For starters, consider why 2014 should be a cakewalk for the Republicans:
(1) The House is so heavily gerrymandered that Republican control is all but inevitable. Of the 435 seats, 218 have been gerrymandered to give the Republicans a competitive boost. Only 67 seats are safe for the Democrats. The Republicans only need 218 to control the House.Should be an easy election, right? Well, no. For one thing, those “red and swing states” aren’t so red or swing anymore. Most of these swing states, like Virginia and Colorado, haven’t voted red in several election cycles. In the red states, the Republicans are generally facing well-like Democratic incumbents. And despite the heavy gerrymandering, the Republicans barely control the House by the skin of their teeth.
(2) Twenty of the 32 Senate seats up for re-election belong to Democrats, and twelve of those are in states that were once red or swing states. Since we only need to win six to take over the Senate, we should do well, right?
(3) Obama’s approval rating hovers in the 40% range, i.e. his base. The Democrats are no better and “generic Democrat” is neck and neck with “generic Republican.”
Then there's the turnout issue.
Consider this. Gallup did a poll and asked people what issues are most important to them. Here’s what they found:
Now ask yourself what the Republicans are pushing. The Tea Party worries about the federal deficit. The Libertarians worry about corruption/abuse of power. The Religious Right worries about morality. They talk about nothing else, except their desire to NOT fix healthcare, to NOT fix immigration and to NOT fix education. Basically, the things the right has adopted as a platform were chosen as top concerns by only 21% of the public. At the same time, they are trying to stop solutions in issues which 30% of the public identify as their top concerns. And they have no platform at all to deal with the issue that 42% of the public wants fixed. In other words, they are flirting with 21% of the public, ignoring 42% and turning off 30%.● 42% Economy/jobs
● 19% Healthcare
● 8% Federal deficit
● 7% Ethics/moral-religious-family decline
● 6% Corruption/abuse of power
● 6% Immigration
● 5% Education
That means they aren't going to win any converts. It also means that Boehner was flat out wrong when he said this weekend, "We shouldn't be judged on how many laws we pass, we should be judged on how many laws we repeal." That doesn't wash with the public.
Hence, base turnout is key. But that brings us to this problem: they have misidentified the base.
For years now, the Republican leadership in the House has pandered to the cranks. On issue after issue, they have paid attention only to the people screaming at them. Hence, their agenda has become "DON'T DO ANYTHING TO GIVE OBAMA A LEGACY!", "DON'T FIX HEALTHCARE!", "DON'T FIX IMMIGRATION!", "DON'T PASS A BUDGET DEAL!!", "KILL UNEMPLOYMENT!!", "KILL FOOD STAMPS!" and "SHUT THE GOVERNMENT DOWN FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER!!" Apart from 150 votes on abortion and almost 40 symbolic votes to repeal Obamacare, that's been the Republican Party since 2010. But average Republican voters don't support this crap. In poll after poll, these positions get support only in the 10-15% range among the people telling the pollsters they are Republicans. And the thing is, these people aren't even Republicans and they will NEVER support the Republicans.
Consider a little rumor started by PJ media last week, because it's instructive. They published an article based on an anonymous source who supposedly works for the RNC. This source claimed that the RNC is using DONOR MONEY to engage in research in conjunction with ERIC HOLDER to help HOLDER ENSLAVE TEXAS AND OTHER SOUTHERN STATES!!!! Why would they do this? Because they're traitorous RINOS and these RINOpublicans think recreating the presumption of guilt in the Voting Rights Act will help get Republicans elected. Naturally, the whole thing is still SECRET because they know they are BETRAYING the party, so not even people at the RNC know about it... only a select group of SECRET RINOS knows.
Only an idiot would believe this. There are no Republicans who think the VRA helped get Republicans elected. To the contrary, they are the ones who pushed to kill the law. The RNC can’t use donor money secretly. Holder would never work with the RNC because he wouldn't trust them and because he could have Justice stooges do the same research better. None of this makes any sense. Nevertheless, within an hour, the article had 1400 comments and to a one they assumed the RINOpublicans were guilty. Most of them declared they were done voting for the RINOpublicans. Some claimed they would renounce their membership in the party the following day and most called on Boehner and the other SECRET RINOS to be fired. By GOD WE NEED A SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION!!
These are the people Boehner and the House are pandering too under the theory that the most vocal are most likely to turn out to vote. But only a fool would think they will ever support the Republicans. These people traffic in hate and conspiracy theory against the Republicans. They presume guilt on the part of the Republicans even after innocence is proven. Indeed, the pattern repeats itself all the time: the Democrats raise an issue and these people go into attack mode... targeting the Republicans. 500 comments appear at Brietbart or Daily Caller accusing the Republicans of secretly wanting the Democrats to get their way. Then the Republicans announce they will oppose it, as they do with everything now. Are these retards happy? No, they put out another 500 comments about how it’s only a matter of time before Boehner caves in. Then come the rumors of secret deals Boehner has made TO SELL US OUT!!! This bring another 500 comments about how the RINOpublicans can’t be trusted and we need to take back the party!!!! Then the issue dies because the Republicans block it. Now come the apologies, right? Hardly. Now come 500 comments about how we need to be "vigilant" because WE KNOW the RINOpublicans are planning to sell us out yet! Rinse and repeat... every... single... week for three years now. They've been wrong 100% of the time and yet they don't stop. Not only that, they use their own prior allegations as proof to support their next claims.
These people are not sane. Nor are they your friends, Mr. Boehner. They are lunatics who hate you, and placating them only encourages them to hate you more.
In fact, we used to get people like that here when we first started. They would show up claiming to be "lifelong Republicans" who had become disillusioned with the Republicans, against whom they would spew a ton of hate. Only, it didn't take long before they slipped and admitted they were never Republicans and they never voted Republican in their lives except maybe one time. These are the people now screaming about Boehner "betraying" them. These are the people he is pandering too. These are people who will never vote Republican. And by pandering to these people and their agenda of "BURN IT ALL DOWN!", Boehner is losing his base to try to win people who can't be won. As a result, there won't be a turnout advantage for the Republicans in 2014. The base has no reason to turn out because the Republicans seem to have fallen in love with a new base. The cranks won't turn out because they never intended to. The end result will be a nail-biter with the lowest turnout in US history.
