« Stop trying to silence Cheney! | Overreach THIS!'s Blog | What Specter *Should* Have Been Saying (and where was Biden?) »
Talibangelical base *enraged*; they've got a lock on Republican nomination 2012
You can read more about the raving loons on Politico, if you care.
For them, moderation or modernization of the party is the blackest, most unforgivable treason. And no wonder they're livid; Limbaugh stridently preaches hatred to them every day.
These infuriated nitwits are naturally stronger than ever in a shrunken, discredited party -- you don't get nominated without them. They could support Palin, Gingrich, Huckabee, Limbaugh himself -- not the sinner Romney.
Only Gingrich and possibly Huckabee could appeal to these yahoos, then credibly attempt to moderate in the general. Even that is easier said than done, though; the nutters want nothing less than a sneering, bible-thumping Bush/Palin type to carry forth their racist, ruralist, anti-intellectual banner. At this stage, all very good news for Dems.
For them, moderation or modernization of the party is the blackest, most unforgivable treason. And no wonder they're livid; Limbaugh stridently preaches hatred to them every day.
These infuriated nitwits are naturally stronger than ever in a shrunken, discredited party -- you don't get nominated without them. They could support Palin, Gingrich, Huckabee, Limbaugh himself -- not the sinner Romney.
Only Gingrich and possibly Huckabee could appeal to these yahoos, then credibly attempt to moderate in the general. Even that is easier said than done, though; the nutters want nothing less than a sneering, bible-thumping Bush/Palin type to carry forth their racist, ruralist, anti-intellectual banner. At this stage, all very good news for Dems.
Advertisement
I can perfectly understand your nutty, sneering, livid and raving rage against "talibangelical" republican base.
You must have been looking in the mirror too long today because I could have easily mistaken you for one of them.
You can isolate them by attracting those who are more moderate or not social-value-driven.
Or you can act exactly like the people you despise and do your part in growing the ranks of independents.
"Infuriated nitwit" indeed.
April 27, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tu quoque
April 27, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, it's only a logical fallacy if Lalo were trying to demonstrate that OT's thesis were false. But Lalo's point, I think, is not that there aren't any sneering Republican nitwits out there but rather that there's a double standard implied in sneeringly accusing Republicans of sneering. I'm too, ahem, polite to support Lalo on the additional charge of nitwittism, but I agree that OT was certainly sneering. Let he who is without wits cast the first sneer. Or something.
April 28, 2009 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
If anything I was giggling over it.
I wasn't sneering, and if I had been, I sure wouldn't agree that such would indicated I was without wits.
Seriously, you really find the trolling that interesting?
April 28, 2009 5:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Trolling?
I'm "giggling over it" because you so obviously don't get how trollishly overreaching you sound.
April 28, 2009 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll meet you halfway and call it a snicker.
Lalo is certainly an instigator but has too much depth to be a troll. For a discussion of Lalo's troll creds, see the comment section here: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/dembillc-wins-the-troll-youd-m.php
Ah the good old days, when trolls were trolls.
April 28, 2009 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amuzing, including the comments you made there as well.
I have no problem to be called a troll, an instigator, wingnut, republican, hillary die-hard, or anything else anyone would want to call me. I don't take any of that personally, despite kind encouragement by OR.
I happen to think that any defensive reaction to someone giving you a derogatory nickname is an acceptance that their opinion is worth more than your own.
Additionally, calling someone a troll is a tactic to insulate yourself from those who disagree. It's a kind of insurance against reason, understanding and compassion and it keeps you puffed up and indignant. That's the real reason why a "troll" is now anyone who has a different opinion.
Given the "traditional" definition of troll, it's ironic that OR has written a purely trollific post and when called out on it reverted to accusing someone of being what she is.
April 28, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
The best, though, would be if you would go away.
April 28, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a pipe dream. I expect that Lalo will be around here doing his thing long after the rest of us have slipped away. Sort of like cockroaches.
April 28, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't push it, lally. You may not technically qualify for trolldom, but that doesn't mean that I intend to nominate you for Grand Master of Reasonable Exchange of Ideas.
April 28, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lol, really? What are you going to do, puff your cheeks and reprint your old comments? And why do you think I care? I leave you two trolls in peace.
April 28, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you grew up, got all that education, and decided to become a troll! :)
April 28, 2009 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Normally the losing party is chastened by the losses. The Democrats certainly were in 1980.
It remains to be seen what will happen now since the GOP is becoming smaller but radicalized -- ie. the remaining "deadenders" are hardcore and make the party seem even more extreme. GOP moderates are long gone (Arlen Spector might be one of the last, and he is facing certain defeat in 2010).
It's terrible for the country -- we need a constructive, sane opposition party. And there's also the risk of Timothy McVeigh style domestic terrorism.
April 27, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree and the McVeigh shit worries me.
When Limbaugh and Palin and the like stand up and spew and bristle over what an intolerable outrage it is that the nervy you-know-what thinks he's President just 'cuz he got way more votes, I worry about the McVeighs about there. Perry's the same, Texas is going to secede just it's all so absolutely unacceptable and there's just no way proud Texans should have to abide by the results of a landslide election.
I say, "Perry, Overreach THIS!" But what do the McVeighs of the world say? And the wackaloons destroying the two-party system is not a small issue either, I fully agree with that too.
Specter I find a bit frustrating. He should have jumped ship 2 months ago and made a deal to become a Dem and get himself a light-n-easy primary from the D.S. Campaign C'tee. If that deal's no longer available to him, he might as well announce retirement. Either way, Republicans lose the seat and the incredible shrinking GOP becomes yet smaller and more radicalized.
April 28, 2009 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
[As to that last point]
Bruce Bartlett, Washington-based author:
Specter: Good for him. I left the Republican Party a couple of years ago when it became clear that it was controlled by a base made up of complete lunatics. Unlike Sen. Specter, however, I prefer being an independent. I wish he had chosen to run as one.
http://www.politico.com/arena/
April 29, 2009 4:05 AM | Reply | Permalink