8 years means it's time for a change) they are plugging their ears and screaming that the whole thing was "illegitimate".
this makes the 2004 conspiracy theorists -- the hard core ones who couldn't drop the issue for years -- seem almost reasonable.
|
|
| the birthers.... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
11:57 7.21.09 |
watch this video:
http://wonkette.com/409982/birther-gal-goes-nuts-on-republican-congressman
this is the republican base. it's appallingly bad for the republicans, really, because a level-headed moderate would be in perfect position to beat obama if the economy doesn't turn around by 2012. hell, such moderates could clean up in 2010 mid-terms, even.
but instead, this is the face of the republican base: they are *booing* a *republican* congressman for saying the President is an American citizen. and these are the people that are going to give the most time and money to fringe-right candidates in 2010 and 2012. the death spiral continues.
as for the birthers in general, the absurdity of their claims are simple:
it isn't that barack obama wasn't born an american citizen. you can be born anywhere in the world to an american parent and you will become an american citizen. it's that barack obama wasn't born a "natural born" american citizen, as is required by the constitution if one wants to be president.
in other words, barack obama was born in africa, but his parents -- knowing he would one day run for president -- decided to quickly fly back to the united states, fake his birth location, fake the birth announcements in two newspapers, and lie forever about where he was born. of course, this also means that numerous officials in kenya and hawaii were/are/will be in on the scam.
of all the indications that right-wing, white, fundamentalist american is engaged in some sort of self-immolation, this is perhaps my favorite. instead of taking the lessons from 2008 (most of which were george bush was a shitty president who left the country in a mess and 8 years means it's time for a change) they are plugging their ears and screaming that the whole thing was "illegitimate".
this makes the 2004 conspiracy theorists -- the hard core ones who couldn't drop the issue for years -- seem almost reasonable.
|
|
| ack...soccer link: |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
15:59 6.26.09 |
| http://blog.american.com/?p=2481 |
|
| THIS is exactly what's wrong with the modern conservatiive movement |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
15:58 6.26.09 |
weird, poorly-made logical deductions that ultimately just reverse-engineer however things are into a statement that they are exactly how they should be.
in this case, this douchebag claims that:
(1) America should not have beaten Spain.
(2) The weaker team wins over the better team in soccer in more than any other sport.
(3) "We [Americans] like, as good small “d” democrats, our underdogs for sure but we also still expect folks in the end to get their just desert. And, in sports, that means excellence should prevail. Of course, the fact that is often not the case when it comes to soccer may be precisely the reason the sport is so popular in the countries of Latin America and Europe."
----
I'd be willing to be anyone anything that if soccer wasn't so unconducive to television advertising (and therefore huge revenues for networks and owners) and televised reporting (like dunks, homeruns, and big hits in football) -- it would be a very major sport.
no, it's got nothing to do with that. it's because americans like winners and the rest of the world hates them.
how else do you describe the unparalled joy of the usa hockey team beating the ussr in 1980 - and a trillion other examples of americans falling in love with sporting underdogs - except for that fact.
oh, wait.
|
|
| it gets worse. |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
23:01 5.5.09 |
lazier.
dumber.
worse.
....warning, you will not get your 30 seconds back.
but, then again, i always wondered what could be better than a mitt on palin war? often, i thought nothing.
but now I know, there is something better: a half-baked, one-sided rushed video clip war between the disciples of mitt and palin. because i can't imagine anyone in the world feels strongly enough about mittens to make a cheap, lame homemade video in his defense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niPi-jrZ2aA&feature=response_watch |
|
| it gets worse. |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
22:52 5.5.09 |
lazier.
dumber.
worse.
....warning, you will not get your 30 seconds back.
but, then again, i always wondered what could be better than a mitt on palin war? often, i thought nothing.
but now I know, there is something better: a half-baked, one-sided rushed video clip war between the disciples of mitt and palin. because i can't imagine anyone in the world feels strongly enough about mittens to make a cheap, lame homemade video in his defense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niPi-jrZ2aA&feature=response_watch |
|
| Quitting Drinking |
| posted by: mrbuckles |
21:50 5.5.09 |
You folks out in the hinterlands (as a defense mechanism against the stagnating economy, fleeing companies, massive unemployment, government graft that grips Cleveland, I've taken to viewing Cleveland as the center of the Universe and everything outside as distant other) don't have the pleasure of living in the city of the brewery cranking out some of the finest brews in the land. (Note, as far as I know, none of you live in Delaware with Dogfish Head or in Kalamazoo with Bell's, so I'm sticking to this.) As such, you may be unaware of some of my favorite brews
Commodore Perry -- obviously named, an IPA that (unfortunately for probably most of you) should really be drunk on tap rather than from the bottle. It's 7.5% ABV, so go easy, friends.
