On Nov 4, 1:37 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
> Tom Enright wrote, On 11/4/09 12:28 PM: > >> The GOP fumbling away NY 23, though, is hilarious. > > This must be the "addition by subtraction" that TimV is talking about. > Not really. The GOP was going to win Virginia this year > regardless -- Deeds was a poor candidate, especially for > a low-turnout election. Them's the breaks, man, you can't > win 'em all.
> Corzine and NJ... well, it's about time that somebody from > Goldman Sachs lost his job.
Yer busted. You really are a right-winger sleeper. I listened to a Rush Limbaugh for about 10 mintues today, 10 lousy minutes, and it's like you and him are exchanging emails.
He played a recording of a few days ago of his own bad self saying something like: "Watch, they'll say that Deeds was a bad candidate, that voter turn- out was low, this really has nothing to do with Obama or the DNC etc."
And today he said:
"Oh, Corzine lost because he a Wall Street Big Shot. That's the new story. It was that voters were fed-up with rich guys, because evidently they just figured-out were his money came from."
So Chris, the cover is blown, it's great to have you aboard.
PS: Over the years I rarely listened to Limbaugh, but the last few months I have. Although he is hardly an intellectual one thing he really, really has down is what the response of the media will be to his comments or to events. He nails it. "Watch the news tomorrow folks, this is exactly how they will report this....."
-Tom Enright
"Sotomayor Speeches Woven With Ethnicity"--headline, Washington Post, June 5 "High Court Nominee Criticized Stereotypes"--subheadline, same story
> > On Nov 4, 12:35 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: > >> NapalmHeart wrote, On 11/4/09 1:47 AM:
> >>> I vote for the Goldwater roots. The smaller government roots. The don't fuck with me roots.
> >> You mean the same Goldwater who regularly expressed open > >> contempt for the religious right? Again -- he would be > >> run out of the GOP on a rail today.
> > The "religious right" has little to no pull in the GOP today, and in > > their best of times they were little more than a scary bedtime story > > that liberals read to their children at beddy-bye time.
> Hence the lack of a litmus test on abortion rights... oh, > wait.
Both parties have an abortion "litmus test." And I, for example, am against abortion and it has zero to do with my religious beliefs.
> > OTOH, Robert Byrd would be run out of the DNC on a rail today. > I would hope.
> On Wed 04 Nov 2009 01:42:57a, Dan Bretta (nuda...@yahoo.com) wrote
> > On Nov 3, 11:35 pm, Va Beach Hokie <wjl...@provider.com> wrote: > >> On Wed 04 Nov 2009 01:09:11a, Dan Bretta (nuda...@yahoo.com) > >> wrote
> >> > Virginia going GOP is...well...not a surprise.
> >> It's not a surprise, but not for the reasons you think.
> >> Our last two Govs have been Democrats and neither really > >> screwed up. There is a bit a budget crunch happening, but > >> that's just the economy. I've had little to bitch about with > >> either Kaine or Warner before him. Both were pretty moderate > >> and had decent numbers. Warner could easily have won a 2nd > >> term if our constitution didn't prohibit it.
> >> The reason it wasn't a suprise is that Creigh Deeds is an idot > >> and IMO ran a lousy campaign. Both campaigns went negative > >> early. Deeds went after McDonnell on women's issues and > >> McDonnell went after Deeds on taxes. Money trumped this > >> election.
> > I wasn't trying to slight Virginia...even though you've had back > > to back Democratic govs it's still a GOP leaning state.
> Not really, at least not as Governors. Since Reconstruction, we've > only had 5 GOP govs. And all of those since 1970. > Holton R > Godwin was a Nixon D who switched parties in 1974. > Dalton R > Robb D > Balliles D > Wilder D > Allen R > Gilmore R > Warner D > Kaine D
> Prior to Holton, it was all controlled by the Byrd Machine.
