Eye of Newt...
danceswithcarp
Before anyone goes off the deepend on Newt Gingrich's resignation here in
the e$tado$ unito$, please remember his quitting is because the
extreme/religious right wing thought he screwed the pooch and caved to
liberal interests in the budget fight.
Now we get to see the real nutties.
carp
Erik
Now that's scary : there is worse than Newt Gingrich in official u$ politics ?
Erik
Unka Bart
>
> Before anyone goes off the deepend on Newt Gingrich's resignation here in
> the e$tado$ unito$, please remember his quitting is because the
> extreme/religious right wing thought he screwed the pooch and caved to
> liberal interests in the budget fight.
>
> Now we get to see the real nutties.
Yeah, we must have been cursed by the proverbial Chinaman; things are going
to get *real* interesting now. Newt got his hat and departed because he
is, when all is said and done, a pretty bright lad. Misguided (and a lot
of things worse than that), but bright, nonetheless.
It's not only the nutto-wing that thinks he screwed the pooch, it's the
entire lot of Repbulicrats. They remember his *other* great blunders,
starting with the shutting down of the government (I've gotta remember to
give him a great big wet, sloppy kiss for that one!) that brought the wrath
of the peeple down upon the entire party. That was strike one. The just
concluded budget deal was strike two.
In every mid-term election since the recent unpleasantness (1861-5) between
the states, the party not in control of the White House has gained seats.
Since WWII, that party has gained an average of 27. Until this year, when
they *lost* seats for the first time since the (un)civil war!
Steeeeeeeeee-rike Three!
Not to mention, he pulled off his shoes and socks and counted. The
Republicrats now are down to 5 vote majority in the house. Sheeeee-it man,
that house of monkeys couldn't decide when to go to the bathroom with only
a *5* vote majority! He's gettin' out while the gettin's good...
I'm not prognosticating or anything here, but there's an even chance that
the Republicrats *might* see that the policies they've followed under Newt;
the divisive policies of abrasive sanctimony of the xtian right, aren't
getting the job done.
Many of them are already begining to wake up to the obvious. Those
policies that got them from being the minority party (playing on the
resentment of the govern*ed* to the govern*ment*) to the majority, don't
cut the mustard when *you* are now accountable , when you *are* that
government.
As Pogo said, "we has met the enemy; and they is *us*!"
This actually could move that whole party (OK, NOT the xtian right nut-case
faction, but the others; the ones without the foam on their lips) to the
center.
Interesting how the exit polling went. This time, it was the foaming about
the mouth-parts crowd, the xtian-right and their ilk, who sat on their
hands; while minorities and unions came out in larger than average numbers.
In the last presidential election, the Republicrat party was "captured" by
the nutto religious right wing, a small faction and just one of several in
that party, because large numbers of the more moderate majority of
republicrats sat on their hands at the grass-roots level when the party
delegates were selected for the national convention. I'm not sure, but
this time, it may have been the other way around. Then again, the entire
bunch may not be as bright as Newt and they may just reload and shoot
themselves in the other foot two years from now.
Hope springs eternal, donchaknow...
Vedddddddy interestink...
Most of the pundits are agreeing that the principal message that can be
read in the tea leaves of this election is that the people have said, once
again, "It's the economy, stoopid!" Most Americans feel that the status
quo is better now than at any time in living memory, and they credit the
prez for that. And they are saying, very LOUDLY, that they do not care
what he does in his private life as long as the economy is doing so well.
It remains to be seen if the politicians are as astute as the pundits (OK,
I actually broke up laughing at what I just wrote. As if... As *if* the
pols had a freakin' CLUE...)
And another interesting thing that buttresses this simple reading of the
election results is the way that it did *not* mirror what happened on the
local level, where Republicrats gained governerships and (more) state
legislative seats.
And then there's also Minnesota, of course...
Also interesting is that this was the smallest turn-out overall, ever. So
it's impossible to say *what* the majority thinks. The interesting thing,
the significant thing, is that those who do feel agree with the pundits,
voted. And they got *their* message across.
keri malone
Dick Armey is a real wiener.
They are all wieners.
My dad hasn't voted in 30 years.
I'm just following tradition.
Keri
> Now that's scary : there is worse than Newt Gingrich in official u$ politics ?
>
> Erik
Your flags black in the wind,black for
our sorrow,
red for our blood-Makhnovchtchina
Richard Singer
>
>Dick Armey is a real wiener.
>They are all wieners.
>My dad hasn't voted in 30 years.
>I'm just following tradition.
>Keri
>
>> Now that's scary : there is worse than Newt Gingrich in official u$
politics ?
>>
>> Erik
>
But Dick Army isn't always wrong. For instance, take this quote
from him in Reuters: "Newt Gingrich deserves a place in history next to
Ronald Reagan." Hey, who can argue with that?
