Monday, September 13, 2010

Following Up

I wrote this in the comments:
if the Palin/O'Donnell wing of the conservative movement is driving the bus, then I want off. Not at the nearest stop. Off. Right fucking now
.

And before other people say they couldn't do any worse than the current crop, I say Bullshit. While I personally don't think Palin is stupid, I've seen nothing to show me she's smart or talented at anything beyond self promotion. Her economic policy thinking consists of regurgitated conservative tropes. I've got pretty much the same opinion of O'Donnell, except she's worse.

If you asked me whether I'd rather be ruled by the first 2,000 people in the Boston phone book or the Harvard faculty, then I'll take the phone book. If you round up the charlatans, shameless self-promoters, and village idiots, then I'll take the Harvard faculty. Not because the Harvard faculty is devoid of any of those, but because at least there's a possibility that somebody with a brain will be in charge.

The conservative bench isn't so empty that we need to put up people in the big show who shouldn't even be on a minor league team.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

No I'm not saying that a conservative woman can't be called a nut or a slut at all. I don't think that was the lawyer's point who was talking about it. I think - but honestly I haven't been following the O'Donnell race at all until I looked at your post today - that the criticism of this woman is not on the issues but personal.

As for Sarah Palin, forgt about her and face the Democrat's reality that it gets increasingly harder with each passing day to say that if McCain had won the White House that the country would be in the very real mess it is in today. McCain would not have done all the legislation Obama has done. Did you see the new Gallup poll today - it is devastating for the Democrats as Gallup's sample is based on registered voters, not likely:

Americans largely disapprove of the major pieces of legislation that Congress has passed in the past two years, according to the results of a USA Today/Gallup poll released on Monday, with the financial reform bill the only major piece of legislation to be supported by a majority of Americans.

The poll showed that 61 percent of Americans approve of the bill to strengthen government regulation of the financial industry compared to 37 percent that disapprove of the bill. Another 3 percent have no opinion on the financial reform bill.

Meanwhile, a majority of Americans disapprove of the economic stimulus package, the auto industry bailout, healthcare reform, and the banking industry bailout.

Americans have a particularly negative view of the bank bailout bill, with 61 percent disapproving of the legislation compared to 37 percent that approve.

Gallup noted that the approval rating for the financial reform bill benefits from a relatively high level of support from Republicans, with 42 percent approving of the legislation. The other major pieces of legislation all receive very low support from members of the GOP.

"Independents join Republicans in mostly opposing the other four legislative initiatives tested," said Gallup's Lydia Saad. "Democrats, on the other hand, approve of all five, although to varying degrees."

The discontent with most of the recent major pieces of legislation is likely contributing to the anti-incumbent mood among Americans that may cause problems for Democrats in the upcoming elections.

-----

If O'Donnell does win it's because the voters there are tired of him going with Pelosi. Whether or not O'Donnell can win in November will depend upon the Republican Party and whether they back her. They are the ones who hold all the cards and, interestingly, they are the ones who gave us this nutter in the first place...

Mrs. P

Alpheus said...

But if you get off the bus now, you'll miss the ski jump . . .

I'm 100% behind the tea parties, and I like Sarah Palin, but I'm afraid Christine O'Donnell may be Satan's gift to the New York Times.

The Ancient said...

The NR and the WS see a glimmer of a chance for a Senate majority and they don't want to see it thrown away by obviously flawed candidates. They would rather swallow hard and back a couple people who are not pull-the-lever-Republicans AND WIN THE SENATE than go running after whatever candidate best mimes Sarah Palin's latest tweets.

This strikes me as a perfectly reasonable position.

And while I will stipulate that the crazy, oversexed Left makes female Republican candidates out to be both nuts and sluts, I am given real pause by this:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/citing-mental-anguish-christine-odonnell-sought-69-million-gender-discrimination-lawsuit-again
________________
With the Senate, the Republicans can do something more than block Obama and the Left. Without it, what have they got? "Speaker Boehner"? (I'd rather have the first 2,000 disenfranchised GM dealers run the House than that guy.)