> We seem to prefer the middle of the road. Go too far either way > and you'll likely cost your party the next two elections. (See > Gilmore, Jim)
> On Nov 3, 10:45 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: >> lein wrote, On 11/4/09 12:08 AM:
>> > On Nov 3, 9:16 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: >> >> lein wrote, On 11/3/09 11:15 PM:
>> >>> On Nov 3, 9:05 pm, honkifyoulovejustice >> >>> <the.tick.honkifyoulovejust...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> On Nov 3, 8:38 pm, "Highway 66" <kduv...@charter.net> wrote: >> >>>>> "Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote in message >> >>>>>news:yc-dnV7m9aYMnmzXnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@supernews.com... >> >>>>>> New York's 23rd Congressional District goes to the Democrats >> >>>>>> for the first time since the Whigs were the other party. >> >>>>>> And with that, the Dems' majority in the House actually >> >>>>>> increases a seat. >> >>>>>> cb >> >>>>> Humm .. I'm watching all the news networks and no one has >> >>>>> called th > at race >> >>>>> yet? If the Dem does win that race then you can enjoy your >> >>>>> consolat > ion >> >>>>> prize! Bwahahahahaha!!! >> >>>> NY-23 was supposed to be a beachhead for the Wingnut Party, a >> >>>> historically safe GOP district where the nouveau-right >> >>>> carpetbaggers could come in, plant their flag and wedge one of >> >>>> their own into the Congress. The GOP rolled over and played >> >>>> dead, giving in to the wingnut outsiders who tried to run on the >> >>>> tired old teabagger issues > . >> >>>> And as a result, a red seat went blue for the first time in 140 >> >>>> year > s, >> >>>> despite the push by Palin and Limbaugh, and the last-minute >> >>>> fellatio > n >> >>>> by Newt Gingrich. >> >>>> If that's a consolation prize, send me a whole truckload of 'em, >> >>>> 'cause they're mighty tasty! >> >>> What NY-23 was a rejection of the establishment "lets be like >> >>> Democrats" Republicans choosing who would represent them in the >> >>> election. This will be good for the party as the Republican >> >>> voter > s >> >>> will actually get to pick a candidate of their choosing next >> >>> spring, one that doesn't support Cap and Trade, card check, etc. >> >>> Had t > he >> >>> RINO won, she would have likely been unopposed in the primary. >> >> Shorter Lein: "This election made it possible for the >> >> teabaggers to find some other moron to fumble away a >> >> sure GOP seat to the Democrats."
>> > Actually it means the Republicans will have a primary next year and >> > can actually remake the party into something other that the >> > status-quo Democrat lite party.
>> ...at which point it will attract even fewer voters!
>> Also, the Conservative Party will have their own nominee if the >> GOP doesn't play nice. Right, John?
> Nope, Hoffman will be able to run in the Republican primary. > Republicans generally don't win as left wingers - the county chairs > who selected what's her name should be taken out and flogged.
Hoffman couldn't win as an independent with no Republican in the race - why do you think he suddenly is a better candidate as a Republican?
>> I'm just trying to see why I shouldn't be endlessly smug >> and annoying about this.
> Because given the out-right domination of Republicans in Virginia and > Jersey, its all you have.
Jersey - RINO (at least in teabaggers viewpoint) beats Democrat.
Virginia - Teabagger acceptable conservative goes out of his way to not ever mention his social conservatism in campaign to win.
I'd call it a win for the Republican party, but a pretty big loss for the teabagger "they're not Republican enough" crowd.
> Jim Brown wrote, On 11/3/09 11:50 PM: >> On Nov 3, 10:31 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: >>> New York's 23rd Congressional District goes to the Democrats >>> for the first time since the Whigs were the other party.
>>> And with that, the Dems' majority in the House actually >>> increases a seat.
>> I doubt you will believe it, but there are getting to be a lot of >> (former) Republicans more than willing to lose a few elections in the >> coming years in order to bring the party back to the its roots.
