Tim has several thought out, well-reasoned, and interesting posts in a row, so I feel it is my duty to shit all over the website and try to start a flamewar.
Attempt #1:Here goes:
How long before Gonzalez is fired decides to spend more time with his family? And is this the most hopelessly corrupt fucking administration, ever?
Attempt #2: The Republican Part is Divided
No shit. The moderates left, the decent religious folks had enough after Foley, and all you are left with are the Bush dead-enders, Dan Riehl, and Dobson.
Attempt #3: Nancy Pelosi should STFU.
Like, who does she think she is? Speaker of the House?
I hope you appreciate the quality effort I have put forth here. Consider this an open thread.
cleek
#1 : never, yes. corruption isn’t punished, only disloyalty.
#2 : never, the dead enders will keep the dream alive until the Dems fuck-up bad enough that people want a change.
#3 : elections have consequences
Gary Ruppert
The fact is that Clinton was more in bed with Enron than Bush ever was, Clinton sent us into Bosnia with no exit strategy, Clinton let Osama get away, Clinton lied to the nation, Clinton fired 93 U.S. Attorneys, and Clinton took money from the godless Chinese.
Nick Kasoff - The Thug Report
On the contrary, Bush will stand by Gonzalez to the bitter end, particularly if the controversy gets heated and ugly. Then, the day after the Republicans get nailed in the ’08 election, he’ll resign.
Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report
Mike S
Shorter Gonzo: Damnit! This was so much easier when congress covered our asses.
Read: Karl Rove.
demkat620
#1 two weeks, yes, and Gonzales will be replaced by Rick Santorum.
#2 This is a liberal media lie. The Republican Party has never been more united behind the decider. The cliff’s getting close and it’s starting to look good.
3# Nancy will shut up when she gets her plane.
Pb
1. Technically never, and hell yes, respectively.
2. A house divided cannot stand, but a party divided can fracture rather impressively–here’s to hoping, anyhow. And… NYT editorial board, Masters of the Obvious!
3. I for one welcome our new Pelosian Overlords. And… WaPo editorial board, Right-Wing Hacks Anonymous!
Punchy
I see Gonzo being nominated for the next SC opening.
I’m damn serious.
Dug Jay
And that barely even scratches the surface….he also boinked Barbra Streisand.
demimondian
And then you wonder why we think that Darrell is one of your puppets?
physics geek
How long before Gonzalez is fired decides to spend more time with his family? And is this the most hopelessly corrupt fucking administration, ever?
I actually don’t understand the problem with the president firing US attorneys. They are appointed positions, if I remember correctly. I didn’t care when Clinton fired them all back in his first term, so why should I care about some of them getting fired now?
I have lots of reason to loathe the Bush administration, but the US attorney non-story isn’t one of them.
ThymeZone
John, your best post ever!!
{ time passes }
Just kidding.
Is this the most hopelessly corrupt admin ever? Not sure yet, there is still Nixon to compete with. In terms of totally base corruption, maybe not, but in terms of real harm to the government that affects citizens ….. maybe yes. Probably yes.
Tulkinghorn
And what about his cocaine smuggling enterprise?
And they never did find the Zodiac killer…
Jay C
Good! At least we got some of it back: under Bush, the cashflow has all been one-way!
physics geek
Jeralynn Meritt does make some valid points, though. It would have been better to fire them in 2006. Right now, it kind of leaves a dirty taste in the mouth.
dreggas
When the “hit list” was produced highlighting those who were sufficiently loyal to the president and the attorney general (not that they were good at their jobs etc, just loyal to bush) and the ones getting axed as not being sufficiently loyal you should care.
Bottom line they serve at the so-called “pleasure of the president” but their job is not to serve the president nor be loyal only to the president, they are confirmed by the senate and serve tha DOJ and the American people. Those getting axed were doing their jobs well (and in some cases too well). The president is not vested with the authority to appoint people to a department only to use them to go after his or his party’s political enemies.
