A Tea Party Win in Delaware

D

deleted15807

Guest
Last edited by a moderator:

misterfun

Just Browsing
Joined
May 18, 2008
Posts
8
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
86
Location
west coast
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Is America going to vote against extremism? I am not so sure. Their wins make me very concerned...the extremists should not be winning at all.
 

Mensch1351

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
343
Points
303
Location
In the only other State that begins with "K"!
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
The most frightening thing about all these "incumbent" upsets is that it seems ANGRY Americans would blindly vote for "anyone" to replace the establishment -- regardless of their creditials. It looks like Father Guido Sarducci would have a fighting chance at the Presidency with this attitude!!
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
And Paul Paladino wins the Republican Primary in NY. Absolutely astounding.
In some ways, this makes the choice in November an obvious one for Democrats, moderates or anyone with a rational brain. But you have to wonder just how many folks have been duped by this phony-ass "anger message" being generated by some people from the extreme right.

Christine O’Donnell is another joke. Once a spokesperson for abstinence on a "Sex In the 90s" special on MTV, she ran a campaign where she constant referred to her opponent as being gay like that's supposed to mean anything bad. Is this the best you can do from the Conservative camp these days?
 
Last edited:
D

deleted15807

Guest
And Paul Paladino wins the Republican Primary in NY. Absolutely astounding.

Yep. The Republican Party always counted on the intolerant racist whackos to win. Now they've broken off to form their own racist intolerant party. Now HOW can the Republican Party win now?

Of Paladino the NYTimes reports:
The result was a potentially destabilizing blow for New York Republicans. It put at the top of the party’s ticket a volatile newcomer who has forwarded e-mails to friends containing racist jokes and pornographic images, espoused turning prisons into dormitories where welfare recipients could be given classes on hygiene, and defended an ally’s comparison of the Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, who is Jewish, to “an Antichrist or a Hitler.”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

deleted15807

Guest
Karl Rove loves her...


ok, actually he tried to throw her under the bus on Fox News...

lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Jlh1EsgS7Q

Yes a humbled Karl Rove who should be in jail for treason if the democrats had any balls, is now trying to explain away the results. He's been writing for weeks now in the WSJ about how bad the democrats are going to lose. Well now the calculus doesn't really add up. Fuck you Karl!!


FoxFixedNews created the TeaParty and this Frankenstein hoping it would propel the Republicans to victory. And now Frank is out and running free turning on his creator. Fuck you Roger Ailes!!

 
Last edited by a moderator:

LambHair McNeil

Experimental Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Posts
201
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
488
Age
34
Why does everyone here bemoan the loss of supposed republican "moderates" while any democrat that doesn't go along with party orthodoxy is considered a pariah?

After all, republican "moderates" are loved because they're willing (quite often) to spit in the eyes of the leaders of their own party and vote with the left, while democrats who take a stand on their personal morals and hock phlegm in the same manner have seen that they can be rooted out of their own party and be forced to run as independents.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
After all, republican "moderates" are loved because they're willing (quite often) to spit in the eyes of the leaders of their own party and vote with the left,

There you have it 'vote with the left' as if anything other than the official party platform is 'the left'.

They even have a purity test. Well considered it but clearly there must be an alignment to get the holy water sprinkled on you.

GOP Considers 'Purity' Resolution For Candidates
 
Last edited by a moderator:

LambHair McNeil

Experimental Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Posts
201
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
488
Age
34
There you have it 'vote with the left' as if anything other than the official party platform is 'the left'.

They even have a purity test. Well considered it but clearly there must be an alignment to get the holy water sprinkled on you.

GOP Considers 'Purity' Resolution For Candidates


Eh, so the republicans openly ruminated about instituting a purity test. If they'd done it, it would have been done in the name of a type of vote-purity discipline that already exists inside the Democratic party. Or am I mistaken when I read other sites/blogs that label so-called blue dog dems as traitors to the cause if they don't toe the party line??

