So what do you think is going to happen? by Niki2

Firstly , Niki will show up with a stupid , pointless double-post !

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 1, 2009 9:30 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

That's cute...so Out will immediately respond with a stupid remark--twice--eh? Get your kicks from being quick on the draw, do 'ya? Okay, do your thing; people with brains out there: What do YOU think?

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 1, 2009 10:15 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Firstly , Niki will show up with a stupid , pointless double-post !

Then Out2Lunch will get slapped around a bit, and start claiming that others here are trying to have him banned.

Ever come up with that "proof", Out? How's that search going?

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 1, 2009 10:29 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Oh, shit, Mike...I asked a question. Please let's not degenerate this thread into snarking right off the bat, okay? At least let it wait a few posts until that has to (as inevitably) start...

How about answering the question instead? Pleeeze?

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 1, 2009 11:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Firstly , Niki will show up with a stupid , pointless double-post !

Then Out2Lunch will get slapped around a bit, and start claiming that others here are trying to have him banned.

Ever come up with that "proof", Out? How's that search going?

Showed it to you more than once , slow kid !

Ask your Uncle ScamBO ! He wants to take over the internet , 'cause it's even less controllable than F*>< NEWS !

Tell you like I tell the bums begging for 'change' : Ask Barack ! He promised you change ! Strangely , they don't have a 'HOPE' !

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 1, 2009 12:06 PM

FREMDFIRMA

*bonks some heads together a'la three stooges*
Be nice, kids.

Nik - I think this has all the wonderful potential I so dearly hoped for, to create a civil (or rather, uncivil!) war within the GOP and maybe put them away for good.

Which is what we SHOULDA done right after the election, but nooo, folks wanted bipartisanship, they wanted reconciliation....

See what it got em, yes ?

I wonder how many times the offered hand is gonna get bit before folks finally realize the truth and fill that hand with an axe instead.

And once we're done with the GOP - the process will accellerate since without any real sincere check against their usurpations and abuses, the Dems will get out of hand about it, without a doubt.

This will FORCE the creation of third parties, which'll have NO CHOICE but to get their shit together in a hurry, and probably lead to the destruction of the "official" Libertarian party as they try desperately to cling to the GOP instead of reaching out to liberals, the same failure they've been working at since giving that bastard Barr the time of day, and I won't be sorry to see them go since they're just GOP-lite.

Of course, for a while there would be political chaos, and whining about "nothing getting done" due to conflicting parties and no majority - that's a danger point cause that's how dictatorships happen, and we've wavered into that turn in the second half of Shrubs presidency and even some of Obamas - but if it goes on long enough, folks might start to realize that the Gov getting nothing done isn't so bad as it seems.

They can't screw us if they're too busy howling at each other, right ?
State govs will have to pick up some slack, and make cuts, but they're already having to do that to feed the fucking bankers.

I plan to do my best to turn the Republican-Conservatard split into a circular firing squad on them, formenting chaos and disorder, and generally casting loose cannons upon their deck at any opportunity - cause I want that party FINISHED, they've wanted Neo-Feudalism in all but name since Hamilton started loopholing the Constitution, and they've never stopped trying not for a minute.

I think it's long past time we outgrew these wretched bastards who think they're our parents and happen to be no good at it, don't you ?

-Frem

There always has to be a price.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 1, 2009 5:48 PM

Okay

I think there's a pretty radical misperception here:
The Conservative Party is in general one of us, a group of long-standing independents, they have nothing to do with the GOP or FOX or whatever. They were raided in the classical fashion by the neocons who seem to want the Republican party to self destruct. I think liberals will find it hard to imagine the possibility that democratic and republican parties are the same entity, and are currently trying to solidify democratic control because all they really care about is power, and manipulate everyone else with wedge issues they care nothing about. I think the whole situation is tragic for the people of the 23rd. Not much they can do about it now. I'm only just in the 24th, the whole thing is gerrymandered all over the place, it's a real salamander fest, and yet Newt seems fairly unhappy with the situation. I guess they party's over when the party commits suicide.

What I think will happen is that TPTB will marginalize the conservatives of all stripes by giving voice to the Glen Beck element, which i far more prevalent in the media than in the population, and it will do so to maintain a solid democratic control, not because it gives a damn about the liberal agenda, but because it thinks that liberals are just as easy to manipulate and pull the wool over the eyes of as conservatives, and IMHO, they are correct.

The result: Wholesale kleptocracy, corporate corruption, more war, and further centralization of power, more of the same of the last 8 years, just pushed to a new limit. At this point I pity Obama. I see on certain issues like the Karzai election fraud, he looked like he was trying to fight it, but then the clintonistas bagged it, and he had to bow down and accept the fraud. The one thing I think he is really in up to his neck at this point is the financial fiasco, as he keeps supporting people like geitner, bernanke, summers, now we watch Storch overseeing CIT? We are so totally screwed.

So yeah, the GOP is self destucting, and Sarah Palin is right there riding the storm surge. This leaves the dems with absolute power. Given that they are the same PTB, regardless of what you think on wedge issues, expect things to get worse.

I did some reading, and PN is correct: Turkey is breaking ties with the west to ally itself with the muslim world in a greater mideast conflict. That means a lot of technology, 70 million people, and an army of a million added to the enemy force in the perian theater, which now makes them larger than us.

Oh, and don't let anyone sign up, I think that this is the war where you are most likely to come home in a box so far. Anyone hear anything about peace protests? Did the idea die just because there are democrats in power?

Rough seas ahead captain

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 2, 2009 5:00 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

For all that the right-wingers here are crowing, I'm sure, I'm amazed that all the insanity that's been going on has given birth to a movement that BUYS far too much of it and doesn't seem to act out of logic or common sense. I fear for America.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our pants

Unfortunately there aren't enough right wingers here really - it would probably make more threads degenerate more quickly, but I think it would still be worth it to hear what they have to say to balance the debate. (and not the ones that are just loopy and spiteful).

I would love to see BOTH parties flushed - there's too much "Hatfield & McCoy" history between them, way too much baggage, solutions become more about effing each other than effing solutions.