Louise
TZ are you kidding me? Nixon and Co. were amateurs compared to this crew. Maybe there’s just been more time in the intervening years to get control over the media and congresscritters, but the damage these f**kers are doing is much worse, to the constitution and to the reputation of our country.
01/20/09. Or sooner.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Silly PG, you don’t get it — it’s wrong and corrupt and hateful and woefully depressing because he’s Evil Darth Bush. In contrast, Clinton was not BusHitler McChimpyburton, so I don’t see what his administration has to do with this conversation.
Good DAY to you, sir.
/BDS
Dug Jay
Why doesn’t the Bush Administration fire ThymeZone? Nobody much likes him.
demimondian
Oh, look! Mac is back. (Back in black.)
PG, the point is not whether or not the USA’s could be fired by the prez. They absolutely could. The first question is whether they were fired because they were unwilling to engage in political prosecutions for imaginary crimes. (Ob disc: I live in Washington State, and the Master Builders are the most crooked organization in the state. Anything which hurts them is good, in my eyes, so I’m not a disinterested party in the McKay dismissal.) The second question is whether the DoJ representatives then lied about it.
Remember — it isn’t the original action which gets you into trouble in DC. It’s the cover-up afterwards. That was true with Monica and the Plumbers, and it looks like it will be true here, too.
John S.
Yikes!
The spoof to non-spoof ratio on this thread so far is like 3:1…
I pronounce this thread DOA.
Sirkowski
It won’t be, as soon as Giuliani is elected President…
Oregonian
You should care (and care very deeply) because Bush is literally attacking one of the founding principles of the United States: equal justice under law.
It has been a normal thing for a new president to bring in his own team to the cabinet and the Justice Department, but it has also been understood for two centuries that the people in those positions are ultimately serving the Constitution and the nation as a whole. They are not there to serve as flacks for the president’s party. Clinton appointed Janet Reno as Attorney General, but that didn’t stop her from appointing a special prosecutor to look into Whitewater and Monicagate.
What Bush and Gonzales have done is to turn the Justice Department into a branch of the Republican party. The attorneys who were fired recently were not dismissed as a part of a presidential turnover or for poor performance in their jobs. They were dismissed because they dared to investigate Republican corruption and because they didn’t help to swing the last election by drumming up false charges against Democrats. In other words, they were fired for doing their jobs and upholding the laws. That’s a really serious thing.
Do you want the laws of the nation to only apply to the party that is out of power? Do you want party membership to be a “get out of jail free” card? If not, you should wake up and start paying attention to this story. To get the full picture of what’s going on, the best place to go is Talking Points Memo.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Rome Again
I beg to differ, I like him very much.
Besides, what would they fire him FROM?
Tulkinghorn
I have never heard of anyone being fired from Social Security, but I imaging that if Bush could find a way to do it to TZ, he would do it.
canuckistani
Jesus H. Christ, can’t you show a bit of fucking civility and stop shitting rude words all over the goddamned fucking internet? Are you some kind of pigfucking shitstained liberal, for fuck’s sake?
Rome Again
I’m ROLLING here!
Zifnab
Well, that’s not the real problem. The real problem is that Gonzales used the Patriot Act to circumvent Congressional Oversight. Normally, these USAs have a hard time getting the posts unless their home-state Senators give them a leg up. But many of these attorneys were from Blue Senator states and would have a harder time getting confirmed.
Like a drunk teen with his prom date, Bush thought he could slide it in the back door without any complaints. And like a drunk teen with his prom date, he just ended up getting alot of screaming and face-slapping for his trouble.
The bigger rub is that he wants to replace these guys with partisan hacks who will press charges on Dems and drop charges on ‘Pubs with some faint hope of political gamesmanship. It’s so openly, blatantly, ham-fistedly corrupt, I’m amazed someone didn’t stop and say, “Wtf are we thinking, this is never going to fly.”