If you really wanted to do all you could to bring back moderates into both parties, you could start by supporting the ending of the practice of drawing Congressional districts so as to all but pre-ordain outcomes and repealing the 17th Amendment on how Senators are selected/elected.

And perhaps while you were in a rush to post what you did, you might have missed my question: Why does everyone here bemoan the loss of supposed republican "moderates" while any democrat that doesn't go along with party orthodoxy is considered a pariah?
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
126
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
Why does everyone here bemoan the loss of supposed republican "moderates" while any democrat that doesn't go along with party orthodoxy is considered a pariah? After all, republican "moderates" are loved because they're willing (quite often) to spit in the eyes of the leaders of their own party and vote with the left,
Really? Can you give us some recent examples of any note?

. . . while democrats who take a stand on their personal morals and hock phlegm in the same manner have seen that they can be rooted out of their own party and be forced to run as independents.
Really? Can you give us some recent examples of any note?

 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
126
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
Eh, so the republicans openly ruminated about instituting a purity test. If they'd done it, it would have been done in the name of a type of vote-purity discipline that already exists inside the Democratic party.
Whaddaya know? I think I did a thread on this right after the RNC convention in January.
Full text of the RNC resolution:
RESOLUTION CONCERNING PARTY SUPPORT OF CANDIDATES

WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee have recently supported primary or special election candidates who professed allegiance to the Republican Party but who, as their circumstances changed and to serve their own interests, turned against the Republican Party and became or supported a candidate of another party; and
WHEREAS, many Republican leaders and Republican organizations were undermined and lost credibility as a result of the actions of such candidates; and
WHEREAS, there will be many more decisions regarding the support of candidates, and many more opportunities to enhance or diminish the credibility of Republicans and Republican organizations, in the coming election cycle; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee urges its leadership and the leadership of all Republican organizations to carefully screen the record and statements of all candidates who profess to be Republicans and who desire the support of Republican leaders and Republicans organizations, and determine that they wholeheartedly support the core principles and positions of the Republican Party as expressed in the Platform of the Republican Party adopted at the 2008 National Convention; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee urges that no support, financial or otherwise, be given to candidates who clearly do not support the core principles and positions of the Republican Party as expressed in the Platform of the Republican Party adopted in the 2008 National Convention.
As approved by the Committee on Resolutions, January 28, 2010.

I'd be fascinated to see a resolution or any document from the Democrats that compares with this in any way.

Your turn. :cool:
 
Last edited:

gymfresh

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
1,633
Media
20
Likes
155
Points
383
Location
Rodinia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I can't help but think that this surge of whackadoodle (& very white & over 50; no coincidence) candidates is the flameout of a group of poorly informed, irrationally scared voters who want to "take back America" to some vague notion of a country where they enjoyed some privilege just on the basis of religion and race. It's like the last stage of an Apollo rocket before it goes into silent orbit.

My hope is that the extremism of O'Donnell and Paladino helps to nationalize the election, dragging down Republican candidates everywhere by association with whackos.

If not, it will be a very interesting Congress with the likes of O'Donnell (DE), Rand Paul (KY), Sharron Angle (NV), Joe Miller (AK), Mike Lee (UT) and others. All whirling dervish media whores who can't dismantle government fast or far enough.

I've argued for years that the Republican Party was getting hijacked and for its own survival would need to split into Center-Right republicans (claiming more of the center) and the American Fascist Party. We're seeing something like that in the Tea Party, disguising themselves as independent libertarians but most frequently running under the Repub mantle. The National Republican leadership has now lost 8 of the candidates it was backing to Tea Party challengers. Not so with Dems. What party is in trouble?

Could the pundits be waaay off? Could the Democrats actually end up with more seats in November than they have now? That would make Obama's agenda very interesting in the next 2 years, and cause an epidemic of tea party aneurysms.
 
7

798686

Guest
Sorry to ask this, but as a Brit it's been hard getting my head around the Tea Party movement. What is it exactly? And what are the pros and cons of its views?