Edmund Fitzgerald -- a porter, and while I'm not a porter fan, how are you going to resist a beer with this name?
Eliot Ness -- has any local brewery ever done better with naming their beers?
Blackout Stout -- named for the blackout of 2003 and commemorates the warm day and mass consumption that ensued. 9%, so again tread lightly.
Christmas Ale -- if you've had it, you know. Another high alcohol brew, but so smooth and easy it'll come up on you fast.
Burning River -- a crisp Pale Ale perfect for summer or frankly any time. This is my current personal fav. At 6% it gets you. My God, this just tastes so good you can't stop drinking it. After making your way through 4 or 6, though, you realize it's more of a hammer than you thought.
So, I'm celebrating the first game of round 2 with a few Burning Rivers (again, check out those names) and bouncing around the 'net (a nervous habit when watching these games) and I see that link simpli posted. And it strikes me that I could have stopped at #3 and retained my sanity but I foolishly kept going and I know I have to quit drinking, perhaps altogether, because there's no fucking way I just watched that. |
|
| and with this... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
20:45 5.5.09 |
the thread is closed.
nothing will ever top this in terms of being both bad and embracing the very thing that is destroying you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDOykmey7-I&feature=player_embedded |
|
| it's not even that fun anymore... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
19:22 5.4.09 |
joe the plumber explains that he's got plenty of gay friends, but he prefers to call them "queers" and he won't let them anywhere near his kids.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/04/joe-the-plumber-queer-mea_n_196116.html
the face of the republican party, ladies and gentlemen.
there isn't going to be a republican resurgence if people like this have anything to do -- literally or symbolically -- with the party. now, who is going to be the one to kick them out, and how many people will be left in the party when they're gone? |
|
| Urgent! Vote No on Hate Crime Legislation! |
| posted by: publius |
14:13 4.29.09 |
the above is the subject of a message i received from GOP USA, one of the right-wing fire-breathing sites...it's funny how blatant the right is getting in their attempt to rile up their dwindling base...i'm sure there is a valid point to be made here about possible concerns in regards to free speech when it comes to hate crime legislation...but it's funny to see these people get so up in arms about the "bill will make it a federal crime to cause harm to someone who is" a member of x,y or z...
i suppose i could do a bit of research on this and track down some more concrete details, but i'm not going to...that's simplicissimus's job...
and perhaps no one finds this as entertaining as i do...so be it...
text of the message below....
______________________
The House Judiciary Committee has already approved H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Now it comes to a full vote on the floor of the House of Representatives.
This legislation is an attack on freedom of speech guaranteed to every American by the First Amendment.
The bill will make it a federal crime to cause harm to someone who is a member of a group protected under this law. Groups will be defined based on gender, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation and various social factors.
If passed, this bill can also be used to limit freedom of expression in churches.
Tell your representative that freedom of thought is not a crime.
|
|
| Specter is not lame! Nor are his principles! You should back his choice! |
| posted by: isidorus |
23:55 4.28.09 |
I can see the argument that in a perfect world, one should stick by one's party and suffer the consequences. But that would require the same sort of doctrinaire mindset that has made the GOP such a pleasant place for the Chuck Hagels and Colin Powells of the world. This move is perfectly consistent with specter's track record, and it's one that we all should happy about, both on principle, because it shows one of our best statesmen staying true to himself, and for the outcome, because it will keep him in office for another term.
Specter's pragmatic, scrappy and not defined by his party. He was a registered democrat when he ran as a republican for for DA in 1965, the party thing wasn't working for him, so he switched, but he was never really comfortable. With the recent loss of thousands of registered GOPers in PA, it was inevitable that eventually Specter would lose in a primary battle. So he switches parties. And why not? Neither party's been much good to him, but he's managed to supersede them both anyway -- a huge swath of the country likes and respects him, he's an effective senator, enjoys his job, brings home the bacon for PA. He undoubtedly has a big ego, so why on earth would he not do everything in his power to keep that going? He surely believes that toomey or chris matthews or whoever else is the pennsylvania it boy can't play in the same league as him, and he's probably right. It makes sense that he switches parties, because it keeps him in office. The real shame would be if he stayed in the GOP on a flimsy principle and took a drubbing from santorum 2.0.