But I confess, I still play that little useless game of voting.
This year, I went and cast my vote for Grandpa Munster, only to find that it
was all in vein...
Richard Singer
Richard Singer
>
>Most of the pundits are agreeing that the principal message that can be
>read in the tea leaves of this election is that the people have said, once
>again, "It's the economy, stoopid!" Most Americans feel that the status
>quo is better now than at any time in living memory, and they credit the
>prez for that. And they are saying, very LOUDLY, that they do not care
>what he does in his private life as long as the economy is doing so well.
>It remains to be seen if the politicians are as astute as the pundits (OK,
>I actually broke up laughing at what I just wrote. As if... As *if* the
>pols had a freakin' CLUE...)
>
I broke up laughing too -- especially at that line, "Most Americans
feel that the status quo is better now than at any time in living memory."
Richard Singer
danceswithcarp
On Sat, 7 Nov 1998, Erik wrote:
>
> Now that's scary : there is worse than Newt Gingrich in official
> u$ politics ?
Bart's take is that things will move back to the center-stage, mine is
that the real sideshow is in the right-wing. There are about 100 or so
republican house members (we've got a bicameral legislative system--the
house and senate) who came in during the late 1980s and the 1990's as
products of the overall national/legislative manipulation to the right
(thank your lucky stars this shift came +after+ the Raygun
administration).
These guys are the frightening ones. Indiana has three of them, Hostetler,
Buyer, and McIntosh. You need name-tags to tell them apart; all are late
30s/early 40s; all wear the same haircut; all wear the same blue suits and
red-striped ties; all are in the lap of the xtian coalition; all oppose
womyn's choice (hell, all oppose womyn's issues in general); all are for
moral legislating; all run attack-based campaigns that smear opponents
with ties to "liberalism" and "big spenders" (yeah, I know, so do we--but
at least we don't computer enhance the video feed and then run it
slow-motion to make people look evil). These are the guys who are very
close to the majority right now in the house repub caucus.
Their agenda is very simple: Implement the corporate state; force
right-wing xtian morality on the national body politic; and squelch +any+
opposition. These people at least pretend they are doing the wirk of god
as defined by the american constituional writers.
Almost all of these nuts have, or have access to, +huge+ Political Action
Committee funds. McIntosh funded a clone in the legislative race I got
recruited for and turned down (and he's from Northern Indiana--I'm from
the south) and also funded local r county commissioner candidates, r
county council candidates, and the r sheriff candidate.
And locally every fucking one of them looks alike, goes to the same
church, and won't hesitate to figure out ways to censor differing opinions
and lock people up.
Anyways, these types are a major force in the national republican party
and Newt has been riding herd on them to keep them under contol for his
own purposes. Since Newt was the visible point man for masterminding the
republican shift in congress, these guys have not revolted as a group but
they have been festering since 1994 that Newt and Smarmey Armey are
selling out their core fascist priciples (and that is not hyperbole) in
compromises with president dollar bill.
Now what we are going to see is the real struggle for control of the
republican party. My bet is the right wins. Then in 2000 they will
appoint someone (named Bush) to be their standard bearer, not because Bush
believes like they do (he sort of talks the talk for political points) but
because he understands where his pockets are getting lined. The right
doesn't need an activist president to implement their agenda as much as
they need someone who will allow them to run amok while going off to
attend ribbon cuttings and state funerals (which used to be the vice
president's job).
Now I know our concern shouldn't be electoral politics so much, but this
episode is wirth watching. Gingrich didn't bail out because the moderates
(scoff-scoff) were challenging him; he lost those 100 or so nutto-clones
as supporters because he was perceived as too soft and didn't develop the
"family and faith" issues during the last 2 weeks of the campaign.
Bart says it's an attempt to end the divisivness that the r's have been
struggling with rince Raygun. I tend to think it the divisivness coming
to a head. All of those local xtian-funded candidates got creamed, but
they still have the power in the party. Right now what they are doing
locally instead of figuring out why they were rejected, is figuring out a
way to smear and purge the "moderates" who are still in the party that
they blame for being less-than-100%-true-believers.
I don't mind them cannibalizing themselves so much as I wonder who they're
going to eat when this meal is over.
Be afraid.
carp
Unka Bart
> Bart's take is that things will move back to the center-stage, mine is
> that the real sideshow is in the right-wing.
I don't think that we are in disagreement, and I'm not so sure that the
Republicrats *will* move to center stage. In any event, we agree that the
real side-show is in the right wing.
> There are about 100 or so
> republican house members (we've got a bicameral legislative system--the
> house and senate) who came in during the late 1980s and the 1990's as
> products of the overall national/legislative manipulation to the right
> (thank your lucky stars this shift came +after+ the Raygun administration).