Anonymous said...

Per:

"I'd rather have the first 2,000 disenfranchised GM dealers run the House than that guy."

hahahahahahahahahaha - I know a few of those guys and yeah- me too!

How can you be a gift from Satan when you are Satan?

Hey, is the primary an open one? As in Dems going in and voting for the nutter in hopes to carry the big day- you know like what they did in NH knocked out Rommney and gave us McCain. It was a very good thing Clinton had all those voters bused in from Massachusetts huh? It kept her going for a while but she had to cry and complain about eating pizza all the time to make sure she stayed in the race.

I didn't read the sex discrimination article - will do - 6.9 million you say? Why isn't that the same amount Obama made that much off his two autobiographies- both penned before he was 45 and that's the sign of balanced person, worthy to hold the job of the most powerful man in the world?

Thankfully history has proven we have a fine American tradition of most jobs being bigger than the people who hold them.

Mrs. P

Andrew Stevens said...

No, it's a closed primary.

Anonymous said...

From ABC news:

"Castle is a pro-abortion rights, pro-gun control Republican who often works with Democrats. Those traits have helped make him the most popular Republican in a state that leans heavily Democratic."

Now I get what all the disgust is about. This guy is the next Jim Jeffords or Arlen Specter.

Mrs. P

arethusa said...

Let's review:

Christine O'Donnell is a questionable candidate for any number of reasons. To wit:

-She accused pollsters showing unfavorable results for her candidacy of being in league with the opposition.
-She claims that her opponents stalk her at home every night and is a conspiracy theorist.
-She has yet to file the proper financial disclosure forms required of a Senate candidate. Quite mysteriously, one year she reported less than 6K in income, yet paid over 11K in back taxes. (So, yeah, that means there was some earlier fudging of her tax forms.) And it means she's a criminal in violation of federal law.
-She accuses Mike Castle of being gay as a campaign platform plank. Seriously.
-She lied about her educational credentials.
-She filed a frivolous lawsuit against a previous employer for 6.9 million, in part dismissed because she didn't seem stable.
-She has no prior experience in office.

A lot of that speaks to character, not issues. But if you do some Googling you'll see exactly why this woman is "Satan's gift to the NYT" (nice phrasing, Alpheus).

A lot of conservatives who like O'Donnell would scream bloody murder if the Democrats had a candidate with those character flaws (think Blumenthal in NH). So why are they so accepting of one of their own with those flaws? Ridiculous. If conservatives really want a better class of politicians, they damn well better get good candidates, not pick people who will only harm their cause.

arethusa said...

If you asked me whether I'd rather be ruled by the first 2,000 people in the Boston phone book or the Harvard faculty, then I'll take the phone book. If you round up the charlatans, shameless self-promoters, and village idiots, then I'll take the Harvard faculty. Not because the Harvard faculty is devoid of any of those, but because at least there's a possibility that somebody with a brain will be in charge.

Seconded.

Andrew Stevens said...

All true, but this is Delaware. The Republicans' insistence on ideological purity is rapidly pushing the Northeast into a Republican-free zone. Arlen Specter and Jim Jeffords were, for a long time, far preferable to the Democrats who would have been elected in their places had Republicans insisted on strict conservatives. (Jeffords anyway. Pennsylvania could conceivably have elected a conservative Republican as they did with Santorum.) At least Specter and Jeffords caucused with the Republicans and voted for Republican leadership, even if they didn't vote with Republicans on anything else.

For some reason though, most people have a much stronger hatred of heretics than infidels so Republicans hate Specter and Jeffords more than they hate Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. Similarly with Democrats and Joe Lieberman.

Andrew Stevens said...

My response was to Mrs. P. I wasn't expecting Arethusa to post a couple of times before I finished crafting my post.

