Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Michele Bachmann and "real" conservatism

By Greg Sargent

Michele Bachmann is running for the post of GOP Conference Chair, the number four slot in the House GOP leadership, and she has now sent out to colleagues a letter outlining the rationale of her candidacy.

Bachmann's challenge pits her against the GOP leadership's choice, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, and in her letter, she reiterates her case that the slot requires a true conservative. But check out this tidbit:

During this election cycle and across the nation the American people have asked, "Will the new Republican majority reflect our values as they assume their position of leadership?" This is a critical question our Conference needs to answer.

Over the past four years, I have fought continually (and at some cost) for the principals of constitutional conservatism. I have successfully communicated this message in Washington and to the people we serve across America. In part, I have been highly targeted because I have been willing to challenge the Obama/Pelosi liberal establishment.

To our Conference I bring strong principled conservative values, a proven level of experience, effectiveness with our friends in the local and national media, and an energetic national constituency that reflects the results of Tuesday night. It is important that our Conference demonstrate to the people who sent us here that their concerns will be tirelessly advanced at the table of leadership.

This is not particularly subtle. GOP leaders know full well that the Tea Party rubes are going get very, very impatient if Republicans compromise on core Tea Party demands, fail to completely roll back Obama's whole agenda, and generally do anything that smacks of reasonableness or moderation. So Bachmann is saying that her very presence in the GOP leadership -- given her command of a national Tea Party constituency, and the media's designation of her as a spokesperson for the movement -- will make their lives a heck of a lot easier if and when the Tea Party mob gets restive.

With Bachmann in the leadership, the Tea Party will feel as if they have a seat at the table, and may not make as much trouble when the going gets tough. Get it?

Keep in mind that Hensarling is in many ways more conservative than Bachmann. He's just a lot quieter about it. In Bachmann's world, you're a more "real" conservative if you get lots of national media attention for saying crazy things that get the Tea Partyers worked up into a frenzy. She's just trying to parlay her national media and Tea Party notoriety into a real institutional party leadership role. Pretty transparent.

(H/T Weigel)


UPDATE, 2:50 p.m.: I've edited the headline from the original to be a bit more fair...

By Greg Sargent  | November 8, 2010; 1:58 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, House GOPers  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Minority leader Nancy Pelosi would play rough with GOP
Next: GOP leadership cool to hearings into "scientific fraud" underlying global warming

Comments

I'm waiting for Bachmann's "Un-American Americans" Committee in the House. Should be fun.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 8, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I have been highly targeted because I have been willing to challenge the Obama/Pelosi liberal establishment.

******

She has been targeted because she says really stupid things.

For instance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZxQZMSl-o0

Posted by: nisleib | November 8, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Yep, agree 100%. There is little doubt in my mind that the Rs will think last week's results represent a mandate to go loony or go home. Like Obama's misread of the 2008 election and his subsequent over-reach, the Rs look perfectly willing and able to make the same mistake on the heels of the 2010 midterms. Congress' cynicism knows no bounds.

Posted by: bzod9999 | November 8, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

No, Michele Bachmann is not saying that you're a more "real" conservative if you get lots of national media attention for saying crazy things (if that were the case, OBAMA would have been "conservative" during the 2008 campaign ; )

If it would be easier for you to understand, she would bring:

(A) strong principled conservative values,

(B) a proven level of experience,

(C) effectiveness with our friends in the local and national media, and

(D) an energetic national constituency

(A) does not equal (D).

You did graduate third grade, right?

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 8, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Michele Bachmann RULES.


.

Posted by: BeautifulBeginning | November 8, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Jake, are you saying that Jeb Hensarling isn't a real conservative?

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 8, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

I'll tell you *one* thing Bachmann is good at: raising money for Democrats/Liberals.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 8, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

No (neither is Rep. Bachmann).

Now, did you graduate from third grade or not?

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 8, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Hensarling, via Wikipedia: "Hensarling has maintained a conservative voting record: he has consistently voted against abortion rights, stem cell research, same-sex marriage and hate crimes legislation, and consistently supported free trade policies, the PATRIOT Act, and a Constitutional amendment against flag burning."

If Michelle Bachman doesn't get it, I'm sure he'll do.

