Wednesday, September 15, 2010

What the heck is going on?

IF you are a Democrat, moderate or independent, you are shaking your head over what happened in Delaware. How does a no-nothing, incompetent, profiting only from running for office, whose previous big issue was masturbation, win a nomination to run for the United States Senate from what used to be known as the Grand Old Party?

This and a lot of other primaries conclusively say, to me, that Republicans can and very well might nominate Sarah Palin for president in 2012. It also looks likely that, given Newt Gingrich's reach to the fringe, his racist comment that Obama might have a "Kenyan, anti-colonial worldview," was aimed at one thing-- he hopes to be Sarah's running mate and I don't mean on the top of the ticket.

Newt is an opportunist who clearly can see which way the wind in his party is blowing and what it smells like. He knows he can't run for president; but could he be her Cheney, the power behind the throne? I would guess he hopes so. Given the mentality of the right wing voters today, who are angry at something, even if they can't articulate what, beyond the signs they carry, it all could happen.

Sorry, Romney, but I think selling out is too late and you didn't go far enough-- Romney endorses and donates to O'Donnell campaign. It's one of those questions that one has to ask about now, if that one is not a Republican anyway-- how low can they go?

I wouldn't try to tell tea partiers or right wing Republican how to vote. I pretty well think that's a lost cause as they have proven to be self- and nation- destructive, people who only care about three things--  revenge, winning and low taxes (oh and they want their country back, not sure who has it but they want it); but I will suggest to any leftie reading here-- think long and hard before you decide you don't need to vote, you don't need to work for candidates with your principles. When you feel upset that Obama hasn't gone far enough, just imagine for awhile a Palin/Gingrich ticket and it might help you get re-enthused!

And don't even try to tell me it doesn't matter who gets in, that they are all the same. Just check out O'Donnell's record such as it is, read what she says she stands for, and then realize she got nominated by the same kind of voters who will be nominating a presidential candidate in two years.


Ingineer66 said...

I think people are just so fed up with incumbents that they will take most anybody that sounds different. The other republican was basically a democrat so we will see what happens. The Republican party screwed themselves up when they tried to be the Democrat Light party. Stick to basic principles of fiscal responsibility and social libertarianism and I think you will get votes.

Rain said...

That might be true but it's not who O'Donnell is. She's incompetent and a religious extremist. Now she didn't get very many votes given how few voted and how small a state Delaware is, but there will still be a senator there if she wins who has the extremist views on things like religion and she will have the same vote as the one from California who represents millions. That's what is scary about the Senate at least to me. Right now she only impacts Delaware but she may soon impact all of us. Same with Sharron Angle. The Republican party has not been fiscally conservative and the reason Castle got voted out was more his suspected softness on moral issues, I bet, than fiscal. This woman can't even balance her bills and only makes money by running for office. That's who Republicans want and someone who will go off on a tangent that the government has the right to regulate what people view on TV or in movies? And she is being supported for her religious views and it's where her money is coming from.

And have you noticed how these people all say the same things about not expressing their views. They say that O'Donnell's website is stripped of anything about her or her policies-- just send money. And we already know she lives on that money. I just wonder what the heck Republicans are bringing to this country by their desire for the 'other'.

Kay Dennison said...

I think too many are drinking the Fox News kool-aid. It's easier than critical thinking which I don't think is taught anymore.

I wonder what these people are going to say when they realize that they bought a pig in a poke. "I didn't realize . . ."
won't get it as a defense.

Anonymous said...

C'mon now... credit where credit is due:
Joe Biden held that seat for years.
Is there anyone on the face of the earth more clueless than J.B.?
Sure, O'Donnell is a neophyte and will take a while getting her feet beneath her, but she is CHANGE, isn't she?
In her we get a woman's perspective. We install someone in office who has actually had difficulty making a house payment. We get someone who has faced this terrific tax burden and has come up short, and unlike some cabinet members, made that situation right without being a weasel... forced into it after being nominated for their position.
We could do much worse than O'Donnell.
We HAVE DONE much worse than O'Donnell!

And Rain, what is it about attractive, ambitious younger women that threatens you so?


Ingineer66 said...

You may have that right Kay. That is what a lot of Obama voters are saying now. Instead of good leaders and people that represent the mainstream of America we get people from the far extremes of each side.

Ingineer66 said...

I hard that on the news today Rain about the population of the entire state only being 837,000. Holy cow, that is smaller than the Sacramento Metro area. That is smaller than Hawaii. Why are we even paying any attention to this little backwater. ;-)

Rain said...

Where did you get the idea Biden is incompetent, LaBrea? He knows his stuff and just because he doesn't have speaking ability and is no orator, well you can't say that's a factor in being a senator who researches and understands the issues, and votes accordingly.

If you look at O'Conmell's record, say her personal ability to organize her finances, you have to wonder why-- if you use logic anyway? Is it her moral stands on say that chastity is the only valid way to live, that masturbation is sinful and what exactly should government do about sexy entertainment since some of it bad for people according to her and gov't should have a role in 'regulating' that.

It's not her 'beauty' that bugs me. It's her stand on issues and lack of any evidence she can do the job as a United States Senator.

Incidentally I don't find her that attractive. She is kind of Shirley Temple light *s* and yes, that definitely dates me lol although I didn't grow up watching those films as they were made. Now Sarah Palin, I admire her beauty, interesting bones and her own style; but O'Donnell might be what men think is hot but to me she is kind of blah looking. It would not stop me from voting for someone though if I thought they were good at their job because they weren't pretty or were hot. I don't vote on looks.

Where it intimidates me is what ingineer said. We have a state where less than half a million people might vote with not even a million living there and they get two senators. It is how our system was set up to be but when it's so imbalanced it makes a little state powerful way beyond its numbers and enough of those can control the senate, blocking government from accomplishing anything, ignoring the needs of the rest of the country or even ignoring common sense in their voting. In this case, they say, 35,000 and she won by 1600 more votes. Yet if she gets a senate seat look at the power she wields, she who has goofed up her own finances. She who believes in a fundamentalist religion and will vote for it. That is what is scary.

All of these female Republican candidates though, correct me if I am wrong, have beauty as the reason they rose that high. It's what gets praised the most. It's a long way from how Democrats vote where I can't think of a single Democratic senator (correct me if you can) where beauty is listed as one of their criteria for being there.

Rain said...

eek O'Donnell. Blame my typos on a laptop...

incidentally Bill Maher said last night that one thing about Christine O'Donnell is she is a nice person, genuinely nice. She was on his old show over 20 times... But is being nice what the right votes on? I think it's more her stand on things like abortion where she would end all legal abortions by federal law if she had the power... and that means from rape, incest, anything probably but physical life of the mother. It isn't really just that though for me but why she would do that-- her belief in the fundamentalist doctrine of religion where global warming is no threat, where the world was created by a god and probably 6000 years ago, where prayer works better than studying issues. She follows Palin well but is this what the Republican party really wants governing this country? For some, that answer is probably yes

Anonymous said...

Whoa.... I get to thinking that after you get 200 miles from the ocean people see the world 'nice "little" boxes of convenience'. and they only listen to Right wing talk radio or small church news broadcasts. That is "the world"
Forget anything else..thus "we want 'our country' back".. from what reality?
Farm Boss

Anonymous said...

Yeah, that Biden, he's a real mental giant alright!
(God, please keep BHO healthy.)

Anonymous said...

Genial post and this post helped me alot in my college assignement. Thank you seeking your information.