Tweet
The Tea Party triumph of Christine O’Donnell in a small pool of conservatives in Delaware over moderate Mike Castle has led the bulk of the Republican Party to run screaming in the other direction. The NRSC, the Republican campaign arm in the Senate, gave the most cursory congratulatory statement I’ve ever seen, and followed it up by suggesting that Jim DeMint could finance O’Donnell’s general election campaign, because they’re certainly not dropping a dime. Mike Castle, the vanquished longtime officeholder, sent word that he would not endorse O’Donnell. In the latest in what will be a series of bits of info on the anti-masturbation, anti-choice O’Donnell, she apparently doesn’t have much use forevolution. And the first set of post-primary polling shows Democrat Chris Coons up big.
Republicans more than likely cost themselves a Senate seat last night. Chris Coons begins the general election in Delaware with a 50-34 lead over Christine O’Donnell. Mike Castle would have led Coons by a 45-35 margin.
While O’Donnell may have ingratiated herself to Delaware’s small group of registered Republicans over the last month she’s turned off everyone else. An August Daily Kos/PPP poll in Delaware found her favorability rating at 23/33. It’s now 29/50.
Mike Castle voters back Chris Coons by 16 points.
O’Donnell, who does have media training as a Christian conservative pundit for many years, seemed unfazed by the pile-on, telling Good Morning America that she can win without national Republican support, that she needs just $1 million dollars in a small state to succeed for the next 50 days, and that people called Ronald Reagan too extreme once, too. It’s a fair point, but Reagan, well, won. This deficit looks far too big to make up in under two months, especially with the entire establishment deserting her. Dave Weigel, a Delaware native, notes:
I see a lot of conservatives arguing tonight that Christine O’Donnell’s victory shows that she can upset the establishment and win this seat. These conservatives are not from Delaware. O’Donnell won a slim majority in a race with around 58,000 Republican voters. She won Kent and Sussex counties, the conservative parts of the state. But even in scoring a massive upset, she lost New Castle County. That’s where 2/3 of the state lives, and where, in the past, I saw yards with Obama/Biden and Castle signs, Kerry/Edwards and Castle signs, Gore/Lieberman and Castle signs — you get the picture. There are tens of thousands of Delawareans who were expecting to vote for Mike Castle who are now given a choice between their workmanlike county executive, Chris Coons, and a woman who spent two weeks on the cover of the News Journal for stories about her trouble paying college fees, her lawsuit against her former employer ISI, her appearance in a MTV special about abstinence, etc, and etc, and etc. She got such rough treatment from the paper that she stopped talking to it [...]
No one like O’Donnell, a pure ideological candidate, has won a statewide race in Delaware in modern times. Maybe she’ll be the first! But the most likely scenario is that a shocked Delaware electorate elevates Coons to the U.S. Senate while waiting to see if it can give Castle another crack at statewide office in 2012. It’s what we’re used to.
With the margins in the Senate likely to be tight, this one seat could be the difference in the majority, and Coons looks like he’ll hold it for the Democrats. What’s more, the Dems will most likely pick up Castle’s House seat in Delaware with Lt. Gov. John Carney, too.
I’m told by some Dem-leaning pundits that I’m supposed to feel bad that the GOP has gone to crazytown, that this portends unwell for progressive politics. I just don’t really agree. All Christine O’Donnell does is rip off the mask of conservative ideological purity, a mask that had already fallen off and was being stomped on for years. You may remember the Republican caucus in the House and Senate voting against pretty much every Democratic agenda item for the past two years, mostly in unison. Or a little thing called “the impeachment of Bill Clinton.” The only difference between O’Donnell and the “establishment” GOP is that she doesn’t hide her ideology. People should stop pining for some golden version of the Republican Party, a conciliatory, collegial team of problem-solvers. They’re not coming back. They haven’t been around for a decade and a half.
UPDATE: As if to underline the essential sameness between the “establishment” GOP and the Tea Party faction, the NRSC, fearing a revolt from the base, reversed themselves and sent a $42,000 check to O’Donnell’s campaign, along with a wider-ranging statement of support. A pittance, and this will probably end up the last communication between the NRSC and O’Donnell, but duly noted.
95 Comments
I agree that the mask is off the face of the Republican establishment, but it is still very scary to see these people taking over a major party.
I don’t think they’re “taking over” so much as purging the more moderate elements from what has always been a pretty radical ideology. The tea baggers are what we have seen in pretty large numbers here in TX for some time now. It’s just that the last two election cycles have convinced them in the national party that their problem is they aren’t radical enough.
She has god on her side cuz she was pure. ;)
Well, no, what happens in the crazy party has little bearing on progressive politics. Not even a Dem-dominated Congress produces progressive change, so. And yeah, O’Donnell isn’t much, if any, more conservative than DeMint or Inhofe — only less polished — and yeah, the rise of people like O’Donnell might help Dems in the short term (um, hooray?), but it’s too soon to tell what the tea party energy will bring. It might help Obama win in 2012 (um, hooray?) but it might also help Palin beat him. An energized base is a powerful thing. (Not that we would know firsthand.)
It’s a little strange that the people who constantly defend Dems by pointing to the Palin monster are the ones most loudly cheering the rise of tea party. Be careful what you wish for and all that.
So let me get this straight, the Dims are counting on the tea party to save them? LOL, IC they think voters will vote for their Corporatist candidates because the tea party’s candidates are to extreme. Fat chance. If the GOPer rank and file is pissed off at their parties mainstream it’s even more so on the left of the Dim. party. The difference is the Dims base isn’t coming out to vote unless a Progressive is running. It’s a bad yr. for incumbents of both parties , for good reason almost all of them SUCK.
The Tea Party mentality is dangerous IMO. Was talking to my daughter in Arizona last night and she said that the “new” governor has undone virtually everything that Janet had accomplished over the years. The state is now in a complete uproar and the loonies are in charge.
As DDay says, this isn’t about the “rise” of anything. It’s about the Republican base feeling that they can finally stop wearing the “kinder, gentler” and “compassionate conservative” masks and be what nearly a half-century of the corporate-bigot “Southern Strategy” alliance has refined and honed to a razor-sharp edge.
That’s why people who think that this is in any way good news for the GOP are very likely people who are just ticked off that they might not be able to punish the Democrats like Nader did in 2000 — or those people that can still pretend to see any sort of daylight between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
On a tangent from the tea party campaigns, but still in the elections category, I have just posted a Seminal Diary with Jerry Brown’s new campain ads where they are calling out Meg Whitman’s lies.
I don’t know about any of you but, as a liberal….. I am fired up about voting in this election because if we let the “crazies” win control of congress we will have only ourselves to blame. Who in the world wants to give them back the “keys to the car”? I don’t understand the entheusiasm gap. I thought I would loose my mind during the Bush reign of terror, I can not bear the thought of the right driving the car off the cliff. We all have too much to loose, a real motivator for me!
I’m going to guess that the implicit cause and effect in that headline is reversed – the GOP is abandoning O’Donnell because she does so badly in polls. No sense throwing away money. They’re perfectly willing to support Sharon Angle, who strikes me as just as daft as O’Donnell. They just don’t have a chance in DE, and the Republicans aren’t shy about cutting their losses.
Given the (apparently) high-profile scrambling away from O’Donnell, is it now probable that the party (and the MSM) will start to (openly) take a closer look at just now crazy these teabaggers really are? I just don’t see how we can avoid having that national discussion, but weirder stuff gets ignored every friggin’ day, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
Moderate, progressive, trad. Dem & middle of the road Indies are burned out by the ongoing stupidity, waste & carnage as exhibited by fed pols over the past decade+, but esp despondent by the b.s. over the past 18 months or so BHO got in.
T-partiers have been funneled a lot of $$$ by libertarian zillionaire Koch brothers bc the Kochs don’t want ANY gov’t regs, nor do the Kochs wish to pay ANY taxes. And they can reliably manipulate T-partiers – already brainwashed by RushGlenn, Fox & their C Street “Family” churches – to go along with the Koch’s desires, as long as they can insert their fundie religion into the gov’t and ram it down everyone else’s throat.
Elites in the GOP are running scared bc they’re afraid they’ll lose their cushy socialistic gov’t jobs. Dem elites live in the dreamworld that says they offer the “lesser of 2 evils,” so the middle class serfs will vote for them “just because.”
Nov will be interesting…
And I’ll second what your daughter said. Sadly.
I quite agree with your “take.” The Republics still feel that they can manipulate the T-partiers, and probably in the long run, they can. Rs will cut their losses, esp since their war chests are somewhat tapped out.
I don’t think this T-party thing in DE signifies all that much about the “dissolution” of the R party, but I’m willing to stand corrected.
No. Both D’s and R’s LOVE the T-party bc they serve as a distraction for all concerned.
My daughter went to UofA and has always loved Az but for the first time she wants to get out. She won’t for awhile because her son is at UofA for 2 more years but I think she will leave as soon as she can..
Right, nothing to see here. That’s just silly. As I said, the candidates themselves aren’t much more conservative, but the activist energy (supported, yes, by billionaire cash) is.
I’m the last person to wet my bed over “the rise” of anything Republican, given the real scary thing is the corporate-imperial-bipartisan state itself, but I don’t believe anyone who claims to know exactly where the right-wing energy (amid double digit unemployment) will lead.
Onitgoes, you sound pretty defeated. We really can’t afford to take on that mantle. We can see how difficult it is for BHO to make change but making change he is! Maybe we’d like more but to sit around and whine is not much support for holding on to the huge victory we had with his election. We can’t let the republicans win again. We absolutely need to geer up for this election, it fires me up to act when I think of possibly returning to the misery and hellishness of the Bush years. Fear is a big motivator and the left should be afraid…. of the right!
Actually, according to Fox News, the GOP has now endorsed this crazy woman. That is how bad the GOP wants to control Congress. Guess they will put her in charge of the “Committee For Enforcement of Morality?”
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/09/15/rnc-supports-odonnell-delaware-nrsc-changes-tune
Republican politicians seem to have the same attitude about Tea Partiers that Democratic politicians have about progressives, which is that they’re an annoying fact of life that is best manipulated. That’s instructive, because it’s pretty clear that while the Democrats don’t pay much attention to us, the Republicans pander to the Tea Partiers. That’s because the Tea Partiers have switched their votes in numbers large enough to affect elections, and have done it repeatedly.
Rants about Naderites to the contrary, progressives have never done that. Until they do, politics will continue to drift right.
You are right they do want control of congress “bad”! What is most disturbing to me is how many Americans are stupid enough to vote for them. What is going on???!!!
Well, until progressives can unite to change the Dems, I suggest everybody go vote for Dems in Nov. unless they really want more radical right wing religious nuts in Congress. GO Vote For Dems In Nov.
All part of the overall plan by the puppetmasters.
First, convince voters they only have two choices… CHECK
Second, slowly, ever so slowly, move both parties to the right… CHECK
Finally, when it’s starting to become obvious that they’ve both moved to the right, rely on step 1 and move one party so far right the voters have no choice but to accept the other right party… CHECK
Keep on endorsing this folks. After all, it’s served us all so well…
It is interesting how some very attractive women (Sarah and Christine, for example) can take advantage of their natural beauty and yet be very uptight about sex. Is this their defense mechanism or a way of relieving guilt? See Christine’s amazing anti-porn video made in the 1990s, when she had long wavy dark hair and was very attractive…
Except not so much. Here’s Cornyn:
“What is going on???!!!”
The economy mainly. I sure hope people don’t say home in Nov. In my opinion, it would be really, really stupid. Actually, the Tea Party crowd is being used……boy are they going to be in for a big surprise!
Plus, all the lies they have spread about Obama and the fact that “he’s not like them”; ya know, white. And, he’s a Muslim too. Fox News is a big part of the problem too.
I really don’t think it’s that complicated (re: it being the economy).
Republicans have invested a lot of effort into convincing people that they should vote for the more ignorant, bigoted know-nothing candidate.
So they shouldn’t be surprised if they lose votes to people even more ignorant than they are.
If stupid is a virtue, then in the world of half-wits the witless man (or woman) is King (or Queen).
Yes, but T-partiers still, in the main, support the same old rightwing positions: a) decrease taxes for the oligarchs (bc then, and only then, will they “create jobs”), b) deregulate everything in sight (bc it will make it easier for the oligarchs to “create jobs”), c) no welfare for anyone every (bc that’s really the cause of everything wrong in the universe), and d) spend up big time for the military (because that’s how we roll).
There really isn’t anything much different between what the T-partiers want v. what the oligarchs want.
The same cannot be said about what progressives want v. what the oligarchs want, and Dem pols these days support the oligarchs, just like R pols do.
Hence: what’s the problem for oligarchs if the T-party wins? Not much. Only problem is is an R pol loses his/her cushy socialistic gov’t job. Oh well.
Egad can you put a little enthusiasm in that? You almost put me to sleep. We can either vote dem or accept responsibility for giving the crazies the keys. I don’t know about you but I cannot stand the idea of tea baggers running the country. We have the power to block the interception. Are we going to stand and watch or bat down the attempt? Lets stand up to these nut jobs, we have everything to loose!
Progressives are upset and they have a right to be. The Health Insurance Company and Pharmaceutical Welfare and Giveaway Act is just the most visible example of why. Then there are the two wars, Guantanimo Bay, no action on LGBT civil rights, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Ken Salazar and etc. In my opinion, the Democrats are only marginally better than the sane Republicans and while they are way better than the batsh*t teabaggers, “We don’t suck as much as the other guys” isn’t exactly a way to motivate people to turn out.
I’m going to vote because my rep deserves to be re-elected and I want to get rid of the loathsome Goodhair Perry. I think Progressives should vote too but I can understand it if they choose not to. Your argument though is better made to partisan Democrats than Progressives.
This is about exposing the Republicans for what they are. The Tea Party, as DDay explained way back in February, isn’t a separate entity but the purest expression of the Republican base:
The GOP encourages it to be viewed as a separate party — even though no Tea Partier runs as anything but a Republican (when some Democrats tried to register a separate actual Tea Party, the Tea Partiers moved to block it).
The reason for the pretense? So that the GOP can create some false distance between the bigots in their midst and the main Republican Party, when in fact all the Tea Partiers are, are Republicans that don’t bother to wear the “compassionate conservative” mask, and who are less careful about hiding their bigotry when out in public.
No, I don’t think so. They don’t deserve my support now that they’re in power and reneging on promises.
If Progressives want to remake the Democratic Party, they have to go after Blue Dog and New Dem types when Democrats are out of power.
We focus too much on the Republican stupidity when Republicans are in power, when we should be using the time to reshape the Democratic Party.
Michael Whitney has a fresh cross-post ready: Prop 19: Cops, Law Enforcement Support Marijuana Legalization
We can mock candidates like O’Donnell & Angle all we like. Should either win, they will be handsomely bought off by the PTB, and they will “behave themselves,” which means, they’ll do what the oligarchs tell them to do.
The oligarchs have hired Sarah Palin & Glenn Beck to entertain the t-party masses with tent-show revivals.
Should t-partiers get elected, they’ll do what they’re told.
EXACTLY
It was very scary when the current “leaders” of the Republican Party took over the Party from the Eisenhower Republicans. They just crazier and crazier.
Agreed. The teabaggers are the sacrificial anode of the Republican party. The part that is designed to corrode and fail in order to keep the rest of the structure pristine. Or maybe a better analogy is the crappy car that is surrounded on the lot by even crappier cars so it looks better by comparison. Either way, let there be no doubt that the Republicans and the teabaggers are one and the same.
To quote Waiting For Guffman:
“We’re all glad you’re here but, to be blunt…what’s wrong with you?”
D-loyalists/apologists need to learn something about making friends and building alliances. Don’t refer to the completely reasonable and analytical criticisms of those you’re courting as “whining”. Because when I point out, for example, that HCR is an insurance industry bailout with no price controls and that I don’t appreciate Durbin calling me a “bleeding heart” because I don’t want to see soc sec needlessly gutted by a faux progressive-that’s not “whining”. I could go on, but I’ll assume you get the point.
About the only people I know who don’t see this as a good thing for the Dems are either the Naderites, or those who are still angry that Edwards or Hillary didn’t win the primaries — and I say this as a former Edwards supporter who is now thanking her lucky stars he didn’t make it much past Iowa. (The “Hillary would have given us single payer by now” crowd is especially hilarious. If Hillary and Obama weren’t essentially interchangeable, former Clinton senior adviser Rahm Emanuel would never have found his way into the Obama White House.)
I keep wondering who and where the next William F Buckley is to shout “Stop the madness” to the party. We like to talk about the spineless Democrats but political cowardice comes in many guises. Apparently no Republican with the necessary stature has the required courage.
So, unless we are OK with them taking over, we need to stand up to the bullies. They are rip snorting mad that they are out of power and will say and/or do anything to regain it. This is not a time to be tepid about the future, we have an epic battle on our hands. We need to be fighting mad at the idea of them thinking they have the right to take power again. They lie, cheat, and steal, not the caliber of individual worthy of making policy for this wonderful country!
Again, don’t call me stupid because I don’t have the same (imo, skewed, but see-I admitted it’s my opinion) take on our current political situation as you.
Right? How soon they forget. Clinton was DLC all the way. I find it questionable that even LGBT rights would have progressed more under her leadership.
Amen
Correction: she has no argument, just talking points.
Sure, I get it, maybe what I am trying to say is that this isn’t the best time to vent (and maybe whine wasn’t a great choice of words). I am so worried though, that we see the gap between what we want and what we are getting as equal to the risk we have with allowing the republicans to regain power; that we give away the farm because we are fixated on the poor quality of our soil.
Taking over from whom? I submit that the policies they pursue for won’t be much different from those of the blue dog party that currently controls the executive and legislature.
Of course they will. Those that don’t, won’t last very long.
We saw this in 1982 when a goodly chunk of the Reagan Revolution conservatives that were swept in with Ronnie got swept right out again two years later. Wingnut author John LeBoutillier, who was born in the tony Long Island town of Glen Cove but reframed himself as a rough-and-ready Granite Stater, was among the members of this short-tenured crew that came to be known collectively as “the Popsicles”, because they lasted about as long as a popsicle on a sidewalk in summer.
Oh, those evil Naderites! Well, if the don’ think it’s good…
Are you so enamored of the Democratic party you mistake what you just wrote for a real argument?
The teabag movement is probably a moderately good thing in the short term. But long term, who knows?
Every time the GOP takes a hard turn right, Dems are giddy. Goldwater! Whoo hoo. We win! Except that led to Reagan. Newt Gingrich in 94. Whoo hoo! Clinton’ll kick their ass. Except that lead to the impeachment of Clinton, which led to Bush in 2000. (Even though you, being you, probably blame it all on Nader.) Palin, McDonnel. Woo hoo,. We win! Then, who knows?
Cheering extremism on the other side, especially when that extremism is combined with genuine grassroots fervent, is certainly empty. It’s probably also unwise.
We’ve already seen a true progressive defeat a Liebercrat in the race for a House seat, and the House is where the action is right now.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-court/mad-as-hell-but-dont-want_b_717531.html
Good article.
What I’m hearing from some here is “I’m pissed off at the Dems because we haven’t gotten exactly what we wanted so I’m going to stay home, vote Green or vote Republican.” Doesn’t make good sense to me but hey, it’s your vote.
When you say “we” are you saying “we” should vote in suppport of policies we disagree with just to keep out the Republicans?? I hope you’re not suggesting that voters in a Democracy are supposed to vote against their own policies.
I disagree with health care “reform”. I disagree with assassinating American citizens. I disagree with ending habeas corpus. I disagree with the continuation of either war, much less both. I disagree with continuing to hold GITMO open. I disagree with not passing EFCA.
I could go on and on, but I disagree with way, way, way more of what the Democrats are doing than I agree with them. Therefore it’s logical for me, and people like me, to choose to not support the D’s. After all, I wouldn’t ask you to vote Republican since you obviously disagree with them.
Something that all partisans share.
I won’t be staying home in Nov, but I won’t be voting for candidates just because they have a “D” after their names either. It’s better to vote than to stay home and not vote.
I disagree. I’ve been of the opinion for a while now that the splintering of the legacy parties’ voting blocs is the only thing that will move this nation toward a political structure that actually represents the will of the people. More parties means more legitimized positions to occupy in dialogs about policy, and almost certainly would lead to more variant analyses getting play-even in the MSM.
Consider Prop 19 in CA. You never hear about it much where policy is discussed in the mainstream because both the Rs and the Ds oppose it. If the Rs and Ds had splintered into 3, 4, 6 parties with some level of influence and just one of them supported Prop 19, you would be hearing about it on the teevee and reading about it on mainstream news sites.
The two parties who control politics in this country decided long, long ago that the way to preserve their power indefinitely is to always hold the exact same position (officially) about truly important policy: energy, monetary, foreign, war, regulatory, etc. The only way to break that political culture, to move past it is to move past the legacy parties-Dems as much as GOPers.
I promise you that policy with tea-baggers and republicans in the majority will look MUCH worse than what we are getting now. I think if BHO didn’t have a steady diet of obstructionism and if republicans weren’t sore losers, that we would be having much more palatable outcomes. I believe he is getting what he can with what he has. But, with republicans and tea-baggers in control, we can kiss any hope of a liberal agenda good bye! We cannot afford to be difficult now, we really need to rally in order to keep the crazies at bay!
Yes. Please.
I hope no one stays home. Even if you’re not supporting the national level D’s, there are some fine local level D’s and there are ALWAYS very important local issues (bonds, constitutional changes, etc.) that should get the benefit of progressive voters stand on the issues.
Please vote. Even if you write in your own name, please vote.
Good post Knox.
Agreed. But I’ve never looked at the letter first. That goes both ways too though. There are commenters here who say they will refuse to vote for any Democrats because they are pissed at Rahm and/or Obama or the Democratic leadership. I am too. Very much but that makes as much sense as voting for the “D” or the “R” reflexively.
“Update On Fox News today, Sarah Palin responded to Rove’s O’Donnell criticism. “We love our friends there in the machine, the expert politicos,” she said. “They need to realize the the time for primary debate is obviously over and it’s time for unity. …We need to go forth and conquer for the American people.” Later Palin added, “It is time to put aside internal power grabs and greed and egos in the party and fight united.”"
If you support the above agenda/Republican/Tea Party agenda; then don’t vote. However, I’m going to take Palin’s advice and Go Vote For Dems! I don’t like everything the Dems have done but they are way closer to what I believe and support than the Republican/Tea Party.
See the word “conquer” in Palin’s remark? Fight United–I’d strongly suggest that we do this too; against the extreme right wing Republican/Tea Bag party.
I fully respect that position.
Keep in mind that everyone here is engaged. It’s not an easy decision to drop out-we honestly believe it’s the right thing to do now. I for one admit I could be wrong, but then again I find that separates me from a lot of more mainstream political operators: I act my conscience first, strategy comes second. At the end of the day I remind myself that politics is an epiphenomenon and that when it comes to real issues that affect real life I mainly agree with you, lib1, texaschick and Ann in AZ.
That word “conquer” really stood out for me, too. Has a ugly sound to it.
Legislative obstructionism wouldn’t affect executive order that could end DADT, for just one example.
At a certain point, I feel like you’re talking down to me. I *think* some others here feel the same.
Agree with your take OFG. It seems that any politician we “elect” is simply a placeholder, not to govern but to keep out anything worse. In the meantime, the placeholder gets to reap all the perks of being an officeholder and ultimately, that is the prize to be had.
If one does choose to actually govern and represent voters, they have a limited time to make a change before they lose their Fat Cat donors.
IT MAY BE A PITTANCE, BUT IT’S THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT ALLOWED BY THE NRSC and it doesn’t look to me that the GOP establishment is turning its back on O’Donnell.
Mitch McConnell has said he’ll support her and give her $$ from his PAC; Mark (Mike?) Pence has said he supports her, and notes that a GOPer was elected in blue Massachusetts, why not in slightly-blye DE?
Dems shouldn’t be counting their chickens…
No telling what’s going to happen in November — it’s bat-shit crazy out there.
Heh. You’re putting so many words in my mouth that between them and the straw-woman version of me you’ve created, I can barely breathe. A-choo!
The Tea Party is the Republican base, and it’s been coddled and its bigotries catered to with extreme assiduousness by the GOP — to the point where it a) believes its own propaganda about being a persecuted, embattled group of victims and b) is now strong enough to demand a “return” to (as if there was ever a departure from) the Good Old Days of Ronald Reagan, whose ascendancy marked the beginning of the end of any post-Watergate hope of a return to sanity for the Republicans.
I cheer the results of last night because for once the Republicans, instead of wedging the Democrats with the millions thrown at fringe left groups to serve as vote vacuums against the Dems, got hoist on their own petard by being wedged by the people in their own base, people whose every need and every bigotry was encouraged over the last half-century as part of the Southern Strategy. But I fear that too many people will not see the object lesson in how the Republicans have been playing Divide and Conquer against us for decades, and a complicit corporate media (there’s a reason I call it “the GOP/Media Complex“) is working to redefine “conservative” as “normal”.
And another thing-tea baggers are Republicans. They don’t run as their own party, and they don’t disagree with the GOP platform on anything other than the need to cover their bigotry and cultural politics.
This is getting a little bit thick now. You can go tell your Democratic Party bosses that your message has been delivered.
Why aren’t dems expressing more anger? I’m sick of the “there, there now” noise we get from Dem officials.
Like trolls, the tea partiers have pretty much hijacked the Republican Party. Good times ahead, I predict.
As some of us have been saying: We held a Senate seat last night.
It’s just possible that the GOP wingnuts could keep these mid-terms from being a complete debacle.
Seems only fair, given the wondrous rehab job that Obama has done on the republicans.
Amen! You’ll pardon the expression.
I hope everyone has a great day. I’ll just leave by saying that we wouldn’t even be having this “debate” if the Democrats had acted like Democrats when they were given the biggest mandate for change in a generation.
Had they passed a real stimulus, real health care reform, real finreg reform, real climate change legislation, then it wouldn’t have mattered one little whit who the Republicans nominated, their damned tea parties, or anything else. Because had they done that, had they made the changes they promised and the voters gave them the mandate to do leaving those voters with a good taste in their mouth knowing sometimes politicians Do do what they were sent to do, then none of anything the Republicans are doing would be relevant and we’d be talking about how many more pickups the D’s were gonna get this cycle.
They couldv’e claimed the majority for a generation, just like they did under FDR. And the fact they CHOSE not to, well, I know there’s NEVER going to be another opportunity like that in my lifetime, so I just can’t ever forgive them for that.
Peace.
Because they’re not at all angry? Occam’s Razor and all…
“…a complicit corporate media is working to re-define “conservative” as normal.”
Gonna be hard to do with a candidate who thinks that masturbation is a sin and an abomination.
As David points out: Coon’s lead shot up to 16 points, practically overnight.
Too many voters with hairy palms. :o)
I hear you when you talk about the 2 party system having it all wired up. Maybe libs should take a page from the tea baggers manual. Maybe what they have taught us is that instead of catering to the dems, we need to run our own candidates, endorse a few of our own crazies to show them whose boss! I don’t pretend to know the best way to impact the legislative process but I do know that standing by and alowing the right to take over would be a huge mistake for people on the left… Dem, liberal whatever.
“We wouldn’t even be having this debate if the democrats had acted like democrats…”
OldFatGuy gets another “no more bullshit!” award. Nature abhors a political vacuum, and Obama’s created one like it was between us and Alpha Centauri.
That’s what has the roaches coming out of the woodwork.
Karen, I can hardly wait for the GOP convention in 2012.
Of course, ours is likely to be every bit as fractious.
Thanks, Barack! After 8 years of bush and the repubs, we really needed MORE political confusion and anger, and the lunacy that goes with them.
Oh, I WANT the Republicans to waste money on her. Every million they spend on her is money that’s not going to go to defeating someone like Raul Grijalva in a House race. And we need to keep the House, since they control investigations and purse strings.
We’re talking about someone who is down 44-28 with Mike Castle voters. She’s about as electable in Delaware as peat moss.
You are absolutely right, but don’t blame demsin general for the votes taken by a few individuals. Remember there are very persuasive lobbiests who bought compromises to the legislation we wanted. I imagine there were dems in congress (and a bunch of blue dogs) who saw re-election dollars going to their opponents. They sold out for sure! But, we can’t allow our disappointment with their sell out to open the door for tea-bagger take overs. I would rather replace blue-dogs with libs. Like I said before, take a page from the tea-bagger play book. They are influencing republicans significantly. We can do the same!
???
“For once”? Hard right GOP candidates have never beat more moderate establishment ones before? You’re kidding, right? There are precedents, precedents that have led long term to unwanted, unprogressive outcomes, precedents that you refuse to discuss.
Sure, if you think Dems’ retaining the Senate is the most important thing evah, sure last night was nice. If you know history and understand that passion on the base tends to ultimately help a party and hurt the other one, you’re not doing a happy dance.
It’s funny. I’ve spent a lot of time this past year debating people who talk about the tea party movement as if the scariest thing ever. (Scarier than our militarized state? Really?) Now many of those same people are giddy because tea party candidates won. I haven’t moved.
I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries but with two years of Obama to go by, I can’t say that Hillary would have been better. Different here and there, yes, better, no. My problem with Hillary right from the get was her repeated unwillingness to stand her ground on principle if a position proved unpopular. And then, of course, she and Bill are in thrall to, and enthralled with, the big money Wall Street crowd. Two poor kids dazzled by wealth and so grateful to be In.
Agreed. And the Democrats have done likewise. Jennifer Brunner, anyone?
“…we should be using the time to reshape the democratic party.”
Well said. Unfortunately, at this point that train may have left the station, and the voters in the mid-terms appear to be poised to reshape it for us. In non-salutory ways.
Given how little Obama’s accomplished, and how little he’s really TRIED to accomplish, it’s hard to blame them.
Happily, watching Coons’ numbers take off, it appears that there’s a limit in some states to just how angry they are.
That’s good….I guess…
“…as peat moss.” You got it, Phoenix.
And some progressive bloggers should stop using these shits like ju-ju dolls to try to get us to shut up talking about Obama’s weekly crapping on us. He only responds to political pressure, and we need to start applying it.
Hmmm, well I consider myself liberal and pretty disappointed with how much BHO has been able to accomplish too. However, I am pretty surprised about the self defeated sound of the bloggers on this website. If you really want more, it is better to fight for what you want than to sit around and complain. I’ve been here for a just a short time and already have been scolded for sounding condescending. Let me leave with encouragement for liberals who want more. Don’t feel defeated. Anything worth fighting for is worth fighting for….. so fight… don’t hand this country over to the right! Please!
Lib; the sellout IS what opened the door for the teabaggers.
If Obama had hit the ground running and if he’d confronted the GOP at every turn, instead of “reaching out” to them, the repub opposition to any real efforts to mount the salvage operation would have folded like cardboard, and he’d be looking like Captain America.
Now, he looks like some horrible amalgam of Herbert Hoover and Stan Laurel.
Fight. “…against the extreme rightwing republican teabag party.”
Needs a little work:
“…against the extreme rightwing republican teabag party on which Barack Obama has done such fantastic rehab.”
There; fixed it.
This article may say what I’m trying to say much better. Peace!
Jamie Court
Author,The Progressive’s Guide To Raising Hell/President Consumer Watchdog
Mad as Hell, But Don’t Want to Join The Tea Party?
The Tea Party is on a roll with its upset Senate primary victory in Delaware. If the rest of us don’t start raising hell, the Tea Party will have us living it.
Are you mad as hell but don’t want to join the Tea Party? Do you still want to get the change you voted for in 2008? That’s most Americans, but the right wing is the only wing talking about its anger.
Public outrage is the most powerful force in the world if you know how to leverage it and turn it into power. That’s why I wrote The Progressive’s Guide To Raising Hell, published today by Chelsea Green, to show average Americans how their common anger can be turned into power using the force of public opinion online and offline.
Award-winning filmmaker Robert Greenwald made this short video about Raising Hell and its battle-proven, step-by-step tactics that artfully sums up the book’s essence.
I have spent two decades fighting and winning campaigns against insurance companies, Big Oil, utilities, banks, and corrupt politicians. The tactics of turning anger into change are the same regardless of whether you are trying to win a Senate primary, pass a ballot measure or get an insurer to pay a claim.
Change is no simple matter in America politics, as Americans have recently learned so well.
Elections rarely produce the change they promise because too often ballot victories leave intact the ways power is exercised, and on whose behalf. The special interests that fund and curry favor with our legislators may rebalance their party allegiances, but not their self-interest.
Anger, not hope, is the fuel of political and economic change. As things grow worse and worse, public rage grows more intense–and so does the energy for making things better. And in 2010 in America, anger rules, but it needs to be vectored and focused if it is to succeed in fueling the type of change that the majority of Americans believe in.
If progressives walk away, rather than engage, the Tea Party and GOP will capture the popular anger and turn it against government, rather than focus it rightly back on the targets of the 2008 election: Wall Street, health insurers, polluters, the military industrial complex, and the politicians they buy. If we want progress, the kind that polls show 60 percent of Americans believe in, we need to do more than vote every two to four years or wait for Obama to learn the tactics of confrontation.
We need to make demands. We need to raise some hell. The alternative is giving up the reins of government to a flash mob that wants to do nothing but destroy it.
The problem is that the people you think we should elect are some of the people I think we should fight.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but the only thing I’ve noticed that Castle ever did which was NOT in lockstep with the repugs was vote ONE not-guilty in the Clinton impeachment. I don’t know what is ‘moderate’ about a purely ideological party-line voting record. Castle seems to me as much a party hack as Demint or Joe Wilson.
However, he wasn’t a bad governor. At least he never brought us the needle; that was the work of our now senior senator Carper. I think what will be very telling is the amount of time Joe Biden campaigns to retain his old seat in democrat hands.
Absolutely 100% spot on. The last of the moderate Republicans died out with Lincoln Chafee and Mike Castle. The Republican base is tired of getting only
watered down versions of Market Fundamentalism and Theocracy; they’re just itching
for the raw stuff.
Tanbark — Obama did not sell out. In order to get anything through the Senate he had to have sixty votes, and he only “potentially” had these between July, 2009 when Franken was finally seated, and January when the MA seat went bye bye. That is the harsh reality of arithmetic. And in that short period, that was counting Ben Nelson and his demands for free Medicade for all in Nebraska, and Joe Lieberman and his mavrick instincts. (Remember — Joe supported McCaine).
The Stimilus should have been larger, and more jobs focused — but to understand why it wasn’t, just look at what Collins and Snowe demanded be cut out in exchange for their votes. Do you think Obama should have forgotten about a Stimilus so as to fight some details with the gals from Maine? — I prefer getting what you can get. Northern Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan are now going nuts over their winning Broadband proposal, and what getting connected means to the north country.
The change in College Loans from guarenteed profit with no risk to bank-lenders, to the direct College Loans with savings re-invested in the loan fund is something I have been supporting since Paul Wellstone first did hearings on the rip off of American Students in 1991, when he was first elected. Obama ran on it, and he got it done. Included in that is the ability of the Department of Education to regulate for-profit Higher Education, which is ripping off the working poor like crazy these days — and the Dept of Education is using those powers. I also like the fact that they finally increased the Pell Grants to sorta begin to catch the rate of real tuition inflation in non-profit HE institutions.
No — I don’t think Health Care is all that perfect. But I like the fact that people I know with pre-exiwsting conditions will now be able to ditch jobs they hate, and take advantage of opportunities that just don’t come with Health Care for pre-existing conditions such as Diabetes. It is going to take ten years to roll out much of this Health Care plan — and many changes will be required. States will develop alternative plans, such as my state, and nine others which outlaw all for-profit hospitals and clinics, (and has since 1909). Too many people here want it all my way, with everything on a perfectly arranged plate, instant gratification as it were. Politics doesn’t work that way. Change has to start, but it also has to be broadly accepted, and thus far too many voters have not actually explored how the changes will work. If I fault Obama for anything, it is in not developing an alternative communications stream that attractively and effectively educated more voters.
I agree with PW — the tea baggers (I prefer loose in the head cheap used tea flakes), are the base of the Republican Party, sans the Religious Right veneer we had during the Bush Years. (Religious Right has huge financial problems, by the way, lots of potential mega church bankruptcies, with donations in some parts of the country down 40%. No longer a dependable Republican Clubhouse.) Republican plan since 2008 was simply to have a continuous high voltage campaign that seemed a step removed from the official Republican Party and Leadership. That way they quasi protect themselves from taking responsibility for some of the worst themes of the used tea flakes they have recruited to do the voice-over. Note — all the racist stuff, all the Obama is a Muslim, Obama is a Kenyan Tribal, (a Mau-Mau, I suppose) and all the rest — that comes from the outside, and is loud enough to keep the Racist Fears alive. It is an evil strategy, but I approve of Obama more or less letting it pass, roll off, and not having a little race or culture war.
Do I like the Bush Bail-out of Wall Street, not really. but it is modeled on the Democratic Congressional Proposal that Hoover signed in 1932, the RFC or Reconstruction Finance Corporation, that FDR was able to use gradually during the Depression Years, and even during the War Years, for much more progressive purposes. RFC was not phased out until the Eisenhower Years, and in many ways Obama’s Infrastructure Bank — which was included in the 2008 campaign, is parallel to RFC. Much of the Public Works of the Depression Era was a product of RFC financing. In this respect a good deal of Obama’s program is based in what FDR actually did, not what you imagine he did. (CCC and WPA were essentially relief programs — the real building for the future is in RFC financed improvements and PWA. FHA was initially an RFC program that got hived off into what ultimately became HUD in the 1960′s).
And yes, I would like to see more of a relief program. I just don’t see the votes to get one through Congress right now, and one thing you don’t do as a political leader is bet political capital and influence on fights you can’t win. Obama has begun to talk about major expansion of Americorps, which might pass muster and help young adults who cannot find jobs — but what is really critical is a jobs program for those between 50 and 67 who are long-term unemployed. — an updated WPA which FDR didn’t introduce till 1935.
One thing I detect here is a profound lack of empathy on the part of many posters who do not seem to reflect the comprehension of the damage this recession is having on the economic discards of this round. Yes, you make your programs and policy for the “middle class” and you talk that talk, but the truly disfigured are those slowly discovering a lack of place for them in the economic system. Their skill sets are mismatched with the future economy, the fairly well paid jobs they had have gone. They are hard to retrain. In the 30′s, this strata was reasonably well served by the emergence of the Unions as an independent voice and power center for the working classes — but I don’t forsee that kind of a movement this time round. Maybe I am not looking in the right places.
More apologism, and I’m not buying it.
If holy Joe was such a problem, why did Obama nod assent to his keeping his committee chair?
The only reason the MA seat was lost was because of the healthcare sellout. Though you probably still refuse to admit that.
You seem to think the filibuster represents some sort impenetrable armor for obstructionist minorities. Filibustering is not supposed to be an easy option. Why were the obstructionists like Snowe and Collins made to stand on the floor and actually filibuster-actually hold up stimulus legislation as the economy was tanking? It’s almost like the DNC and administration (and don’t play the “he’s the president not congress card” on me-he & Rahm can twist arms when they want to) were protecting them-like they were all in a racquet together and were much more interested in maintaining the status quo than enacting effective, if perhaps somewhat controversial policy(disinterestedness certainly in the toilet now; even Mr. Hope-n-Change is more careerist than public servant).
How’s that cart doing pulling the horses?
Not only that, but in the past, parties almost ALWAYS expected you to vote with the party on procedural votes. BOTH parties. You could vote however you wanted on legislation or other matters, but on procedural votes you were expected to vote with the party or face consequences.
The fact the D’s allowed D Senators to vote with the R’s on cloture (a procedural vote) proved to me that the D’s really did agree with the outcome, and liked having the filibuster to blame rather than accepting blame themselves.
The amount of evidence out there that these national Democratic officeholders really do support and really do work for the corporations and could not give a shit about us, it’s base is overwhelming. Even to the point where we’re labelled pajama wearing, cheetos eating, drug adled fucking retards BY THE D PARTY!!
The only way folks aren’t seeing that is because they don’t WANT to see it.
“More apologism, and I’m not buying it.
If holy Joe was such a problem, why did Obama nod assent to his keeping his committee chair?
The only reason the MA seat was lost was because of the healthcare sellout. Though you probably still refuse to admit that.”
On Lieberman, the decision was not to have a holy war with the Likuid wing of the Congress. While about 76% of Jewish Voters supported Obama on merit, there was a minority that wanted to cut him down to size before he could begin talking about Peace Talks, and Two State Solutions and all. In essence, even though Joe supported the Republican Candidate for Prez, he had to symbolically be welcome home in order to keep him from starting yet another Middle Eastern War. Most Neo-Con’s are Republicans, Joe is essentially a Neo-Con, but he is a throwback to the days when most Neo-Con’s were radical Socialists to the left of the Democratic Party — before 1968 when they went to Scoop Jackson and then on to Reagan. One may not approve of the decision, but such a fight was not on Obama’s agenda, and one doesn’t necessarily fight all possible wars.
The Kennedy seat in MA was largely lost because the MA Democratic Party did not really coordinate with and get behind Coakley. There are all sorts of reasons for this, and no one took the leadership to settle the shit before the voting began. I suspect everyone thought the vote would be homage to Kennedy, but my guess is that with MA having a Kennedy on the statewide ticket since 1954, a lot of people didn’t want to be so predictable. For now, the Kennedy saga has passed into history. MA is quite lucky actually, they have the opportunity to bring something new forward in 2012, and match the candidate to the times and contemporary MA.
Coakley, as prosecutor, had taken on the Catholic Church on some aspects of the Sex Abuse crisis, and the normal support Kennedy had from that venue was not inherited by Coakley. It wasn’t so much overt opposition, it was hands sitting during the campaign. Whatever Dem runs in MA has to support gay marriage and stem cell research (given the local bio-tech industry) and of course Women’s Reproductive Rights. They will never get old Catholic Support with that, and it is still a significant element in the traditional democratic base. Coakley’s Campaign ignored the necessity of building this new base — she didn’t get necessary help — and so she lost.
I don’t think Health Care was a huge factor in her defeat — I think it was more about Jobs, Economy, and anger at the Wall Street Bailout.