And a politician twisting arms to get plum committee chairs? I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to find gambling going on in this establishment. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 8, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Here's the FULL text of the letter (and I invite anyone else to point out where she even named Hensarling, let alone claimed he's not a real conservative):

November 3, 2010

Dear Republican Colleague,

Yesterday Americans exercised their right at the ballot box and with their voice entrusted the future of the House of Representatives to the Republican Party. With our majority designation we must now pursue a limited government by lowering taxes, ending the bailouts, and decreasing the debt. We are at a pivotal point in our nation’s history and the American people want to know their elected officials are working towards results. Faced with Democratic control of the Senate and the White House, proclaiming our party’s message effectively will be imperative. If the American people know they have a voice in Washington then our message must resonate from coast to coast.

I write you today to ask for your support as I announce my candidacy for Republican Conference Chair. In this important position, I pledge to you to listen to your concerns and to the needs of your district so together we can deliver a unified message with an organized strategy.

My goal will be to build on the excellent work Chairman Mike Pence has accomplished. As we witnessed yesterday, during his chairmanship Mike equipped our Conference with the tools necessary to effectively communicate our message.

Last night’s victory was an historic election which was fueled by the heartfelt concerns of the American people over whether our great experiment in liberty will survive. Our majority votes were garnered from disillusioned Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, and remarkably, from people with no particular political affiliation at all.

During this election cycle and across the nation the American people have asked, “Will the new Republican majority reflect our values as they assume their position of leadership?" This is a critical question our Conference needs to answer.

Over the past four years, I have fought continually (and at some cost) for the principals of constitutional conservatism. I have successfully communicated this message in Washington and to the people we serve across America. In part, I have been highly targeted because I have been willing to challenge the Obama/Pelosi liberal establishment.

To our Conference I bring strong principled conservative values, a proven level of experience, effectiveness with our friends in the local and national media, and an energetic national constituency that reflects the results of Tuesday night. It is important that our Conference demonstrate to the people who sent us here that their concerns will be tirelessly advanced at the table of leadership.

With your support I assure you Conference will listen to the concerns of the American people, the same people that gave us this historic majority.

Your friend in the cause of liberty,


Michele

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 8, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

"Now, did you graduate from third grade or not?"

You'd better answer that, Greg, or Jake will refuse to converse with you anymore.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | November 8, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

BTW: "(H/T Weigel)" just means that the journ-O-listers aren't keeping their coordination secret anymore.

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 8, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

What, no mention of the "Un-American Americans" committee in that letter?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 8, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Jake

The democrats do not want to understand.

The democrats just want to attack and try to make the Tea Party look bad, because the liberals can not meet the Conservatives on the field of ideas.


Just try to ask a liberal about the costs of Obama's health care bill and their eyes start to glass over. They have no numbers. They insist that one group or another (not them) have enough money to pay for the plan, but no numbers.

The democrats refuse to admit that their programs grow over time - and these democratic programs and democratic union contracts are the major cause of deficits.


Way before you get a liberal into a detailed cost discussion, they will be smearing and name-calling.

It has gotten really pathetic.

Because Obama has two more years, the democrats have been backed into a real corner. They can either admit they have been wrong for a long, long time - or they can face an even worse defeat in 2012.

The choice is clear, stark and sitting right in front of every liberal in the country.


Posted by: BeautifulBeginning | November 8, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

"Un-American Americans"? You mean like people from the Egyptian Muslim brotherhood who come here purposely to destroy the country, and who murder their own daughters if they become "infidels"?
You mean the terrorists that Hugo Chavez helps acrosss our borders? Maybe you mean the members of Mexican drug cartels or MS-13 gang members who illegally come here.
So Michele bachmann want to monitor these people? What an idiotic wing nut idea!

Posted by: misterdiddywahdiddy | November 8, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat at 2:26 PM


SCRATCH! Catfight !!!

Posted by: BeautifulBeginning | November 8, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Michele Bachmann: A tireless advocate for "the principals of constitutional conservatism." It would be nice, however, if she would tell us who the "principals" of constitutional conservatism are.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 8, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat is right.

I failed to respond to some post I didn't even know about at some point and now he's shunned me!

and re this post...

The extremist teaparty wing of the Republican party has already been forsaken.

