If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   The Tea Party could make the US Senate more liberal   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 74
    More: Ironic, Senate, Herb Kohl, Tammy Baldwin, John Barrasso, floor vote, Richard Mourdock  
•       •       •

3134 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Nov 2012 at 3:22 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



74 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-02 12:19:39 AM
So, just to the right of Hitler? I'm so glad we're balancing out.
 
2012-11-02 12:54:19 AM
You'd think they learned their lesson after 2010. but no, they turned the derp to eleventy.
 
2012-11-02 01:23:15 AM
They already have. It's always the mealy mouthed Blue Dogs that take it in the shorts. They're too afraid to stand with their party (but not too afraid to take the Party's money) but they're too RINO to get reelected.
 
2012-11-02 03:13:16 AM
The Tea Party could make the US Senate more liberal potato
 
2012-11-02 03:24:25 AM
They are because they hand what would be easily won GOP senate seats to the Democrats because they're really good at energizing the base but scare the hell out of everyone else.
 
2012-11-02 03:24:32 AM
about damn time.
 
2012-11-02 03:29:58 AM

Summoner101: They are because they hand what would be easily won GOP senate seats to the Democrats because they're really good at energizing the base but scare the hell out of everyone else.


Yup.

Who'd have thought having right wing nutbags supplant the more moderate Republicans would ever backfire?
 
2012-11-02 03:31:22 AM
And thanks to Poe's Law, we'll never know when or if the Tea Party ceases to exist.
 
2012-11-02 03:43:26 AM
One of the more under represented stories of this election ... not only are the Democrats going to hold onto the Senate (which looked like a 1 in 5 proposition at this time a year ago), they're projected to hold basically the same current majority, and they're going to swap out conservative blue dogs and professional concern trolls like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman with (possibly) unapologetic liberals like Tammy Baldwin and Elizabeth Warren.

I dunno, if I were a conservative billionaire who had poured tens of millions of dollars into SuperPAC and woke up November 7th to an Obama re-election, an even more liberal Senate, and a more balanced House ... I might just call Karl Rove into my office and politely ask what I farking poured my money into.
 
2012-11-02 03:46:35 AM

InmanRoshi: One of the more under represented stories of this election ... not only are the Democrats going to hold onto the Senate (which looked like a 1 in 5 proposition at this time a year ago), they're projected to hold basically the same current majority, and they're going to swap out conservative blue dogs and professional concern trolls like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman with (possibly) unapologetic liberals like Tammy Baldwin and Elizabeth Warren.

I dunno, if I were a conservative billionaire who had poured tens of millions of dollars into SuperPAC and woke up November 7th to an Obama re-election, an even more liberal Senate, and a more balanced House ... I might just call Karl Rove into my office and politely ask what I farking poured my money into.


And the answer would be, "I'm sorry Sir, but we need to go derper."
 
2012-11-02 03:47:07 AM

Summoner101: They are because they hand what would be easily won GOP senate seats to the Democrats because they're really good at energizing the base but scare the hell out of everyone else.


Yep. I know some straight ticket Republicans who broke ranks to vote Democratic in the Senate Race. 

They still went for Romney, but Texas is a red state anyway.
 
2012-11-02 03:47:35 AM

Summoner101: They are because they hand what would be easily won GOP senate seats to the Democrats because they're really good at energizing the base but scare the hell out of everyone else.


Notice that Mitt Romney is currently running to the left of Howard Dean and they've sequestered Ryan out to fund raise in Red States to keep him from openly talking about what he actually believes to the press and swing voters.
 
2012-11-02 03:47:57 AM

InmanRoshi: I might just call Karl Rove into my office and politely ask what I farking poured my money into.


"Hey, win or lose I get a hefty salary. What..did you think I really care? You must have inherited your money, because nobody so stupid could have made it on his own."
 
2012-11-02 03:53:13 AM
Well duh, the Dems have to fight the teabagger herp with some derp.

Meanwhile we all get a hilariously/depressingly dysfunctional government filled with demagogues and drama queens.

Sometimes I think the only reason Presidents approval ratings poll so much higher vs Congress does is this:

The 20-48% of people approving of the President are simply impressed that the one individual hasn't killed themselves over the prospect of having to wake up and attempt to work with literally hundreds of endlessly argumentative personified talking points out for nothing but their own personal gain.
 
2012-11-02 03:54:18 AM
The Tea Party lost its way when it allowed itself to be steered by corporate interests into becoming the anti-Obama party. So about five minutes after its creation.