Right now, I would predict that the Republicans will pick up one seat in the Senate, not the six they need. And they will lose a handful in the House and possibly control over the chamber... unless they wake up to reality. Listen to the people trying to create an agenda... Rubio, Paul Rand, John McCain, Bobby Jindal, Paul Ryan, and stop listening to the people trying to stop everything.
82 comments:
And my sources tell me the senate pick up will be Montana.
You scared me a little with all the CAPS. I think the immigration bill will be the deciding factor. Not because a bunch of Hispanics will vote GOP but because the leadership can show the American people what real bipartisan legislation looks like. They will look like adults.
Koshcat, Montana is the state I have in mind for the gain as well.
I love the all caps stuff in comments, especially when it's randomly done. It really does add the right amount of crazy to a comment.
On the immigration bill, I would like to see Boehner and Ryan finally stand up for doing the right thing (the thing that will save the party) and face down their crazy flank, but I just don't get a sense that either of them has the courage to stand up to these people. Right now, I think they are planning to try to sneak the Senate bill through the House by getting the conference committee to reshape the House bills into the Senate bill and then letting the Democrats pass it with a handful of Republican votes. That will only make things worse. Boehner needs to show some courage and act like a leader.
Even putting that issue aside, he needs to pick up an agenda other than symbolic votes to placate the screamers. They could have killed Freddie and Fannie, but the screamers wanted more. They could have slashed food stamps, but the screamers wanted it all gone. They could have had significant budget cuts, but the screamers wouldn't agree to anything short of a total shutdown. They've done nothing in three years now except stop everything. That just isn't going to win anyone.
A very good pastiche of this kind of comments. You forgot to mention the fashionable Washington dinner parties. You know, RINO traitors sell us out so they get invited to them. It´s where they throw around decadent words like pastiche (not to be confused with pistacchio, which is also found there).
One thing I hate about these comments is how they use all the same phrases. I guess I´m just an elitist who doesn´t get it. Or maybe they are all in the pay of George Soros and received a 90 minute "How to be a concern troll" training. If only that were true.
But seriously, even the dumbest politician can read polls or they have people doing it for them. Surely a bunch of blog commenters - who are not even the base but a subset of the base - cannot drive the agenda? If these guys are as far out as you say, I can´t imagine them sending letters to their Congresman. At least not the kind that gets taken seriously.
I mean, take the example of Allen West. They love him. I like him too, in principle, but he proved to be an inept politician and all the love from the fringe didn´t do him any good. His colleagues must have noticed, no?
It also means that Boehner was flat out wrong when he said this weekend, "We shouldn't be judged on how many laws we pass, we should be judged on how many laws we repeal." That doesn't wash with the public.
Yes and no. He put it badly. Some laws need repealing, so if you repeal them, by all means crow about it. But it cannot be ALL you do. You gotta put it in CONTEXT (ok, enough with the caps). You need to package it with other measures as part of an agenda that that addresses the public´s concerns. With Republicans we are always coming back to basic marketing. It should be easy, considering how bad this administration is. At least think about a catchy name for what you´re doing, something with "jobs", "prosperity" or just "healthcare" in it.
Conservatives should get that: In 2007, some pundits and talk radio hosts tried to push the meme of the Democrat "do nothing congress" (yeah right, as if they wanted Pelosi to pass any laws). So apparently they considered that a bad thing not to long ago.
Andrew......You finally got to the nub of the problem here I think.
We shouldn't let ourselves be ruled by blog commenters/comments. If you've ever read some of the Daily Kos, DU, HuffPost comments/commenters, the same could be said of them that they are the true face/voice of the den party. All they want to do is destroy repubs, kill any "right-wing" idea and generally turn the US into a socialist utopia......with them in charge of course.
So, I don't think the issue is the rabid commenters that you mention. While they are entertaining and help sell both sides talk show hosts, a better representative of the current political scene and goings on would be a Krauthammer or VDH. Erudite, well-read and appearing to be in touch with populist sentiment. They are the ones I listen to the most. If I want entertainment I listen to Limbaugh. If I want "Mr. Inside" I listen to Hannity (mouthpiece for the right).
As far as pols go, I like Paul, Cruz (most times) and Walker of Wisconsin.
El Gordo....wasn't Allen West gerrymandered out of his seat? We haven't seen the last of him.
The most active wings of both parties are obsessed with stuff the public doesn't care about (not too long ago Obama was talking about the environment). Lucky for both parties in a two man race one just has to beat the other guy.
Of course, as I've said before, victory for either party is a poisoned chalice, because the more power they win, the more damage they do to themselves. Parties in modern times win not on their merits, but because the public is fed up with the other guy.
"El Gordo....wasn't Allen West gerrymandered out of his seat? We haven't seen the last of him."
Patriot, I must admit, if that was the case I didn´t know. I assumed he had neglected his constituents. Shouldn´t make assumptions.
It is infuriating that Democrats get away with so much nastiness - after all, Alan Grayson is in Congress and West is not? And their base is worse. But the difference is interesting. First, I don´t see their base spend a lot of time or energy fighting Democrat moderates. How often do they threaten to withhold their votes, knowing that it means electing a Republican?
I guess this is what happens when the sarcasm machine is repaired with parts from the belligerence machine.
I think it's a tad too soon to start calling 2014. It's gonna hinge on who comes out of the primaries, maybe moreso than in other mid-terms. Yes, on the one hand, you've got crazies vowing to "primary" the traitorous RINOs that were sent to replace the traitorous RINOs before them. But on the other hand, the whole "primary-ing" thing isn't as effective as it's practitioners imagine. The wildcard is Palin the Kingmaker who could swoop into any local contest virtually handpick a winner--it all just depends on what she is interested in.
On Boehner, I agree he doesn't have the stuff of leadership. Beyond that, I don't hold him particularly responsible for much that the GOP is doing wrong. The party is not a ship with no helmsman. It's a longboat with the oarsmen all rowing in different directions. Some of them are just slapping the water with the flats of their paddles to see if they can make the biggest splash.
"The wildcard is Palin the Kingmaker who could swoop into any local contest virtually handpick a winner--it all just depends on what she is interested in."
And at the last minute so no one has a real chance to vet her picks.
Its pretty devious actually. She picks the candidates at the last minute so they don't have a chance to blunder and show their ineptness so they win the primary and then lose the General.
If she picked them early they would be destroyed by a fellow Republican in a debate or on the campaign trail and she would look bad. By picking them late they get swept into office by Palin-fever and so when they are attacked by the left it makes it hard for saner people on the right to criticize them, lest they be seen as RINOs.