Mitch McConnell and Boehnger are taking getting rid of earmarks off the table. lol

That was quick.

See, they used the Republican teaparty activists to help them get elected, now, they need to get lost.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 8, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

"See, they used the Republican teaparty activists to help them get elected, now, they need to get lost."

Kind of like how Democrats use African Americans and gay people.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | November 8, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Oh, I see. Now, Mr. Sargent has put the words "I bring" in bold type too. That does not automatically mean that she's saying Rep. Hensarling does not bring "strong principled conservative values" (or even "a proven level of experience"). In fact, Rep. Hensarling has been in Congress for longer than she has. As I outlined, above, Rep. Bachmann brings MORE than just what Rep. Hensarling brings.

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 8, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Wow, Mr Sargent must have had a really tough weekend. He's lost the ability to hide his true feelings.

The use of the phrase "Teaparty Rubes" is diagnostic. I recall the anger on the left after Bush beat both Gore and Kerry. Neither could imagine losing to a backward texan cowboy. Mr Sargent cannot imagine candidates supported by irate American taxpayers would beat such stalwarts as Obestar or Boccheri. I mean, after all, these losers are DEMOCRATs who are, by Mr Sargent's apparent definition, smarter than the mere rubes voting for them.

I'm tired of the insults, frankly. I'm tired of the slanders and slurs being employed as a substitute for valid arguments on behalf of the liberal agenda.

Mr Sargent we aren't rubes. Granted, we don't live in DC. Granted, congressional aides may not necessarily take our calls like they would take yours. but we do work, pay taxes and vote. And many of us are darned angry at the government.

Clearly, you don't like that fact.

Oh well. Best get over it. and soon. Look where being honest about the "rubes" got Mr Weigel.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 8, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Jake

I think the democrats made a serious series of mistakes under Bush.

Instead of articulating a clear domestic agenda, the democrats concentrated on anti-war policies, and chose to demonize Bush.


The problem is now: the war is off the table and Bush is gone (except for a Matt Lauer interview and a ridiculous book tour)

Clearly, there is a lack of a domestic agenda from the democrats.

That adds up to little support for the democrats on the domestic side.

The democrats came up with health care, which has turned out to be a drag on the economy, and not that popular.


The stimulus has been a disaster, and I doubt whether the democrats would have gotten much credit for a Keynsian policy anyway.

So what is left? The democrats have nothing on their domestic agenda.

So health care is still on the table, because of the calls for repeal. That issue will not help the democrats at all. At this point, health care is nothing but a downside and the only question remaining is how bad can it get?

The tax bracket issue is ridiculous for the democrats again. No one is talking about the tax cuts for the middle class - the entire focus is on those earning more than 250K. That does not help Obama, and it only serves to confirm the charges that Obama is a socialist, bent on some Black Liberation Theology Redistribution of Wealth.

Meanwhile, Obama is afraid to ACTUALLY do anything for the blacks - because he is afraid to be seen as "too black."

But Obama is black. So, how can he be "too black."


Obama would be wise to actually do SOMETHING for the inner cities.


Obama should dump the health care plan, it is only going to weigh him down over the next two year, and it is near-certain to be repealed after that.

Obama would make the best political hay if he were to compromise dramatically on health care, salvaging as much as he can (which would probably survive long-term) and then health care would be off the table as an election issue hurting the democrats.


But who am I? Just a Conservative blogger who can see things hundreds of miles away.

.

Posted by: BeautifulBeginning | November 8, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Wow, Mr Sargent must have had a really tough weekend. He's lost the ability to hide his true feelings.

The use of the phrase "Teaparty Rubes" is diagnostic. I recall the anger on the left after Bush beat both Gore and Kerry. Neither could imagine losing to a backward texan cowboy. Mr Sargent cannot imagine candidates supported by irate American taxpayers would beat such stalwarts as Obestar or Boccheri. I mean, after all, these losers are DEMOCRATs who are, by Mr Sargent's apparent definition, smarter than the mere rubes voting for them.

I'm tired of the insults, frankly. I'm tired of the slanders and slurs being employed as a substitute for valid arguments on behalf of the liberal agenda.

Mr Sargent we aren't rubes. Granted, we don't live in DC. Granted, congressional aides may not necessarily take our calls like they would take yours. but we do work, pay taxes and vote. And many of us are darned angry at the government.

