Steady up, there, hoss. A girlish giggle, a swan’s neck and a mind like a steel trap. And you got?
Clinton! Slowly, I turned…inch by inch, step by step…
Menshevik, turd way, three legged blue dead dog, Republican Lite, feh! It was all about being “business friendly” and not being scary to the people who most deserve to be scared, to get a cut of that corporate donation pie that the Pubbies had been gorging upon forever. And it worked, in the way that selling your soul to Old Scratch gets you seven years before he comes to collect.
Selling stability works so long as stability means security, now, not so much. People who thought they had bought and paid for their ticket on the Suburb Bound Train find out that their ticket is only good on alternate Thursdays between 11 am and 11:30. And if a guy with the Preferred Ticket wants your seat, you are shit out of luck. And if you sold the best years of your life for your Education Guarantee, a good chance you ate ramen noodles for four or five years and now owe more than you can make in ten. How many MBAs can our country support at a hundred grand a year?
When stability no longer mens security, stability ain’t shit. Fox News is very rich people paying rich people to tell middle class people that all their problems are because of poor people. And that works until one of those poor people is your brother in law.
Or you.
EM-You don’t believe the 60s were a period of large gains for liberals?
Since I said “conservative attitudes dominated in the 1950s and 1980s in opposition to long-term gains by liberals” I obviously do believe it. Unless you’re quibbling about how I should be starting with Nixon instead of Reagan. Nixon wasn’t conservative as much as authoritarian, which was opposition but in a different way. It took another decade for the true conservative movement to come to fruition.
There are some REpublicans out there who I will support Hillary Clinton over. Conservatism was advanced tremendously during the Clinton years anyway. We got lower spending, major cuts to the federal workforce, free trade agreements, welfare reform, and deregulation. I’d take that again.
I assumed you believe that, you just didn’t explicitly say so.
And a surplus. Don’t forget the surplus.
(Bush sure forgot about it fast, didn’t he?)
John Kasich is looking like he’ll run, and he seems to have figured out how to win support from key Democratic constituencies:
Plus unlike Christie, he’s actually a conservative.
Too bad he declared that there is indeed a problem with global warming and that we should do something with our emissions, he is DOA with the current GOP.
Seems that to win the nomination he will have to do a Romney but this only leads to flip flops galore, by the time the presidential election takes place I expect that the suspicions of the tea party conservatives about his purity will keep them at home and sit down that election.
You assume much about the GOP base.
I don’t assume, we know already. Most of the funding seen nowadays is going to very conservative Tea Party candidates, virtually all will not give a look at John Kasich unless he “finds religion” soon.
It’s not that you’re totally wrong, it’s that you assume that there are enough ultraorthodox conservative voters in a primary to keep a candidate like Kasich out. Yet Kasich is far more conservative than Mitt Romney.
The only likely Presidential contender who is pure is Ted Cruz. And while sure, he’s getting a lot of support, do you really think he can Cruz to the nomination? Heh. I’m funny.
The horror. The horror.
Tell that to Bob Inglis
Missing the point, what I said was that Kasich will have to flip flop like crazy into supporting crazy positions, and that craziness will not lead to victory in the main election.
The climate change thing is easy to defuse. Believing in climate change doesn’t get you in trouble with the base. It’s supporting stupid job-destroying plans to deal with it.
Tell it again to Bob Ingliss and all the other republicans that were defeated by the deniers that are now in congress.
He favored legislation. That’s what got him in trouble. Kasich will do the right thing and tout all the new developments in the energy field, such as more reliance on natural gas, which leaves a smaller carbon footprint.
Missing the point again, almost all Tea partiers do not accept that there is a problem so suggesting legislation that supports that is not seen as necessary by them.
And really, just doing that is not the right thing adaher, you are really wrong on that one.
Now, that IS definitely surprising and shocking. I may need to sit down until I recover my sangfroid or aplomb or something.
No, you’re wrong. If Mitt Romney can get past the Tea Party, John Kasich sure as hell can. You just need to believe in a party so extreme that all the members are far right. Although you sorta have to ignore reality to get there.