Thus making her influence in the GOP bigger.
El Gordo, I forgot about the Washington dinner parties. Yeah, they always mention those, don't they.
If only these were just concern trolls, but they aren't. In fact, you mention the idea of them all using the same phrases... I used to follow around three dozen blogs. I stopped that because it drove me crazy. Every day it was the same thing. Someone would start a rumor: "The GOP is secretly financed by George Soros." Within minutes, like an air raid siren, every single one of them would post an "article" about their "OUTRAGE" that the GOP is secretly financed by George Soros. And making the whole thing even more laughable, as they each struggled to find ways to express their blind OUTRAGE, they all kept stumbling into the same phrases about the end of freedom, the destruction of American, deepest betrayal, etc. It was like they all shopped at Hallmark's angry rhetoric store. I had to eventually stop following them because it was just making sick.
On your point about polls, I would think that is correct, but it's apparently not. I've been reading articles about this lately and the GOP says they are judging their audience by who makes the most phone calls and sends the most letters, not polls. Essentially, what they are worried about is avoiding being outflanked on the right. They figure they can deal with the general election later.
So what their goal is really is to make sure that no one can come after them from the right. Their constituents views don't matter in that regard, avoiding angering one of the many radio talkers or hard-right lobbying groups is what matters.
El Gordo, Agreed and I should have been more clear... though the article was already rather long. There is nothing wrong with repealing laws. In fact, many should be repealed. But you can't make an agenda based only on that. You need to offer solutions to problems and the public does not see how repealing things (except Obamacare) will matter to them... it's too inside baseball.
The other problem is the mindset. In the past year, the Republicans have symbolically voted to repeal Obamacare without suggesting what they would do instead, voted to kill the food stamps program without saying what they would do to make sure poor people get food, voted to yank the Feds out of education without explaining how this will help education, and voted to defund the EPA without explaining how this won't lead to massive pollution.
If I were a Democrats, that would be easy to use to show middle American what the Republicans are really about: they want to rob you of food, health, education, clean air and clean water. That's going to kill the Republicans with average people.
So what was the benefit? Did this make the base happy? No. Polls don't show the base wanting those things. And the people who actually do want it aren't satisfied with symbolic votes. Hell, talk radio doesn't even report that the Republicans are doing these things because they're too busy attacking the Republicans and these types of things "queer the narrative."
At the same time, they've lost various chances to get some good conservative ideas 80-90% implemented because they are holding out for 100%.
It's the worst possible agenda.
Patriot, The left is just as insane at their blogs. The difference though, is that the left aims their hate at the Republicans/conservatives... the right aims it the Republicans.
I think we're on the same page on this. The problem is that the Republicans should not be listening to mouth-foaming bloggers, they should be listening to the people who actually think policy for a living and to their base-at-large. Unfortunately, that's not what they are doing.
And there are two reasons for this, which are related. The BIG fear at the moment is losing a primary. Most of these guys sit in safe seats vis-a-vis the Democrats, but they aren't safe if some far-right group decides to run a primary challenger against them. The problem is that once someone gets marked for death by the usual suspects -- talk radio, Palin, Club for Growth, etc. -- it becomes fashionable to make them out as lifelong RINOs, no matter how conservative they have been. Then they go down in flames as they become the cause du jour for the cranks.
These guys know that. So they need to avoid getting noticed by the cranks. Hence, they do nothing that will upset them. That means they do nothing at all. Meanwhile, some of the true fruitcakes are set free to run wild.
Anthony, That's true. The way they are running their parties now, neither side is winning voters, they are simply losing less than the other side at the moment.
The thing is that I think something different is going on here. I've never seen a party being truly scared of its fringe before, but the Republicans are right now. They really are terrified that if they do anything, they will be tossed out of office, and their response has been to pander to the cranks. That's the worst possible way to handle it.
Andrew,
What do you think they should do?
El Gordo, West was gerrymandered out of his seat and the bloggers blamed.... Romney. "Secret deal yada yada yada shut up Allen West blah blah destroy conservatism."
You've just put your finger on the problem. The Democrats are fine with moderates in their midsts because they realize that having a moderate in Texas is better than have a Republican. The right is in the purity mode where they refuse to support anyone who isn't 99.9% pure. As a result, the GOP has been all but wiped out everywhere except the most conservative states.
tryanmax, you've got crazies vowing to "primary" the traitorous RINOs that were sent to replace the traitorous RINOs before them
Yep. They are planning a bunch of those.
It is too early to call 2014 if you assume the GOP will change course. If they develop a real agenda and show some leadership, then they could turn this around. But I don't see them doing that. I think they are too scared to change course now.
On Palin, it's not just Palin. It's this machine. Once Palin picks someone as her next target, all the blogs... all the comments... all the radio talkers instantly describe the Republican as a RINO-establishment Republican who probably loves gay Mexican abortionists, no matter how solidly conservative the guy has always been. They are then followed by the nation "I'm super conservative too" groups, who pour in money so they can claim they "elected a real conservative."
As for the GOP and the boat, that is a good analogy, but it's not a good sign. Boehner should be driving an agenda. He leads the House. He should be making sure the House acts according to things the GOP base wants. He's not doing that. He's essentially wiped his hands of leadership and said, "I'll do whatever the mob wants." That is guaranteed to fail and will only encourage the mob to get more obnoxious.
Andrew,
Who would you like to see as Speaker? Who in the House has the potential to lead, in your mind?
"The right is in the purity mode where they refuse to support anyone who isn't 99.9% pure. As a result, the GOP has been all but wiped out everywhere except the most conservative states."
For my part, I blame the Tea Party groups. We have fielded some very poor choices for candidates. If potential candidates aren't 100% in lock-step with TP "principles", then they are actively defeated. And these "principles" have drifted further and further away from those original fiscal roots and more into social conservatism.
It was fine in the beginning because there were some rational and intelligent people who motivated the TP and were very clear and focused. But now, it's devolved into anyone conservative who has a gripe with Obama.
But, then, I have realized that this ALWAYS what happens when one gets involved in groups/movements these days. Eventually, they get swarmed with "the crazies" because these loud, squeaky wheels now have an international platform.
Kit, That's really the only influence she has, except as spiritual leader of the cranks. And the only reason that works is because she and the rest of talk radio land are in groupthink mode.
Andrew: the left aims their hate at the Republicans/conservatives... the right aims it the Republicans.