> Which roots? I mean seriously, which roots? The Nixon roots? > The Goldwater roots? The Rockefeller roots? The Hoover roots? > The Lincoln roots?
Bingo.
Nixon, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Bob LaFollette - those guys would get RINO'ed out of the party today.
Get back to the roots? That's Fremont/Lincoln then.
I'd LOVE if the Republican party went back to those roots.
> "Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote in message > news:9P2dnXp7JaAAv2zXnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@supernews.com... >> Jim Brown wrote, On 11/3/09 11:50 PM: >>> On Nov 3, 10:31 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: >>>> New York's 23rd Congressional District goes to the Democrats >>>> for the first time since the Whigs were the other party.
>>>> And with that, the Dems' majority in the House actually >>>> increases a seat.
>>> I doubt you will believe it, but there are getting to be a lot of >>> (former) Republicans more than willing to lose a few elections in >>> the coming years in order to bring the party back to the its roots.
>> Which roots? I mean seriously, which roots? The Nixon roots? >> The Goldwater roots? The Rockefeller roots? The Hoover roots? >> The Lincoln roots?
>> Yeah, I know, you think that Reagan is your roots, but face >> it, Reagan would get run out of the GOP on a rail today by >> the teabaggers -- Sandra O'Connor would have been more than >> enough. Besides, he was the undisputed king of post-WWII >> deficit spending until Bush 43 came long, so if you think >> Bush represents a departure from your Reaganite past... >> no. He was the logical extension of Reagan in just about >> every way imaginable.
>> So I honestly just do not get this "bring the party back >> to its roots" business, unless in the most politically >> cynical context -- "we need to be popular again."
>> cb
> I vote for the Goldwater roots. The smaller government roots. The > don't fuck with me roots.
You mean this Goldwater?
"I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process."
"I don't have any respect for the Religious Right."
"Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass."
"A woman has a right to an abortion."
"I don't have any respect for the Religious Right. There is no place in this country for practicing religion in politics. That goes for Falwell, Robertson and all the rest of these political preachers. They are a detriment to the country."
"A lot of so-called conservatives don't know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right."
> > Jim Brown wrote, On 11/3/09 11:50 PM: > >> On Nov 3, 10:31 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: > >>> New York's 23rd Congressional District goes to the Democrats > >>> for the first time since the Whigs were the other party.
> >>> And with that, the Dems' majority in the House actually > >>> increases a seat.
> >> I doubt you will believe it, but there are getting to be a lot of > >> (former) Republicans more than willing to lose a few elections in the > >> coming years in order to bring the party back to the its roots.
> > Which roots? I mean seriously, which roots? The Nixon roots? > > The Goldwater roots? The Rockefeller roots? The Hoover roots? > > The Lincoln roots? > Bingo.
> Nixon, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Bob LaFollette - those guys would get > RINO'ed out of the party today.
Nah, they'd keep all those guys. Bush II was as socialist as TR and Nixon. Lincoln? That's going back a bit far to make that statement.
> Get back to the roots? That's Fremont/Lincoln then.
> I'd LOVE if the Republican party went back to those roots.
I don't believe you. I rarely, if ever, see you complain about the expansion of governmental power. In fact, you typically defend it.
JFK and Truman would be out, out, out in today's DNC, but the two worst presidents of the 20th century, FDR and LBJ, would be welcomed with open wallets.
-Tom Enright
"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again." -Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957
On Nov 4, 1:52 pm, Dan Bretta <nuda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 12:17 am, Va Beach Hokie <wjl...@provider.com> wrote:
> > We seem to prefer the middle of the road. Go too far either way > > and you'll likely cost your party the next two elections. (See > > Gilmore, Jim)
> Interesting. You're the Iowa of the South.
I'm not sure if that's cool, or if I have to come back out there and kick your ass.
On Nov 4, 1:31 pm, Tom Enright <freddy_ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I vote for the Goldwater roots. The smaller government roots. The don't fuck with me roots. > > You mean the same Goldwater who regularly expressed open > > contempt for the religious right? Again -- he would be > > run out of the GOP on a rail today.
