Governor Charlie Crist made it official yesterday and left the GOP. This move has thrown the Florida Senate race into quite a state making it essentially a three way tie.
One would think that this would be the year to be GOP. History shows us quite clearly that the first election after a new president traditionally means losses for the part occupying the White House. While I still think there will be some losses, the GOP is basically fucked and this whole Crist thing shows us why.
The Cult is basically running the GOP now with any moderate Republicans cowering in fear of losing any power they have. Let's recall rule #1 of the Cult.
1. Quickly withdraw into the group and distrust the outside world.
You can always tell if someone is in the Cult or not when they start to turn on their own. Crist is not to be trusted, they say, because he isn't pure. He makes decisions based on what he thinks is best or the right thing to do. According to the Cult, any decision that does not strictly adhere to their belief system is completely wrong and said person making the decision is a heretic.
Remember this other characteristic of the Cult?
3. Have their own vocabulary
Anytime you hear someone say something like "Crist is RINO (Republican in Name Only)" or "He doesn't pass the purity test" then you know that they are in the Cult and they have their own vocabulary.
So, I'm still wondering how the GOP can win MORE votes if they continue to drive people who are more moderate away from the party. It makes no sense to me but neither does their overall ideology which, in addition to being borderline psychotic, has no practical application in the world today.
Again, I must ask, if the GOP does not see significant gains this fall, what does that mean?
15 comments:
You're overreaching, Mark. Crist's situation is nearly identical to Joe Lieberman leaving the Democratic Party when he lost the primary in 2006.
Crist could easily be characterized as a self-important, egomaniacal blowhard who cares more about himself than the party that put him where he is today.
Lieberman has stabbed the Democrats in the back time and again, after having been chosen as the vice presidential candidate in 2004. Democrats helped him get where he is today and he betrayed them in 2008 when he supported McCain for president. (Which really never made any sense: put one of the Keating Five in charge of overseeing the biggest financial crisis since the Savings and Loan debacle that the Keating Five helped make possible?)
Crist is doing essentially the same thing. After failing to connect with Republican voters in the primary, he is stabbing party loyalists in the back despite years of their support.
Of course, if Crist were antithetically opposed to everything that Rubio stands for one could argue that Crist would be making a principled stand to make sure that the disaster of a Senator Rubio doesn't happen. But is Crist all that different from Rubio? I would venture a guess that Senator Crist's voting record would differ from Senator Rubio's on only a few issues.
As with Lieberman, Crist would almost certainly caucus with his former party if elected. Or perhaps he would become another Party of One with his vote for sale to the highest bidder.
Crist obviously values self-aggrandizement above party loyalty. Party loyalists are not wrong in criticizing such a move. Enforced party loyalty is critical to the survival of the Republican Party, since as currently constituted it is a minority party that is only going to shrink as its population base declines.
Personally, I hope Crist does represent something new: a return of the moderate to liberal Republican. These were the guys who really helped make government work. They worked with Democrats to hammer out compromises that were good for the country.
If only we could return to the days when a politician's worth was measured by the positive contributions of his efforts to improve the nation's finances, security, infrastructure, health and welfare, instead of by the volume of his vitriol.
Agree with blk. It's not some grand scheme worked up by some cult, it's Charlies self interest. Arlen Spector did the same thing. Read recently where Crist tried to call the white house recently and Rahm wouldn't call him back. Crist was way down in the polls and he knew it.
Nice month of April on this blog, not one post on here devoted to anything positive President Obama has done, just more talking crap about the folks on the other side. None of you care about obamas positive contributions to improve the nations finances, you won't even mention it and flee from such discussions.
"History shows us quite clearly that the first election after a new president traditionally means losses for the part occupying the White House."
I thought Obama was going to change the world. Now we're being told that he isn't even going to change normal election cycles.
Ah, the Rove...
RLD,
Wrong.
Friday Funnies 4-16-2010
And let's not forget Mark's positive column about Tom Coburn on 4-6-2010. And the one about Reagan on 4-5-2010 in which he compares, favorably, ol' Ronnie to Barack.