I agree that this helps the GOP on paper. But at the risk of sounding unhinged and corny, really it helps everybody interested in democracy, regardless of party, when you have a dedicated, ethical and moderate senator like specter in office. |
|
| the thing is this... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
19:15 4.28.09 |
specter made this decision for one single reason: he was going to lose the republican primary in 2010.
and i just can't back that. it may be reality of politics, but it's ultimately lame.
the funny thing is, no matter how nuts the right is going, specter is doing them a favor:
there's no way toomey (the hard right "it" boy in pa who was going to beat specter in the republican primary) was going to win the senate race against a dem in pennsylvania. so, if specter lost the primary, and toomey lost the general, there would be a much more liberal second senator from pa.
in other words, the republicans will get more votes from specter than whatever dem would replace him. not that that will make much difference to them right now.
of course, the most interesting thing is -- as the thread title states -- the republican party is now officially controlled by people who don't realize that (except in extreme cases of incompetence or corruption) the party that appeals to the middle is the party that wins elections.
and right now, the republicans are in a ridiculously steep negative feedback loop -- as the party shrinks to its hardcore base, it is taking increasingly hardcore positions. the longer this goes on, the more moderates it alienates, and the more hardcore it gets.
but it shows no signs of letting up. i can easily imagine a scenario in 2010 where the ONLY republican senators in the states that were in the union during the civil war are the two moderate women from maine and grassley in iowa.
and there is no way that trend reverse in the next few election cycles after that unless the party moderates -- the very thing it is running from.
stunning. |
|
| What's better? |
| posted by: mrbuckles |
18:39 4.28.09 |
Divorce the following question from Arlen (et alia), because your calculus shouldn't take into consideration a filibuster-proof majority and your feelings on it. You can ponder snarky implications (evaluate the thumb-in-the-eye of "Democrat" Lieberman), but consider it from both angles (that is, evaluate his GOP mirror at the same time).
So, what do you prefer? If you have a major (Senator or Governor or House member of enough stature to be known) politician who clearly tilts toward the other side of the aisle, should he/she switch or not? Note - going from Dem/GOP to an independent or third party make you a total wuss. You can either stay, switch, or paint a yellow stripe down your spine.
|
|
| am i the only one this sorta bums out? |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
17:29 4.28.09 |
i mean, i just never like people that switch sides, at least not after 40 years of pretty public identification with one team over the other.
it's just kind of lame. i'll take it, by if you live your political life a certain way -- and keept getting re-elected on it -- you should be ready to accept the political death it may eventually cause you. |
|
| HB Watch |
| posted by: rabble-rouser |
16:28 4.28.09 |
| Moderate Republicans are leaving the party. Beater, are you ready to make the switch? |
|
| I love Arlen Specter |
| posted by: isidorus |
13:52 4.28.09 |
Always have -- a smart, reasonable and seemingly decent guy.
And now a democrat.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/specter-will-run-as-a-democrat-in-2010/?hp |
|
| ugh. |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
09:54 3.4.09 |
1. i was shocked and saddened that hb wasn't on this video.
2. THIS is why the republican party is fucked. this type of shit is nothing new - from any party and any rally -- but man these people really make the anti-obama crowd look really, really bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNQUA0bI5b0&eurl=http://www.wonkette.com/&feature=player_embedded |
|
| jesus... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
21:27 3.2.09 |
i was about to give steele props from speaking up.
but he couldn't do it:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19517.html
are the republicans this fucking stupid?
obama vs. rush? that's a battle we'll win every fucking time.
i realize that the republicans may be figuring that the "quick path" to a return to power is failure by obama (a real possibility), instead of a rebuilding the intellectual core of their party. if they're right, they'll be back in no time.
but if they're wrong, and they keep on this path, they are gambling with their party's future as a relevant, strong, viable national party. |
|
| this is the thing... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
21:53 3.1.09 |
the republicans, like the democrats before them, are going to have get around to rebranding (i hate words like that, but you dig) or they are fucked.
this country went through 8 years of bushism, which was a mish-mash of social conservatism, cowboy foreign policy, lower taxes, big deficits and budgets, less regulation, and overt religiousness.
some of this was "real" textbook conservatism and some of it wasn't.