> The "religious right" has little to no pull in the GOP today,
The religious right as a formal organization/coalition? No. Not like, unfortunately, the Blue Dog influence in Democrats (which I don't know how Obama is criticized as governing liberally when moderate senators and bluedogs and the whitehouse itself has watered down almost everything they've done).
Social conservatives as a group absolutely are influential. Hoffman vs. Scorfozza? Rubio vs. Christ? Specter beign run out of the party? Palins popularity with the base?
On Nov 4, 2:28 pm, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 1:31 pm, Tom Enright <freddy_ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > I vote for the Goldwater roots. The smaller government roots. The don't fuck with me roots. > > > You mean the same Goldwater who regularly expressed open > > > contempt for the religious right? Again -- he would be > > > run out of the GOP on a rail today.
> > The "religious right" has little to no pull in the GOP today,
> The religious right as a formal organization/coalition? No. Not like, > unfortunately, the Blue Dog influence in Democrats (which I don't know > how Obama is criticized as governing liberally when moderate senators > and bluedogs and the whitehouse itself has watered down almost > everything they've done).
Dude, what's it REALLY boil-down to? The religous right, the Blue Dogs etc. have their say and criticize their own party but when comes down to it they aren't going to change who is the majority leader in Congress. That's the real power. We have Blue Dogs, but we also have Nancy Pelosi.
> Social conservatives as a group absolutely are influential. Hoffman > vs. Scorfozza? Rubio vs. Christ? Specter beign run out of the party? > Palins popularity with the base?
IAWT
-Tom Enright
"Over these is elevated an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate. It is absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle. It would resemble the paternal power if, like that power, it had as its object to prepare men for manhood, but it seeks, to the contrary, to keep them irrevocably fixed in childhood … it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs…" -M. de Tocqueville, 1847
On Nov 4, 1:27 pm, Va Beach Hokie <wjlm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 1:52 pm, Dan Bretta <nuda...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Nov 4, 12:17 am, Va Beach Hokie <wjl...@provider.com> wrote:
> > > We seem to prefer the middle of the road. Go too far either way > > > and you'll likely cost your party the next two elections. (See > > > Gilmore, Jim)
> > Interesting. You're the Iowa of the South.
> I'm not sure if that's cool, or if I have to come back out there and > kick your ass.
> On Nov 4, 2:07 pm, The BorgMan <m...@me.net> wrote: >> Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote >> innews:9P2dnXp7JaAAv2zXnZ2dnUVZ_ > rqdn...@supernews.com:
>> > Jim Brown wrote, On 11/3/09 11:50 PM: >> >> On Nov 3, 10:31 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: >> >>> New York's 23rd Congressional District goes to the Democrats >> >>> for the first time since the Whigs were the other party.
>> >>> And with that, the Dems' majority in the House actually >> >>> increases a seat.
>> >> I doubt you will believe it, but there are getting to be a lot of >> >> (former) Republicans more than willing to lose a few elections in >> >> the coming years in order to bring the party back to the its >> >> roots.
>> > Which roots? I mean seriously, which roots? The Nixon roots? >> > The Goldwater roots? The Rockefeller roots? The Hoover roots? >> > The Lincoln roots?
>> Bingo.
>> Nixon, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Bob LaFollette - those guys would get >> RINO'ed out of the party today.
> Nah, they'd keep all those guys. Bush II was as socialist as TR and > Nixon. Lincoln? That's going back a bit far to make that statement.
He said "roots" - that is Lincoln and Fremont Republicans.
Bush was neither as liberal economically as Nixon, nor as liberal socially as Nixon... never mind a progressive like TR.
>> Get back to the roots? That's Fremont/Lincoln then.
>> I'd LOVE if the Republican party went back to those roots.
> I don't believe you. I rarely, if ever, see you complain about the > expansion of governmental power. In fact, you typically defend it.
