Remember this guy? He WAS South Carolina Congressional Rep Bob Inglis who made the unfortunate mistake of telling his constituents to turn off Glenn Beck during a town hall meeting. And now he is out of job completely...losing 71 to 29 percent in his primary last June. Why?
Because he wouldn't go along with the Cult.
Sanchez read from Inglis's recollection of a conversation with some voters: "'Bob, what don't you get? Barack Obama is a socialist, communist Marxist who wants to destroy the American economy so he can take over as dictator. Health care is part of that. And he wants to open up the Mexican border and turn [the US] into a Muslim nation.'"
Sounds like Cult Tribe 101. But who were these people?
"That was several 80-year-old couples that were expressing their views. And you know, what I should have said was, 'Over my dead body that's gonna happen. I can guarantee it's not gonna happen,'" said Inglis. "That would have been the better answer, wouldn't it? Rather than the one I gave, which is, 'Well it's not quite that bad, let's keep it within the realm of facts.'"
Facts? Bob...Bob...Bob...don't you know that whatever the Cult says are facts, are facts damnit!
Check out more of the interview.
Ingliss was an example of a Republican that I respected. Sadly (and as I have said a zillion times on here), they are a dying breed. If you ain't a hate spitting, fear mongering malcontent with wildly psychotic theories and made up facts, you are not welcome in the GOP this year.
I ask again, how can they win by moving further to the right? More importantly, how can they maintain party integrity in the future?
13 comments:
If you ain't a hate spitting, fear mongering malcontent with wildly psychotic theories and made up facts, you are not welcome in the GOP this year.
So you're saying that Henry Waxman should switch parties?
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/112767-waxman-sees-bright-side-to-nov-losses
Mark, I know these guys really tick you off. But bitching about nameless cult members is kind of a waste of time. Instead you should talk about people you can actually put a name to, and the stupid nonsense they spout. For every instance of some nameless nutjob who shouts from a crowd that Obama is a Nazi Marxist the right will find some nameless nutjob who shouts from a crowd that Bush was a Nazi capitalist.
You need to find real examples of real Republicans kowtowing to the politics of hate and distraction. Take, for example, the latest Republican push to repeal the 14th amendment (the one that explicitly gives anyone born in the US citizenship). Republicans jumping on this bandwagon include McCain, McConnell, Kyl, Graham, etc. Not nameless nutjobs, but men who are the mainstream of the Republican party.
This is, of course, just another election year lie. Every two to four years the Republicans trot out another constitutional amendment that they know has absolutely no chance of ever passing, and they blow up it into the crushing issue of the day. And after the election they promptly forget about it, because they never had any intention of ever doing anything. And the rest of the Republican Party just pretends they never said it.
In the 90s it was the balanced budget amendment, the term limits amendment, and the anti-abortion amendment. In the 2000s it was the anti-gay marriage amendment. Now it's the anchor baby amendment.
In 1994 the Republicans won a majority of votes in the House on a platform of term limits. Today than half the Republicans have been in the House for four or more terms. And Newt Gingrich, the mastermind of the strategy, served twenty years in the House, for six more years after he pushed a term limits amendment that would have limited service to 12 years.
Balanced budget amendment? That obviously never happened. But when they held full control of the presidency, House and Senate in 2002-2006, the Republicans never once passed a balanced budget. They turned Clinton's surpluses into deficits and the budgets they wrote didn't even include war expenses, which means their budgets were outright lies.
In 2004 Bush barely won the election on the strength of the promise of an anti-gay marriage amendment. Now five or so states have gay marriage, Prop 8 in California looks like it's going down and serious conservative legal minds were behind its overturning.
Remember when Arnold Schwarzenegger was just elected? Everyone in the Republican Party was swooning over him, bemoaning the fact that the Constitution required native birth. In 2003 Orrin Hatch proposed to amend the Constitution to allow Schwarzenegger to become president. Now the Republicans hate Arnold and wouldn't think of passing such a law.
The pattern is disturbingly obvious...
Care to quote some of your love and respect for Inglis from before he was ousted? Ya see, I think you're just saying that as a dodge. I'm sure Inglis voted for all kinds of shit you hate.