Clearly, you don't like that fact.

Oh well. Best get over it. and soon. Look where stating his honest opinion about the "rubes" got Mr Weigel.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 8, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

misterdiddy-

In case you don't remember it, in 2008, Bachmann was quoted as saying she thinks there are "Un-American" members of Congress. No doubt these were Democrats. Which resulted in a wave of fundraising for her challenger.

I'd like to know exaclty what her definition of "Un-American" is, vis-a-vis Congresspersons.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 8, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

BeautifulBeginning:

I agree.

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 8, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

She is a very articulate and honest politician, which takes the media types back, I know Chris Mathews supports her.

Posted by: simonsays1 | November 8, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Palin-Bachmann 2012!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 8, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

"Kind of like how Democrats use African Americans and gay people."

Kinda, but not really.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 8, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

The truth is the democrats took money from special interest to fund their anti-war marches. The liberals thought they owned the streets, and had a monopoly on all the energy in the population


Then the Tea Party came - a real populist movement which the liberals THOUGHT they had.


They didn't. The liberals had some special-interest and union-driven anti-war march group which really had no domestic policies beyond the "union agenda" of jamming ever budget in the country with expensive union contracts - in secret under the guise of attorney-client privledge.


Except when the taxpayer is paying the bills, the taxpayers ARE THE CLIENT.


Anyway.......

Posted by: BeautifulBeginning | November 8, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

"No doubt these were Democrats. Which resulted in a wave of fundraising for her challenger."

Who lost by 12 points. Pretty good return on investment. Especially since she won by only 3 points in 2008.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | November 8, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Some folks don't get Greg (*cough* skip *cough*).

No doubt many in the GOP think the Tea Party are "rubes". What makes you think that's what Greg thinks?

You are correct about it being diagnostic, tho': diagnostic of the opinion of many in the GOP.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 8, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

The real problem that the liberals have with Ms Bachmann is that they cannot defeat her at the polls.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 8, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

scat: "You'd better answer that, Greg, or Jake will refuse to converse with you anymore."

If I were Greg, I would ignore the question and gladly suffer the consequences.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 8, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

I'm waiting for someone here to discuss her "Un Americans in Congress" beliefs and how they are going to hold her accountable for it. Seems like she should be, one way or the other.

Anyone wan't to take the bait? And differences in policy don't cut it. I want actions that Democratic Congresspeople have engaged in while in office that violate some notion of being "Un American".

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 8, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

"The real problem that the liberals have with Ms Bachmann is that they cannot defeat her at the polls."

Next you'll tell us we attack her because we are afraid of her just like we're afraid of Palin, or something.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 8, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

simonsays1, I thought that Chris Matthews asked her if she was "hypnotized"? That didn't sound like support to me.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 8, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Not to worry, skippy. Bachmann's district could become extinct if MN loses a congressional seat due to population losses.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 8, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

"Kind of like how Democrats use African Americans and gay people."

"Kinda, but not really."


I forgot that Democrats were champions of school choice. and that Obama is leading the charge for equality in marriage by noting that "attitudes evolve." and that his slow-walking of DADT is actually evidence of his fighting spirit.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | November 8, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

@mikefromArlington
"I recall the anger on the left after Bush beat both Gore and Kerry. Neither could imagine losing to a backward texan cowboy."

"The real problem that the liberals have with Ms Bachmann is that they cannot defeat her at the polls."
------------------------------------------

I could have sworn it was skip who confessed ignorance as to the motivation of at least one liberal poster here at PL. Suddenly he knows why we were mad 10 and 6 years ago respectivly. He also knows why we don't like Bachmann.

Given Bush's spending habits, it's suprising that skip wasn't mad at Bush too. But that didn't happen until 2006, when in one unified voice Republicans rose up and elected a bunch of Democrats to send a message to the Republicans that they shouldn't be spending like Democrats. Yep, that makes sense.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 8, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

The liberals are left without an agenda

They have to defend Obama's expensive health care plan which is under threat of repeal

No one wants to hear a "class warfare" idea.

Cap and trade is dead

What else do the liberals have? The gay agenda? Amnesty? These are horrible issues for the liberals and the democrats.