Rome Again
Bush is trying to fire everyone from Social Security… but that wouldn’t leave TZ without an income anyway.
dreggas
I believe it is called hubris.
Rome Again
Sorry, but that sounds like the entire last five years of BushCo to me.
CaseyL
Civil service jobs – and US Attorneys are civil servants – is not supposed to be pure patronage. Andrew Jackson, way back in 1830, won the Presidency in part because he promised to make sure the people who got civil service jobs were actually fit to hold them.
That doesn’t eliminate patronage altogether, but it does hold down the most egregious examples.
Until now. Bush has treated, not just the White House, but the entire government, like a goody bag for friends, cronies, and RW-sponsored incompetents. Remember when the Bushies sent kids from the Enterprise Institute to go set up Iraq’s economic structure? Remember when he nominated Harriet Meiers to the SCOTUS? And now: please note that some of the attorneys the WH wanted to install are in the early stages of their legal careers, with little prosecutorial experience, but loads of political connections.
It’s our government, y’know. Not Bush’s. Not Rove’s. Not the GOP’s. That’s our government they’re using like a cheap whore.
jg
This is the Nixon administration.
ThymeZone
Um, that’s pretty much what I said, isn’t it?
Corruption is hard to measure, but when you have drawers full of cash in the White House to pay burglars, I think that’s a little hard to top.
But for real damage to real people, Bush is the winner.
Rome Again
Ding, Ding, Ding! “We have a winner!”
Darrell
Didn’t we have a special prosecutor for Plamegate? What other scandals do you feel should have warranted a special prosecutor?
Ah yes, nothing like a good old fashioned sweeping, totally unsupported assertion like that to make your “point”.
ThymeZone
Maybe. We also have to factor in Nixon’s “Peace With Honor” which was good for about 25,000 of the names on the Vietnam Memorial.
That alone may make him the ultimate winner. It’s really a tough call, balancing destruction of liberties against slaughter of people for political reasons. How do we measure something like that?
Rome Again
Well, it seems to me we have to factor in not just the total number of lives lost, but the total number of people who are living close to devastation and if you consider Katrina, Healthcare, Bankruptcy and all that alone, it would top that 25,000 easily.
ThymeZone
Get out of here, you piece of crap.
And answer the question put to you on the Coulter thread. You think you are going to run away and hide over here?
Why the fuck did you make dozens of posts to a thread and you can’t even write a simple sentence to explain your position on the main topic of that thread? What the hell are you doing here?
Darrell
From what I’ve read, they’re all amateurs compared to LBJ. Entered political office a poor man, but left a multi millionaire through blatent corruption.. refusal to bomb the Ho Chi Minh trail giving our troops needed air support, which cost a lot of lives. Nope, LBJ from what I’ve read, took the cake by far.
Darrell
Do you leftist freaks think that flaunting your mental illness is a good thing? Or is it a cry for help?
Bruce Moomaw
I don’t know if I’d quite call this the most corrupt administration ever — Harding and (especially) Grant give it some stiff competition — but I have never seen such a combination of Grant-style corruption, Nixon-style would-be tyranny, and Carter-style incompetence. This man is, at the least, the worst US president since Andrew Johnson — and it may not be accident that he’s actually our very first authentic “Old South” President since Andrew Johnson (Wilson having been influenced by the North; Bush Sr. being a transplanted Yankee; and LBJ, Carter and Clinton being relatively liberal New Southerners).
Oregonian
Why do we have to choose? Bush has both the Patriot Act and the Iraq war on his record.
ThymeZone
Answer the fucking question, Darrell.
You won’t post here again without the question being in your face, until you answer it. I promise your ass.
What position are representing on the Coulter thread?
What is your position on the use of the word “faggot” in a political arena which is showcasing Republican candidates?
Darrell
Ah yes, Clinton, LBJ and Jimmah Carter weren’t from the “old south”. Why? Because they were good liberals is the explanation being offered here on this thread.
Good to see such clear thinking here.