If it means that the Reps are vaporized and replaced with new blood and new ideas that aren't tied to addressing a history of hatred first, then so much the better. That might challenge the Dems also.
But that's prolly a fantasy.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 2, 2009 6:47 AM

'...If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.'

--George Washington

No wonder ScamBO wants to be able to pull the plug on the Internet , and disses F*>< News...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/should-obama-control-inter
net

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 2, 2009 6:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Okay

...I did some reading, and PN is correct: Turkey is breaking ties with the west to ally itself with the muslim world in a greater mideast conflict. That means a lot of technology, 70 million people, and an army of a million added to the enemy force in the perian theater, which now makes them larger than us.

Oh, and don't let anyone sign up, I think that this is the war where you are most likely to come home in a box so far. Anyone hear anything about peace protests? Did the idea die just because there are democrats in power?

Rough seas ahead captain

http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/gf.htm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 2, 2009 7:19 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
I think it would still be worth it to hear what they have to say to balance the debate. (and not the ones that are just loopy and spiteful)

I agree, and obviously from the response thus far, loppy and spiteful ARE all there is, sadly.

I wouldn't mind a third party, in fact I think it would be helpful. It's just these "birthers", "deathers", "tea baggers" that I don't want to see BECOME that third party. I'd like to see an IMPROVEMENT, not a degeneration, and their craziness seems to foreshadow degeneration if they truly become a "power".

And yes, I fully agree; the parties we have now could quite nicely be flushed to start anew with something better. But I don't think it works that way very often in reality. And if you think their vituperative toward one another NOW, just imagine... I agree, rough seas ahead from what I see.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 2, 2009 7:29 AM

At this point, Niki, everyone's self-destructing. Nothing's going to happen to Roe v. Wade or your religious freedoms because both parties and this conservative split-off and the government are becoming a laughingstock. They can't do anything when they're in power, and if the parties topple, they certainly can't do jack shit then, either. Most of these people running around gung-ho for militia don't seem to have the balls to use their guns anyway. And don't exactly have to worry about taxes for the rich and the decreasing disparity of wealth if the economy fails, either.

Of course, you'd hope that the economy doesn't fail, because of the widespread suffering that tends to be involved in that scenario, but since TPTB seem intent on driving it into the ground and creating enough strife that they can justify declaring indefinite martial law, let them, they'll just be hanging themselves anyways. The Saudis still want money for the gas to fill up all them pretty planes and tanks, you know.

In the event of the worst case scenario, reach out to your community and have yourself some emergency supplies. I figure life will go on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 2, 2009 8:10 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

That's a pretty radical view of things, and I'm not of the opinion things will get THAT bad. Tho' the signs of our "empire" (because that's what it has been) crumbling have been everywhere for a long time now, not all empires crumble by violence, and it takes a large number of the population to create that kind of havoc. I think Americans for the most part are focused on their own lives and too apathetic (and it would take things going South a LOT more to really motivate them) for revolution. Bear in mind that, even tho' the unemployment rate is actually closer to 20%, that still leaves 80% with jobs, and tho' a minority can start a revolution, it's not in our nature as Americans.

What I worry about is party or parties getting in power that want to shove us more toward the right--SERIOUSLY so--and changing the timbre of the country to something worse than it already is. We're at best a center-right country as it is already. Roe v. Wade could easily fall, as far as I see--it only takes the Supreme Court, and we saw what happened to an election when they were pawns of an administration. At this point, since they've had no luck legally, the anti-abortion factions have taken to minimizing access and acting illegally and violently. It's a short step, given the right conditions, for it to be LAW...

I don't hear SENSE coming from the tea baggers and this new "party", if it is one/becomes one; even discounting the serious nutwings, having them call people who've voted over 90% conservative "RINOS" and sending 5-lb bags of salt to Snow because she voted to get a bill out of committee rings of the same mentality.

I know the pendulum swings and always has, and swings more extremely depending on the last swing; certainly the last election was pretty extreme in its way, but I didn't expect this strong a swing to the opposite this soon (namely, I was hoping some things could be accomplished before it did!). I don't want a government that is even MORE of a joke than it is now, I guess is what I'm trying to say.

Dumbya set up far too many precedents for abuse of power. From my point of view, I don't see Obama as building on these as others do, rather, I see the encouragement of the last eight years toward extremism continuing, and being increased because of the right being ostensibly "out of power". And the upheaval naturally caused by electing an African-American President.

I don't see

Quote:
TPTB seem intent on driving it into the ground and creating enough strife that they can justify declaring indefinite martial law

at all. For one thing, indefinite martial law wouldn't work in America; we're too independent as a people. It's not in their best interest to drive the economy into the ground; the global economy serves them far too well as it is for them to wish that. It's been my view that they like to keep things pretty much status quo; they gain more power surreptitiously that way and avoid serious opposition. I see Obama as trying to help the economy--again, if we focused on cutting the deficit rather than stimulating the economy, isn't that what prolonged the Great Depression? They may not be going at it well, but I don't see them wanting to increase our debt to China OR encourage revolt.

I know we'll have to wait to see what happens; either this conservative movement will split the party, become a new power, replace the party entirely or fizzle. I guess I just don't like the direction and, while our government doesn't work, I firmly believe it's still better than the alternatives out there.

p.s. Hey ho, Byte; our government has been a laughingstock for decades; hasn't stopped or changed it YET, eh? Maybe it'll come to that point, but I don't see it happening via revolution.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 2, 2009 8:27 AM

you would have to storm the party. Easier to do with smaller ones on a smaller scale first. Remember, there's no such thing as a national party in the US, all political parties are state institutions. Anything else is illegal and unconstitutional, and yes, happens anyway, but not above board. The illusion of national parties is created by think tanks and the media, but they've never legally been able to do it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 2, 2009 8:29 AM

Quote:
For one thing, indefinite martial law wouldn't work in America; we're too independent as a people.