BUT IT WAS SOLD AS TRUE BLUE, ALL AMERICAN, 100% RED BLOODED CONSERVATISM.
so, when guys like rush limbaugh (and the rest of the usual suspects, most of who have been around since the mid-1990s) are using the EXACT SAME TALKING POINTS to say that we need more conservative values, most americans think to themselves, "well, i know what happened when i chose the brand that rush, et al. were backing in 2000 and 2004, and now they want *even more* of that? no thanks."
and this why the republican party (like the democratic party of the 1980s) is so fucked - they have to keep their remaining interest groups happy in order to avoid further defeat, but in order to do so they have to give heavy lip-service (if not a lot more) to a bunch of issues that only paint them more in the corner.
they'll get out of this. eventually. by 2010 if obama is a disaster, by 2014 if he's a success ... but so long as the bush years are in everyone's memory, an the same people who backed bush are saying the same things they were saying when they backed him, it's pretty well fucked. |
|
| you answered your question... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
00:07 3.1.09 |
" Pat Robertson beat bush in iowa in 1988. why hasn't it been scary for 20+ years?"
it wasn't scary because bush then sewed up the nomination, and was not an overtly religious guy, or at least didn't show himself to be in public. so, in 1988 the robertson people could be dismissed as a bunch of kooks, and there were still a huge number of "moderate" republicans from maine through the upper midwest and on the west coast.
----
but, you are totally right. the actual religiousness of the republican party, and this country, today is probably lower and less vehement than it's ever been.
i mean, to totally refute what I said before, I saw a quote from BUSH SR. in the 1980s saying he doubted atheists could be good citizens.
can you imagine if that were said today? it could end a career, or damage it greatly.
so what's changed?
1. the fucking internet / cable news.
it's one thing to say that robertson people are kooks, as plenty did, it's another thing to see those same people saying the same things on your computer screen. if it weren't for the internet, i'd say there was scant evidence that race played a factor in most people's vote. i'd still say that the ultimate effect was pretty small (in both directions), but to see some yahoo at a rally spitting venom and getting cheered? the optics of it are just awful for the republican party. i mean i would have no idea about CPAC, let alone it was this week, if it weren't for the internet/cable news. but now i see these idiots ranting and think, "there's the republican party".
2. karl rove.
this guy was like the gm who loads up on high priced free agents in a mad dash to win a title, and thereby fucks the team for the next 5 years. they needed the base to red-line, and they did it - and won the election. but what they got was a very, very fired-up segment of the party who was more than happy to make insane demands ever since. see no. 1 above, so this effect is multiplied.
3. george w. bush. he probably identified himself as a christian more so than anyone in the modern era of politics. you'd have to go a long way back to find any other president who was so overtly fundamentalist. so some of it is simply "bush was scary and bad. bush was a fundamentalist. fundamentalists are scary and bad".
4. the country is more liberal than it's ever been. 30 years ago it was gays teaching children. 15 years ago it was gays in the military, now it's gays getting married. in other words, the "right" political side of history is not getting more strident on religious issues, it's less.
5. the loss of moderate republicans. the moderate republican base is not what it was, but the moderate republican structure is in shambles. i'm talking about everyone east of the mississippi and north of the mason dixon line. i mean, given the trends the only republican power base left intact are the folks from the most conservative places, which means they are free to say what they please and, often, seem to confirm people's worse fears.
6. the current wars. if all that wasn't enough, we've got the fact that fundamentalist base who presumably all believe that armageddon with the arabs is an inevitability and we are in a holy war. that scares the shit out of me for various reasons.
7. obama hatred (over the top variety). the more you guys keep saying things like he's not a citizen, or a radical socialist, or a muslim -- and this stuff still exists -- and the more people watch him, the sillier the republicans look. he's a lot of things, but calling him the worst things possible is counter-productive and makes the republicans look silly.
i guess to sum it up:
thanks to karl rove -- and the need to get bush re-elected -- and the loss of the republican moderate power structure, the internet and cable is now full of people who have been ramped up and are ready to fight to the death on issues (like that this is a "christian nation" and we are in a "holy war") that frighten a lot of people, especially younger folks. and with no standard bearer for the moderate wing, those who are fighting to take the flag are rewarded for winning the right wing by saying some pretty hard core things.
|
|
| but this isn't new. |
| posted by: horsebeater |
23:25 2.28.09 |
this is what i don't get. Pat Robertson beat bush in iowa in 1988. why hasn't it been scary for 20+ years?
thinking out loud, maybe the GOP always had 25% really religious guys and 75% regular guys, and now maybe it feels 50% really religious and 25% pretending and 25% not really?
The 75% in 2009 isn't as religous as the 25% in 1988, but it's the numbers. Is that it? |
|
| yes, maybe... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
21:50 2.25.09 |
and the point on mccain is well-taken.
i'll be the first to admit that criticizing mccain for losing in 2008 to obama is like criticizing the lions for going for the field goal instead of the touchdown in the 4th quarter of one of the 16 games they lost.
you may be right, but there were about a million bigger systemic issues than were pretty much beyond the team's control at that point.
that said, the social/religious angle of the republican party circa 2009 is what's making you guys lose the show.
i had a (truly) semi-serious conversation with a politically active co-worker about how we, circa 2020 or so, could easily see ourselves becoming middle-of-the-road swing voters. assuming, as we did, that the pelosi/reid duo would continue to annoy the fuck out of us.
that is to say, a moderate republican with the bona fides to back it up, could easiy get our votes.
except for one thing: the religious/social conservative wing of the republican party is fucking terrifying.
and i don't think we're alone. the majority of my family, the most non-political group of people i've ever met, voted for bush 1, clinton (2), waved but went for gore, were won over by kerry, and gave money to obama.
and it wasn't taxes, or regulation, or fiscal policy, or any of the major political issues - it was the religious right's increasing power.
being jews, they aren't (and i'm not) a great sample, but i'm telling you: this is a serious republican problem and it's only going to get worse.
for all the talk -- err, worship -- of reagan, you guys are missing the biggest point of all: he never, ever, ever scared people. he may have done some fucked up shit (from the left's perspective) but he always seemed like a great, friendly, genial guy when doing it.
|
|
| do not forget the lesson of perot |
| posted by: horsebeater |
20:59 2.25.09 |
look... maybe i'm biased because i like the new fiscally responsible version of the GOP ... it's long fucking overdue.
but until mccain, the GOP had not, since reagan, ran a candidate that tried to grab the GOP base and add perot voters, and mccain ran into the dual buzzsaws of Obama and W (and still did OK, considering).
they are giving up the moderates who are moderates because they are moderate about everything. but they are gaining some libertarian moderates.
i don't think it's crazy to go in this direction.
we need to do better than jindal, but there's something to this. |
|
| oh, sorry... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
23:56 2.24.09 |
here's the link:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114016/State-States-Political-Party-Affiliation.aspx
i guess what i'm saying is the republicans need to:
1. Moderate; and
2. Hope for Dem failure.
Without both of those things (barring a complete dem meltdown, which is possible but doesn't seem likely), they won't begin to make meaningful gains until 2014. |
|
| just found this... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
23:53 2.24.09 |
and though these numbers could shift dramatically (as they did from republican to democrat between 2003-2008), there's one thing that is clear:
the dems got in this position by running a democratic political master after a 6 year period of disastrous republican rule and the election was during the first pangs of a generational economic crisis.
they did not make these gains by retreating further and further into their irreducible center. which is exactly what a large portion of the republican political class is advocating. |
|
| that's right, michael steele... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
16:44 2.24.09 |
that's right.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/stimulus-package/michael-steele-threatens-to-withhold-rnc-funds-from-gop-senators-who-backed-stimulus/
you may withhold RNC funds from Republican Senators Collins and Snowe (aka the last 2 republican senators from Maine for a few decades) and Arlen Specter (the strongest republican in the state of Pennsylvania by a few thousand miles) because they voted for the stimulus.
seriously, what the fuck is going on with this party?
you take the 3 people in your party who have the MOST cross-over, moderate appeal (you remember that, it was called "Reagan magic") and you're going to kick them to the curb?
and your buddies are treating schwartzenager -- probably the most popular republican in america -- the same?
you're sitting at 41 fucking senators, and you are going to try and get 3 of them voted out of office in states where a more-conservative republican (and, truthfully, hell, nearly any republican who is not them) won't be able to win for at least 2-3 more elections?
outside the deep south, missippi valley, and non-mountain west, your party is getting crushed -- and the demographics in nevada, north carolina, arizona, and texas are against you -- and you want to make sure these 3 folks lose?
are you fucking crazy?
do you want to drive every last moderate out of the party?
|
|
| the gloves are coming off... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
13:39 8.21.08 |
limbaugh calls obama a "little black man-child".
http://mediamatters.org/items/200808200009?f=h_top
naturally, though, limbaugh's feelings have nothing to do with obama's race, he just mentioned black because, well, he wanted to make sure we knew which obama he was talking about.
|
|
| wow. |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
10:16 7.18.08 |
just wow.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/127616.html |
|
| i tried... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
15:02 7.1.08 |
i tried to stay away from this story (something about kicking a man when he's down), but i can't any longer:
the republicans are trying to bring a "defense of marriage" act to the floor of the senate. you know, to prevent those terrible gays from getting married.
and who has to -- just has to -- be a co-sponsor?
two guys who know an awful lot about how inviolate and sacred marriage is:
David Vitter (you remember him, the guy who like hookers a lot) and Larry Craig (um, do i even need to explain).
http://reason.com/blog/show/127256.html
i honestly would think that someone, somewhere would tell these guys that maybe they should stay away from this issue. hell, failing that, i would expect their own self-respect to kick-in. but nope. thank god they're there...who else would defend marriage for us?