... or pretty much what the far left was doing when Bush was in power and they only had the House.
= Liberman.
What united the Dems was unifying under their far left progressive wing - electing the most leftist member of the Senate over the centrist Hillary.
Kit, The solution is actually really simple... but it takes courage.
1. You come up with a 5-10 point agenda to address each concern the public identifies as significant -- see the above. You include things the base wants, you include things the moderates want, and you use conservative solutions because (1) they work and (2) that makes it easier for conservative to support thing they don't care about.
2. You make this the official House agenda and you set everyone to work on selling it and making it happen.
3. You promise to defend every loyal House member who goes with the agenda from any lunatic primary attacks... everyone in the House will visit their District to help them if need be.
4. You take the cranks in the House to the woodshed. You tell them to stop insulting people, to stop attacking conservatives, and to get in line. If they don't, you strip them of committee positions and funding. If they keep up, you run someone against them.
5. If talk radio keeps up their nasty stuff, then you use them to triangulate.
Basic leadership principles.
Kit, I have no one in mind in the House right now because I just don't see anyone with any courage. I can name several solid senators, but no one in the House. The people who seem good are all proving to be cowards at the moment.
Unfortunately, the next speaker will probably be Cantor and he's a sniveling Boehner mini-me. He's a backstabber who has no courage to take an unpopular opinion and as far as I can tell has never had an idea.
Do you have any thoughts?
This is why I'm finding politics and especially the Republicans to be so frustrating and depressing to follow these days. Everything you've laid out as far as solutions and an agenda go are so simple and common sense, everyone's too scared to do anything about it. I find it especially disturbing that the actual Republican base itself is being ignored because of these psychos, but I'm at a loss as to what can be done about it. Sorry I couldn't contribute more than this, but the whole thing is getting draining to watch and I'm not sure how much hope there is for a turnaround right now.
- Daniel
Bev, The Tea Party groups have been a big chunk of the problem, but they are just part of it. The purity issue began in the 1990s and has continued to grow year after year. It just took on a harder edge after 2010. And I blame that on the Republicans for failing to embrace them and focus them in the right direction.
The Republicans should have sat down with these groups and talked about how to address their concerns. Instead, they gave them the cold shoulder, which let Republican opportunists, like Bachmann and Palin, move in and claim them as their own. They then tried to reshape the Tea Party into into their own image so they could use that as influence against the establishment. Essentially, the movement was abandoned to people who were looking for a rent-a-mob.
And since 2010, these people have been agitating the Tea Party people with lies and distortions and victimization to keep them angry.
Combine this with this massive fear throughout the conservative world of saying or doing something that leads someone to point a finger at you and say, "Unpure!" and you have a recipe for insanity.
In some ways, this whole thing provides us insight into how groups like the Nazis managed to cement their grip on all of Germany. They hijacked groups that didn't support their ideology and twisted them, and then they invented a purity cult which made it impossible for anyone to be seen as not pure. Obviously, there are differences, but the process is rather similar.
The Machine is just a blunt instrument in the hands of someone who can manipulate it. Palin never exerted control over it until she became a (self-appointed) martyr. It was a successful gambit to maintain influence at a time when she should have lost it all.
Because of that, Palin's incompetence is her greatest asset. She's fallen into a sort of feedback-loop of power. Her every shortcoming will be reliably defended by the machine as homespun, real 'merikanism while attacks against her will be counted as bona fides allowing her to speak for the machine which results in more opportunities for her to display further incompetence and draw more attacks.
And Palin seems to be getting better and better at manipulating that. She's no longer in a constant spotlight, but only pops up at moments (as Kit pointed out) that will generate the greatest reaction. She also allows others to be lightning rods for her words and actions. Thus, whoever she stumps for either wins or loses, but Palin never goes away.
And to top it all off, I think Palin deserves the title of "The Mother of Conservative Martyrdom." Sure, there has long been a sense on the right of being picked on. Some of it rightly so. But Palin ratcheted it up and now every celebrity and would-be-celeb on the right has to angle for their own martyrdom in order to win approval from the right-wing bloggosphere.
Yes, the more I think about it, the more I hold Palin responsible for a lot of what's wrong with the right. It's not her ideas (she has none) it's her attitude.
K, The left had their own war throughout the 2000s. Actually, it reaches back further than that, but in the 2000s, a concerted effort was made by progressive groups to seize power over the Democrats and their institutions. That was successful and once they had control, they stopped fighting and then adopted moderate rhetoric. The mistake they made was in 2008-2010, they thought America had changed and they overreached big time.
And yes, they savaged Lieberman. But their big target was always Bush and the Republicans.
Daniel, It is really frustrating. It's frustrating because it's so obvious, and yet they just won't do it. They are fixated on the people screaming at them and they just can't see reality at the moment. It's equally frustrating to me to hear the constant screaming and rumor mongering. It's a very unpleasant time.
That said, don't lose hope. There are signs of progress. Senate Republicans seem to be waking up. There are several there who are starting to propose a real agenda and are trying to turn things around.
The House leadership wants to support these ideas, though they've been afraid to say so. Right now, the plan is to sneak these things into law, but that won't work and I think they will eventually be forced to stand up for what they think they need to do.
The idea of "primarying" people is about to take a hit too. I've been watching the Wyoming Senate race and it's encouraging to see the party decide to defend the incumbent. I think this will be a test case to see if the party can beat the cranks.
And finally, the base provides he money. The cranks don't. At some point, the Republicans will need to get back in touch with the real base when they need money. That should be the moment many of them start to wake up again.
Also, don't forget that 2016 could change everything because the nominee has total power to set an agenda.
So don't give up.
"A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
—Douglas Adams
Now, I am not a Dick Cheney-hater. Not a Bush-hater. I thought they had some very good strengths (weaknesses as well, don't get me wrong) and I think that they did a decent job running the country -for the most part.
HOWEVER, it is interesting to see the daughter of a former Vice President, Secretary of Defense, White House Chief of Staff, 10 year Congressman, and (briefly) House Minority Whip running as anti-establishment.
tryanmax, The first thing to turn me off with Palin was her shocking stupidity. An adult American should know more than she does, pure and simple. The second thing, which appeared very quickly after the first, is her attempt to wrap herself in the victim mantle. She's is the queen of victimization. I find that deeply disturbing. I found it even more disturbing that so many on the right, who are quick to condemn the victim mindset in blacks or women or poor people or consumers or rights-advocates, embraced it so thoroughly with her.