Seriously. When a gigantic media empire throws its entire weight behind your little revolution, it's time to pause and reflect.

And now these useful idiots have been conned by Fox and the GOP into supporting the reentry of neocon power into the executive branch.

We'll be back to the policies of spending like drunken sailors and not taxing to cover the bill. It will be like having George Bush in office again. Another mindless "businessman" that is just there to do the will of his handlers.

So thanks a lot, Tea Party. You're a credit to your generation.
 
2012-11-02 03:56:37 AM
to clarify my above, I'm not impressed any more by "more liberal" than I am with "more conservative"

I may be incorrect in my assumption, but the first thing I think about when I hear about a less moderate candidate is one that will be less likely to compromise (aka actually govern).

People who are more interested in where they stand on ideology than they are in where our government stands on doing the business of the people is what got us into this mess.
 
2012-11-02 03:58:06 AM
A more liberal Congress would be welcomed. Create lots of ideas.

A more conservative President would be welcomed. Choose the best of those ideas.

Right now we have the opposite. A Congress unwilling to do anything positive, and a President unable to enact anything worthwhile.
 
2012-11-02 04:07:38 AM
AverageAmericanGuy

We have a liberal Congress and a conservative President. You might not have noticed that the roles have switched this election.
 
2012-11-02 04:09:28 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: A more liberal Congress would be welcomed. Create lots of ideas.

A more conservative President would be welcomed. Choose the best of those ideas.

Right now we have the opposite. A Congress unwilling to do anything positive, and a President unable to enact anything worthwhile.


Bullshiat. Obama would be willing to enact the best thing positive out of anything handed to him, it's just that in his own term *nothing* handed to him came easily

Years 0-2: Blue dogs fought against the rest of the Dems, hindering the passage of legislation
Years 2-4: GOP controlled House means nothing got done

If comprehensive single payer health care reform would have passed Congress, Obama would have signed
 
2012-11-02 04:16:30 AM
AverageAmericanGuy:

You once said, and I quote: "I wouldn't expect a lib like you to understand context."

So I don't think you're actually looking for an honest conversation.
 
2012-11-02 04:19:36 AM

anwserman: AverageAmericanGuy: A more liberal Congress would be welcomed. Create lots of ideas.

A more conservative President would be welcomed. Choose the best of those ideas.

Right now we have the opposite. A Congress unwilling to do anything positive, and a President unable to enact anything worthwhile.

Bullshiat. Obama would be willing to enact the best thing positive out of anything handed to him, it's just that in his own term *nothing* handed to him came easily

Years 0-2: Blue dogs fought against the rest of the Dems, hindering the passage of legislation
Years 2-4: GOP controlled House means nothing got done

If comprehensive single payer health care reform would have passed Congress, Obama would have signed


I said the best of those ideas.
 
2012-11-02 04:51:19 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: anwserman: AverageAmericanGuy: A more liberal Congress would be welcomed. Create lots of ideas.

A more conservative President would be welcomed. Choose the best of those ideas.

Right now we have the opposite. A Congress unwilling to do anything positive, and a President unable to enact anything worthwhile.

Bullshiat. Obama would be willing to enact the best thing positive out of anything handed to him, it's just that in his own term *nothing* handed to him came easily

Years 0-2: Blue dogs fought against the rest of the Dems, hindering the passage of legislation
Years 2-4: GOP controlled House means nothing got done

If comprehensive single payer health care reform would have passed Congress, Obama would have signed

I said the best of those ideas.


And there we have it.
 
2012-11-02 04:52:17 AM
Both sides have bad ideas, so vote Republican.
 
2012-11-02 05:09:01 AM

anwserman: AverageAmericanGuy: A more liberal Congress would be welcomed. Create lots of ideas.

A more conservative President would be welcomed. Choose the best of those ideas.

Right now we have the opposite. A Congress unwilling to do anything positive, and a President unable to enact anything worthwhile.

Bullshiat. Obama would be willing to enact the best thing positive out of anything handed to him, it's just that in his own term *nothing* handed to him came easily

Years 0-2: Blue dogs fought against the rest of the Dems, hindering the passage of legislation
Years 2-4: GOP controlled House means nothing got done

If comprehensive single payer health care reform would have passed Congress, Obama would have signed


Blue Dogs shouldn't be Democrats. End of story. You don't vote on this bill? No soft money, you're getting primaried, and we're backing your primary opponent. I don't care what district you're from. Scared to go back to your district because tea partiers are going to encroach on your usually low-attendance constituent meetings? fark you, vote yes.

Moderate Republicans don't last. If you don't vote with leadership, you're out. Look at Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Murkowski's primary loss, and these guys. Hell, look at McCain and Romney's farked-up presidential campaigns that had little to do with their political history.

As party leader, Obama isn't supposed to just sign or not sign whatever comes across his desk. He can't look at Congress or the Senate and say "oh you" and give a shrug. It was his mandate and his responsibility.
 
2012-11-02 05:11:39 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: anwserman: If comprehensive single payer health care reform would have passed Congress, Obama would have signed

I said the best of those ideas.


Don't be dumb. Relieving employers of the pressure to pay into healthcare would be better than any corporate tax break, and would in turn make some very unemployable people, by virtue of having family members with medical issues, suddenly a lot more employable.

The only downside to single payer healthcare would be the immediate unemployment for the workers of the medical insurance "industry", a market dedicated to making money off of the healthy and finding every excuse to flee before the ill.
 
2012-11-02 05:47:17 AM

moothemagiccow: anwserman: AverageAmericanGuy: A more liberal Congress would be welcomed. Create lots of ideas.

A more conservative President would be welcomed. Choose the best of those ideas.

Right now we have the opposite. A Congress unwilling to do anything positive, and a President unable to enact anything worthwhile.

Bullshiat. Obama would be willing to enact the best thing positive out of anything handed to him, it's just that in his own term *nothing* handed to him came easily

Years 0-2: Blue dogs fought against the rest of the Dems, hindering the passage of legislation
Years 2-4: GOP controlled House means nothing got done

If comprehensive single payer health care reform would have passed Congress, Obama would have signed

Blue Dogs shouldn't be Democrats. End of story. You don't vote on this bill? No soft money, you're getting primaried, and we're backing your primary opponent. I don't care what district you're from. Scared to go back to your district because tea partiers are going to encroach on your usually low-attendance constituent meetings? fark you, vote yes.

Moderate Republicans don't last. If you don't vote with leadership, you're out. Look at Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Murkowski's primary loss, and these guys. Hell, look at McCain and Romney's farked-up presidential campaigns that had little to do with their political history.

As party leader, Obama isn't supposed to just sign or not sign whatever comes across his desk. He can't look at Congress or the Senate and say "oh you" and give a shrug. It was his mandate and his responsibility.


Then the dens risk doing the same as the tea party has done recently. Not all states are the same and blue dogs tend to come from states where a true liberal could never be elected. So you deal with a moderate dem rather than a concervatives republican.
 
2012-11-02 06:04:03 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: anwserman: AverageAmericanGuy: A more liberal Congress would be welcomed. Create lots of ideas.

A more conservative President would be welcomed. Choose the best of those ideas.

Right now we have the opposite. A Congress unwilling to do anything positive, and a President unable to enact anything worthwhile.

Bullshiat. Obama would be willing to enact the best thing positive out of anything handed to him, it's just that in his own term *nothing* handed to him came easily

Years 0-2: Blue dogs fought against the rest of the Dems, hindering the passage of legislation
Years 2-4: GOP controlled House means nothing got done

If comprehensive single payer health care reform would have passed Congress, Obama would have signed

I said the best of those ideas.


Yes, the same single-payer healthcare system that most of the civilized world uses isn't a good idea. It's better to let insurance companies' bottom lines decide whether we live or die!
 
2012-11-02 06:12:47 AM

Cyberkhan: So you deal with a moderate dem rather than a concervatives republican.


If the "moderate" won't vote with you, he shouldn't be on your team. There were 34 House Dems who voted against Affordable Care Act. 178 House Republicans (100%) also voted against it.

If these kids want to start their own party, they're welcome. Otherwise I'm missing the point of keeping them under the tent. Most of them lost their seats anyhow, because when it comes down to it, most people care more about the letter next to your name than your voting record.


Like I said, Republicans do not have this problem.
 
2012-11-02 06:29:08 AM

moothemagiccow:
As party leader, Obama isn't supposed to just sign or not sign whatever comes across his desk. He can't look at Congress or the Senate and say "oh you" and give a shrug. It was his mandate and his responsibility.