this is just another sign to me that the republican right really doesn't have a "plan b". they are going to keep doing what they've been doing for the last 8 years. and i for one couldn't be more pleased with this fact.
|
|
| Rush is an oxy(contin)moron |
| posted by: prankmonkey |
12:21 6.17.08 |
| a pill-pooper AND all bad. |
|
| wait a minute... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
18:54 6.16.08 |
| hb is starting to think like a liberal...could it be? |
|
| hey.... c'mon now... |
| posted by: horsebeater |
17:19 6.16.08 |
| ... rush was addicted to oxy, so he can't be ALL bad. |
|
| Favorite bit |
| posted by: camdolphin |
17:16 6.16.08 |
"Rush Limbaugh has an evidence-backed opinion on the matter. Commenting on the matter last week, Rush said:
That is not an accident. I know these people at Barnes & Noble. I've had many run-ins with them on the golf course. Bunch of huge, left-wing leftists. Absolutely right."
I laughed out loud at Limbaugh and his "run-ins" on the golf course with the geeks who run B & N's search engine. I picture them running onto the course, stealing his golf balls, while he shakes his 7 iron at them. |
|
| you can't make htis up... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
16:48 6.16.08 |
rush limbaugh is apparently on top of a scam by barnes and noble to confuse people into thinking obama is god.
you heard me right...
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/06/16/barnes-noble-we-corrected-error-yielding-obama-book-when-searching
|
|
| i largely agree with this... |
| posted by: horsebeater |
10:09 6.13.08 |
|
|
| How the Right Won The War, Even If It's Losing Battles... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
21:35 6.11.08 |
Something that I've thought about a lot, but never had the time to pontificate (to nobody, I know) about is this:
The right may have jumped the shark -- and it totally has -- but understanding the absurdity of its current state is only half the equation.
The other half is how far it -- through the Republican Party -- has dragged the left -- in the Democratic Party -- much, much further to the center.
Gun Control? Dead.
Abortion? Increased restrictions without any backlash from the population.
The Equal Rights Amendment? Gone.
Talk of Full Employment? Disappeared.
Tax Hikes? Dems will still demand them, but only for high-flying corporations like Big Oil and the wealthiest percentiles.
Balanced Budgets? Now a sacrament in the Democratic Party.
Integration / Affirmative Action / Voting Rights? Utter non-starters.
Tough on Crime? Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (?), which was Clinton's baby, anyone? It's a race to see who can be toughest and you don't hear much about social programs (some of which work quite well), except when somebody is making fun of them.
Welfare Queens? Welfare Reform Act, another Clinton bill.
Health Care? Nobody by Publius is talking single-payer these days.
In other words, Bill Clinton and the Dems of the 1990s didn't just triangulate, they capitulated on all sorts of issues ... and the thing is, most Americans (including the author) are pretty happy with an awful lot of it.
So, the Republicans have screwed the pooch to be sure (with the war, with the budget, with corruption, with incompetence -- and these were among the most gold-plated, successful of the party's core values as recently as 2000), but the moved the country, and the Dems, pretty far to the center before that ...
And if you want any more proof, consider that -- removing corruption, the war, and incompetence for the moment -- Obama and McCain share WAY more in common on Carter and Reagan or Nixon and McGovern or Goldwater and LBJ or Eisenhower and Stevenson...
So, a part of the jumping the shark is (to mix a metaphor, sorry) that the Democratic Party has removed a lot of the bread and butter Republican issues...but did so by adopting them. Which is no small fact. |
|
| you mean i'm not a major political player on the national scene... |
| posted by: publius |
11:00 6.11.08 |
| way to burst my bubble, man.... |
|
| one element of proof that this thread title is true is how... |
| posted by: horsebeater |
11:00 6.11.08 |
... the best advocate in the world for the right these days is a friggin cartoon.
It's South Park (and it's certainly a libertarian right that they are advocating).
Sometimes I watch it simply to remember why I'm on the right. |
|
| no no... |
| posted by: horsebeater |
10:57 6.11.08 |
| ... i mean no big serious political player on the national scene favors single-payer (I don't count kucinich or gravel). i'm not saying it is a frivolous idea (i don't agree with it, but it isn't frivolous) |
|
| i like the fact... |
| posted by: publius |
10:55 6.11.08 |
| that i'm now (well, i suppose i've probably always been) in horsebeater's "no one serious" club because of my espousal of single payer healthcare... |
|
| is this a problem on only the right? |
| posted by: horsebeater |
10:52 6.11.08 |
I mean ... it seems as if the issues on each side are getting less and less.
I mean:
(1) remember 2000 when everyone said there was no difference between Gore and Bush so it didn't matter who you voted for?