We're either apathetic or independent. Pick one. Myself, I'm inclined to fall on the side of apathy, which is why the declaration of martial law will be such a HUGE goddamn joke, one because it'll be obvious there's nothing serious enough for them to declare martial law about, and two, because it'll EPIC FAIL so hard you'll be able to hear them crater.

Quote:
It's not in their best interest to drive the economy into the ground; the global economy serves them far too well as it is for them to wish that.

The global economy is about a few people on the very top playing kleptocracy. They don't care if they wreck the global economy, if they end up with this last few bits of real tradeable capital in the end so they can chill in the tropics, they'll do it.

Quote:
It's been my view that they like to keep things pretty much status quo; they gain more power surreptitiously that way and avoid serious opposition.

I pretty much see martial law and a ruined economy as where the road's headed. The end of the line. Now, probably both the parties failing will ultimately have no impact because the America people are so dependent upon our current system that the idea of creating something new and having real change is terrifying. They'll just create new parties, and the parties have become irrelevant anyway. It's happened in the past, it'll happen again. Each time the curtain for the puppet show falls, though, you have to wonder if the puppeteers are going to come out and take a bow.

Quote:
I see Obama as trying to help the economy--again, if we focused on cutting the deficit rather than stimulating the economy, isn't that what prolonged the Great Depression?

Ask yourself who's driving the backlash against spending. Prolonged Depression? They like that.

Look, I hate the spending because it raises the inflation and screws us almost as bad as the other because it keeps this pathetic gasping fossil breathing. But I'm not an idiot, I know about Keynesian economics. Course, you have to ask yourself whether it was our increased war-time spending, or whether we recovered because we were the only country involved in WWII that didn't get bombed near back into the stone ages.

Quote:
They may not be going at it well, but I don't see them wanting to increase our debt to China OR encourage revolt.

You don't?

Oh, look over there. Job exportation and globalists.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 2, 2009 8:49 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Apathetic and independent are two different things. In general Americans are apathetic about voting, about taking control of their own destinies, but try to actually "rule" them, and it's like they say of the Dems: herding cats. You get the backlash you got against Dumbya. Apathy rules until they start to feel too controlled, and until they think they see something that will change that. Then you get the backlash you got last year.

I don't see the martial law thing nearly as seriously as some do. I think it's just something that would be expected of them, the government being viewed as "protecting the people", as they're supposed to appear to be doing, and don't think it would have a chance of working if they really tried to enforce it.

Quote:
They don't care if they wreck the global economy, if they end up with this last few bits of real tradeable capital in the end so they can chill in the tropics, they'll do it.

I see that as on a personal scale, not as the view of the government. Global economy means profit; screwed global economy means fewer profits.

Quote:
the idea of creating something new and having real change is terrifying

There's your apathy. Americans are still FAR more comfortable than the rest of the world, even the way things are. People have been saying the parties will die for how long? And have they? The idea of "real change" (as it was viewed) was less terrifying than what was viewed as the continued erosion of personal freedoms/rights. I don't expect the parties to disappear any time soon; things work fine for them as it is for the most part, they can do what works for them and call themselves by familiar names to keep the people complacent.

Who's driving the backlash against spending? The Republicans...how does that fit? Backlash against spending is a large part of this new "conservatism", backlash against Dumbya calling himself Republican yet behaving the opposite and running up the debt...Obama continuing it has brought at least the PUBLIC outcry from the Right, not the Left...?

I think we recovered from WWII because of both; war-time spending and being immune from the destruction Europe had to deal with. As to job exportation, I think that was just plain dumb; cheap labor meaning more profits, more short-term thinking. Just how I see it.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 2, 2009 8:57 AM

Quote:
Who's driving the backlash against spending? The Republicans...how does that fit? Backlash against spending is a large part of this new "conservatism", backlash against Dumbya calling himself Republican yet behaving the opposite and running up the debt...

Like I said, think about it. Don't Republicans also like big business? Now, why would they be supporting something that hurts big business? ...Unless it doesn't.

Get help from the government, blur those lines even more, drive out the smaller players because of preferential treatment, concentrate wealth upwards, so even when the dollar fails, you still have assets. Simple.

Look at Goldman Sachs, profited off of every major recession and depression, didn't they? They didn't get government handouts, but they're kind of suspicious for that. I think we've had a few threads discussing whether Goldman Sachs intentionally caused a number of these recessions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 2, 2009 10:39 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
So yeah, the GOP is self destucting, and Sarah Palin is right there riding the storm surge. This leaves the dems with absolute power.

Actually we're hardly self destructing. Its a natural self correction. Conservatives gained power in 1994, then moderated to hold onto power. We were rightfully defeated in 2006 and 2008. Moderate Republicans can't sustain national power.

People vote, they get to choose who will be their leaders. Thats not self destruction, its representitive democracy.

Same thing happened in 1993. Hopefully we'll follow the script and throw out a lot of Democrats next fall.

And don't give Palin all the credit. Fred Thompson was there first.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 2, 2009 1:54 PM

Quote:
And don't give Palin all the credit. Fred Thompson was there first.

So you want Thompson to get his share of credit for wrecking the Republican party, eh?

Niki, what I see happening is what I called it before the 2008 election: a Republican party in disarray, turning inward on itself in a good old-fashioned rat-fight. The Republican party as we know it is no longer any kind of national party of importance, and will continue to shrink until it's little more than a regional party in backwards areas of the deep south, like the Dixiecrats before them. Unless, that is, it moderates itself.

If, as "Hero" claims, this is a center-right nation, it will go center-left before it goes hard-right, as proven in the last election cycle. The mere presence of a hard-right nutbag like Palin on the ticket for the Republicans was all it took to turn the country to the left, cementing Obama's win.

NY23 is still something to watch. Be interesting to see how it shakes out. I'm watching the Texas gubernatorial race, too. It might get REALLY interesting if Kay "Bailout" Hutchison tries to break ranks and run as a third-party candidate. There's already serious backlash against her, both for scrambling and money-grubbing for bailout cash AND for not keeping her word to leave the Senate after serving two terms, which she didn't do. There's also the fact that she's yet another one of those supposed "family values" people who is on at least their second marriage. Seems quicky marriages and divorces ARE a family value to Republicans...