As far as crazy voters - well he is from hicksvilles-central South Carolina. It may be on the coast, but it might as well be flyover country. Come to think of it, it is - flyover between NY and Florida.
And then, speaking to what the govt is doing as directed by the GOVERNING party...
http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/06/because-what-could-go-wrong-wi
But according to M the WHOLE real estate bubble, housing catastrophe was the fault of evil (and stupid) financial companies and Credit Default Swaps. The govt did not do ANYTHING wrong in the last 40 years with respect to housing. No, nothing to see here, move along.
Juris, why do you bring up the party that is currently in power? They shall ask questions of you...you shall not ask questions of them.
Budgets? BLK's criticism of them stops right at the year of 2006. How convenient. You think people wouldn't notice that? Must stop - side is hurting from laughing.
i thought i read somewhere that congress isnt even submitting a budget to the president this year. guess you cant criticize something that doesnt exist right blk? ask rangel and waters how to maintain party integrity markadelphia.
Republicans haven't been in charge of congress for 5 years blk. Step into 2010 already and tell us about obamas accomplishments. You won't because you can't.
Well for "accomplishments", how about this?
But when they held full control of the presidency, House and Senate in 2002-2006, the Republicans never once passed a balanced budget.
The party that currently "holds full control of the presidency, House and Senate" isn't passing a budget at all, and has spent all summer demagoging anyone who dares expect them to go by the very same 'Pay-Go' rule they demanded.
Somehow I missed you being incensed about that. Go figure.
haha, good one DT. Either one of you lightweights care to comment on the fact that there is no budget at all this year?
*cue crickets*
I'm willing to bet that when I look into this, it will end up just like all the other red herrings that get put up on here.
Let's see....ah yes...
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/104635-dems-wont-pass-budget
Not exactly as you have described here. No mention whatsoever of 1998, 2004 or 2006 as well as the reason why they are doing this (cost savings). What a shock.
Not exactly, no. Want to bet that if I look into your archives for 2006, I'll find you griping about how unacceptable all this was when the Republicans did it?
...the reason why they are doing this (cost savings).
It can be taken to mean that, but that's not what it says. What it says is "not until after the midterms" and "not until we get a report from the deficit commission and can be on the same page with them".
Be that as it may, would you care to show me a balanced budget by anyone since the Clinton Administration? Are you seriously suggesting you'll see one now? Are you seriously suggesting that Democrats will actually honor their own Pay-Go rule? Are you even seriously suggesting that deficits under this Congress and this President will have any serious competition in any preceding year, ever in the history of the US?
Bottom line:
But when they held full control of the presidency, House and Senate in 2002-2006, the Republicans never once passed a balanced budget.
Can you show me one that has been passed since? Do you have any realistic expectation of seeing one in this Congress or the next? If so, why? If not, why do you consider the above an indictment of Republicans?
From the link you referenced, Mark:
“To share sacrifices fairly, and to be politically viable, the commission’s proposal can only have one form: an agreement that cuts spending and raises revenue,” Hoyer will say. “We’re lying to ourselves and our children if we say we can maintain our current levels of entitlement spending defense spending, and taxation without bankrupting our country.”
And yet that directly contradicts what you claimed in the comment thread of "Krugman A Go Go". Check your archives.
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2010_05_01_archive.html
Nice link there.
"For weeks, Democratic leaders have tried to strike a deal on the budget, which is a non-binding resolution, but to no avail. The talks triggered splits in the Democratic Caucus, alienating conservative Democrats from their liberal colleagues."
Why the hell do you need to strike a deal with anyone? You have a veto-proof majority. Sounds like the maintenence problems are on your side of the aisle there Mr. Wizard.
BLK sure has a problem with those previous years! Not a word about this year huh blk. I know, move on to the next thread.
Y'see rld they put the word right in there -- "conservative". Those goddam conservative [read "not flaming fuckass liberal"] Dems - the one Nation and the good Sen. whazzizfukface [don't remember and too lazy to look up] said the party would be better off without.
Funny them left-wingers, want to run the govt but hate having to actually deal with the rogue elements of their own party. And then actually think they can get away with blaming the REPUBLICANS for all of the Dems failures. Amazingly that actually works with their own BASE.
Post a Comment