Darrell
I know very well that the mentally ill never give up their obsessions. You’re making that point abudantly clear. Again.
ThymeZone
Answer the question, motherfucker.
dreggas
QOTD via Political Animal:
General Tony McPeak (ret.):
“America has been conducting an experiment for the past six years, trying to validate the proposition that it really doesn’t make any difference who you elect president. Now we know the result of that experiment. If a guy is stupid, it makes a big difference.”
Oregonian
The details are, I believe, readily available from every major newspaper and newscast in the country at this point. In case you’ve been living under a rock for the past two weeks, here’s the full archive that will bring you up to speed:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/cats/us_attorneys/
Darrell
Then cite a couple.. because all you’ve offered so far is innuendo from TPM, which is not a “major newspaper” or news organization
Mike
TZ, Darrell doesn’t have a position. He is simply a contrarian. John and Tim don’t want to ban him. Just ignore him. Since he doesn’t believe in evolution, he and his kind won’t last.
dreggas
Start a flame war thread and like moths the Darrell’s of the world are drawn to the flame…
kind of like a T-shirt I once saw “Instant asshole just add alcohol”.
Darrell
McPeak is a crackpot. And because he’s a crackpot with BDS, the media always goes to him, rather than other 90% of retired generals who feel differently.
dreggas
Darrell…do me a favor…read the following out loud to yourself a few times, maybe it will sink in:
I am sofa king we tod did.
Rome Again
Darrell, we’ve had this discussion previously. If you cannot cite where BDS is listed in the DSM-IV, you cannot use it.
Rome Again
I remember that from like fourth grade.
dreggas
making its use all the more relevant when dealing with a fourth grader…
ThymeZone
Who the fuck are you to tell anyone to cite something or to criticize what someone has “offered,” you fucking troll?
What the fuck are you doing here? Do you have an opinion on any topic on this blog? Then why don’t you state it?
Otherwise, get the fuck out of here.
ThymeZone
What was your first clue, Mike? We were saying that here two years ago.
jg
I didn’t know home schooling followed the grade system.
ThymeZone
And no, he is not a contrarian. He’s a fucking troll.
Darrell
My opinion is that your mental illness can be probably be treated if you would only make the effort.
Rome Again
sorry to disappoint you jg, my millionaire parents were too busy wining and dining half of DC to homeschool me.
dreggas
I’m not sure it does but I am making an educated guess here.
Krista
Dude. You’re fucking up our reputation for being absurdly polite. Quit it.
Rome Again
My opinion is that they’d much sooner lock you up.
ThymeZone
What opinion do you have that is relevant to either of the last two thread you are posting to?
Do you actually have an opinion, are you representing a point of view? Or are you just here to harass people?
Answer the question you worthless boil on the ass of humanity.
Zifnab25
Ok. So they got a bunch of Generals to vote against John Kerry in the ’04 election. Aside from the fact that the blog post itself is over 2 years old, what’s your point, Darrell? The McPeak was posted March 7th.
Yesh. Perhaps you should stick to the Great Global Warming Swindle YouTube Video. Oh wait… that got debunked too. *sigh* Being a wingnut is so hard these days.
dreggas
I’d say yours was too but unfortunately a lobatomy coupled with being dropped on your head repeatedly as a small child has probably removed any chance for real success.
Ted
Gaaaghh!! Shriek! Shrieeek!!
Ted
Hey, Darrell. What is your “opinion” on gays in the military?
dreggas
Opinion or position because I’ll bet missionary when it comes to position…
Darrell
I gotta hand it to you dreggas, that was an extraordinarily clever and quick-witted retort. Zing! Ouch!
I better go put some ice on that spanking you just gave me.
And please go easy on me next time with your heavy intellectual firepower, as I have a very delicate and fragile sense of self worth.
jg
Chalk it up to bad block-quoting or just bad writing but I was talking about Darrell, not you Rome. My post was a response to dreggas saying fourth grade taunts are exactly at Darrells level. I can see where that gets confusing and you would think I was taking a shot at you but I wasn’t. Sorry ’bout that.