On the other hand, there's Rick "Goodhair" Perry, who's running for his third full term, after finishing off Dubya's aborted second term after he quit. In Dubya's defense, unlike Palin, he actually DID have a better offer.

It'd be great to see them face off against each other, but at the moment it's looking like only one of them will come out of the primaries intact, since both seem dead-set on running as Republicans. Still, there's plenty of civil war and hatred to go around, even within this race; Palin has endorsed Perry, while Cheney is backing Hutchison. In either case, those endorsements might be seen as poisoning the well...

Meanwhile, this remains a prime time for libertarians to take over the Republican party from within, and make it over in their image.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 2, 2009 1:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Firstly , Niki will show up with a stupid , pointless double-post !

Then Out2Lunch will get slapped around a bit, and start claiming that others here are trying to have him banned.

Ever come up with that "proof", Out? How's that search going?

Showed it to you more than once , slow kid !

Actually, no, you didn't. And every time I brought it up, you'd run away. Look back at the posts. See? Every time I mention it, ask you if you're ready to put up your "proof" that I ever tried to have you banned, or admit that you're a lying coward, you run away.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 2, 2009 2:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Actually, no, you didn't. And every time I brought it up, you'd run away. Look back at the posts. See? Every time I mention it, ask you if you're ready to put up your "proof" that I ever tried to have you banned, or admit that you're a lying coward, you run away.

It's been you and ScamBO , together right along , wanting to ban free speech...

You're a sad little sycophant , a slanderous liar , and a punk...Who's got the time for the likes of you ?

And all you can do is sit and whinge for weeks on end , terminally insane idiot...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/should-obama-control-inter
net

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 2, 2009 3:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Actually, no, you didn't. And every time I brought it up, you'd run away. Look back at the posts. See? Every time I mention it, ask you if you're ready to put up your "proof" that I ever tried to have you banned, or admit that you're a lying coward, you run away.

It's been you and ScamBO , together right along , wanting to ban free speech...

Again, can you please show me where I tried to ban free speech? Anywhere? Ever? You can't, because you're just making it up. In other words, you're lying, like always.

Quote:

You're a sad little sycophant , a slanderous liar , and a punk...Who's got the time for the likes of you ?

Well, apparently you do, sweetie. And I've actually caught you lying, several times, and called you on it. At which point you've run away. So all those things you call me? Add "coward", and you've painted a portrait of Out2Lunch.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 2, 2009 5:24 PM

Getting back on track, it looks as though the Republican in the New York 23rd district is now endorsing the Democrat, rather than be associated with the "Conservative Party" candidate, who doesn't even live in the district, and who referred to their local political issues as "colloquial" - apparently he's less interested in representing the district than he is in being part of a "movement".

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 2, 2009 5:34 PM

As for martial law... Good luck with that. Sure, many will knuckle under, whether because they want to "support the troops" that are marauding their neighborhoods at night, or because they're just apathetic, and don't even notice what's going on outside their window because a new season of "American Idle" [sic] is just starting up.

But there are others who will gleefully hurl buckets of sand into the cogs of The Machine, who will happily fling monkey wrenches into the gears of the best-laid plans. Those are the folks who go out at night and poster the city, knock out red-light and speed cameras, and generally disobey authority just as a big "Eff You" to that authority.

Others still will take a decidedly... more radical approach.

Me, I'll keep on keepin' on. If I *DID* decide to do anything radical, the very last place I would ever talk about it would be online. Hell, if I were up to no good, I wouldn't even tell my closest friends or family. Plausible deniability, and all that.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 2, 2009 8:05 PM

I agree with Byte that a few at the very top are crashing the world economy, but i'd say their motive as not island bound, but to buy everything.

I disagree with Hero, I think moderation wins. Reagan/Bush were pretty moderate, but Newt was more moderate, taking a lot of tips from Perot. The dems went balls to the wall left around McGovern. I suppose people could call Clinton moderate if I'd let them call him human, but as for '94, the dems self destructed on corruption, just like the gop did in '06. Bush was balls to the wall right wing, and that screwed it for everyone, esp. as he wouldn't support any moderate candidates. Obama came in as a moderate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 2, 2009 8:05 PM

I agree with Mike. When he commits an act of terrorism, he won't post it to a public forum. He's in a minority :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 2, 2009 8:27 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Byte:

Quote:
Don't Republicans also like big business? Now, why would they be supporting something that hurts big business? ...Unless it doesn't.

I don't get what you're saying..."Conservative Republicans" don't want to have a stimulus, they want to decrease the debt; and they're against taxes. I was questioning your theory that liberals were actually behind the Republican party. What is it they are supporting that "appears" to hurt big business yet doesn't?

Oh, thank you Mike, that's a breath of fresh air. That's what it seems like to me, too, I guess because I'm not given to seeing shadows and conspiracies ALL the time (just some of the time!), tho' I don't see them becoming a regional party of no importance, I guess that's what scares me. I want to see them get MORE sensible, not less--and wouldn't it be wunnerful if the libertarians DID get power, that would be something to look forward to!! I want to see them recognize that a hard-right-only party can't gain national power, even if this is a center-right country (and I recognize it is). This "purging" isn't something I see the American people buying into...rarely if ever does the pendulum swing THAT far either direction.

Texas will be interesting to watch, yes; the NY 23rd is a done deal as far as I can see. I kinda don't understand it, given how badly he presented himself regarding local issues, but having her endorse the Dem isn't doing any good from what I see. Looks like Florida will be interesting too, as there's a target painted on Crist's forehead. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

I'm not wise enough or educated enough to debate a lot of this stuff; I don't know as much as a lot of you so it leaves me in somewhat of a deficit. So all I can do is try to understand what I can, read what I can, and take my best guess...