The Ancient said...

Now I get what all the disgust is about. This guy is the next Jim Jeffords or Arlen Specter.

NOT unless or until he caucuses with the Senate Democrats.

O'Donnell, by contrast, has ZERO chance of ever caucusing with Senate Republicans.

Self-indulgent conservatives sat home in 2008 -- not voting for McCain, with consequent effects all the way down the ticket.

For reasons I won't bother to explore, they seem vaguely regretful of the consequences.

So just what is it with Palin and her tweets? Double-down? All the way in? Better dead than red?

I mean, WTF?

arethusa said...

Self-indulgent conservatives sat home in 2008 -- not voting for McCain, with consequent effects all the way down the ticket.

I was thinking about this earlier, too. It was a lesson that should have been learned by "true conservatives" - if the country matters as much to you as you like to natter on about, well, damn it, get out and vote. McCain still (probably) wouldn't have won, but a number of close Senate and House races might have gone the other way, cutting into the Democratic majority. Just think: we could have been spared Senator Al Franken.

Anonymous said...

This is the greatest race. To wit, literally:

Castle along with that really sane Republican Ron Paul voted for....

Rep. Kucinich's (D-OH) Articles of Impeachment against George Bush. This would be to the House judiciary Committee run by by my old Rep. John Conyers. John Conyers, whose lovely wife Monica, is currently cooling her jets in jail for all the bribes and kickbacks she took while on the Detroit City Council. Oh and Monica said she didn't have the money to pay for her legal cousel so the taxpayers of Detroit had to pay her legal bills yet her husband makes how much?

This is better than the WWF in the days of Brutus Beefcake and the Human Fly.

Mrs. P

Anonymous said...

Arethusa, I'm not supporting O'Donnell at all. I honestly had not paid attention to this until a post here today and then I poked around and wow. This thing is hysterical. You're points are all well taken but when we've got the most unqualified guy running the country appointing the most unqualified Supreme court Justices, well the whole qualifications argument has kind of been shot.

Also, this is Joe Biden's seat - and when has he ever been considered qualified or stable? I mean wasn't the fact he rode the train his major qualification? Or was it that he came from Scranton? Or that he was going to shove his rosary beads down Catholics' throats? It's all a blur.

After last weekend with the Secretary of Defense calling a whacko in Florida about a Koran as well as the President and the Secretary of State weighing in yet Iran went nulcear two weeks earlier and nary a pee from those same folks, I just can't take any of this seriously. Sorry. Don't mean to offend.

Mrs. P

Anonymous said...

"most people have a much stronger hatred of heretics than infidels so Republicans hate Specter and Jeffords more than they hate Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. "

Republicans expect more- character wise - from their politicians. Republicans get caught in a sex scandal they are history. Democrats -it's a job promotion.

Mrs. P

arethusa said...

Republicans expect more- character wise - from their politicians. Republicans get caught in a sex scandal they are history. Democrats -it's a job promotion.

A) Then they should expect better of O
Donnell.

B) Shouldn't we avoid the very double-standard you mention? When a Democrat says something loony, it gets overlooked by the media. When a Republican does the same, it's front-page news. O'Donnell is guaranteed to be that front-page news.

I admit, this whole thing does have a WWF Smackdown! feel to it.

The Ancient said...

This is better than the WWF in the days of Brutus Beefcake and the Human Fly.

Early in the Eisenhower Administration, I had a PE teacher who, at an earlier point in his life, had been a professional wrestler.

(He wouldn't shut up about Killer Kowalski.)

He was a wonderful guy, he really was, but what I remember best about him now is that he was so muscle-bound that he couldn't put one hand on the opposite shoulder.

(Moral: It's not a good thing to mistake strength for functionality.)

He had every one of us in the palm of that dysfunctional hand, every afternoon, five days a week.

(We never thought of him on weekends.)

