Tuesday, May 28, 2013

The Democrats' favorite Republican...

Bipartisanship!

Fresh from trailing the hem of his garment through the tornado wreckage in Oklahoma, our Dear Leader is now walking arm-in-arm with the Democrats' favorite Republican down the Jersey Shore and the Today show talking heads are practically decorating their cupcakes on camera at the sight of The One and Double Stuff making kissy face.

If it were up to The Chattering Class right now, the GOP wouldn't even need a primary in 2016; 30 Rock has picked their man to lose the next election.

34 comments:

Dave in Indiana said...

Conservatism, Libertarianism, Constitutionalism, etc. are philosophies, not to be confused with brands.

Republican is a brand, just like Ford, GM, Toyota, etc. Similarly each produces their share of lemons.

staghounds said...

I don't know, the last party Bloomberg claimed was Republican, hew might still be able to pass..,

Bram said...

Christie is the best Governor we've had in NJ in 20 years (since Tom Kean). But - that's not saying much. He would be a horrible national candidate.

Old NFO said...

I just don't get the media fawning over EITHER of them...

Anonymous said...

I guess the plan is for BHO to spend as much time as possible with Christie so come 2016, nobody in the GOP will be able to get past the stench of their friendship.

Gerry

Anonymous said...

When I saw the headline, I thought this was going to be about McCain.

Tam said...

Bram,

"Christie is the best Governor we've had in NJ in 20 years (since Tom Kean). But - that's not saying much."

Yeah, that is gonna be seen as a pretty low hurdle out in flyover country. Sort of a "tallest midget at the state fair" thing... ;)

staghounds said...

Maybe, maybe not. The expert wisdom seems to be that the purple states are the only ones that have to be wooed.

fast richard said...

Cristie might be able to convince me to go back to voting for whatever fool the libertarians put up.

Ed Foster said...

Stag, Obama lost one supporter in eight between 2008 and 2012. If as many people voted Republican in 2012 as had voted for Bush in 2004, we'd have a Mormon POTUS right now.

Independents break 2 to 1 conservative when they vote, but they don't vote much. Likewise, conservative Republicans are quite likely to stay home when the choice is a 1970's Democrat like McCain.

We lost because the silly old men who run the Republican party didn't listen to their own pollsters. They knew Obama would lose a lot of support. Their own pollsters hit the number right on the head.

But they ignored the same pollsters when they said 35% of southerners couldn't in good conscience vote for one of those devil worshiping Mormons. They simply assumed that when push came to shove, the Bible Belt would hold it's nose and vote against Obama.

Instead, they stayed home. We got a more conservative House despite the stay-at-home element, and we'll sweep the Senate next year, but to win the White House back in 2016, they will have to listen to at least the more erudite Tea Baggers and move the party back to center-right, someplace they haven't been since Gingrich's glands got him blackmailed out of office in the '90's.

JimB said...

Christe lost my vote and support the moment he said he'd sign for more stringent gun controls. He's just another RINO

Ed Foster said...

Actually, I'm pulling for Susannah Martinez for President. The lady kicks ass, used to make her living in her parent's Security company with a .357 on her hip, and, while the Great-Granddaughter of a Mexican general, wants the border shut completely, the illegals out, and she wants it right now.

O.K., she's against gay marriage, but so what. She has a right to her opinion, and given the actual demographics of the country, it is simply a matter of gay marriage or gun ownership.

The left owns the gay thing, and the right owns the gun thing. Libertarians like me have to chose one or the other, and firearms ownership strikes more of a resonant chord with me.

I suspect tolerance for gay marriage is more of an age related thing than not, and the entire issue will be nonexistent 20 years from now.

But letting the media and the liberal establishment demonize us and turn around everything firearms owners have won in the courts changes the game permanently.

Certainly the Times and CBS will have their knickers in a knot with NRA members running both the White House and both chambers of Congress, but it will also legitimize gun ownership and force them to take at least a slightly more reasonable tack if they want any access at all.

It ain't a perfect world crew, and we need Cletus and Jackie-Lynn's vote to stop the tail spin.

Boat Guy said...

"...legitimize gun ownership ..."
A completely unnecessary task. It's already quite legitimate, thank you.

RevolverRob said...

Whoever we think might run in 2013 will almost certainly not be the candidate in 2016. Unfortunately, I also don't care much who the Republicans run or how the Democrats run. Both candidates will suck and we will continue to suffer. Party division in this country is a real problem.

For me, what we need is a strong independent candidate that can compete and win. If only Ross Perot had won back in '92 or '96, he could have actually legitimized independent candidates and we might have some non-party line toers running today.

Oh well...

-Rob

Ed Foster said...

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. It's a two party system, and independents don't have the backfield depth to swing anything.

Essentially, an independent President would be powerless, and eliminate one third of the checks and balances built into the Constitution. It would be government by override, and rule by Congress alone.

As bad as it is, it's still better than the European coalition system, which guarantees everybody will get something. An elephant is a mouse designed by a committee.

We have a serious primary system, if people would only use it. Also, the track record of recall elections, at least for conservatives, is about 50%.

We'll never change the Democratic party, and third party candidacies always give us somebody like Boy Clinton by splitting the conservative vote.

So we have to listen to the Tea Partiers, organize instead of talk, and try to swing the Republicans back toward a more traditional value system.

Like it or lump it, they're the only game in town.

BryanP said...


We'll never change the Democratic party, and third party candidacies always give us somebody like Boy Clinton by splitting the conservative vote.


Except when they give us someone like Baby Bush. If the RNC isn't sending Ralph Nader a fruit basket on his birthday they're ungrateful wretches.

Windy Wilson said...