Thing is, too much in either direction, either side having too much power, are both bad, to me. Dems opened up to let the Blue Dogs in, Repubs accepted the Moderate Repubs; the tent needs to be big enough on either side for us Independents to make a choice. If you have hard-core idealogs on either side and nothing in the middle, I don't think it's healthy...there are an awful lot of us who aren't hard core ANYTHING, where are we supposed to go? Idealogs don't compromise, and government has to include compromise.

How do you compromise with idjits who say we should fear the health care bill more than anything else in the world, including terrorism??? That is, of course, if that's what she really BELIEVES and it's not just more bullshit. Do any of them believe the bull they've been spewing (the ones in government, I mean...I'm pretty sure most of those on the street believe their own placards and slogans).

I don't see this National Emergency thing as an attempt at martial law any more than you do. I don't see anyone in our government (aside from maybe whackos in the Senate or House) thinking martial law is possible, certainly not nationwide. Cracking down on people hasn't worked here in Berserkeley, Chicago, or even recently...Philly was it? America's too big, I don't think martial law would ever work; and right now anyway, where would they get the troops to enforce it?

So much

, so many conspiracies; I think life MIGHT just be a bit simpler in many ways than paranoia might lead us to believe. Tho' of course just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you...

What do I know anyway?

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 2:39 AM

Quote:
I want to see them get MORE sensible, not less--and wouldn't it be wunnerful if the libertarians DID get power, that would be something to look forward to!! I want to see them recognize that a hard-right-only party can't gain national power, even if this is a center-right country (and I recognize it is). This "purging" isn't something I see the American people buying into...rarely if ever does the pendulum swing THAT far either direction.

Oh, there WILL be a more sensible party in the middle - what's up in the air is whether or not it will be called the Republican Party. Some think that the name's been poisoned by the neo-conservative movement, and can't survive its recent move so far to the right. I think it still has brand recognition, and just needs a bit of rehab. But parties imploding and disappearing isn't really a rare thing - it just seems that way in recent memory. Heck, the Democrats underwent a pretty massive rebirth and renewal in the last 50 years. Maybe it's time for the Republican party to join them in the 20th Century! ;-)

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 4:39 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Niki, what I see happening is what I called it before the 2008 election: a Republican party in disarray...The Republican party as we know it is no longer any kind of national party of importance, and will continue to shrink until it's little more than a regional party in backwards areas of the deep south, like the Dixiecrats before them. Unless, that is, it moderates itself.

Wow, so by winning in Virginia, New York, and perhaps in New Jersey we are somehow losing our national appeal.

Not sure how victory is evidence of disarray. Not sure how competing and winning in three very different regions is evidence of marginalization.

Virginia is a moderate/Republican state we lost big to Obama, now big to Republicans. New Jersey is as blue as a state can get without dying from lack of oxygen and we're too close to call. The New York 23 is a traditionally very conservative district that rejected the Democrat and moderate in favor of a grass roots conservative that best represents their values. All this in spite of the full weight of the White House and the Democratic Party.

Sounds to me like a rejection of your argument and liberal policy across the board (granted its a limited board this year, but still). Polls show more people nationwide consider themselves conservative then moderate or liberal (but not combined).

I note for the record these same arguments were present in 1993 and just as wrong then. Same way arguments in 2001 about the demise of the left were wrong.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 6:55 AM

OPPYH

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I know Roe v. Wade would be gone in a flash. They'd surely stop spending, thinking lowering the deficit would be a better way to stop the depression (recession my ass); and isn't that what prolonged the Great Depression? I see the possibility of religion in government increasing (sure, "conservates" aren't always ultra religious, but many of them ARE), harder line internationally, tax breaks for the rich (because "tax break" are golden words to the right, without realizing that tax breaks end up benefitting the rich more than anyone else), a potential upswing in violence (aren't militias usually hard right?) and so many other potentials...I can't even watch politics on TV right now, it's too depressing. What with Obama not making headway, the upcoming battle over the environment, and this upsurge in conservative politics...I search for movies, even bad ones.

For all that the right-wingers here are crowing, I'm sure, I'm amazed that all the insanity that's been going on has given birth to a movement that BUYS far too much of it and doesn't seem to act out of logic or common sense. I fear for America.

Everything will get worse before it gets better. Don't worry so much.

I still think Hillary was a much better choice for president, but we've got Obama. Given time I think he will live up to his promise.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 10:57 AM

So "Hero", if you think it IS a national referendum, it can't look good for Republicans. After all, for the first time since before the Civil War, the New York 23rd will NOT be represented by a Republican. So if there's a national-ness to this referendum, it's a rejection of Republicans.

Also, you left out Houston, where an openly gay woman is poised to win the mayoral race in what is a VERY right-wing city.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 11:16 AM

Quote:
I was questioning your theory that liberals were actually behind the Republican party. What is it they are supporting that "appears" to hurt big business yet doesn't?

Liberals? Where did you get that? Since when do liberals declare martial law? When they're sticking flowers up the muzzles of guns that fire rubber bullets?

No, I'm saying that both parties are controlled by a third group. Liberals who follow the democratic party are not being lead by other liberals, but people who are PRETENDING and putting up a nice face of wedge issues. Same with Republicans, they're not conservatives like we might consider them, but they counter the democratic wedge issues and get actual conservatives to flock to them. Between the two parties and their wedge issues, that's all that partisan followers see.

The don't see that there's people sticking stuff into bills when the public isn't paying attention, advising administrations from both parties (Clinton AND Bush AND Obama). Mostly it's corporate lobbyists, though there's some other even more scary influences, and they play a big role in international policy.

Just follow the money.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 11:55 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
it's a rejection of Republicans.

Its a primary...something they forgot to have in the special election.

And as for the 23rd being R from the Civil War...your forgetting:

Scott Lord (D) 1875-77
John Spriggs (D) 1883-1887
Henry Bently (D) 1891-1893
Joseph Goulden (D) 1915 (Died, seat lay vacant)
Daniel Oliver (D) 1917-1919
Richard McKiniry (D) 1919-1921
A slew of Democrats from 1935-1973
More Democrats from 1979-1993

I note for the record that redistricting makes this a bit confusing.