(2) remember in 2004 when everyone claimed that the election was incredibly important, except that the domestic policy differences between kerry and bush actually weren't nearly as great as bush and kerry pretended them to be (admittedly there were differences on foreign policy)?
(3) Now, obama and HRC, who really aren't exactly moderates in today's congress, have both said that they won't raise taxes: they'll just let some of the Bush tax cuts expire.
The only BIG open domestic ssue in American politics where the two sides are clearly opposed is health care. That's it. And even there, no one serious is promoting single payer OR arguing for doing nothing.
I kind of feel like there are less issues out there period. |
|
| naturally... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
12:53 6.10.08 |
this is nothing the right has a corner on.
but never has the current situation been better personified than by the "jimmy carter second term line" (which i chuckled about and think is pretty clever).
this is the problem:
obama is connecting mccain to the policies bush, the president of the last 8 years, whom he supported 95% of the time in the senate (ya think you're going to hear that stat a few times before november? it's just as misleading as the "obama is the most liberal senator" line that we're going to hear just as often. which means we'll know both by heart before it's all over).
mccain is connecting obama to the policies of jimmy carter, who was president 30 years ago when obama was a teenager.
in other words, obama is connecting mcain to bush through facts - past statements, past votes, etc.
and mccain is connecting obama to carter through nothing but his say so. he may be wrong, he may be right, but there's no "there" there beyond a gut idea that anyone that's a democrat is gunning for a repeat of carter's presidency. (notice, mccain could have said a third clinton term ... which is much closer to the truth, most likely ... but that line doesn't have quite the mileage).
---
part of this thread is really a homage to the republicans of the 1980s and 1990s. i mean it may have been politics, it may have been nonsense, god only knows, but i can rattle off 6 or 7 things that were the "core" of the republican party. here, i'll do it right now:
strong, hawkish defense
tax cuts
cutting welfare
anti-abortion
pro-business
balanced-budget
cold-realists
competency
with the exception of the abortion issue, these are some pretty damn good credentials. true or not, etc. etc, and ignoring that none of it is ever that simple. generically, though, even i have would be pretty satisfied with a list of these traits in a politician. this stuff is dynamite.
but the bush presidency has seen the death of a lot of this:
the defense issue has been hurt badly by iraq.
tax / pro-business issues are still a net positive but not nearly as much so given the state of the dollar, gas prices, the fact that a lot of the tax rates seem to be pretty constant and the ones the republicans are pushing (estate tax) are not exactly slam dunks.
welfare is no longer an issue.
abortion is pretty much a wash at this point and rarely in public view.
balanced budget is now a wash, at best.
cold hearted realism seems almost as much a dem trait as a republican.
competency? maybe the hallmark of the old republican party. no longer.
----
in other words, the republican right seems to stand for less and less each day. and that's why i think this stuff is so funny.
now, i'm pretty sure this is a natural law of politics (and sports franchises): you start, you grown, you define yourself perfectly for the given circumstances, you obtain power, you can no longer keep all the ball in the air, you become a shell...and from the rubble it starts all over again.
you don't need to look past the democratic party to see that in action. it did nothing to rebuild itself and take the republicans down, save for the republican ceding all sorts of issues for it to grab (i mean, it would have taken 100 years for the dems to convince anyone on their own that the republicans were incompetent or not to be trusted with the military or can't run the economy).
the good news (for dems) is that i think you're going to see dem ascendency for a long time -- 6-12-18 years.
the bad news (for the dems) is that, like the republicans, they'll eventually be reduced to comparing senator horsebeater to george bush and calling him a neo-con long after that means anything in the 2024 presidential election.
|
|
| the lunatics have always been around... |
| posted by: publius |
12:36 6.10.08 |
| it's just easier for them to find each other and coagulate now. |
|
| It seems |
| posted by: rahoohl_dewk |
12:19 6.10.08 |
That in this day and age of media proliferation - there is coverage for EVERYTHING (the Fist Pump?!?!?!?!) which means extremists are given an opportunity to be heard all over the place (e.g. Chris Matthews' show - where the producer who got Kevin on the show should have been sacked and the persons who sacked the producer should have been sacked).
I think in the next 5 months you're going to have a forum for a lot of this to be heard by the masses. Which begs questions, have the loons on both sides of the spectrum been around for a long time but just not had the opportunity to be heard other than in photocopied booklets handed out on Public Square or are they becoming loons because the opportunity to be heard makes people have to say things they haven't critically analyzed (where talking points become their demise).