Since that time, the "conservative" fringe has fully embraced martyrdom. They all play the game. Levin, Savage and Rush all claim that powerful figures on the right are trying to shut them up and keep them from speaking truth. Bachmann, Palin, West are all victims of secret conspiracies and establishment GOP targeting. Every one of the cranks now claims victim status in some form... betrayed by secret conspiracies.
That said, I don't blame Palin per se. She just took it to another level. But the victimization began before that. I would say it began sometime in the 1990s when talk radio really took off. There was always this message of "People don't want me to tell you this, but I'll take the blows to make sure you know the truth." At the time, it sounded brave, but in hindsight, it was just the first phase of the victimization rhetoric.
Kit, Everyone runs as anti-establishment. That's how you market to irrational people... you tell them what they want to hear, knowing they aren't currently bright enough to check.
My personal favorite at the moment is Cruz, whose resume is as establishment as it gets: Harvard grad, lawyer, clerked for Supreme Court, Bush campaign, Bush administration, partner in one of the biggest law firms in the world and a huge player in DC, married to partner at Goldman Sachs... and he's just a simple outsider who dun ain't gonna cotton to them DC types. Yeah, sure.
What interests me in Wyoming is not who Cheney is because I don't really care, what interests me is that the Senate has circled their wagons. This is the first time they've tried that and it seems to be working. If it does work, then look for "primarying" to die.
When it comes to finding out how "impure" a Republican politician is you just need to follow Beria's famous maxim "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime."
And if you look at Mike Enzi's challenge, it isn't over a lack of conservative credentials (which he seems to have) but due to his willingness to work with Democrats and the fact that he hasn't publicly challenged Obama (like Ted Cruz).
The best bet for Cheney is that the far right come out on Primary Day and vote for her en masse (Assuming its an open primary).
Another problem for her: She only moved to Wyoming last year.
Kit, So true. If you want to find someone lacking, you always can.
And you are right about Enzi. Think about that. The problem isn't that he isn't a solid, loyal Republican. The problem is that he doesn't foam at the mouth enough. How rational can the cranks be if that is their new standard... "it's not your deeds that matter, it's whether you can project enough hate."
I think Cheney has lost already. The only question now is if the crank machinery will simply abandon her and pretend she was really a RINO or something like that, or if they will try to make a fight of it.
From what I've heard she has (1) very few connections to the state (aside from her dad -which may not be enough) having lived in Virginia most of her life, (2) she apparently failed to call Enzi ahead of time to tell him she was challenging him and in Wyoming this is apparently seen as bad form or whatever among the Wyoming GOP (possibly damaging her relations with them), and (3) Enzi is well-liked and well-known in the state unlike Cheney whose main claim to fame is being the daughter of Dick Cheney and a common guest on Fox News.
Here are some PPP poll numbers and they look BAD for Liz Cheney: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/07/uphill-battle-for-cheney-in-wyoming.html
Here is a conservative Wyomingite's view of the race and while he does not take a side here, if I'm reading the tea leaves right, its another reason Liz Cheney will do poorly.
LINK
Kit, All true, plus she stepped on some woman's toes -- a House member who is next in line. But she's not really relevant. If it wasn't her, it probably would have been someone else.
I don't blame Palin for the existence of victimhood on the right, just the proliferation of it.
Andrew,
Whose toes did she step on?
Just looked it up: Cythia Lummis.
OT: Bev,
TMZ is reporting that Sydney Leathers is meeting with a porn producer. LOL! Nice prediction! :D
tryanmax, I agree with that.
Kit, Yep. She's the House Republican and apparently the next in line when Enzi retires.
That Ricochet link is interesting. If she gets a lot of money it could wind up hurting her.
From what I've read, Wyoming is very much a grass-roots state where, due in part to its small population, retail campaigning works best. Personal contact, door-to-door by the candidate her/himself, that kind of thing where big-money campaigns can backfire. And local good will helps a lot (something Enzi has built up for the last 20+ years).
If I were Liz Cheney, I would've waited until Mark Enzi retired, building up a base of support in the state, then run for the House seat when Lummis ran for Senate.
"I don't blame Palin for the existence of victimhood on the right, just the proliferation of it."
I agree with you, Tryanmax. She certainly is a touchstone for derangement/victimhood syndrome, but she has never really claimed victimhood except when her children were involved. She's kinda' taken it like a man in that respect. Don't get me wrong, I am not a big fan or even a little fan, but I don't necessarily think that she is the cause of her victimhood either. That is the weird conflict with women in the political arena. It never really looks particularly sporting to personally attack a female candidate. The man who lost against Gov. candidate Ann Richards in Texas in the late '80's when he brought up her bout with alcoholism...learned that lesson. He lost...badly. But then so did Texas as a result, but that's another story...
Kit, I agree, but I don't think her candidacy derives from Wyoming politics. I think it's ego combined with a crank movement that will support anyone who runs to the right of anyone.
My guess is that she decided that since he's probably on the list of RINOs (who isn't?), that she could run based solely on her last name and win. After all, look at all the other first timers who did it. She probably didn't even investigate it. She just assumed it would happen and that she would draw support from Palin and her crew and then sweep to victory.
So far, it looks like that won't happen.
Kit, indeed, I like Cheney but it looks like bad timing. Now if she had put down roots in South Carolina ten years ago...
TMZ is reporting that Sydney Leathers is meeting with a porn producer. LOL! Nice prediction! :D
I knew it!! Oh, please, oh pleeeeeezzzzze let her do a movie with John Wayne Bobbitt!! That would be so perfect!!! Oh, if only there is Kickstarter promotion, I would definitely contribute!
Bev, I have to disagree. Palin is constantly wrapping herself in the victim cloak. Everything she says is about "them" trying to stop her and doing so unfairly. She still whines about the Couric interview, the way the left treated her, the way "the Republican establishment" supposedly betrayed her to them. She whined (and lied) about legal fees as a reason to quit being governor. She whined about FOX News not supporting her when her show started falling in ratings. Since that Couric interview, everything she's said has involved someone or other sabotaging her.
Bev, LOL! That would be hilarious! Leathers and Bobbitt. All we need is Joey Buttafuco (sp?) to join them!
Do you really think Palin has that much influence left? Sure, there are many who will always love her, but I think I´m seeing less interest in the conservative blogosphere. Reports about her seem more dutiful than enthusiastic.