Lincoln expanded federal government power more than any other president not named FDR.
> JFK and Truman would be out, out, out in today's DNC, but the two > worst presidents of the 20th century, FDR and LBJ, would be welcomed > with open wallets.
Would they get a presidential nomination in todays DNC? Probably not - but there are currently Democrats serving that are more conservative than either JFK or Truman.
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:28:05 -0600, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
>Highway 66 wrote, On 11/3/09 11:26 PM: >>> It's not surprising that the governorships of >NJ and Virginia went GOP >>> tonight...NJ is highly taxed and the economy >sucks..people want change >>> there.
>> Hmm .. so people don't like high taxes and the economy sucks .. that doesn't >> bode well for the Democrats nationwide does it!
>Or, it could just be that people are repulsed by the rich lately.
"I want money Lots and lots of money I want the pie in the sky!" -- "Why do we never get an answer When we're knocking at the door With a thousand million questions About hate and death and war?" David J. Hayward
> > On Nov 3, 10:45 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: > >> lein wrote, On 11/4/09 12:08 AM:
> >> > On Nov 3, 9:16 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: > >> >> lein wrote, On 11/3/09 11:15 PM:
> >> >>> On Nov 3, 9:05 pm, honkifyoulovejustice > >> >>> <the.tick.honkifyoulovejust...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>>> On Nov 3, 8:38 pm, "Highway 66" <kduv...@charter.net> wrote: > >> >>>>> "Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote in message > >> >>>>>news:yc-dnV7m9aYMnmzXnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@supernews.com... > >> >>>>>> New York's 23rd Congressional District goes to the Democrats > >> >>>>>> for the first time since the Whigs were the other party. > >> >>>>>> And with that, the Dems' majority in the House actually > >> >>>>>> increases a seat. > >> >>>>>> cb > >> >>>>> Humm .. I'm watching all the news networks and no one has > >> >>>>> called th > > at race > >> >>>>> yet? If the Dem does win that race then you can enjoy your > >> >>>>> consolat > > ion > >> >>>>> prize! Bwahahahahaha!!! > >> >>>> NY-23 was supposed to be a beachhead for the Wingnut Party, a > >> >>>> historically safe GOP district where the nouveau-right > >> >>>> carpetbaggers could come in, plant their flag and wedge one of > >> >>>> their own into the Congress. The GOP rolled over and played > >> >>>> dead, giving in to the wingnut outsiders who tried to run on the > >> >>>> tired old teabagger issues > > . > >> >>>> And as a result, a red seat went blue for the first time in 140 > >> >>>> year > > s, > >> >>>> despite the push by Palin and Limbaugh, and the last-minute > >> >>>> fellatio > > n > >> >>>> by Newt Gingrich. > >> >>>> If that's a consolation prize, send me a whole truckload of 'em, > >> >>>> 'cause they're mighty tasty! > >> >>> What NY-23 was a rejection of the establishment "lets be like > >> >>> Democrats" Republicans choosing who would represent them in the > >> >>> election. This will be good for the party as the Republican > >> >>> voter > > s > >> >>> will actually get to pick a candidate of their choosing next > >> >>> spring, one that doesn't support Cap and Trade, card check, etc. > >> >>> Had t > > he > >> >>> RINO won, she would have likely been unopposed in the primary. > >> >> Shorter Lein: "This election made it possible for the > >> >> teabaggers to find some other moron to fumble away a > >> >> sure GOP seat to the Democrats."
> >> > Actually it means the Republicans will have a primary next year and > >> > can actually remake the party into something other that the > >> > status-quo Democrat lite party.
> >> ...at which point it will attract even fewer voters!
> >> Also, the Conservative Party will have their own nominee if the > >> GOP doesn't play nice. Right, John?
> > Nope, Hoffman will be able to run in the Republican primary. > > Republicans generally don't win as left wingers - the county chairs > > who selected what's her name should be taken out and flogged.