Amen!
> These guys are the frightening ones. Indiana has three of them, Hostetler,
> Buyer, and McIntosh. You need name-tags to tell them apart; all are late
> 30s/early 40s; all wear the same haircut; all wear the same blue suits and
> red-striped ties; all are in the lap of the xtian coalition; all oppose
> womyn's choice (hell, all oppose womyn's issues in general); all are for
> moral legislating; all run attack-based campaigns that smear opponents
> with ties to "liberalism" and "big spenders" (yeah, I know, so do we--but
> at least we don't computer enhance the video feed and then run it
> slow-motion to make people look evil). These are the guys who are very
> close to the majority right now in the house repub caucus.
That'd be about 100 or so of them foamy mouthed varmints and 120 of the others.
That's not too bad, when you consider that the 120 or so of the less
scramble-brained others may be getting a message from this election. And
there's always the delightful possibility that the foamy ones will go to
war with their own party-brethern even more than in the past.
> Their agenda is very simple: Implement the corporate state; force
> right-wing xtian morality on the national body politic; and squelch +any+
> opposition. These people at least pretend they are doing the wirk of god
> as defined by the american constituional writers.
No disagreement here, either.
> Almost all of these nuts have, or have access to, +huge+ Political Action
> Committee funds. McIntosh funded a clone in the legislative race I got
> recruited for and turned down (and he's from Northern Indiana--I'm from
> the south) and also funded local r county commissioner candidates, r
> county council candidates, and the r sheriff candidate.
Yeah, but I noted that local politics (local races) were separate from the
national issues. In fact, I said:
"And another interesting thing that buttresses this simple reading of the
election results is the way that it did *not* mirror what happened on the
local level, where Republicrats gained governerships and (more) state
legislative seats."
Still, there *is* hope that the wacko-wing is going to start taking it on
the chops at home, say about the time that some opponent starts campaigning
on the idea that it might be a good idea to elect someone who can work with
others and actually get something done for the folks back home.
Not that this is all that appealing an idea either...
> And locally every fucking one of them looks alike, goes to the same
> church, and won't hesitate to figure out ways to censor differing opinions
> and lock people up.
Amen, again.
> Anyways, these types are a major force in the national republican party
> and Newt has been riding herd on them to keep them under contol for his
> own purposes. Since Newt was the visible point man for masterminding the
> republican shift in congress, these guys have not revolted as a group but
> they have been festering since 1994 that Newt and Smarmey Armey are
> selling out their core fascist priciples (and that is not hyperbole) in
> compromises with president dollar bill.
again.
> Now what we are going to see is the real struggle for control of the
> republican party. My bet is the right wins.
I hope that you're right, since it would ensure strife and dissention among
the folks on the foam-and-spittle-flecked side of things. But there is at
least an equal chance that the failure of the wacko-right to turn out in
large numbers in this election; and the fact that *incumbents* across the
board were re-elected in overwhelming numbers, we may be seeing something
more fundamental at work here. It may just possibly be that folks, in
general, are growing weary of the sanctimonious crowd. If things keep
going as they are, low inflation, low unemployment, there's hope. Look at
Minnesota and Wisconsin. Feingold won against a heavily funded attack by
the foam-flecked crowd, despite all the smart money saying he would be
crazy to try, given his declining of "soft-money."
Then in 2000 they will
> appoint someone (named Bush) to be their standard bearer, not because Bush
> believes like they do (he sort of talks the talk for political points) but
> because he understands where his pockets are getting lined.
Yeah, he and his daddy are both pragmatists. And you're right, their next
candidate will be Bush. And he's probably the best (least undesirable)
choice of the lot of bad choices for that very reason.
> The right
> doesn't need an activist president to implement their agenda as much as
> they need someone who will allow them to run amok while going off to
> attend ribbon cuttings and state funerals (which used to be the vice
> president's job).
I hate to say anything good about any pol, but I believe that young George
is *far* too ambitious to adbicate to the nuttos.
> Now I know our concern shouldn't be electoral politics so much, but this
> episode is wirth watching.
Well, I don't think that it would be a real good idea to ignore this
either. Whatever one thinks about the world we live in, it *is* the world
we live in. At least until we hear that soft fluttering sound, and start
seeing falling swine feathers around us... So, naturally, I agree that
this episode bears watching.
> Gingrich didn't bail out because the moderates
> (scoff-scoff) were challenging him; he lost those 100 or so nutto-clones
> as supporters because he was perceived as too soft and didn't develop the
> "family and faith" issues during the last 2 weeks of the campaign.
We agree completely. Three strikes and "yer OUT!" But my point was that
it was not *just* the nuttos, but all of the republicrats that had had
enough of Newt.