Just pondering.
|
|
| well, which do you want... |
| posted by: horsebeater |
11:21 6.10.08 |
... when the religious right had more power (or when the media decided to play up the power that the religious right had in an effort to scare the bejesus out of the center?) you complained that they had an agenda that you hated.
now you complain that the right has no agenda?
i think the basic criticism has truth in it. For all of its hokiness, Newt managed to espouse a number of principles that the right could coalesce around. the main problems are (a) Newt got about 50% of what he wanted, so those aren't issues anymore, (b) bush has proposed some big gov education and medicare issues, taking the wind of the sails of the small gov GOP types, so the small gov GOP types have had to shut up.
that leaves national security (where the 10-20% of isolationists in the party have been pushed aside a la ron paul) and social issues (where there is some division on the right).
*******
it's tough or impossible (and wrong) to defend lots of the folks on the right, so I won't bother. i will say that conservativism is more naturally a ideology suited to be the opposition.
it looks like we'll have our chance.
|
|
| I certainly have never believed that idiocy was the sole province of the far right |
| posted by: prankmonkey |
17:21 6.9.08 |
| There's plenty o' crazy to go around. That's why I have, at heart, such little faith in my fellow man and our collective future. Really, what I should do is move to the Mosquito Coast where, according to Harrison Ford, "if it doesn't wash up on shore, we don't need it." But wait, he went bat-shit crazy, too. And I'm much too lazy to leave my air conditioning and Lazy Boy. Guess I'll just sit here and complain. |
|
| you want to see batshit crazy attacks? |
| posted by: publius |
17:06 6.9.08 |
check out the ex-hillary supporters attacking obama...
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/
seriously spend a 1/2 hour in there (pay particular attention to the gentlement and scholars in the comments sections) and you will feel as if you are insane.... |
|
| i could go on and on forever.... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
16:33 6.9.08 |
this guy, and you really have to watch it, attacking obama for appeasement a la chamberlain, and then being forced to twist in the wind on national television because he has NO IDEA what chamberlain has to do with it (talking points, anyone)?
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/15/painful-matthews-humiliates-guest-over-appeasement/
and then there's this: tom delay stating matter-of-factly that unless obama proves him wrong, obama is a marxist:
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/06/05/delay-unless-obama-proves-me-wrong-he-is-a-marxist/
---
i expect this will get funnier as the campaign goes along. i mean, the right is going to have to choose whether obama is a muslim terrorist or a marxist, right? i mean you really can't be both, can you?
oh, sorry:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=gmail&q=obama%20muslim%20marxist
---
i'm reminded of the testimony of one of the guys from bridgeport (daley's center of power) in one of the chicago corruption scandals...he testified about how in the "old days" you had to "earn" your patronage job. that is, you had to be competent and deliver votes in order to get a job you were still expected to actually perform. now, he testified, it was like the young guys had skipped a step and went from being 18 year-olds out of high school to making $100,000 doing nothing ... because they never "earned it" they were lazy and stupid from the word go and, ultimately, were taken down pretty easily.
it's the same thing with the right these days. there's no pretense of a platform or a vision or a record - it's just "islam! marxist! unamerican! elite!" over and over again. and this is all the more incredible given how much power they've held since 2000. i mean, you'd think from listening to them that the right has been a powerless minority party for the last few decades. |
|
| This is called "grasping at straws" |
| posted by: prankmonkey |
16:09 6.9.08 |
| It is comical in its absurdity and shows how incredibly out of touch these talking heads are. It also suggests that, like the world's supply of oil, the Right Wing's supply of effective (key word) vitriol appears to be running low. I mean, how could they possibly think they could get a rise out of anyone wiiht these bombshells? And none too soon. The Right Wing has done more damage to the nation in 7 years than a state full of pot-smoking, married and adopting homosexual atheist performance artists could ever do (I'm looking at, and loving, you, California). |
|
| a compendium if you will... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
11:52 6.9.08 |
something has been occuring to me as of late about the american right wing: they've jumped the shark.
in the old days, the right wing noise machine would usually wait until what we in the "reality-based commounity" would call an "event" or "fact" or "controversy" to launch their attacks on the left.
willie horton, flag burning, gay marriage, etc. as absurd as it all was, i will admit this: there usually was an actual thing that ginned up the attacks.
that seems to have gone by the wayside.
there's this golden nugget - fox news refers to the "fist bump" between obama and his wife as possibly being "terrorist" in nature:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/09/fox-anchor-calls-obama-fi_n_106027.html
which is second only to the national review carping because obama plays "u2", a NON-AMERICAN band at his rallies:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDNlNThiMjMzOTdhNGQ0MjlmNmIzYjE4YmM4ZTM1NjA
|
|