> Hoffman couldn't win as an independent with no Republican in the race - why > do you think he suddenly is a better candidate as a Republican?
> >> I'm just trying to see why I shouldn't be endlessly smug > >> and annoying about this.
> > Because given the out-right domination of Republicans in Virginia and > > Jersey, its all you have.
> Jersey - RINO (at least in teabaggers viewpoint) beats Democrat.
Anti tax and anti government growth (i.e., opposes turning NJ into another Michigan)
> Virginia - Teabagger acceptable conservative goes out of his way to not > ever mention his social conservatism in campaign to win.
Funny because McDonnell has repeatedly claimed to be pro-life and supports traditional marriage.
> > > On Nov 3, 10:45 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: > > >> lein wrote, On 11/4/09 12:08 AM:
> > >> > On Nov 3, 9:16 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: > > >> >> lein wrote, On 11/3/09 11:15 PM:
> > >> >>> On Nov 3, 9:05 pm, honkifyoulovejustice > > >> >>> <the.tick.honkifyoulovejust...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >>>> On Nov 3, 8:38 pm, "Highway 66" <kduv...@charter.net> wrote: > > >> >>>>> "Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote in message > > >> >>>>>news:yc-dnV7m9aYMnmzXnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@supernews.com... > > >> >>>>>> New York's 23rd Congressional District goes to the Democrats > > >> >>>>>> for the first time since the Whigs were the other party. > > >> >>>>>> And with that, the Dems' majority in the House actually > > >> >>>>>> increases a seat. > > >> >>>>>> cb > > >> >>>>> Humm .. I'm watching all the news networks and no one has > > >> >>>>> called th > > > at race > > >> >>>>> yet? If the Dem does win that race then you can enjoy your > > >> >>>>> consolat > > > ion > > >> >>>>> prize! Bwahahahahaha!!! > > >> >>>> NY-23 was supposed to be a beachhead for the Wingnut Party, a > > >> >>>> historically safe GOP district where the nouveau-right > > >> >>>> carpetbaggers could come in, plant their flag and wedge one of > > >> >>>> their own into the Congress. The GOP rolled over and played > > >> >>>> dead, giving in to the wingnut outsiders who tried to run on the > > >> >>>> tired old teabagger issues > > > . > > >> >>>> And as a result, a red seat went blue for the first time in 140 > > >> >>>> year > > > s, > > >> >>>> despite the push by Palin and Limbaugh, and the last-minute > > >> >>>> fellatio > > > n > > >> >>>> by Newt Gingrich. > > >> >>>> If that's a consolation prize, send me a whole truckload of 'em, > > >> >>>> 'cause they're mighty tasty! > > >> >>> What NY-23 was a rejection of the establishment "lets be like > > >> >>> Democrats" Republicans choosing who would represent them in the > > >> >>> election. This will be good for the party as the Republican > > >> >>> voter > > > s > > >> >>> will actually get to pick a candidate of their choosing next > > >> >>> spring, one that doesn't support Cap and Trade, card check, etc. > > >> >>> Had t > > > he > > >> >>> RINO won, she would have likely been unopposed in the primary. > > >> >> Shorter Lein: "This election made it possible for the > > >> >> teabaggers to find some other moron to fumble away a > > >> >> sure GOP seat to the Democrats."
> > >> > Actually it means the Republicans will have a primary next year and > > >> > can actually remake the party into something other that the > > >> > status-quo Democrat lite party.
> > >> ...at which point it will attract even fewer voters!
> > >> Also, the Conservative Party will have their own nominee if the > > >> GOP doesn't play nice. Right, John?
> > > Nope, Hoffman will be able to run in the Republican primary. > > > Republicans generally don't win as left wingers - the county chairs > > > who selected what's her name should be taken out and flogged.
> > Hoffman couldn't win as an independent with no Republican in the race - why > > do you think he suddenly is a better candidate as a Republican?