In 2008 Republicans won by 31 pts. That was a conservative Republican.

Scozzafava, a pro life, pro Obama Republican was chosen not by primary, but by 11 party chairpersons who felt the Obama election signaled a shift towards moderation. Voters in the district disagreed and are supporting the alternative Republican/Conservative choice, a choice they would have made had a primary election been held. This is voter will.

You guys aren't even making good arguments against the points I'm making. Instead somehow victory is a sign of our problems. By that standard Obama and Pelosi should just retire.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 12:34 PM

Quote:

And as for the 23rd being R from the Civil War...your forgetting:

Scott Lord (D) 1875-77
John Spriggs (D) 1883-1887
Henry Bently (D) 1891-1893
Joseph Goulden (D) 1915 (Died, seat lay vacant)
Daniel Oliver (D) 1917-1919
Richard McKiniry (D) 1919-1921
A slew of Democrats from 1935-1973
More Democrats from 1979-1993

Sorry, I should have been more clear, and said that PARTS of the district haven't been represented by a Republican since before the Civil War, according to Huffpost. Sorry for the confusion.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 4:09 PM

Byte,

Language problem. People use politically tinged words interchangeably:

Left-liberal-democrat
or
Right-conservative-republican

When these are not the same thing. Yes, you're correct, a 'liberal' would not impose martial law, but the left or democrats might do it, and in many countries have. So might the right or republicans. In general, since it's a big govt issue, I'd say it's more of a left issue, but it's not something that a conservative or a liberal would do.

There have been a number of fights about language here and I've been roadkill to many of them. Still, it's an understandable error.

As far as your analysis goes, I think it's pretty spot on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 4:23 PM

Quote:
In general, since it's a big govt issue, I'd say it's more of a left issue...

Makes it a bit odd that the biggest growth we've seen in government's size and power in recent years have come at times when the right was in power. Reagan, who was never anything even CLOSE to a conservative (which makes it all the harder to understand why he's seen as such a hero to the right-wingers), MASSIVELY increased both the size and cost of government, and then Dubya did it even more, trying to out-Reagan Reagan. It's odd that it's only been in the past year that "conservatives" have tried to claim that Bush was never one of them, when for the previous eight years he was their poster boy, their "chosen one", their "messiah".

It seems most people just see big government as a PROBLEM when it's a "left issue"...

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 4:28 PM

NY districts change shape all the time, I'm not sure you can give them a long history.

The area were talking about is the St. Lawerence, in particular, Watertown. This is solidly republican territory. If the local republicans chose Scozzafava, I think that was their right. Sure, they could have had a primary, but the Texas GOP should *not* interfere and override their choice.

Sarah Palin is pretty popular there, and so her endorsement of the conservative candidate probably had some influence. The GOP lied to the locals by saying that she would be present at the rally, which gave the Hoffman a larger audience than Biden.

A couple other notes:

1) I suspect that the NY GOP chose because they thought she had Palin appeal. Palin, prior to being chosen, was pretty moderate herself.

2) The Club for Growth belongs nowhere in politics. This is really obscene.

3) The corruption of the election by the RNC and associated think tanks should never be rewarded.

4) The democrat should not be given the seat while holding 36% of the vote, that's equally obscene, and internationally over at centuries, has been a disasterous move for any democracy.

I think the logical solution to this was for Paterson to appoint Scozzafava as an interim appointment, regardless of whatever party, for one year, until a regular full election can be held.

That said, I don't have issues with Hoffman. He's a local who shares the political values of the constituents. I do think that he had to make some faustian deal to get this kind of support, so of course everyone will be watching, which they should.

I'm assuming Hoffman won, I haven't heard. Here in the 24th we have Arcuri who has been pretty much a pawn. The 22nd has a real firebrand. We used to have a pretty strong leader in Boehlert.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 7:31 PM

Mike,

no one here ever claimed that Bush was a conservative, not even Auraptor. I think that there was a lot of noise about Bush and big govt. from the right. FOX news would rarely mention it, but I think it started when Bush created a huge Homeland Security bureaucracy with 300,000 employees. This is a conservative's nightmare. It's like communist China. At the time, the argument against it, from the right, was that such an agency would never get anything done, and that if there were an actual disaster, it would be far more of an obstacle than an aid. When that theory was proven correct in 2005, even FOX attacked Bush's big govt. Then someone gave them the call, and they fell back in line, because all MSM puppets are still on strings.

So, no, conservatives were not happy with a 3 trillion dollar budget, a trillion trade deficit or 8 trillion in debt. But when we complained about it then, the left blogosphere either noted that "some conservatives are attacking bush, yay" or they ignored it, because they wanted to be divisive. Pretty consistently I can say that about 1/3 of conservatives couldn't stomach the Bush admin, which would have made Kerry an easy win, except that 1/3 of liberals couldn't stomach him, and okay, there was some cheating, I won't defend the GOP. But it just seems that now when the same conservatives who complained about the Bush admin excess are complaining about more of the same from the Obama admin they are painted as partisan whiners.

I concur that Reagan was an ass. He did some decent things though. Govt. goes up and down, and basically both parties like big govt. No one's govt. was as big as FDR's though. Not yet anyway. Small govt. really only existed pre WWI.

Also, this brings into question the whole concept of what or who is govt. My take would be that govt. is anyone that governs, elected or not. So even though the FED is a private corporate consortium, it's a form of govt., because it governs. I mention the FED because it's the single biggest force pushing for bigger govt. so that the govt. will borrow more money.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 7:38 PM

By the way, looks like the Democrat took the New York 23rd. So is that a repudiation of Republicans, or a repudiation of the ultra-right "Conservative" party, or both?

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 7:43 PM

Quote:
This is solidly republican territory. If the local republicans chose Scozzafava, I think that was their right. Sure, they could have had a primary, but the Texas GOP should *not* interfere and override their choice.

Sarah Palin is pretty popular there, and so her endorsement of the conservative candidate probably had some influence. The GOP lied to the locals by saying that she would be present at the rally, which gave the Hoffman a larger audience than Biden.