I think Mark should write about what he wants to write about. It's his blog and it's largely dead on right although I do disagree with him about Reagan. What is telling is the constant drivel complaining about Mark's choice of topics in a sad attempt to somehow lessen their reality. As he has said, we can't move forward as country until the lunatics retire, hopefully for a lack of no one listening anymore, to Shady Acres.
From 4/26 I wrote:
But let me directly answer your question. I want Mark to choose the topic (it IS his blog), make whatever comments he wants to, and then DEFEND his position if possible. Use facts, logic, and hopefully a skillful wit to enable others to either agree with him, or at least respect his views.
There goes your "constant drivel". In fact, even semi-constant seems to be a stretch. And you point to a cut-n-paste cartoon to showcase postings about Obama's positives?
dw
Worthy of a new topic, but witnessing the oil spill response by the Obama government, I think Kanye West can safely say that Obama hates black people. In fact, I think we can safely say:
"You can point the finger at all the governmental departments you want but in the end I know what my friend Harry would say: the president is the one in charge. And our president's reaction was excatly the same as 9-11 and the Tsunami disaster: indifference followed by paralysis followed by PR spin followed by a call to his daddy and President Clinton to bail him out once again."
-Markadelphia (following Katrina)
Oh, but we do have to change the last sentence somewhat.
Too funny.
dw
dw, I think the comparison of Katrina and the oil spill is off. People died in Katrina. As of yet, no one has died as a result of the oil spill.
Katrina was the result of mother nature/God and the oil spill was the result of a private company making a mistake. If the spill had occurred from the strategic oil reserve under the control of the federal government, then President Obama would bear the blame.
In this case, however, the blame is on BP, a private company which, by your own ideology, should be left alone and have no federal involvement with its business whatsoever, correct? In fact, I'm wondering if the spill is a result of lack of regulation and inspection. Then what?
Same old deal. Private company fucks up...comes crawling to government for help...government helps...the right blames the government and continues to stoke the golden glow of private industry...sheesh.
Mark:
That whisper was my point going past you. Perhaps a new post on the subject is in order. If I tried to defend that this oil spill has nothing to do with lack of government regulation, I may lose. If you like, I can do several hours of research. I'm not busy until May 14th. 8^)
Perhaps it is time for a new post regarding the Times Square bomb, and the pipe bomb in Pittsburgh.
Clearly, faked terror attacks to get the people to bow to the fascist Bush, oops, fascist Obama regime. Next, the Jew-Loving Bush(oops again) Jew-Hating Obama white house will try to push the Patriot act down our throats.
If we aren't going to debate the issues, we can at least laugh at the idiocy on both sides.
dw
News Flash!
Video of the Times Square bombing shows a 40 year old white male "suspect". Unconfirmed reports say that he was wearing a "Tea Party RULES!" shirt. (well, I made that T-shirt part up) I bet Obama is miffed that the Pakastani Taliban is taking credit for his 'black op'.
C'mon, somebody that still thinks Bush planted explosives in the WTC, please take this troll bait.
dw
Way to go dw, now June 2005 is gone from the archives. Gone forever.
Actually, I remember reading that "The response is the issue here, not the possible prevention" on this blog after katrina.
It's not that it's gone, last. I didn't post anything during that month. That was back when my writing was very sparse.
You are correct. I was wrong (see, I can admit it)...for some reason, I thought Katrina happened over Memorial day weekend but it happened over labor day weekend 2005.
The entry is in Sept 05 and the words I was looking for in comments are...
"The reponse is the problem here, not the disaster itself or possible prevention."
Now no discussing details of the spill itself or possible prevention by some government agency - let's only focus on the response because that's what is important, not the disaster itself or possible prevention.
Shouldn't the response be from the responsible party, BP? No one was responsible for Katrina. Mark is right. If it were from a government facility then blame away but this is from a private and shouldn't the government stay out of their business?
Post a Comment