I've read it's a movement for fiscal responsibility - and basically seems like a bunch of rich ppl campaigning for less state interference and more economic freedom (especially from environmental concerns), along with a sounder federal budget?; but is it a lot more complicated than that?

Also, is it mainly composed of Republicans, er...or not?

Thanks. :)
 

gymfresh

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
1,633
Media
20
Likes
155
Points
383
Location
Rodinia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Case in point to my comment about the Republican party getting weird with their canditates, liberal political observer Keith Olbermann has recently tweeted:

"Here's the Tea Party problem. Pro-bestiality candidate wins in NY; anti-masturbation candidate wins in DEL. How big a tent could it BE?"


(For friend who aren't up on all this, I offer:

Gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino has sent friends email of sex between a horse and a woman (and some pretty racist, tasteless Obama stuff)

Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell is beyond nuts with her ties to anti-masturbation and gay-to-straight conversion groups.)
 

gymfresh

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
1,633
Media
20
Likes
155
Points
383
Location
Rodinia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Joll, think middle-class baby boomers with a Prudy Pingleton-like reaction to black people and immigrants. They believe government is "out of control", without a clear definition of whether that means too large, too spendthrift or just enacts policies they don't agree with or understand.

The irony is this group was nowhere to be found during the Bush/Cheney or Reagan years, when the US seemed determined to spend itself down to the molten core of Earth itself.

Rabble-rousers and underwriters of the Tea Party are largely invisible to the majority of the movement, and include the Koch brothers of Texas and other extremely wealthy people who essentially want to pay no taxes and do whatever they want to with government land and resources (pollute, develop, drill, stripmine, etc.). It's not that Obama is any less fiscally wise than Bush was; just that he's threatening to let the Bush tax cuts expire.

Given that Reagan and Bush II reliably slashed taxes on the unimaginably wealthy, hurtling the country every deeper into deficit spending, there was no reason for the ultrarich to underwrite or foment a revolt.

Despite scant evidence that deeply cutting the taxes of the very rich results in more jobs or any sort of economic growth, it remains a cherished refrain of the Republican party. Tea Party members seem sort of confused by all this, since most of them personally will see their taxes go down under Obama. Still, they seem to be scared out of their skulls by something vague -- they tremble and even cry real tears that our government has become "socialist", arrogant and unpredictable. Oh, and they don't like people of color, gays, immigrants or Muslims.
 
7

798686

Guest
Thanks Gym.

Ahh...oh dear. Sounds like hard-right Conservatives, with extra bigotry thrown in (plus moral outrage?). 'Big business is best, and socialism or helping the poor/environment is a devilish nightmare destined to end in ruin'?

Hmmm - I got the idea Obama was more fiscally aware than Bush, although the health-care reforms seem hugely expensive (but necessary?). Slashing taxes for the rich seems unfair and unwise - the UK Tories promised to raise the inheritance tax threshold so ultra-rich didn't have to pay that much, altho that seems to be quietly dropped from the agenda.

I agree with a certain amount of rolling back the State (as it became unsustainably bloated over here under Labour), but moderate taxes for everyone, and a relatively moderate welfare system, seem like the best balance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Why does everyone here bemoan the loss of supposed republican "moderates" while any democrat that doesn't go along with party orthodoxy is considered a pariah?

Because it isn't true. The mass majority of Democrats this year have not been voted out for more extreme leftists. The Blue Dog Democrats have not all lost their nominations due to primaries. Besides, conservatives should be thankful that most of them aren't like Alan Grayson. Could you imagine if everyone in the House & Senate were progressive with a big set of balls who had no problem telling people to STFU with eloquent frankness? Conservatives would be pissing in their pants right now.

As if they aren't already. Paul "I'm a human so I can use any racist word I want in a public forum" Paladino and Christine "I'm an abstinence only princess who thinks being gay isn't worthy of being in office" O'Donnell. Good job validating the nut jobs, GOP.
 
Last edited: