Saturday, December 27, 2008
Swing Low Sweet Swing-State Chariot
This Minnesota senate election is fascinating. It has all the feeling of one of those "it can only happen in America" stories, frankly. Of course, more than anything, though, it shows us just how far the Republican Party itself has fallen. The party of Lincoln, T.R., and Eisenhower has been usurped by neocons and far-right religious advocates (I'll refrain from saying fanatics here) - this, I'm saying, to the point where this "brand" can't even hold off an Al Franken, for Christ! Not that this Coleman fellow is necessarily a prototype of these two groups, mind you, but, still, it looks like he may be taken down with them. Oh well, me-buckos, nobody ever said/told Mr. Coleman that political life was fair. I highly doubt it, anyway.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
I read the Minnesota Star almost daily. This is the second most interesting election. The first was the presidential run.
At this point, Franken is something like 32 votes ahead. The GOP has fallen to the depths of disgrace and co-opted by fanatics. If you won't use the word, I will be happy to do so.
Best 2ya!
I clearly don't know as much about this race as you do, Stella. I guess my point is that if the Republicans can't beat a former sketch comic with a moderate (Coleman is a moderate, right?), then they have fallen even farther than I thought. I hope you don't mind me saying, I was glad Susan Collins won and was sad when Linc Chaffee lost in 2006. Oh, and, yes, I was happy that Mary Landrieu won on the bayou. I root for moderates, if you can't tell.
I once heard Ann Coulter say that moderates are ignorant. Ignorant? She doesn't listen to herself, does she?
My problem is with fanatics of any stripe—liberal, conservative, religious, nationalistic—doesn't matter. That mindset always causes problems.
I listen to everyone. Coleman is fairly moderate from what I know, but that doesn't mean Franken isn't a force to be rekoned with. He'd be a great senator, and I don't really feel that this race is incumbent (pun intended) on the GOP in general. Franken is a brilliant, politically savvy guy.
If you like Susan Collins, that's fine. I lived in Maine for a couple of years and am quite left of her. She is moderate, and I respect that—and you. I'm not too peeved about Gov. Ahnold: he's better than Reagan ever was, who almost decimated California.
I like Barbara Boxer, Jerry Brown (who may be running for CA Gov. again), Henry Waxman, Russ Feingold, Barbara Mikulskey (sp?), and Dennis Kucinich. See? Pretty left, but love to hear others' opinions. If people try to violate civil rights, I get "a little" cranky. (LOL)
If you want info on the Franken Coleman race, Google their last names and link on the Minnesota Star articles.
This is a fun blog. I'm contra O'Reilly myself.
You've heard of Reagan Democrats? Well, I've heard that Ahnold is a Clinton Republican (for a couple of reasons, probably LOL). I like Olympia Snow, too. Her and Mary Landrieu are my 2 favorite senators. I actually kind of respect Kucinich. He had the power of his convictions about the Iraq war, as opposed to a lot of the other Dems who tried to cover their asses. That's why I liked Linc Chaffee, too. He was the ONLY Republican to vote against the war. That took some cahones (sp?)
GOP fanatics?
Oh wow, the return of governor Moonbeam...
Lott's a Liar
Yeah Cliffy,
Read the comment section below that story. John Lott defends himself quite well against that hit piece.
Why so much hiding behind "Anonymous" these days Cliffy?
Is the FBI or the NSA out to get you, or are you just sporting a yellow streak these days?
Hi, Voltron. I was kind of afraid to click the comments. I thought it might be Clif calling me a faggot again or something. You'll enjoy debating Stella, btw. She doesn't name-call.
"You'll enjoy debating Stella, btw. She doesn't name-call."
Well that's not going to be as much fun now is it?
LOL
"If people try to violate civil rights, I get "a little" cranky. (LOL)"
If people try to avoid their civil responsibilities, I get "a little" cranky.
Sorry, but I cringe every time I hear someone start talking about their "rights".
Every "right" you claim comes with a "responsibility" as well.
If you don't uphold the responsibility you can't claim the right.
Hey Will,
Am I getting off to a good start?
You never disappoint, my man.
I do have a bone to pick with you too Will, this comment from the thread:
"The party of Lincoln, T.R., and Eisenhower has been usurped by neocons and far-right religious advocates (I'll refrain from saying fanatics here)"
I'm thinking that back in those days the mainstream party members more closely resembled the "neocons" and "far-right religious advocates".
Do you think Abortion and Gay Marriage advocates were mainstream back then?
LOL, thanks Will...
Will said "This Minnesota senate election is fascinating. It has all the feeling of one of those "it can only happen in America" stories, frankly. Of course, more than anything, though, it shows us just how far the Republican Party itself has fallen. The party of Lincoln, T.R., and Eisenhower has been usurped by neocons and far-right religious advocates (I'll refrain from saying fanatics here) - this, I'm saying, to the point where this "brand" can't even hold off an Al Franken, for Christ!"
I strongly agree with the vast majority of this post Will..................I have absolutely NOTHING against normal repugs and conservatives I have many friends who are conservatives, but your 110% right the Neo Con fanatics have hijacked the party and THAT is the reason I speak out so strongly against them............the mainstream repugs NEED to take back their party from the crazy war mongers and religious zealots and they need to hit rock bottom and be drummed out of power and see the publics loathing and disdain for the radical zealotry that they have blindly supported for the last 6 years for that to actually happen.
That said Will I see alot of people stating Lincoln and TR were repugs and while in name they may have beeen in Lincolns time the repug party was more for the working class and civil rights and the Dem party was more more the wall street crony party against rights and racial equality..............TR was also a member of the BullMoose party which was against the Robber Barons and big business and was for regulation..............Both were the TOTAL OPPOSITE of the current repug party despite sharing the same party name.
Will, like Stella so eloquently said Whats wrong with Al Franken..........he's a smart guy and would make a GREAT Senator..............I realize Coleman is not a crazy zealot or monster but is he entitled to serve in perpetuity because he is the incumbent............and why should Franken be looked down upon because he is a comedian.
After all Reagan was an actor and so was Schwarzenegger should they be dismissed and not taken seriously because they werent career politicians?
Stella said...
I read the Minnesota Star almost daily. This is the second most interesting election. The first was the presidential run.
At this point, Franken is something like 32 votes ahead. The GOP has fallen to the depths of disgrace and co-opted by fanatics. If you won't use the word, I will be happy to do so."
You said it Stella!
Stella said...
I once heard Ann Coulter say that moderates are ignorant. Ignorant? She doesn't listen to herself, does she?
My problem is with fanatics of any stripe—liberal, conservative, religious, nationalistic—doesn't matter. That mindset always causes problems.
I listen to everyone. Coleman is fairly moderate from what I know, but that doesn't mean Franken isn't a force to be rekoned with. He'd be a great senator, and I don't really feel that this race is incumbent (pun intended) on the GOP in general. Franken is a brilliant, politically savvy guy."
Stella I couldnt agree more with what you've said in this thread!
GREAT POSTS!
I have nothing against Franken being a comedian, actually. And I like his satire. I especially like the way he pisses on O'Reilly. It just seems like anybody with a reputation now thinks that they can hold elective office. Charles Barkley's even thinking of running now. Not that I'm going to tell him no, mind you. LOL
I actually kind of respect Kucinich. He had the power of his convictions about the Iraq war, as opposed to a lot of the other Dems who tried to cover their asses. That's why I liked Linc Chaffee, too. He was the ONLY Republican to vote against the war. That took some cahones (sp?)"
Ditto for you Will............I couldnt agree more with this post I respect people who show courage and arent blindly loyal lemmings.
Also for the record I tend to agree with you that Ike was a decent President.............I would have MUCH rather had eisenhower than that piece of crap LBJ..........in fact truth be told i'd have rather had Ike than 6 of our last 8 Presidents.
I know i've given you a hard time at times Will, in the spirit of the Holidays i'm going to make a sincere effort to be more civil from now on...............that said although you have consistently opposed the Neo Cons where we have come into conflict is when you assign positions to liberals such as "far left" rabid Obama supporters" etc..........may be you dont realize it but those ARE right wing talking points and seriously make you APPEAR to be a Right wing Troll.
Look I know you say you criticize the Right and at times you do.............but NEVER in the same gleeful or rabid manner as you do the left.
Look i'm in NO WAY a Far Left Liberal and I am far from a rabid Obama supporter...............Obama wasnt even my original choice and I disagreed with his stance on health care, his stance on FISA and his choice of Rick warren ...................but bottom line he's just a guy I voted for I think its riddiculous to agree with a President on EVERYTHING.............at this point i'm at minimum going to give him the same benefit of the doubt I did for GWB...........if I gave a guy I didnt even vote for the benefit of the doubt for 1 1/2-2 years I can at LEAST give a guy I did vote for the benfit of the doubt for at least that long as well unless he proves even quicker to not be deserving.
Again i'm not trying to be a prick here but it seemed you were MORE gleeful he betrayed the left and those that value freedom and privacy with his FISA vote than outraged at the betrayal to those liberties and privacies.............Same with his stance on the war and his using Rick warren.............it seemed like you were more gleeful that he betrayed his constituency and you could call us hippocrites for supporting him anyway or get us to turn on him than truly outraged at what Warren stands for.
Look I dont care for preacher types and agents of intolerance like warren but Obama did say he wanted to be EVERYONE"S President and i think him asking Warren to speak is being consistent with that claim...............that said I dont agree with the decision I think it smacks of panderring and calculation but at this point i'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and not oppose his decision and read him the riot act.................attacking him before he takes office is falling into Right wing talking points.
Thats not to say the issue you raised isnt valid or should be off limits or not disciussed but to gleefdully attack him PARTICULARLY when YOU CLAIM to be against guilt by association smacks of right wing talking points and possibly duplicity.
I actually kind of respect Kucinich. He had the power of his convictions about the Iraq war, as opposed to a lot of the other Dems who tried to cover their asses. That's why I liked Linc Chaffee, too. He was the ONLY Republican to vote against the war. That took some cahones (sp?)"
Ditto for you Will............I couldnt agree more with this post I respect people who show courage and arent blindly loyal lemmings.
Also for the record I tend to agree with you that Ike was a decent President.............I would have MUCH rather had eisenhower than that piece of crap LBJ..........in fact truth be told i'd have rather had Ike than 6 of our last 8 Presidents.
I know i've given you a hard time at times Will, in the spirit of the Holidays i'm going to make a sincere effort to be more civil from now on...............that said although you have consistently opposed the Neo Cons where we have come into conflict is when you assign positions to liberals such as "far left" rabid Obama supporters" etc..........may be you dont realize it but those ARE right wing talking points and seriously make you APPEAR to be a Right wing Troll.
Look I know you say you criticize the Right and at times you do.............but NEVER in the same gleeful or rabid manner as you do the left.
Look i'm in NO WAY a Far Left Liberal and I am far from a rabid Obama supporter...............Obama wasnt even my original choice and I disagreed with his stance on health care, his stance on FISA and his choice of Rick warren ...................but bottom line he's just a guy I voted for I think its riddiculous to agree with a President on EVERYTHING.............at this point i'm at minimum going to give him the same benefit of the doubt I did for GWB...........if I gave a guy I didnt even vote for the benefit of the doubt for 1 1/2-2 years I can at LEAST give a guy I did vote for the benfit of the doubt for at least that long as well unless he proves even quicker to not be deserving.
Again i'm not trying to be a prick here but it seemed you were MORE gleeful he betrayed the left and those that value freedom and privacy with his FISA vote than outraged at the betrayal to those liberties and privacies.............Same with his stance on the war and his using Rick warren.............it seemed like you were more gleeful that he betrayed his constituency and you could call us hippocrites for supporting him anyway or get us to turn on him than truly outraged at what Warren stands for.
Look I dont care for preacher types and agents of intolerance like warren but Obama did say he wanted to be EVERYONE"S President and i think him asking Warren to speak is being consistent with that claim...............that said I dont agree with the decision I think it smacks of panderring and calculation but at this point i'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and not oppose his decision and read him the riot act.................attacking him before he takes office is falling into Right wing talking points.
Thats not to say the issue you raised isnt valid or should be off limits or not disciussed but to gleefdully attack him PARTICULARLY when YOU CLAIM to be against guilt by association smacks of right wing talking points and possibly duplicity.
Post a Comment