BryanP: "If the RNC isn't sending Ralph Nader a fruit basket on his birthday they're ungrateful wretches."
I know. I'd been considering that myself, but for financial hardships.

Ed Foster: "rule by Congress alone"
Something like Pre Civil War administrations.

staghounds said...

If only we didn't have rule...

RevolverRob said...

Ed, you and I would have to disagree anyways.

I never have and never will support a congress controlled by the same party as the president. As far as I am concerned, if we must have a two-party system (and I do not necessarily think we must, just that we have historical inertia carrying that system forward), then we must make sure they constantly fight each other. If both parties are fighting and bills are NOT being passed, I am happy.

Really, what I want more than anything is a president with enough balls and no agenda. One who will wield his Veto pen with force. Also one who has the balls to eliminate presidential orders and mandates for all time. But since we insist on maintaining a two party system, we will never elect a person with genuine integrity to the office that would do such things.

-Rob

Anonymous said...

Get a spic on the ticket or it's a ticket to Neverland. Rubio '12; what might have been. Instead the "adults" decided, and we got (gag) Mitts.

staghounds said...

1. Anon 3:37, thank you for giving up that free stereotype-confirming rudeness.

2. "I never have and never will support a congress controlled by the same party as the president."

So we get a situation where Congress and the President "fight" each other by finding liberty-limiting, currency-destroying, and patronage-building programs on which they can agree.

How much vetoing has this, or the last, Congress-fighting President issued? How many Presidentially decreed wars have these President-fighting Congresses stopped?

Volunteer said...

"...legitimize gun ownership ..."
A completely unnecessary task. It's already quite legitimate, thank you."

Boat Guy, what country to you live in? Gun ownership is definitely NOT legitimate in this country. Over 20,000 Federal, and local laws nationwide that limit, tax, regulate (in every way), our use and ownership.

I live in Texas, plenty of restrictive, limiting gun laws, that make NO SENSE. Now, what about Kalifornia.........nuff said

Boat Guy said...

I didn't say we don't have over 20,000 cases of unConstitutional infringement; I'll stipulate that we do. Regardless, I don't need to have anybody's say-so regarding my God-given Constitutionally guaranteed liberties to "legitimze" them. They are defacto "legitimate" to me whether or not anybody else agrees.
I live in "contested" territory, where we are using the system to recall some would-be "rulers"; it'll be nice if the system works, but I hold that unConstitutional laws don't apply to me.

Anonymous said...

1. "...first...kill all the lawyers." They do nothing but impede progress.

2. Elect a conservative spic (insert personal stereotype as rude if you will, it's Southern shorthand for Hispanic) before the "adults", lawyers (but I repeat myself), and 30 Rock collude to elect a liberal one.

perlhaqr said...

Anonymous @5:29

(insert personal stereotype as rude if you will, it's Southern shorthand for Hispanic)

Then learn not to say it. It's roughly as polite as using "nigger" is as a 'Southern shorthand' for "black".

Anonymous said...

Actually "nigger" is Southern derivation for Negro, and no more offensive than spic until it was deemed so.

The whole demonization of words and slang is an absurdity that is mostly a creation of the elites in their quest to monger class and race war.

Tam said...

"the elites in their quest to monger class and race war"

Wow. Just... wow.

Which elites are these? The Gnomes of Zurich? The Bilderbergers? The Joooos?

Anonymous said...

Question: as a female, are you so offended by the blanket characterization of women as ho's that it should be elevated to the status of hate speech? Why or why not?

Geodkyt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Geodkyt said...

As far as I know, Tam is opposed to the whole concept of "officially recognized hate speech", while still knowing there is hateful speech.

If you call a large Black gentleman, "Nigger", expect me to laugh (at least) at you when he responds to your provoking speech in a time-honored manner.

Likewsie, I suspect someone calling Aunt Stabby a "ho" might end up feeling the back of his head to see if his left cheek came to a rest there. At least.

Anonymous said...

To be clear, though the wingtip and wingnut factions of the Republican party would never allow it, serve up a ticket featuring Rubio or Sowell or both and they'd be rewarded with not only my vote but my activism...and I rarely advocate for anything political.

And I don't use the spic and nigger terms because it hurts and offends people because we have all been taught that it is hurtful and offensive, but why?

It just makes no sense that words originating from innocent vernacular contractions of other words could come to be viewed as so incendiary as to be deserving of the violent physical retribution that geodykt seems to endorse, while another vernacular contraction based on misogyny and the objectification of more than half of the human race is embraced and accepted as raunchy humor and entertainment.

No Tam, trotting out the usual suspects of conspiracy theory only serves to reveal your own need to label and caricaturize. And all the while the elitist ruling class right under our noses in NY, DC, and LA encourage and orchestrate the class and race warfare that they envision will ensconce them as permanent hierarchal royalty.

Tam said...

I have such a need to label and caricature (no need to -ize; "caricature" is a verb as well) that I have a blog dedicated to it. You're soaking in it, as a matter of fact.

I can't help it if you say things like "elitist ruling class" and "permanent heirarchal royalty" that are right in my wheelhouse. Leave a curve hanging belt-high over the plate, and you can't gripe if you turn around to watch it go over the fence...

Anonymous said...

Foul (knuckler not a curve, ya gotta get out in front of it). Steerike two...

Seerak said...

The left owns the gay thing, and the right owns the gun thing. Libertarians like me have to chose one or the other, and firearms ownership strikes more of a resonant chord with me.

And that's how they defeat you: by fooling you into thinking that liberty is fragmented all over the place, and you have to pick one or the other.

It's a trap. Don't fall for it. Instead of letting them force you to make false choices, assert liberty as of a piece and demand candidates that do the same.