Monday, November 09, 2009

GO, LEMMINGS, GO!

Looks like the wingnut "Club For Growth"  is ready to do for the Republicans in Florida what they did for them in NY-23,  namely, turn a Republican seat over to the Democrats:

It's official: the Club for Growth has endorsed conservative upstart Marco Rubio in Florida's Senate race, over moderate Gov. Charlie Crist (R).

***

The Club is in the business of supporting fiscally conservative candidates, sometimes in primaries against incumbent Republicans. In the 2008 election cycle, they launched an offensive against Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), who, thanks to the Club's efforts, lost his primary to conservative Andy Harris, and the seat eventually went to the Democrats.

***

But now, the Club's moment seems to have arrived. The conservative grassroots have been swept up in fiscal conservatism, and they're fresh off a semi-victory in NY-23, where the Club backed Conservatve Party candidate Doug Hoffman and became one of the central financial players in the race, spending almost on par with the big boys--the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee--adding just over $1 million to the race, including bundled donations.

Lest we forget, the NY-23 "semi-victory" divided the GOP, pissed off the locals, and gave the NY-23 election to a Democrat.

This is a definition of "semi-victory" with which I am not familiar.

 A classic symptom of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. But hey, why do you think they call them "wingnuts"?


26 comments:

Sarah said...

The GOP is on a fast track to minority party status that could last a generation!

Charlieopera said...

This is a definition of "semi-victory" with which I am not familiar.

It's sort of like the healthcare bill the House passed the other day. It doesn't cover abortions and will turn into a score for the insurance companies before Senate Democrats are finished with it (removing a public option).

It's like ... campaigning against the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, winning the election and then waiting three years (one before the next election) to just
"claim" you're getting out of the same war.

It's like ... claiming nation building will create terrorists and then stepping up the war in Afghanistan (to support a corrupt government).

It's like ... bringing change to Washington.

But you're right about the wingies ... wherever they poke their noses, the Dems will get to sit around with their thumbs up their asses through another election cycle.

Nader in 2012.

Celine said...

It's like ... campaigning against the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, winning the election and then waiting three years (one before the next election) to just
"claim" you're getting out of the same war.


Or like spending a year campaigning before each Presidential election, then dropping off the face of the earth until the next one, because you think you're entitled to start at the top.

Is Nader really that stupid, or does he just think the voters are? Of course, some of them seem to be...

JD Rhoades said...

You planning on getting any new material any time soon, Charlie?

Charlieopera said...

JD: new material

Why bother? So long as your guy accomplishes Nada, Zip, Nothing, it works just fine.

Celine: Is Nader really that stupid, or does he just think the voters are? Of course, some of them seem to be...

Well, it's true he didn't "work" as hard as Obambi to become president (all that experience the saviour has) ... and he didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize ... and he couldn't possibly tell gays they shouldn't be allowed to marry, or that the wars are pointless and our troops should come home forthwith, or that corporate welfare is killing the middle and lower classes, he does manage to piss off Democrats and how could anyone argue with that? I mean, perhaps one day some Democrat supporters will go so far as hold their representatives accountable for voting Republican so often.

Or are you just saying Nader supporters are stupid? Now that's not nice ...

By the way, if you want information on Nader (who is a 24/7 advocate, by the way---maybe you're too busy living in denial), just google his name.

eviljwinter said...

I really, really hope they decide Jean Schmidt is not conservative enough. The only way that vapid harpie ever wins is there are enough people in Ohio's 2nd District who would vote for Pol Pot before they voted Democratic and not enough to vote for a trained chimp vs. Schmidt.

Sabotaging Schmidt would actually be a service to Ohio.

Werehatrack said...

Oy, Nader, don't get me started. that guy impressed me with his utter and complete lack of integrity when he first made himself famous by taking an internal Ford dealer-rah-rah-training film and crucifying one of the few bits of semi-novel engineering to come out of GM in decades with it. (Claiming it was all scientifically valid research as he went.) Way too much of his "advocacy" is nutcase, and in an environment in which there are plenty of real, valid, big-time menace targets available, he goes after stuff whose science suits him rather than the things where he might actually accomplish a worthwhile goal. Nader is about promoting Nader, and has been that way for as long as he's been a public figure. I have no use for him.

Charlieopera said...

Yes, that Nader. He's downright evil.

JD Rhoades said...

Nader is (a) never going to be elected and (b) wouldn't be able to get anything accomplished if he did. It's also ironic that you sneer at Obama supporters for thinking he's some sort of "saviour" or "Messiah" while engaging in the most deluded hero-worship in regard to Nader.