It isn't only the "family and Faith" crowd that is pissed that he didn't
push their agenda, he didn't push *any* part of the republicrat agenda and
they all have had it with him. Only the Demopublicans have tears in their
eyes; he was such a loverly boogy-man... In fact, I said:
"It's not only the nutto-wing that thinks he screwed the pooch, it's the
entire lot of Repbulicrats. They remember his *other* great blunders,
starting with the shutting down of the government (I've gotta remember to
give him a great big wet, sloppy kiss for that one!) that brought the wrath
of the peeple down upon the entire party. That was strike one. The just
concluded budget deal was strike two."
> Bart says it's an attempt to end the divisivness that the r's have been
> struggling with rince Raygun.
Well, I hate to correct my learned brother, buuuuuuuut... what I said was
that it *might* cause them to tone it down some. I said:
I'm not prognosticating or anything here, but there's an even chance that
the Republicrats *might* see that the policies they've followed under Newt;
the divisive policies of abrasive sanctimony of the xtian right, aren't
getting the job done.
Many of them are already begining to wake up to the obvious. Those
policies that got them from being the minority party (playing on the
resentment of the govern*ed* to the govern*ment*) to the majority, don't
cut the mustard when *you* are now accountable , when you *are* that
government.
That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it...
> I tend to think it the divisivness coming
> to a head. All of those local xtian-funded candidates got creamed, but
> they still have the power in the party. Right now what they are doing
> locally instead of figuring out why they were rejected, is figuring out a
> way to smear and purge the "moderates" who are still in the party that
> they blame for being less-than-100%-true-believers.
>
> I don't mind them cannibalizing themselves so much as I wonder who they're
> going to eat when this meal is over.
I din't know that they got creamed on the local level. Damn, that's good
to hear. And I sincerely hope that you are right, about this coming to a
head.
And as to them trying to figgure how they can smear their opponents, that's
business as usual for that crowd anyway. It may be beginning to have a
wide-spread backlash. Please feel perfectly to call me a fool,(oh yeah,
well soz yer ol' man!) but it looks to me like people may be waking up to
the smell of these smear campaigns, and smelling them for what they are,
deliberately voting against the smearers.
I am, I recognize, as full of shit as a christmas turkey...
But Richard, scoff as you may, and as silly as it sounds, there is plenty
of evidence that folks feel that the economy is as good as it has been in
living memory. The only time it was this good was in the very late 40's
and early 50's, and I was there. In my experience, people feel better
about the economy today, probably because there is nothing comparable to
the cold war. The good feelings about the economy were tempered, in those
days, by the fear of impending nuclear war.
It may or may not be so, but perception is what matters, and the majority
folks perceive it thataway. Large numbers feel otherwise, but the majority
is a still larger number yet. People do *not* want the boat rocked, they
want the slickster to keep on keepin' on.
YM, of course, MV...
Yer Kindly Ol' Unka Bart
Erik
...>
>Now what we are going to see is the real struggle for control of the
>appoint someone (named Bush) to be their standard bearer, not because Bush
>believes like they do (he sort of talks the talk for political points) but
>doesn't need an activist president to implement their agenda as much as
>they need someone who will allow them to run amok while going off to
>attend ribbon cuttings and state funerals (which used to be the vice
>president's job).
>
Which Bush are you talking about here. I read that both Bush-sons are now
elected. Are they also interchangeable or is one even worse than the other.
>
>Bart says it's an attempt to end the divisivness that the r's have been
>struggling with rince Raygun. I tend to think it the divisivness coming
>to a head. All of those local xtian-funded candidates got creamed, but
>they still have the power in the party. Right now what they are doing
>locally instead of figuring out why they were rejected, is figuring out a
>way to smear and purge the "moderates" who are still in the party that
>they blame for being less-than-100%-true-believers.
>
>I don't mind them cannibalizing themselves so much as I wonder who they're
>going to eat when this meal is over.
>
>Be afraid.
>
Well i must say the situation here in europe is (at least on the surface).
In most countries there are social-democrats in power. Their politics are
not so much different from the liberals (european sense = freemarket
people) or rightwing parties, so there is not much opposition. And because
of there socilaist past : unions tend to accept more form social deoacrta
governments than from righwting governments. So no opposition from that
side either.
There is a steady on growing rise of the extreme right, but apart from
France, Belgium and Italy (maybe i left a few out) they are not very
important.
We don't have (yet ?) these rightwing xtian large groups with lots of
power. But we do face other problems.
Erik
Brian J. Callahan
>Now that's scary : there is worse than Newt Gingrich in official u$ politics?
instead, the fascists just join up with the Demnocrats or, especially these
days, the Republicans.