It is important to remember that she was victimized in 2008 and that drove lots of people to take her side no matter what. Now it is five years later, she is a celebrity and her appeal is just down to identity politics for the right. No one believes she will ever run for anything. Because of 2008, a huge slice of conservatives will never say a bad word about her, but how many still see her as a leader?
El Gordo, I don't think Palin has any independent influence left in the base. I think her influence is limited to picking candidates and it comes from the "groupthink" of that part of the right. Basically, once Palin (or Rush, or Hannity or Levin or whoever) anoints someone a RINO and endorses a competitor, they all jump on that bandwagon instantly for fear of being seen as not as pure. That, in turn, motivates a chuck of the conservatives world to adopt those views.
Said differently, her endorsement would be meaningless if it weren't for the fact that all these others will follow suit. And the reason they follow suit isn't that they trust her or see her as a leader so much as they just don't want to be on the wrong side when everyone else forms sides. But she has zero policy influence.
As for her being victimized, you are correct. She was abused by the left. But so have so many other Republicans... quite viciously. It was everything after that that became the problem.
Bev, I understand what you're saying about Palin, and I don't necessarily disagree. But if she is entirely ignorant of the way the victim narrative applied to her is working to her benefit, then she's not just dumb but incredibly lucky. I shouldn't have called her a self appointed martyr, but she certainly accepted the appointment with relish. Her gambit was to see how long she could ride that wave, and it's paid off pretty well.
Incidentally, friends of mine who work on local campaigns have met Palin at a few rallies. They universally report her as a diva when off the stage.
Picking candidates, while a limited function, is still very influential. As they say, elections have consequences.
"It was everything after that that became the problem."
That´s what Joey Buttafuoco said.
LOL! That's a name that truly deserved a sex scandal.. Buttafuoco.
tryanmax, True. I just don't think she's anymore influential than a dozen other people in the same category. And it's not a power to shape the party or give it an agenda, it's just the power to disrupt the occasional election.
tryanmax, I guess I see it this way. I have the power to disrupt your evening by sending a solicitor to your front door. That will make you do certain things and keep you from doing other certain things you may have had planned. But that doesn't really influence you in the sense of changing the course of your life.
She's getting some support, mainly on account of her name and the fact that she's an attack dog. And some are just saying we need term limits. Notice very little of it is about Enzi himself. Unlike Mike Castle in Maryland, where you had direct attacks on his voting record, just about everyone admits that he is a pretty conservative Senator who has crossed party lines a few times to pass a few bills that some conservatives weren't fully supportive of.
This Jim Geraghty post sums up the reasons some like Liz Cheney's challenge (Hint, Geraghty likes it):
LINK
Ironically, some (self-proclaimed) Tea Partiers are critical of the fact that she represents a "dynasty".
Right, I wasn't as worried about the Senate. I doubt there will be any gains, but between Rubio and Paul it seems like their leadership is starting to go down the right path. If even McCain is working on conservative solutions and sticking with them then it seems like the foundation is there for a turnaround.
It's mainly the House that had me worried, especially the consequences if they kill or pass but horribly mishandle the Immigration bill. I was getting the impression that if that happened 2016 wouldn't matter at all because of the damage done.
I'll keep those things in mind going forward, Andrew. I'm not sure if I ever saw some of the primary challenges gaining ground as much because of resources as anything. I just can't see anyone they field getting the sort of support needed to run a campaign and Wyoming does seem to indicate that they're ready and able to handle these things, even if the challenger has a name like Cheney.
And for one last, amused note good call on the Leathers thing! It didn't even take two or three days for the prediction to come true. I'm sure things will be even more interesting in the porn world than usual for a bit...
- Daniel
I for one will not be supporting "Sydney Leather in My Big Weiner Friend" when it comes out.
As far as Palin (different topic fellas!)........I think she represents the anti Washington sentiment better than anyone out there right now. Putting aside all her faults, she does have a connection to the populist movement in this country. I don't think she has much influence though.
Leaders in the House? How about Jason Chaffetz on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee? I like his style. Former prosecutor I think.
True, but timing counts for something. And as Kit pointed out, Palin has excellent timing.
Kit, Castle was a different case and there again, they should have done a much better job of finding someone worthy of replacing him. It was mishandled.
Daniel, I think there are good signs out there. We just need to wait to see if they keep moving forward. I think they will.
And the difference between the House and the Senate really comes down to who they represent. Senators need to appeal to entire states. House members appeal to very small, homogenous districts. So their "audiences" tend to be a little different and their idea of governance is very different.
On the primary challenges, in 2010 and 2012, they proved to be highly successful at knocking off incumbent Republicans. So there is a lot of fear about them at the moment. The question is whether or not they will be successful this time. That's why Wyoming matters. It shows a new tactic by the incumbents and it may represent the beginning of the end for the idea of primarying.
I'm a little shocked actually how quickly Leathers got into porno. I was kind of expecting several months at least.
Patriot, Somehow, I don't see myself support Leathers's new career either.
You know, I like Jason Chaffetz a lot. Smart guy, well spoken, good personality, solid history with excellent experience, and seems to have a knack for spotting things that others miss. He might make an excellent speaker. I like Darrell Issa too, but I think he's too rigid in his thinking -- lacks the flexibility you need to do the dirty work of leadership.
tryanmax, True, but she's in a bit of a pickle right now. It seems that she's being pushed to run for Senate in Alaska. If she backs out, she runs the risk of finally being written off as a tease. If she runs, there's a really high likelihood she gets blown out, which would be even worse -- polls have her negatives in Alaska around 58%. I'm not sure she has a good choice there.
"I'm a little shocked actually how quickly Leathers got into porno."
Well, she already had the name, so why wait?
Isn't that the truth!
Oh, I was unaware of that! That definitely limits her days of influence. Either way, she loses all but her most fanatical fans.
Agreed. I'm not sure yet exactly where that's at, but her name got tossed into the discussion and she's ridden it for some time now. She even got into an argument with the Democrat. He said that she didn't meet the residency requirements to run and she called that "a personal attack"... more victimization.
Anyway, there seems to be momentum now for her to run, but the polls say she'll get crushed.
So it will be interesting to see if she does go through with it or tries to find a way out of it. I suspect she may have left her toe in the water too long to back out now without causing herself problems.
Countdown to Catastrophe
JULY 30, 1914 (99 years ago today…) -Part 1 of 4
At midnight, the partial mobilization of Russian forces against Austria-Hungary begins.