Why should we be blaming the Democrats? Obama - as President - is the leader of the country, not just the Democrats. He fought hard trying to get bipartisan support going for health-care reform, and the GOP fought and resisted it because they're stubborn little assholes who were pissed off about 2008.

Had the GOP played nicely - like they expect from the Democrats - we would have had much better reform passed. So yes, get angry at the Dems if you don't like how they didn't blindly follow Obama on every single vote. They're still better than the GOP right now, which would rather vote and see the country burn than help Obama one little iota.
 
2012-11-02 06:37:29 AM
By liberal, I assume you mean "people who believe in facts?"
 
2012-11-02 07:05:41 AM

anwserman: moothemagiccow:
As party leader, Obama isn't supposed to just sign or not sign whatever comes across his desk. He can't look at Congress or the Senate and say "oh you" and give a shrug. It was his mandate and his responsibility.

Why should we be blaming the Democrats? Obama - as President - is the leader of the country, not just the Democrats. He fought hard trying to get bipartisan support going for health-care reform, and the GOP fought and resisted it because they're stubborn little assholes who were pissed off about 2008.

Had the GOP played nicely - like they expect from the Democrats - we would have had much better reform passed. So yes, get angry at the Dems if you don't like how they didn't blindly follow Obama on every single vote. They're still better than the GOP right now, which would rather vote and see the country burn than help Obama one little iota.


I find it curious that the Blue Dogs watching it burn are somehow different than the Republicans. The party had a clear majority in both houses and the President. Bush unleashed hell with that configuration. shiat, Bush even unleashed hell when the Democrats got their majority back in 06.

Dems: Stop the war, or else!
Bush: Or else what?
Dems: Nevermind

Stop making excuses for cowardice. No one voted for bipartisanship. We voted for a leader and gave him the tools to get shiat done. Instead he pandered to the increasingly insane right who were already planning for the midterm election, which they won, gridlocked congress with and filled the state legislatures with anti-women, anti-voting-rights scumbags.

Obama Pelosi and Reid went through this shiat every time they had an idea:
1. Take something people want.
2. Water it down so Republicans to vote for it.
3. Present to Republicans.
4. Repeat Steps 2 & 3.
5. Watch as Republicans vote No in lockstep.

They didn't realize a farking pattern had been forming for two goddamn years? Obama was even in the Senate for a little while. The Republican gridlock wasn't news.
 
2012-11-02 07:12:20 AM
The Tea Party will make the senate more liberal in the same what that a fire burning down the whole damn house makes people prefer water.
 
2012-11-02 07:12:24 AM
No subby. You don't mean liberal.
You mean NEOliberal.

They are not the same thing.
 
2012-11-02 07:31:42 AM
Not in Kentuckistan, it won't.



/I hate dumb voters.
/Guess what our top crop is after pot and tobacco? See above.
 
2012-11-02 07:39:51 AM
Anyone else remember the brief period of time when "Tea Party" meant something other than "most partisan members of the Republican Party"?

It started out as a Ron Paul type movement. The originals were about government getting out of control with spending and global interventionism and invasion into private lives.
 
2012-11-02 07:41:20 AM

Tommy Moo: Anyone else remember the brief period of time when "Tea Party" meant something other than "most partisan members of the Republican Party"?

It started out as a Ron Paul type movement. The originals were about government getting out of control with spending and global interventionism and invasion into private lives.


Yes, that must have been back when professional wrestling was unscripted, and water was dry.
 
2012-11-02 07:41:33 AM
Elizabeth Warren scores as among the most liberal candidates running in any state (-1.42).

That can't possibly be correct. I've seen an ad (about 1000 times) telling me that Ohio's Sherrod Brown is the most liberal person in congress.

\Crossroads GPS is a lot like Limbaugh, they say nothing at all that's true.
 
2012-11-02 07:45:39 AM
Resisting tea party =/= more liberal
 
2012-11-02 07:48:25 AM

moothemagiccow: Cyberkhan: So you deal with a moderate dem rather than a concervatives republican.

If the "moderate" won't vote with you, he shouldn't be on your team. There were 34 House Dems who voted against Affordable Care Act. 178 House Republicans (100%) also voted against it.

If these kids want to start their own party, they're welcome. Otherwise I'm missing the point of keeping them under the tent. Most of them lost their seats anyhow, because when it comes down to it, most people care more about the letter next to your name than your voting record.


I disagree on principle. I think the legislator has a duty to represent the interests of their electorate, not their party. What you're actually arguing for is, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em", by demanding Democrats vote in lockstep, possibly against their interests, like Republicans. But party does not come before country.
/ and yes, the only votes against ACA should've been from RI.
 