Darrell
Oh Ted, I’m so glad you’ve arrived! You always add so much depth to the conversation. Please do stay around.
demimondian
Fixed.
Hey, if US politics is throwing back to the Nixon era, then I figure that everything else Nixon will be new again, too.
Ted
Ah yes, the most despised person to comment on this blog talking about the “depth” of conversation. Does the depth in yours come before or after you call someone a ‘shithead’ or any of the other hundreds of names you like to call?
And you didn’t answer my question. What is your opinion on gays in the military? I’d actually like to know.
dreggas
I already knew that, tell me something I didn’t know?
Zifnab25
So, yes. Am I the only one who thinks Blue Dog Democrats should just up and make their own god-damn party? I have yet to pick up a paper and read about new Congressional legislation that hasn’t been watered down, obstructed, mismanaged, or subverted by these fuckers.
Seriously. It would be nice if we didn’t have to beat these smucks in a primary to get rid of them.
Pb
Different statute.
I could list a few big ones–but under the standard set by the Republican party during the Clinton years, there already should have been hundreds, easily.
…that you couldn’t even begin to refute, natch.
jg
Are we far enough into this lost cause of a jackalope search we call a thread that darrell can now assert that his opinion has been stated plainly elsewhere in the thread?
Pb
Yes. Or, long version, I might consider splitting the Democratic party after the Republican party has splintered and collapsed, but certainly not before.
Zifnab25
Oh, also, the US wants to overthrow Pakistan’s President.
~hat tip C&L
Oh, thank god. I was worried we were going to try something incredibly risky and stupid with our foreign policy.
James F. Elliott
I have a copy of the DSM-IV-TR right here at my desk. What does BDS stand for? Is it Bipolar DiSorder? Or maybe Body Dymorphic diSorder? Borderline personality DiSorder? No, it can only be…
Breathing-relateD Sleep disorder! The general has insomnia due to “abnormalities of ventilation during sleep”? He’s really, really tired?
Shit… I’m out, man. That exhausts all the “B”s with the “D” and the “S” in that order.
Andrew
I had BDS and it made me gassy.
demimondian
Darrell…
as a rule, sarcasm only works if you possess sufficient wit to carry it off for several rounds. If you don’t have that, you probably ought to find a different rhetorical attack.
But, hey, good for you for trying something different.
Ted
BDS stands for Bush Devotion Syndrome. It presently occurs in about 30% of the general population. You’ll probably see it in the DSM-V.
Rome Again
No problem, besides my parents weren’t fundies or anything, but they did send me and my siblings to masonic organizations every week. Gotta love those Masons/Shriners/York-Scottsh Rite-ists. They shake hands and make money hand over fist and send their children to weird ritualistic ceremonies and meetings to show how committed they are to the cause!, That’s what the game is all about.
Pb
Sounds like a specialization of RWA to me…
Rome Again
Darrell defines it differently.
Pb
Weirdo Masons were to be next against the wall when the revolution came…
Ted
Darrell defines all of reality differently.
It’s a shame Gary Ruppert only stops by occasionally. He’s far more of a fun right-wing nutcase (just check out his work at Sadly,No!).
Tsulagi
Unless the Decidingtard has more fingerprints on this yet to be found, won’t happen. If he does, then Gonzo becomes the bad apple. But on his way out stopping first to collect his Medal of Freedom.
Still carrying some water for these guys, huh? In addition to corrupt, the most gutless, lying, fucking retarded, and all-around less than worthless admin ever.
Ain’t that the truth. I work with a bunch of right-of-center guys who voted for Bush. A fair number now say they’re independent. Others, still holding onto their R card, seem to think a timeout on the next presidency could be good for their party. Virtually all think it will be a good day when this admin ends. The only cheerleaders left are the Darrells in their Jack Bauer costumes.