It is sad. It's like seeing a football team with injuries. Pelosi lost all her power. Reid needs 6 more votes to break a filibuster, 7 if you have to count Manchin.

Obama is wounded, but he is walking around like he is on drugs or something because he just doesn't see that he just destroyed the democratic party around him.


No offensive, having to defend health care, and special teams can't even catch a football - that is the status right now.


.

Posted by: BeautifulBeginning | November 8, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Bachmann's district could become extinct if MN loses a congressional seat due to population losses.

Posted by: suekzoo1
++++++++++

And that would be a just and fitting outcome, given Bachmann's "principals [sic] of constitutional conservatism" include opposition to the census, which is notably required by the Constitution.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 8, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Sargent:

You are, of course, under no obligation to answer my question to you (even though I've answered every question you've asked me). And, as I've stated in the past, if you want me to stop posting here, you only have to say "please".

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 8, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

1) Gay partners of federal workers will now receive long-term health insurance, access to day care and other benefits.

2) Federal Housing Authority loans can no longer consider the sexual orientation of applicants. The Census Bureau plans to report the number of people who report being in a same-sex relationship.

3) Hospitals must allow gays to visit their ill partners.

4) And federal child-care subsidies can be used by the children of same-sex domestic partners.

5) Dozens of openly gay individuals in the administration.

6) Family and Medical Leave Act, concluding that under the law, a gay federal employee may take leave to care for a child with a gay partner.

7) If DADT repeal reaches his desk, he'll sign it.

That's just a simple search. I'm sure there are more issues he's addressed.

Want me to address how he did address African American's or will spin it to explain how it really doesn't prove anything?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 8, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

suekzoo

Who is in control of the Minnesota legislature

And how has the population shifted within Minnesota - My sense was Bachmann's district was growing relative to the State as a whole

Posted by: BeautifulBeginning | November 8, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw1-

Exactly. I don't hold some exagerration against candidates when running for office or even while in office. They are politicians after all. But, you have to wonder about what you just mentioned and Angle's "Second Amendment Remedies".

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 8, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Greg's so damn smart he skipped third grade.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 8, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

"And that would be a just and fitting outcome, given Bachmann's "principals [sic] of constitutional conservatism" include opposition to the census, which is notably required by the Constitution."

Good plan. Except for the fact that the GOP took over the MN house and senate

http://www.minnpost.com/politicalagenda/2010/11/08/23162/now_in_majority_house_republicans_pick_new_leaders

Posted by: NoVAHockey | November 8, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

BeautifulBeginning:

'Arizona Style' Immigration Law Proposed in Texas

Conservative lawmaker (and true American hero) Debbie Riddle files bill in first hour of filing period for 2011 session.

http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=119078&article=7811998

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 8, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

NoVA,

Quick reading comprehension test: where did I say it was a "plan"? I was simply noting that it would be a just outcome, which it would.

I have no doubt the GOP will protect its own in redistricting. See: Delay, Tom "The Hammer" (currently on trial for felony conspiracy to funnel $190,000 in illegal corporate contributions to Republican candidates for the Texas legislature, so they could gerrymander Texas congressional districts).

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 8, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

"Good plan. Except for the fact that the GOP took over the MN house and senate."

And elected a Democratic governor, who will have some say it whose district gets cut up.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 8, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

All, looks like there will be no hearings by the GOP into the scientific fraud underlying global warming:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/eis_gop_really_holding_hearing.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 8, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

I don't have to speculate pal, I can rely on Mr Sargent's words.

In case you didn't read his blog post, let me reproduce the relevant part:
"This is not particularly subtle. GOP leaders know full well that the Tea Party rubes are going get very, very impatient if Republicans compromise on core Tea Party demands, fail to completely roll back Obama's whole agenda, and generally do anything that smacks of reasonableness or moderation."

Sorry you didn't notice Mr Sargent's insult, but I guess being a liberal allows one to insult others blithely and without notice.

Of course I was angry about Bush. But unlike Obama, Bush at least understands the menace that is radical islam. And he knew what to do about it. I didn't like the spending that went on during his admin and I don't trust either McConnell or Boehner at all. Spending went UP on their watch and they know it. Here's an example: I refused to vote for Mike DeWine when he ran to retain his senate seat. In this past election, when he ran for AG, I voted for the libertarian candidate. I still cannot believe that DeWine won. I would have been happy with Cordray who is a Democrat but hasn't be ensnared by the scandals that now seem routine in Columbus.