Pardon me, but this seems contradictory. The *Texas* GOP shouldn't interfere, but the *Alaska* GOP *SHOULD*? Shouldn't they all stay out of it? In fact, shouldn't they pretty much stay out of it if they don't actually live in that district?

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 4:38 AM

Mike,

1. Sarah Palin is not the Alaska GOP
2. Sarah Palin is personally popular in the district, maybe she should move their ;)
3. I was not advocating Palin's interference, or importance, just recognizing it: The choice of the candidate by the local republicans was to get the Palin vote. They stratetically probably should have gotten Sarah Palin, or at least her support.
4. You comment on Palin's personal involvement but not Newt Gingrich? Maybe this is because you think of Newt as a person, and not the GOP of GA.
5. The TX GOP actually *was* there, 200 members of the organization, helping to organize the Conservative Party run for the office, which is illegal.

Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich are citizens, as is Joe Biden. Any of them can show up, as can Taylor Swift if she wants, and then they can support whomever they want. They're not political parties. The line is when a political party delivers cash, connections, and staff, into someone else's election. Legally, none of the above can contribute money.

Sure, it should be local, but nothing ever is. We live in a country with a lot of things like national media. If you carry it to a logical extreme, what does Kanye West have to do with New Orleans? But sticking to a more common sense level, what does Hillary Clinton have to do with New York? A state that she has spent less time in than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Mikhail Gorbachev. Maybe Gorbachev should run for Senator from New York. It would make more sense for him to run for Governor from New Jersey.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 8:14 AM

Was the Texas GOP there as the Texas GOP? Or were they there as "concerned citizens"? I know Dick Armey was there.

As for it being illegal for one party to try to funnel money into a candidate's coffers, I think you need to check into that. Far as I know, the national committees of either party use their funding wherever they see fit, or where they think it will do the most good.

You seem to be willing to split hairs over this. They can't go as "the GOP", or as representatives of any "party", but they CAN go as citizens. What's the difference? How can you tell the two apart? Is Sarah Palin still a registered Republican? Is she the number one most-recognized Republican in the country at the moment?

Put it this way: What would you, or any other "conservative", have said if Barack Obama had taken a vacation day to go campaign in the district? Was he acting as President, or was he acting as head of his party, or was he just a concerned citizen?

I commented on Palin's involvement and not Newt's just out of convenience. I could have pointed out either of them. Or Glenn Beck, Michael Steele (is *HE* the GOP? Or is he just a citizen who happens to be the head of the national party?), John "Boner" Boehner, or any number of other people who went there or campaigned for any of the three sides. Far as I know, Palin didn't actually APPEAR anywhere in the district, just tried to lend her clout to a candidate in her capacity as an unemployed blogger and unrepentant Twit. Er, I mean "Twitterer".

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 8:18 AM

By the way, what does Hillary have to do with New York? Not a thing. But y'all were silly enough to vote for her, so there ya go. ;) I thought it was ridiculous that she was even able to run for the Senate as a resident of New York, since she hadn't lived there for basically decades before running. I guess she just didn't think the junior senator from Armpit - er, I mean ARKANSAS - had as much cachet as the junior senator from New York. I s'pose it's like Dubya running as a "Texan" - he's not really from here, ya know. He's one o' them "Ivy League east-coast New England elites" he like to rail against. Even has a couple Ivy League diplomas his daddy bought him to prove it. But Americans were stupid enough to believe he was "just folks" and from Texas, so I guess they might as well be stupid enough to accept Hillary as a New Yorker...

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 1:30 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well, let's see:

Given around 60% of those polled said their vote was about state and local issues, with pretty much an equal percentage of the remainder saying it was either pro- or anti-Obama and the Administration, no, I don't think the Governor races are something to crow about.

Certainly it's not good for the Democrats to lose any race, but consider this: 60% were voting on local issues, another 20% were pro-Obama. That makes 80% NOT sending an anti-Democrat message with their votes. How do you perceive that as a major victory?

As for NY 23rd, the Democrat took it. If you're looking for "messages", I think that kinda says the New Conservative Movement isn't promising--especially if it splits the Repubican voters. I think a primary should have been held; if the Republican candidate represented both the GOP and the Conservatives, maybe they'd have won. As it is, the vote seems to me to indicate a MODERATE victory, as the conservative didn't appeal to Democrats (who should have lost, everyone said, because it's a Republican district) OR Republicans.

I will grant you New Jersey, which is usually Democratic. But Virginia going for Obama was a fluke last year, and probably a backlash against Bush. That it returned to its conservative roots doesn't surprise anyone.

And Christie's win had more to it than an anti-Democrat statement:

Quote:
Voters in that race told exit pollsters that the economy and jobs were the No. 1 issue, followed by high property taxes. But in a sign that Mr. Christie has his work cut out for him, a majority of voters said they did not believe any of the three candidates had a workable plan to lower property taxes. New Jersey has the highest property taxes in the country.

You can't just say "A Republican Governor won, we're on a roll!" Things aren't that black and white.

So you actually got one REAL win, one expected win, and a loss for the conservative movement. The Dems got one REAL loss, one expected loss, and one unexpected victory. Kinda balances out, to me.

What saddens me the most is the defeat of same-sex marriage in Maine. Yes, it was close, but still sad. Not over yet and eventually it will be accepted as interracial marriage is (note that reverend who wouldn't marry interracial couples has resigned; good riddance!). These things take time...

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 1:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

As for NY 23rd, the Democrat took it. If you're looking for "messages", I think that kinda says the New Conservative Movement isn't promising--especially if it splits the Repubican voters. I think a primary should have been held; if the Republican candidate represented both the GOP and the Conservatives, maybe they'd have won. As it is, the vote seems to me to indicate a MODERATE victory, as the conservative didn't appeal to Democrats (who should have lost, everyone said, because it's a Republican district) OR Republicans.