Charlieopera said...

Imagine this Dusty ... if all the so-called liberal democrats who want what Nader claims to want voted for Nader ... now, he probably wouldn't win a general election and there surely wouldn't be a Congressional majority to go with him, but ... a) it would show the centrist Dems that there really is a left in their party (and not what Republicans brand left or socialist) but an actual left that demands equal rights and all the other goodies that go with them vs. non-stop corporate welfare); b) if it cost the Dems an election or two, maybe they'd pay attention to the left ... or c) maybe enough people would get fed up with these two jokes (Reps and Dems) and vote them out wholesale.

Nader or anybody left of the Democrats would be a savior by comparison. Here's a fact for you to deal with:

Most would stipulate to the fact that George Bush was/remains an imbecile. Yet, he managed to get Democrats to vote his way not only after 9-11, but even after 2006 (when the Dems took control of Congress). Now, imbecile George had some patriotic fire post 9-11 (everybody wanted to punch the bad guys in the mouth) and that he wasted that political capital seems to be the general consensus. But he still managed to get the Dems to vote his way on everything from troop funding to education, deregulation, etc. Then he managed to get Obama and his Dems to support his economic bailouts (and to in fact go further with them).

Now, here comes Obama with all the political capital in the world (much like that which poor George had post 9-11) but he can’t get anything done. I mean, he doesn’t have even have to cross the aisle (something he campaigned he’d be able to do). All he needs is his party. And he can’t seem to get it done. Come on already. What’s up with that?

So, you keep pulling that lever for the Dems (which might as well be a vote for the Republicans) and keep fighting the good fight against wingnuts who will never make a difference (other than to your candidate's benefit) and always, always, always have excuses ready when your guy comes up with the same old goose egg he's come up with so far.

We'll never have a third party so long as there's blind faith to the two party system we have now, that's for sure.

What's the worse that could happen if somebody like Nader did win? He can't get it done, toss his ass out. But talk about doing the same thing over and over and over. Brother, you're all in on that.

JD Rhoades said...

Actually, Charlie, Nader DID cost the Dems an election. If he'd stayed out of Florida, Al Gore would have won the damn thing beyond the margin of theft. Instead,we got the first Bush term. Thanks Ralph. Thanks fucking loads.


So, you keep pulling that lever for the Dems (which might as well be a vote for the Republicans)


It's impossible to take you seriously when you say things like that.

Charlieopera said...

It's impossible to take you seriously when you say things like that.

Right, because the Democrats have done so much so differently than the Republicans. They voted for Bush's wars, bailouts, education, policy, initial tax cuts, they're against gay marriage, etc. and now that they have a majority, they aren't changing a thing.

Right, it's absurd to think the two are the same. Whatever makes me say such silly stuff?

Was it Ross Perot who gave Clinton a victory (I forget)? Yeah, those third parties, they make Republicans or Democrats (one or the other) win in the end. You're right, we should ignore any alternative at all costs.

It's interesting to see how Democrats now think Gore might've been the saviour (losing faith in the chosen one?) ... a guy who let SNL set his campaign strategy week to week. Very decisive, he was.

JD Rhoades said...

Was it Ross Perot who gave Clinton a victory (I forget)? Yeah, those third parties, they make Republicans or Democrats (one or the other) win in the end.

Stating something sarcastically is not refuting it.

Fact is, Perot DID divide the crazy vote and help put Clinton in the White House. It wasn't as close as Gore/Bush, so it wasn't as huge a factor, but it was a big one. And Nader's ego was the deciding factor in a close election in FL and put Bush in the WH, for which he may burn in hell for all I care.

And you say "Democrats" as if they were as monlithic as the Republicans. It just ain't so. Some Democrats voted for Bush's war, most notably Hilary Clinton, who ended up losing and taking orders from the candidate who opposed it. And to look at the recent HCR bill and say "well it doesn't have single payer so the parties are the same" is just ridiculous.

Charlieopera said...

And you say "Democrats" as if they were as monlithic as the Republicans. It just ain't so. Some Democrats voted for Bush's war, most notably Hilary Clinton, who ended up losing and taking orders from the candidate who opposed it. And to look at the recent HCR bill and say "well it doesn't have single payer so the parties are the same" is just ridiculous.

Some voted for it?

“Under intense pressure from the White House, which wanted a big bipartisan majority in Congress to strengthen its hand in its confrontation with Iraq, the Democratic-led Senate passed the war powers resolution, 77-23.”