1:00 AM
Paleologue sends a coded message to Paris informing French leaders of the partial mobilization. It’s sent using the Russians’ own ciphers at their insistence to maintain secrecy. (Also, the French codes have been broken by hostile nations more easily than the Russian codes.) The note, which was amended at the last minute, does not include the czar’s last-second decision to cancel a full mobilization.
1:20 AM
Czar Nicholas sends another “Willy-Nicky” telegram. In it, he basically confesses that military preparations are underway in Russia. Amazingly, he actually states “the military measures which have now come into force were decided five days ago.”
1:30 AM
Pourtales and Sazonov meet at Chorister’s Bridge. (The encounter actually started around midnight.) Sazonov tells the German nothing of the rescinded mobilization orders. The two clash over Austria, Serbia, and yesterday’s telegrams. Sazonov says that the mobilization may be suspended if Austria doesn’t attack Serbia. Finally, after Pourtales says Germany will have to support its ally militarily if necessary, Sazonov loses his temper and tells Pourtales that “reversing the (partial) mobilization order was no longer possible,” and that “Austrian mobilization was to blame.”
2:00 AM
Russian Ambassador in France Izvolsky learns of the German threat to mobilize (delivered by Pourtales yesterday). He orders Russian military attaché Count Ignatiev to deliver the news to France’s War Ministry. (Ignatiev personally wakes up Messimy in the War Minister’s house.) Izvolsky wakes up Viviani at his home to deliver the telegram. The grumpy prime minister mutters, “Good God! These Russians are worse insomniacs than they are drinkers.” After getting a phone call from Messimy, Viviani informs President Poincare.
2:55 AM
After wiring Vienna and telling Berchtold that Germany and Austria now face the possibility of fighting a war against the combined forces of Russia, France, Italy, and Britain, Bethmann sends a second telegram to Ambassador Tschirschky. He demands that Vienna begin direct talks with Austria, adding that the Germans “must decline to let ourselves be dragged by Vienna, wantonly and without regard to our advice, into a world conflagration.” He demands that Austria accept the Four Power peace proposal.
4:00 AM
Viviani and Messimy attend at a meeting with Poincare at the Elysee Palace. The meeting lasts several hours. At some point, Chief of Staff Joffre asks permission to begin general mobilization of French forces. Joffre is refused and then threatens to resign if he doesn’t get his way.
Countdown to Catastrophe
JULY 30, 1914 (99 years ago today…) -Part 2 of 4
6:00 AM
Kaiser Wilhelm, having just awakened, gets the latest “Willy-Nicky” telegram from Czar Nicholas. (He also gets a note from Pourtales, confirming the mobilization of four Russian military districts.) He scribbles several things on the margins of the note: “So, that is almost a week ahead of us; the czar has been secretly mobilizing behind my back; he has simply been lying to me; that means I have got to mobilize as well!”
7:00 AM
The meeting ends with Viviani telling Paleologue in St. Petersburg to say that France will support its ally. The telegram, however, while acknowledging Russian actions as ‘defensive,’ cautions Russia not to do anything to provoke Germany. In other words, make Germany (and Austria) look like the aggressors so that English opinion can be manipulated to their liking.
11:00 AM
Czar Nicholas meets with Sazonov and Generals Sukhomlinov and Yanushkevitch. The generals believe a partial mobilization won’t work, and that they should just mobilize fully or lose precious time. The Czar rebukes them, and tells Sazonov to produce a report on the situation later in the day.
Sazonov meets Yanushkevitch to plan how to persuade the Czar. The general recommends warning the sovereign that stalling will only allow Germany to get France to remain neutral, abandoning Russia. He also asks that Sazonov phone the Czar’s decision to him, adding that, once the order is received, “I shall go away, smash my telephone, and generally adopt measures which will prevent anyone from finding me for the purpose of giving contrary orders.” Sazonov then meets with Pourtales again. This time, he says that Austria won’t have to stop military operations. However, Austria will have to abandon parts of its ultimatum to Serbia. (The ones that violate its sovereignty.)
As word of war gets out, there is a massive rush on European banks. Stock exchanges in Berlin and Brussels are shut down due to mass selling.
Noon
Kaiser Wilhelm sees Lichnowsky’s latest telegram (informing him of Grey’s statement that Britain will not be neutral), and seems to back down in favor of more negotiations. (He's famous for these sudden mood swings.) He sends another “Willy-Nicky” telegram, claiming that Chancellor Bethmann only wanted to bring up the dangerous consequences of Russian mobilization, and warns that it could bring on war. The Kaiser ends it by saying, “The whole weight of the decision lies solely on your shoulders now, who have to bear the responsibility for Peace or War.”
Moltke tells Austrian liaison officer Captain Fleischmann not to mobilize against Russia just yet. Let them make the first move and be seen as the aggressors.
In St. Petersburg, Sazonov meets with Paleologue and Buchanan. He talks about his 2:00 AM meeting with Pourtales, and says the German Ambassador “broke down” and gave a “last straw” for peace. He also claims there’s evidence of German military buildups (whether he’s lying or talking about the German Navy heading to Kiel isn’t certain.) Both ambassadors appear to give their approval to Saznov’s military plans.
Countdown to Catastrophe
JULY 30, 1914 (99 years ago today…) -Part 3 of 4
1:00 PM
Moltke interrupts a meeting at the Wilhelmstrasse. He’s seen the Czar’s telegram and Pourtales’ report. He wants to begin the ‘Imminent Danger of War’ program immediately. Bethmann refuses, holding out hope for the ‘Halt-in-Belgrade’ plan, which would give Russia one more chance to end things. Moltke then tells Austrian military attaché Lieutenant-Colonel Bienerth that he must tell General Conrad to fully mobilize and activate Plan R (the one aimed at Russia). Plan B (the Balkan-only plan), he says, would leave both countries- including German East Prussia- vulnerable to Russian attack. He urges Austria to ignore the ‘Halt-in-Belgrade’ plan. In Vienna, seeing the contradictory advice from Bethmann and Moltke, Berchtold quips, “Who rules in Berlin, Moltke or Bethmann?”
Mid-afternoon
At the Peterhof Palace, Czar Nicholas receives a message from Father Rasputin, who is still recovering from his stab wound at his village home. It reads, “Let Papa (Rasputin’s nickname for the Czar) not plan war. With war will come the end of Russia and yourselves, and you will lose to the last man.” The Czar angrily tears up the note.