2012-11-02 07:59:03 AM
starsrift:
The only downside to single payer healthcare would be the immediate unemployment for the workers of the medical insurance "industry", a market dedicated to making money off of the healthy and finding every excuse to flee before the ill.

Indeed. I'm trying to figure out if my habit of essentially boiling many things down to "Should these people be sent off on B Ark" is a more liberal or a more conservative philosophy.
 
2012-11-02 08:26:42 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: No subby. You don't mean liberal.
You mean NEOliberal.

They are not the same thing.


I feel sorry that there is some subclass of people that understand what you said. Is there a Fox-to-English translator somewhere?
 
2012-11-02 08:27:45 AM

LordJiro: AverageAmericanGuy: anwserman: AverageAmericanGuy: A more liberal Congress would be welcomed. Create lots of ideas.

A more conservative President would be welcomed. Choose the best of those ideas.

Right now we have the opposite. A Congress unwilling to do anything positive, and a President unable to enact anything worthwhile.

Bullshiat. Obama would be willing to enact the best thing positive out of anything handed to him, it's just that in his own term *nothing* handed to him came easily

Years 0-2: Blue dogs fought against the rest of the Dems, hindering the passage of legislation
Years 2-4: GOP controlled House means nothing got done

If comprehensive single payer health care reform would have passed Congress, Obama would have signed

I said the best of those ideas.

Yes, the same single-payer healthcare system that most of the civilized world uses isn't a good idea. It's better to let insurance companies' bottom lines decide whether we live or die!


It's going to be amazing explaining to my grandchildren and great grandchildren how, once upon a time, we trusted our lives not to doctors, nurses, technicians and their facilities, but to actuaries betting against us for profit. And huge portions of our population were not only okay with this, but wanted to make that easier for the actuaries.
 
2012-11-02 08:28:18 AM

Summoner101: I dunno, if I were a conservative billionaire who had poured tens of millions of dollars into SuperPAC and woke up November 7th to an Obama re-election, an even more liberal Senate, and a more balanced House ... I might just call Karl Rove into my office and politely ask what I farking poured my money into


Sure, but you are reasonable. They'll just claim the election was stolen.
 
2012-11-02 08:28:52 AM

jcooli09: \Crossroads GPS is a lot like Limbaugh, they say nothing at all that's true.


What are you talking about. I've heard Limbaugh say "the". It's hard to find fault with such a word.
 
2012-11-02 08:41:02 AM

GhostFish: The Tea Party lost its way when it allowed itself to be steered by corporate interests into becoming the anti-Obama party. So about five minutes after before its creation.

 

Fixed for Prosperity.
 
2012-11-02 08:53:54 AM
Maybe this will spur Harry Reid into growing a set and shutting down the filibusters.


//I know hope springs eternal.
 
2012-11-02 08:55:47 AM
The Tea Party could make the US Senate more liberal

That seems an odd take on TFA.
 
2012-11-02 09:12:54 AM

moothemagiccow: They didn't realize a farking pattern had been forming for two goddamn years? Obama was even in the Senate for a little while. The Republican gridlock wasn't news.


I know, right!? Only thing I can think of is that Obama started to believe his own bullshiat, that he actually was a unicorn farting rainbows. Because that is more realistic than a racist old coont like McConnell ever agreeing to work with him on anything. I'm still not sure if he has figured out that policy is just a football to these guys. Though the way Mitt flip flops as it suits him it'd be hard to imagine Obama being that dense.
 
2012-11-02 09:25:35 AM

0Icky0: InmanRoshi: I might just call Karl Rove into my office and politely ask what I farking poured my money into.

"Hey, win or lose I get a hefty salary. What..did you think I really care? You must have inherited your money, because nobody so stupid could have made it on his own."


...and the irony is, most of the rich guys who vote Republican are 2nd-generation money or older.
 
2012-11-02 09:28:11 AM

syrynxx: HotIgneous Intruder: No subby. You don't mean liberal.
You mean NEOliberal.

They are not the same thing.

I feel sorry that there is some subclass of people that understand what you said. Is there a Fox-to-English translator somewhere?



I guess this is an attempt not unlike "FARK ProgressiveTM" from the Right to seem clever by taking what they hate most about themselves and projecting it to the other team.
 
Displayed 50 of 74 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report