And as I've mentioned several times, I glad Voinovich retired. I couldn't vote for him either.

That's the difference, IMHO. The relationship between conservatives and the Republican party is fundamentally different from the relationship between most Democrat sub groups and the Democrat party. The Democrats treat folks like they are on the plantation. Even though, for example, life has actually gotten worse in the cities that are controlled by Democrats, the denizens of these cities continue to vote for them. Conservatives abandonned the Republicans in 06 and 08 because of their lack of fiscal restraint. There was a lot of anger then and, again I've noted this before, the smart Republicans have admitted that it was their mistakes that lead to their being fired.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 8, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

"All, looks like there will be no hearings by the GOP into the scientific fraud underlying global warming"

Since said fraud is pretty much a given at this point ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 8, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

suekzoo1:

Too bad that the redistricting statutes in Minnesota completely shut the new Governor out of the process (the STATE secretary of state, municipal clerks and county auditors are still involved though). Here are the relevant timeframes for the STATE legislature to re-district:

January-March 2011

Census Phase 3 - block populations reported to state census liaisons
Redistricting begins

February 21, 2012

Legislative and congressional redistricting deadline

May 6, 2012

Candidates must establish residence in legislative district

June 05, 2012

Candidate filing deadline

August 14, 2012

State primary

November 6, 2012

General election

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 8, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

I don't have to speculate pal, I can rely on Mr Sargent's words.

In case you didn't read his blog post, let me reproduce the relevant part:
"This is not particularly subtle. GOP leaders know full well that the Tea Party rubes are going get very, very impatient if Republicans compromise on core Tea Party demands, fail to completely roll back Obama's whole agenda, and generally do anything that smacks of reasonableness or moderation."

Sorry you didn't notice Mr Sargent's insult, but I guess being a liberal allows one to insult others blithely and without notice.
---------------------------------

If this is addressed to me, please don't call me pal.

Regardless, I don't see how the quote you pulled reflects that liberal anger towards Bachman is b/c she wins elections. Nobody is disputing the liberals dislike Bachmann, the dispute is about the motivation of the dislike. You think it's because they can't beat her.

Bush's approval rating among Republicans was over 80% in 2006, so you were in a distinct minority. http://www.gallup.com/poll/107128/bush-approval-rating-down-60-among-republicans.aspx

However, I bet if you polled Republicans now about how they felt about Bush in 2006, most would say they did't like him. It's amazing how that sort of thing works.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 8, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse


As I said, I'm offended by Mr Sargent's choice of words. The tea party folks aren't "rubes". This is just more of the run of the mill mockery that liberals engage in when they don't get their way.

Mr Sargent has a lot of problems, it seems with the tea party folks. He has no problems with candidates like Alcee Hastings or Chollie Rangel. Those are good, solid, ethical Democrats right. They aren't rubes, they're crooks. In the lefty world are crooks preferable?

Well, let's talk facts here. The biggest problem liberals have with Bachman is that they can't beat her. I don't know what motivates them to dislike her as much as they seem to, but let's face it, if she lost, the problem for the liberals just goes away, right? No congresswoman Bachman, no problem for the left. Beat her and she's gone. Lose to her and she stays in the limelight.

See what I'm saying over here? Or is it too complex?

Yes, Bush was strong on the response to the Arabs and that helped. But the anger was there on the right. Congress showed no fiscal restraint. The Bridge to nowhere was a bridge too far. Once many of us reached the conclusion that the Republicans lost their way, we withdrew our support for them and the losing started.

Look at the difference now. It is widely held that this last election wasn't a result FOR Republicans. Rather it was a vote against the Democrats. It is important for the Republicans to understand this and act accordingly. I believe that the Democrats misread the tea leaves in their turn. They convinced themselves that the nation had turned left far enough to go for the big deals that got voted on. They were wrong as this election showed.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 8, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Some might think "rube" is compliment:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rube
–noun Informal .
an unsophisticated person from a rural area; hick.