3:00 PM
After meeting with several more Russian leaders, Sazonov faces Czar Nicholas at the Peterhof. General Tatistchev, who is to be sent as Russian liaison to Berlin, is also present. Sazonov says that war is now inevitable, Russia must strike while the timing is favorable, and that Germany may still not mobilize after all. The Czar responds, “Just think of the responsibility you are advising me to assume! Remember it is a question of sending thousands of men to their deaths.” The General says, “Yes. It is hard to decide.” After some uncomfortable silence, the Czar then responds, “I will decide,” and sends them away.
3:30 PM
In London, Grey hints that a ‘Halt-in-Belgrade’ plan just might work. At the same time, the British Parliament suspends debate on the Home Rule bill in order to present (using Prime Minister Asquith’s words) a ‘united front’ to the growing crisis.
4:00 PM
The Czar makes his decision. He authorizes his commanders to order general mobilization. Sazonov tells Yanushkevitch, “now you can smash your telephone!”
5:00 PM (7:30 PM in Russia)
France begins war preparations by bringing frontier garrisons to wartime strength. (This is known as 'covering the border.') They use an incorrect report in a German newspaper of German military preparations as justification.(The article was actually debunked by France’s own ambassador to Germany, Jules Cambon. His report was simply ignored.) Viviani orders that all troops remain at least ten kilometers (six miles) away from the border so that they are not seen by Britain as the aggressors. France and Russia are now well into their war preparations. And with Austria and Serbia already mobilizing, Germany- whom everyone is painting as the aggressor- is, ironically, the only country not preparing for war.
Countdown to Catastrophe
JULY 30, 1914 (99 years ago today…) -Part 4 of 4
6:00 PM
RUSSIA BEGINS MOBILIZATION AGAINST GERMANY AND AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.
General Dobrorolskii recalled, “a few minutes after six, while absolute stillness reigned in the room, all the instruments began at once to click. That was the beginning moment of the great epoch.” Mobilization orders are then sent out. Within weeks, four million men in the Russian armed forces will have taken up arms.
7:00 PM
Russian military districts confirm their mobilization orders.
9:00 PM
In Berlin, Moltke and Fahlkenhayn corner Bethmann in an office at the Wilhelmstrasse. They make their case that war is now inevitable and that the ‘Imminent Danger of War’ program be implemented. An exhausted Bethmann says he will meet with them again tomorrow at noon. He then tries again to get Vienna to accept the Four Power peace proposal. He gets no immediate response from Berchtold.
9:15 PM
Paleologue informs Paris of the Russian mobilization. He says Sazonov told him it was ordered because of troop movements within Germany.
10:10 PM
Britain's King George V sends Foreign Minister Grey’s acceptance of a ‘Halt-in-Belgrade’ plan to Berlin.
Rustbelt, That's interesting. I never knew that Germany waited so long to mobilize. It's always been painted that the Germans mobilized right away -- though I know they did get caught with their lederhose down by the unexpected speed of Russia's mobilization and advance.
Andrew, truth is, Russia moves at a snail's pace; what takes Russia to do in five days takes Germany about 12 hours. Okay, that may be pushing it a little, but Germany is far more efficient than Russia in every respect. The only thing Russia had going for it was Germany not knowing Russia's actions and thus putting its own plans into effect. This is why Sazonov needed complete secrecy so badly. Germany was basically ill-informed by the incompetent Bethmann and fell behind while all other countries plotted around it.
In the war, Russia's only advantage is manpower. In everything else- trained soldiers, leadership, weapons, planning, arms- Germany is vastly superior. Surprise is Russia's only hope of winning anything- kind of like Japan taking on the US in WWII.
Another interesting note, Andrew, is that despite being perceived as military state, Germany's military leaders (as I'll note tomorrow), never challenge the orders of the civilian government. (They make requests, but never circumvent and disobey their bosses.) They wait for permission (and look for evidence of an enemy's actions) before doing anything. There's no rogue foreign ministers (Austria, Russia), overambitious underlings (France), or outside agitators (Serbia) undermining the civilian government. In an ironic turn, Germany, pegged as the lawless aggressor by the Versailles treaty, was the only continental power (except maybe Belgium) who adhered to the rule of law.
Rustbelt, I think Germany is viewed through WW2 at this point and a lot of Hitlerism gets pushed back onto pre-WWI Germany, even though it's not true.
I've always felt from the things I've read that the Allies were just as "at fault" if not more so for the war. Indeed, they seemed to be spoiling for a fight just as much as Germany. They also did many crappy things that Germany will then copy and which will be called German crimes.
I'm not saying Germany was great, but the Allies truly did write the history, and they re-wrote the Kaiser's Germany into Hitler's Germany with Hindenburg and Ludendorf as proto-Hitlers.
Andrew, they certainly did. Personally, I think France and Russia- just as much as Austria- were primarily responsible. In fact, there's a book I don't have, but want to read, called "The Russian Origins of World War I." It's written by Sean McMeekin, who wrote one of the books I'm using for this series, "July 1914." According to reviews I've read, he really places the blame on Russia for blindly taking Serbia's side and not doing anything to halt the outbreak of hositlities. I'll have to look it over one of these days.
As for Germany, I think the Versailles Treaty was used to wash the Allies' hands of anything they had to do with starting the war. (And admitting that only one country had basically beaten all of them until the U.S. intervened.) In a way, they're also responsible for WW2. It created the situation in Germany that helped Hitler and the Nazis' rise to power- in part. It was also an unpopular piece of legislation that Hitler vowed to wipe out while in office. Sound familiar? Ah, government leaders never learn that bad laws always provoke an angry public. (Please note, I'm NOT saying that the parallel is perfect; Obamacare woke up a lot of people to the abuses of government power and the need to restrain them- a very positive example; the Versailles Treaty roused people to give up their freedoms in order to get vengeance on those crafted it- a very horrible example.)
Well, I have to call a day. Busy schedule tomorrow. Just to let you know, tomorrow's update may be a little later than usual. I may have to ask you for another writ of Mountainous (or even Pacificus) Timeinus, just so you know.
Agreed. I actually keep thinking I should write an article at some point how government abuse always reflects back and causes the next great social catastrophe.
Sleep well, my friend.
Patriot
Was Allen West Gerrymandered out of his seat.
I believe the seat he was in was changed and the new area had much more democrat controlled areas. I forget why but there was a lot of initial compalining about it early on.
Post a Comment