He was inspirational, and we hung on his every word.

(None of us ever bothered lifting weights until college.)

If it had been a Twitter world, he could have done us all serious harm.

(We might have mistaken him for normal.)

Andrew Stevens said...

See this link regarding the charge that Castle voted to impeach Bush.

Anonymous said...

http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2010/09/politics_whats.php

Anonymous said...

Interesting bit at Powerline - I found the info here - House votes 251-156 to Impeach Bush.

http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/fraud/gw_bush_ghw_bush/news.php?q=1213329856

Now what Powerline says is be perfectly true and I would trust Dan Rielh's take as he's extremely thorough as well as friends w/Levin but it's perfectly fair to point out the Dems did not need Castle's or the other 23 Republicans' votes to send it on a slow death to committee. Not one of them needed to vote for it and we all know how Ron Paul felt about Bush and the War. Was he really sending it on to a slow death? My uneducated guess is no.

Sounds like Castle could be the I voted for it before I was against it kind of Senator....

Arethusa, of course we should demand better candidates than the Dems do. And we for the most part get them. The most fascinating aspect is the Dems have been governing against the will of the people, attributing dissent to bigotry, ignorance etc... The fact that a Republican outsider won Ted Kennedy's old seat in Massachusetts should have been a wake up call to the Dems as well as to the Republicans. Why didn't the state Republican party think a similar thing could happen with Joe Biden's old seat and plan accordingly? They need to be listening better. Much better.

As for Palin's tweets- Madame Defarge time.

Mrs. P

Anonymous said...

Interesting bit at Powerline - I found the info here - House votes 251-156 to Impeach Bush.

http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/fraud/gw_bush_ghw_bush/news.php?q=1213329856

Now what Powerline says is be perfectly true and I would trust Dan Rielh's take as he's extremely thorough as well as friends w/Levin but it's perfectly fair to point out the Dems did not need Castle's or the other 23 Republicans' votes to send it on a slow death to committee. Not one of them needed to vote for it and we all know how Ron Paul felt about Bush and the War. Was he really sending it on to a slow death? My uneducated guess is no.

Sounds like Castle could be the I voted for it before I was against it kind of Senator....

Arethusa, of course we should demand better candidates than the Dems do. And we for the most part get them. The most fascinating aspect is the Dems have been governing against the will of the people, attributing dissent to bigotry, ignorance etc... The fact that a Republican outsider won Ted Kennedy's old seat in Massachusetts should have been a wake up call to the Dems as well as to the Republicans. Why didn't the state Republican party think a similar thing could happen with Joe Biden's old seat and plan accordingly? They need to be listening better. Much better.

As for Palin's tweets- Madame Defarge time.

Mrs. P

Andrew Stevens said...

I'm not defending Castle's vote, which I actually think probably was a bit cowardly. However, it was not a vote to impeach Bush. There are Republican Congressmen with impeccable conservative credentials who also voted to send it to the Judiciary Committee (Congressman Brady of Texas, for example). I suspect it was frustration at Kucinich's wasting the House's time. If they send it to Committee, they don't have to deal with him bringing it up for a vote every week or two. It's true that it would have been sent to Committee even without the Republicans' votes, but they may not have known that when they made the vote and the vote doesn't commit them to anything, since everyone knew Conyers would kill it.

Unlike Ron Paul, Mike Castle did vote to authorize the use of troops in Iraq. He was then (rightly) critical of Bush's conduct of the war and then (wrongly) voted against the surge.

I'd be all in favor of replacing Castle with a better Republican, but that's not the choice before Delaware Republicans. Their choice is between Mike Castle and Democrat Christopher Coons. Polls show that Castle will beat Coons by 11-13. Coons will beat O'Donnell by 11. Sometimes ideology has to bow to pragmatism. By opposing Mike Castle for being insufficiently conservative, it will guarantee the election of a candidate who isn't conservative at all.

 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.