Maybe Obama needs to exert some intense pressure?

As to the HCR bill ... even some of your guys on the Democratic left are having issues with that HCR bill … apparently it guarantees insurance companies another 37 million customers to be paid for by all of us (so what else is new). And let’s see what they pass, JD … something tells me you won’t have much to be cheerful about when all is said and done (after a Democratic majority gets through with it).

Not to get off topic, but tell me why there hasn’t been a single piece of oversight legislation since the so-called banking crisis? Was Bush that good at the economy that Obama can’t tear himself away from Bush’s lead?

Charlieopera said...

Actually, Bob Herbert's column in the Times today says it best (and without my animus):

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/opinion/10herbert.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

JD Rhoades said...

Democratic-led Senate passed the war powers resolution, 77-23.”

21 of the 23 "no" votes were Democrats, which serves to make my point that the party's not of one mind. So were the 21 Dems who voted against it "no different from Republicans?" Paul Wellstone was "no different" from Trent Lott? Please. Next I suppose you'll be telling me there's no difference between Al Franken and Jim Inhofe, and no difference between Dennis Kucinich and Michelle Bachmann. Just because some Democrats are more moderate or even conservative than others doesn't mean there's no difference.

And I'd love to see Obama (or Emmanuel) start twisting arms and breaking heads on Capitol Hill. I think it's time. But it's a far stretch from that to say "he's no different from Bush!"

Charlieopera said...

Democrats were split, with 29 voting for the resolution and 21 against it. Also voting against it were Republican Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and independent James Jeffords of Vermont.

You forgot that 29 for.

Forget the extremes, JD. Why is it you can't pass anything with a veto proof Senate?

And that oversight legislation question you chose to ignore?

Yesterday the head of NOW stated women need to stop assuming voting Democrat is in their interest.

If he's not so like Bush, why is he continuing Bush's policies? Seriously ... he agrees with Bush on gay marriage, he obviously agreed with the bailouts, he hasn't provided any legislation to make sure it (financial crisis) doesn't happen again, he's embedded us in Afghanistan and we're still in Iraq. He's actually funded Blackwater above what Bush gave them. Health Care? Well, I guess we'll have to wait and see but I think we all know what the end result of that will be.

While I don't blame him for the financial crisis (how it first occurred), his refusal to legislate anything so it doesn't happen again infuriates me. It's another fucking "present" vote; something he can't be blamed for.

Seriously, name something "substantial" he's done differently. Something that has made a difference to the taxpayers who voted him into office.

I think you're still stuck with that sit down in Cambridge.

JD Rhoades said...

He's started the drawdown from Iraq , something Bush never did:

Although MNC-I has just finished phase one of the safe and responsible withdrawal of equipment and personnel in Iraq -- setting the conditions -- it has moved into the second phase of the drawdown without pause, said Lt. Col. Tammie Pettit, the Multi-National Corps - Iraq logistics plans chief at a sustainment conference Aug. 15 on Camp Victory.

"It's been a lot of hard work for a lot of people," Pettit said. "We've done pretty well."

Brig. Gen. Heidi Brown is leading the responsible drawdown of the roughly 130,000 troops in Iraq to roughly 50,000 by August 2010. Additionally, the number of civilian contractors in country is slated to be reduced to roughly 75,000, Brown said.

Based on Brown's directives, Pettit said MNC-I has planned to reduce the nearly 200 bases throughout Iraq to six multi-class supply support activity hubs or SSAs -- with roughly 20 smaller bases, called spokes -- by September 2010, with complete withdrawal by December 2011.


At home, the Administration crafted a stimulus bill that kept a recession from blossoming into a full blown depression and at least stopped the slide. Do I wish it had been bigger? Do I wish we were out of Iraq altogether by now? Sure.

But I don't let the ideal of the perfect become the sworn enemy of the good.

Charlieopera said...

But I don't let the ideal of the perfect become the sworn enemy of the good.

You sure don’t. Less than mediocre seems fine and dandy.

At least the equipment and maybe 40,000 troops won’t have to travel far since it appears they’re headed for Afghanistan (which at this point, can no longer be blamed on George the 2nd since it’s such a “necessary” war).