Yup, and it was just about a 100% certainty that the Republican would have taken the race if the crazy far-right nutjobs hadn't gotten into the middle of it. They figured it was better to lose the district than to see it go to a moderate Republican - or more likely, they figured there was no way it could go to a Democrat, so they couldn't lose. Look at how that worked out for 'em.

Quote:

I will grant you New Jersey, which is usually Democratic. But Virginia going for Obama was a fluke last year, and probably a backlash against Bush. That it returned to its conservative roots doesn't surprise anyone.

Joisey went with a moderate Republican instead of a moderate Democrat, so it's just about a wash. And Corzine really kind of pissed a bunch of fat people off when his best effort at an attack ad was to call his opponent a fatty. Seriously, John? That's the best you can do? Let's see what Christie can accomplish. He might do well for the state; Corzine sure as hell hasn't seemed to do much, according to the people not bothering to support him. It might be a win for Republicans, but it might also be a bigger win for the people of New Jersey.

Quote:

What saddens me the most is the defeat of same-sex marriage in Maine. Yes, it was close, but still sad. Not over yet and eventually it will be accepted as interracial marriage is (note that reverend who wouldn't marry interracial couples has resigned; good riddance!). These things take time...

Yeah, that one bummed me out, too. Was really hoping it would stick. Sucks to be that JP in Lousy-ana today, though.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 4:46 PM

Mike,

The word on the street was "a couple hundred people from the TX GOP ordering people about." It doesn't matter if they're concerned citizens, they're not concerned citizens of the district. That's different from a celebrity endorsement of Joe Biden, who unlike Sarah Palin, actually showed up.

As for national parties: No such animal. I worked in politics for a few years, and I'm very familiar with this. The short of it is: It's *very* illegal. When Hillary did it she plea bargained against a felony charge for doing it. She was sentenced to "giving the money back to the state of CA dem party" The CA dems had willingly given it, but that's illegal, yes.

If Obama had showed up, no one would have given a damn about the election, they would have said "Hey, it's the President. Awesome." But Joe Biden *did* show up, and people said "Hey, it's the Vice President." I think people were glad he took an interest, and I think it paid off that he did.

But any American can go or say whatever they want, as long as it doesn't involve money and power. If an organization shows up with money and staff, and officially I think that the TX GOP was there under the umbrella of the "Club for Growth" then that isn't concerned citizenry or politics, it's corruption.

I think it's normal for Biden or Gingrich or Palin to support candidates, and they supported 3 different candidates. In the end it was Biden who made the difference, maybe because he's VP, or maybe because he actually bothered to show up. But he didn't show up with staff and cash and start ordering people about.

I admit it's a grey area, but so isn't everything. I mean, if you want to be technical and go powergamer rules lawyer, get out a pencil and rulebook, you can say that "No, we are not at war in Iraq or Afghanistan, we have no operations in Pakistan or Iran and we've broken no international law in troop placements." Yes, that's all true. But in the spirit of the matter: Yes, it's a war. Sometimes, common sense has to prevail. I don't want people who are normally associated with one another under a group called Halliburton to one day start calling themselves "Concerned citizens for clean energy" and use the same power money and staff they always use, and then the day after go back to being Halliburton without anyone calling them out on it.

Here's a bone for you: My uncle knows everyone on the secret energy panel. They used to be called the API. American Petroleum Institute. One day, they decided to call themselves the Energy Panel. They're lobbyists for oil companies, and so their names were withheld from the press. All of this is corruption.

Just calling it as I see it. Sean Penn and Cindy Sheehan can come and do whatever they want in Watertown, NY, short of crime, and that would include them showing up at democratic meetings, replacing staff, funneling money, giving orders, and taking over the operation. But if they want to comment on their favorite candidates, people will listen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 5:01 PM

Re: Hillary.

I didn't. Lots of people didn't. But the level of corruption in NY politics is extreme. It's a long story, but essentially, funds and resources (information and staff) were withheld from opposition candidates. Even the GOP supported Hillary this way: They supported a random unknown against a popular known in the primary, and then withdrew all support in the general election. The basic logic is that there are more morons who vote from the TV ads then there are concerned citizens.

Large population states are notoriously corrupt, NY, IL, CA, TX, FL, because that's where the money an power is, and so that's where the corruption is. In spite of the vote total, it's far easier for Hillary to become senator from NY than VT. But also, in any given year, only 1/3 of senate seats are up for grabs, and most of those aren't really. It has to be an open election or against an unpopular senator. You can't sail into CA and run as a senator against either Difi or Boxer and expect to get anywhere, any more than you can against Collins or Snowe in Maine. OTOH, it's very possible Specter will retire, leaving an open free for all in PA. Additionally, due to the corruption scandal, opposing Chris Dodd is probably pretty easy. If their elections are coming up, which I don't know if they are.

A final note on this, it's easy to come in when a party is fucking up. This didn't help Hillary in 2000, but it did in 2006. It's real hard to be a challenger, and especially a republican, in a blue state, running in the late Bush years, against someone who has all the corruption on her side.

We don't really have elections here. You can see by the whole Watertown scene how NY politics runs. That's how every race is run pretty much. My sisters' district, the candidates were a guy who pulled a gun on his wife vs. the guy who broke into the county office building to steal the files to find out that the first guy had pulled a gun on his wife. If those are your choices, well, you're fucked. The people elected the guy who pulled a gun on his wife, Kuhl, pronounced Cool, who is now expected to lose to any challenger.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 5:13 PM

Quote:

You can't sail into CA and run as a senator against either Difi or Boxer and expect to get anywhere, any more than you can against Collins or Snowe in Maine. OTOH, it's very possible Specter will retire, leaving an open free for all in PA. Additionally, due to the corruption scandal, opposing Chris Dodd is probably pretty easy. If their elections are coming up, which I don't know if they are.

2010 might get a bit interesting - Carly Fiorina, the former (ousted) CEO at Hewlett-Packard, says she's going up against Boxer in California. And 2012 might be the end of Joe Lieberman, which is why he's so desperate to line his pockets now and line up that insurance-industry lobbying job for when gets the boot.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 5, 2009 12:03 PM