> > >> I'm just trying to see why I shouldn't be endlessly smug > > >> and annoying about this.
> > > Because given the out-right domination of Republicans in Virginia and > > > Jersey, its all you have.
> > Jersey - RINO (at least in teabaggers viewpoint) beats Democrat.
> Anti tax and anti government growth (i.e., opposes turning NJ into > another Michigan)
> > Virginia - Teabagger acceptable conservative goes out of his way to not > > ever mention his social conservatism in campaign to win.
> Funny because McDonnell has repeatedly claimed to be pro-life and > supports traditional marriage.
On Nov 4, 3:11 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
> Tom Enright wrote, On 11/4/09 1:21 PM:
> > JFK and Truman would be out, out, out in today's DNC, > You're insane.
JFK? No freekin way. Way too conservative.
Truman? Harder to say really. He still had the taint of fascism from his former boss....but who knows.
-Tom Enright
"Christopher Hitchens said on the Hugh Hewitt show recently that he “dislikes” the Republican Party but he has “contempt” for the Democrats. I appreciate the distinction, though I’m not sure I could muster even that level of genial tolerance. The Democrats have been the most contemptible opportunists in the years since 9/11: if they’ve got nothing useful to contribute to the great challenge of the age they could at least have the decency not to waste our time waving around three-year-old Abu Ghraib pictures and chanting “exit strategy” every ten minutes."
> On Nov 4, 3:11 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: >> Tom Enright wrote, On 11/4/09 1:21 PM:
>>> JFK and Truman would be out, out, out in today's DNC,
>> You're insane.
> JFK? No freekin way. Way too conservative.
Not nearly as conservative as Bill Clinton, who, last I checked, was a Democrat in good standing.
> Truman? Harder to say really. He still had the taint of fascism from > his former boss....but who knows.
When St. Peter lets you know that you're going to hell, remember that you called the leader of the free world in WWII a fascist. I remember a time when a guy could get his ass kicked at the American Legion hall for spouting shit like that.
On Nov 3, 10:09 pm, Dan Bretta <nuda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It's not surprising that the governorships of NJ and Virginia went GOP > tonight...NJ is highly taxed and the economy sucks..people want change > there. Virginia going GOP is...well...not a surprise.
There are important factors contributing to this, despite what Rush Limbaugh says. On the other hand, the vote does show at least some discontent among independent voters for the current administration.
As a liberal friend of mine put it in email this morning:
So the Democrats suffered stinging losses in both VA and NJ. I read this as a rebuke to the Democratic Party from the "Independents" who won those states for Obama. Instead of change they got the muddled, corporate suck-up politics of Reid, Pelosi and Obama. They voted for an administration that would put fairness ahead of corporate politics and disdain the Bush executive powergrab. But Gitmo is still open for business, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to accelerate, the Democrats pass yet another record funding bill for the military, gays are still second-class citizens when they serve our country, Obama kicked off the White House with a backroom deal to guarantee Big Pharma continues to make record profits off the American consumer...
Tom Enright <freddy_ha...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:8931b09f-8cdb-47e3- 9240-d4984eb35...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 4, 3:11 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: >> Tom Enright wrote, On 11/4/09 1:21 PM:
>> > JFK and Truman would be out, out, out in today's DNC,
>> You're insane.
> JFK? No freekin way. Way too conservative.
Right... he was so conservative.
JFK's "New Frontier" policy was so very conservative - what with wanting to increase federal education funding, expand civil rights protections, increases in Fair Labor Standards Act protections and minimum wage, creating the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, increases grants for urban renewal, support for additional public housing, proposed Medicare, Equal Pay Act...
A good portion of LBJ's "Great Society" programs were thought up by JFK, he just was never able to push them through congress.
He was a defense hawk, and thought taxes were too high - but even his lowered proposal (his tax reform didn't pass until after he was assassinated) had top marginal rates 2x what they are today.
...but he was, on general domestic policy, pretty darn liberal.
|