Rome Again
It would only affect my distant cousins across the ocean. My German ancestors came here in the mid-late 1700’s.
RSA
Have gun [in nightstand drawer], will [not] travel [to Iraq].
Jimmy Mack
Bingo. Even Clinton wasn’t as bad.
Rush was saying there’s a good back story on Clinton’s firings of the AG…the Maryland AG who tried to indict him for Socksgate was summarily dismissed. I don’t have a link…has anyone else heard anything about this?
Nick Kasoff
How am I supposed to get a good night’s sleep with that image in my mind? Clinton on Streisand … gross!
Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report
Rome Again
Well, since it came from Rush, perhaps you should ask HIM for a link.
The Other Steve
There was a scandal about Socks the cat? What’d he do? Have the cat spayed?
Do these Republicans ever have anything they’re not whining about?
The Other Steve
Yes, because if you’ve got a unDemocratic President trying to sack the chief justice, the best way to return to Law and Order is a Military Coup!
The Other Steve
So what’s your record on being right again?
0 for 2,000 I believe.
Bruce Moomaw
Er, Darrell. By “Old South”, of course, I mean the Old racist-religious bigot-know-nothing-non-democratic-with-a-small-“d” South, whose members — after the Democrats finally decided to come out for equal rights for blacks — promptly bolted in toto to the GOP. The Old South, of course, has since become more vegetarian than it was in its Goldwater-Nixon-Wallace-Thurmond heyday, by which I mean it’s ditched a lot (but not all) of its racist bigotry, while retaining all of its past religious bigotry, hatred of intellectualism, and hatred of genuine democracy. Thus Bush.
Dug Jay
I read on another blog – I think it’s the one belonging to John Cole’s good buddy, Mr. Riehl – that Mr. Cole claims to have fathered Anna Nicole Smith’s baby while he was shaving Brittney Spears’ head. Who knows…could be?
SheRa
1. Gonzales will never be fired, but he should be. The Bush administration is absolutely and by far the most corrupt administration this country has ever seen.
2. The Republican party is divided between idiots and wistful people who remembered when there was something they could believe in about a Republican philosophy.
Krista
You’ve got to be kidding me. There was an attempt to create scandal around the guy’s cat? At least, as far as we know, he didn’t drop the poor thing in front of a bunch of horrified children.
Poor, poor Barney…I wonder if dogs know when their owners are asshats.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Alright if this is still on going i think ill jump in here.
Was the Pelosi’s presser as bad as the clips from it made it out to be?
It seemed as if they thought of the plan right on the spot by the way they were confused.
Bruce Moomaw
Incidentally, since Tilex works on house centipedes, is there any possibility it would work on Darrell?
Darrell
Ah yes, more ignorant racebaiting..
Repubs did what they could from the end of Reconstruction to the 1964 Act. But it wasn’t until Dems belatedly after 100 years took the gamble and risked its winning coaltion that anything was ever done.
So please, cut the crap about how Dems were the “real” champions of civil rights, it was more like “why did it take you so long? where have you aholes been?”.
Regarding all the racist Dems “bolting” to the GOP, it wasn’t until 1994, 30 years afterward, that the GOP ever had a majority of governorships and state legislatures in the south. Why? Because Repubs were considered “nigra lovers” and carpetbaggers you see. So sorry if reality conflicts with your narrow ignorant views.
Oh, and did I mention that the most violent race riots were in the Northeast liberal Dem concentrated areas? Boston anyone?
But keep on fostering your ignorant as hell views Moomaw.. Halfwits like you are too easy to shred to pieces.
Ted
Hey, look! Darrell is shrieking again.
He still won’t answer my question, though.
jg
In ’64?
Andrew
It was BDS!
Darrell
60’s and 70’s in Boston experienced a highly disproportionate amount of race riots compared to other parts of the country
Darrell
7 out of 10, not bad. there’s still hope for your yet Andrew.