In fact, I know there are people who take pride in being a "rube". Sarah Palin for one.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 8, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Past GOP Conference chairman have included Gerald Ford (1963-1965), Jack Kemp (1981-1987), Dick Cheney (1987-1989), Richard Armey (1993-1995), and John Boehner (1995-1999). I'm just wondering why Vice-Chair McMorris Rodgers isn't in line for the Chair position?

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 8, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

"This is just more of the run of the mill mockery that liberals engage in when they don't get their way."

Yes, like "drinking the Kool-Aid" "Liberal Messiah" and the whole host of juvenille slogans and names used by Republicans. There is no moral high ground. I can either condemn every time anyone calls anyone a name, or I can ignore it.


"The biggest problem liberals have with Bachman is that they can't beat her....See what I'm saying over here? Or is it too complex?"

While it's crappy logic, I think I can follow it, skip. I could use the exact same lame argument about Republican dislike of Obama. You wouldn't have a problem with him if he wasn't President, therefore you just don't like him because you're a bad loser. However, I recognize that it's more nuanced than that.

"Look at the difference now. It is widely held that this last election wasn't a result FOR Republicans. Rather it was a vote against the Democrats."
It's simply astonishing that you can type that in the same post where you say 2006 and 2008 weren't about people choosing Democrats, but rather about Republicans rejecting Republican who acted....like Democrats. In other words, you're doing exactly what you accuse the Democrats of doing.

Maybe that is the spin Democrats are putting on the election. If it's just a PR spin, then who cares. If it's what they actually believe, then they'll lose again in 2012. (They'll lose in 2012 if the economy is still bad whether they learn a lesson or not)

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 8, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Exactly, its not crappy logic, is just plain fact. If obama lost he wouldn't be a problem for the republicans, or at this point, the rest of the country.

And you're reading words into this that I didn't say (write) (offer). I didn't provide a "therefore". That's just your projection.

Isn't it possible that I don't like the guy because I think he's wrong and what he wants is bad for America? No doubt that's the same reason why the left HATED W. right? And had he lost his re election bid, the problem for the liberals and Democrats that was George W Bush would have gone away. So problem numero uno when dealing with a thorny politician, beating them in elections.

And you make another critical error in your response about party politics I didn't say "republicans" rejected the Republicans. I said Conservatives. Got to get it right to understand where I'm coming from I'm conservative first and foremost.

And I didn't say that people didn't chose Democrats at all. I said that conservative abandonned Republicans. Did some of them vote Democrat? I dunno. but I know that I withheld my support and so did a lot of others. so the vaunted ground game was lost. Net Result, Democrat victory.

But I do believe that the Democrats misread this. this election shows that they misread something.

What do you think

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 8, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

McConnell already has Rand Paul whipped into shape. Bachmann and Palin will be shelved until the middle of 2012 when they can play cheerleader again. Tea party supporters and candidates were this year's useful idiot for the GOP.

Posted by: curtisjasper | November 8, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

It took us a while but we got to the same point. I dislike bachmann for the same reasons you don't like Obama, policy. That was my point.

I still think You are still doing what you accuse liberals of doing. Namely you are saying in 2006 and 2008 conservatives lost because it was a vote against them not a vote for a liberal agenda. What's the difference between liberals saying this wasn't a vote for Republicans and you saying 2006 was conservatives abandoned republicans? I think you are largely playing word games.

What do I think? Like most things I think it's a combination of things. One is democrats misread the election and I think voters changed their priorities when the economy never improved. And the democrats never altered there plans to match the shifting priorities of voters. To back up my point look at the post of pragmatice regarding Jindals response to Obama State of the Union. Voters feel totally different now than they did then.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 8, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

"The democrats just want to attack and try to make the Tea Party look bad, because the liberals can not meet the Conservatives on the field of ideas."

I'll bite.

You start:

What exactly will you Tea Baggers cut to "reduce the federal government"?

Remember: Social security and Medicare is huge. Military is up there too, but not nearly as big an elephant as the first two.

Let's hear YOUR ideas, and see if you could make the tough decisions.

I can already predict what you will say.

Posted by: ernesthua | November 9, 2010 2:46 AM | Report abuse

Oh wow, OK that makes a lot of sense.

www.online-privacy.edu.tc

Posted by: clermontpc | November 9, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company