I’m not sure if you’ve noticed the stimulus bill hasn’t exactly fulfilled the desired effect yet and I’m not sold that letting Wall Street blackmail us equates to the depression they threatened, but if it did (which you seem to imply), you should be just as angry as me about Obama doing NOTHING to preclude it happening again (that missing oversight legislation) …

I don’t know, brother … if the best you can do is the start of a withdrawal of troops from Iraq to coincide with an eventual withdrawal the year before the next Presidential election, it looks to me like he’s Bush Light there too (especially since Bush had agreed to withdrawals in 2007).

Considering that which he’s continued (Bush’s policies (financial & otherwise)) and in some cases expanded (Blackwater), I don’t see the great divide between either of the two clowns; especially when you look at all the political capital both wasted.

Now, do I believe Obama is half the moron Bush is? Of course not. Do I think he’s evil? Nope. Do I think he’s just another party politician more concerned with his legacy than the actual change he promised? You’re goddamn right, I do. My knock is on his party and the other party and all the voters out there who fall in lock step (talk about lemmings) to vote one or the other when there are clearly different choices (right and left of the center). All voting one or the other does is reward what has become incompetence and inaction for taxpayers and corporate welfare for corporations (the good old dependable status quo), over and over and over.

Charlieopera said...

From my favorite conservative, Maureen Dowd, in today's Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/opinion/11dowd.html?ref=opinion

Goldmine Sachs, as it’s known, is out for Goldmine Sachs.

As many Americans continue to struggle, Goldman, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase, banks that took government bailout money after throwing the entire world into crisis, have said they will dish out $30 billion in bonuses — up 60 percent from last year.


Here, although I suspect Maureen would hate to admit it, she portrays Obama (at least his administration) even more Bush than Bush … certainly more Regan-Republican regarding DEREGULATION.

JD Rhoades said...

Ah, so when you ask: "name something "substantial" he's done differently," what you're really asking is "say something Obama's done differently that Charlie will agree is significant or important."

Sorry, can't be done. You've already made up your mind not to give Obama credit for anything.

Charlieopera said...

Sorry can't be done.

Once again, we agree. Your turn to buy drinks.

What you named (since Bush agreed to drawdowns in 2007 and since we're still in Iraq--where two more soldiers who shouldn't have been in the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time--were killed the other day in a helicopter crash) just isn't substantial enough.

I'll give him credit when he does something substantial. Something less Republican than what he's done so far. Something that is more than just talk (or talking on talk shows). So far, he's a big bust. Don't get too upset, it happens all the time. Look at Brian Bosworth. Guys/gals get recruited, the stars shine on them and sometimes they crumble under the pressure.

I mean, even Maureen Dowd (probably inadvertently) doesn't understand why Wall Street continues to flourish as if Ronald Regan was in the White House.

Bob Herbert yesterday had sound advice for Obama ... he should listen.

Charlieopera said...

I'm so against Obama, at my place my right wing friend (DOC) says ...

Hey, nice skirting the issues, Chaz.

Our first terrorist attack since 9/11.
- Charles Hussein Stella votes present!

The House starts the ramming of socialized medicine down our throats.

- Charles Hussein Stella votes present!

Unemployment at 17 1/2 %
- Charles Hussein Stella votes present!

You got me all wrong, Dusty ... I'm just not willing to swallow the bullshit anymore. There are other choices and we shouldn't keep playing it safe.

“Tuta petant alii. Fortuna miserrima …” (“Let others seek what is safe. Safe is the worst of fortune; for the fear of any worse event is taken away”.

JD Rhoades said...

Our first terrorist attack since 9/11.

If you're going to count individual Muslim wackos as "terrorist attacks" then you've got to count John Allan Muhammad,whose teenaged partner Lee Malvo wrote that they were engaged in "jihad."

You also have to count Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, a Muslim who drove his SUV into a crowd at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in his words, to "avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world." Taheri-Azar wrote in a letter that he "was aiming to follow in the footsteps of one of my role models, Mohammad Atta, one of the 9/11/01 hijackers" and that "people who fight in the cause of Allah are not guilty."

So, no. Not the first, if that's how you define it.

Charlieopera said...

That wassn't my statement (it was my friend's) ... I do, however, agree it was a terrorist's attack (an individual terrorist in the sense the guy was guided by the guise of religion).

I doubt Lee Malvo can spell terrorist, but if that's what he wrote, then they were engaged in acts of terrorism as were the others you mentioned. I have no problem with classifying those as such. My friend, I think, was just being dramatic.

Hopefully, this clown in Fort Hood can discuss it with John Allan Muhammad one on one real soon.

RegPerrin said...

Hey folks, @all:

Bush was a terrorist

Cheyney was a gun nut

Palin is a wing nut

Go Lemmings Go!