Oregonian
From tomorrow’s lead editorial in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/opinion/14wed1.html
jg
I know all about what happened in the 70’s. I just want to learn more about these civil rights riots in Boston in the 60’s.
jg
I know all about what happened in the 70’s. I just want to learn more about these civil rights riots in Boston in the 60’s.
jg
I know all about what happened in the 70’s. I just want to learn more about these civil rights riots in Boston in the 60’s.
Tulkinghorn
I think he is talking about the draft riots in New York in 1864.
canuckistani
I still say “Thank You” to bank machines, so I keep may Canadian credentials.
canuckistani
I still say “Thank You” to bank machines, so I keep my Canadian credentials.
srv
Heh, poll them now buddy. They’re mostly retired cold-war Admirals, not generals. And since you’ve clearly demonstrated before that Admirals shouldn’t be talking about ground wars (all those Admirals – not to mention MacArthur and Eisenhower – against the nuking Japan were TDS crackpots) I’m not sure why you think they should be taken as authorities now.
Bruce Moomaw
Darrell, you can’t be as stupid as you pretend to be. This is some sort of psychological experiment for your college term paper, isn’t it?
But on the off-chance that it isn’t, and that you actually are the hysterical moron you appear to be on the surface:
(1) The GOP, as any historian will tell you, officially ceased being the party of civil rights in 1876, the year they deliberately sold out the civil rights of Southern blacks as part of a deal to put Rutherford B. Hayes in the White House.
(2) From then until 1964 they had absolutely no interest in civil rights one way or the other (which of course is why American blacks switched overwhelmingly to the Democrats — who at least represented their economic interests better — when the Depression started).
(3) In 1964, as soon as the Democrats finally dropped their own shilly-shallying and came down on the side of black civil rights, the GOP immediately responded by flat-out flipping to become the party of Jefferson Davis, which, of course (as Strom Thurmond said at the time) is why he switched to the GOP that September. In Goldwater’s immortal words, “The GOP ought go hunting where the ducks are”, ” the ducks” in this case being the racist Southern vote. (Nixon was a bit less explicit about it in public, but quite explicit about the real mechanism behind the GOP’s new “Southern strategy” on his tapes.)
(4) The GOP immediately started winning national presidential majorities for this reason, but it took them decades longer to take over Congress in the South because (A) the local Democrats could continue to act a lot more conservative than their national party (the same reason why liberal Republicans held on so long in the Northeast before similarly dying out); and (B) they had a hell of a lot of seniority which their home-state voters knew very well brought home the bacon in spades. It wasn’t until 1994 that the South’s continuing enthusiasm for the New Bigoted GOP, and the gradual retirement of all those pork-useful senior Congressional Southern Democrats, finally tipped the Congressional South overwhelmingly to the GOP. (By the way, don’t take my word for it, or the word of all historians, who routinely talk about all this. Read “The Souther Captivity of the GOP” by Craig Caldwell, who used to write for the American Spectator. There aren’t TOO many big words in it.)
Richard 23
That classic line just never gets old. Hahaha!
Richard 23
That classic line just never gets old. Hahaha!
It’s like your “Freebird.” Do it again!
Richard 23
Oh, camel poop.
gus
I come here and have fun reading the threads until that douchebag Darrell shows. Christ, is he ignorant. But the real question is why do y’all engage him? If he’s ignored, won’t he stamp his little feet in rage and leave?
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
Coordinating a response is like herding cats. Besides, he’s a class project for Professor Cole’s students. If Darrell disappears, they lose their extra credit assignment.
skip
Darrell thinks gays in the military are fine—even praiseworthy— so long as they are bulldozing olive groves in the West Bank.
Tim F.
Talk about the blonde leading the blind. Quick tip, JM. If you can’t source it yourself and the only support you have is Rush Limbaugh then you don’t actually know anything.
jg
But Rush is a trusted source asserting what makes me warm and fuzzy. Since only liberals hate what he says it must be true.