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.

(Politico)   "Victory, you say? Master Rove, not victory. The shroud of the Dark Side has fallen. Begun, the internecine Republican SuperPAC Wars have"   (politico.com) divider line 75
    More: Obvious, Karl Rove, Republicans, GOP, Restore Our Future, Congressional Leadership Fund, American Crossroads, Gabriel Gomez, Senate Conservatives Fund  
•       •       •

3136 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Nov 2013 at 3:26 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-09 04:53:02 PM
Interesting. This is a straightforward admission on the part of the GOP that besides the creation of the Tea Party being a terrible, terrible mistake (but of course, we all knew that), they really are the party of the wealthy, and if need be have unlimited piles of cash with which to do what they want. The question is whether the repub base is stupid enough to be swayed by relentless anti-TEA advertising on TV and radio. I'd like to think not, but then, they're stupid enough to buy into the Tea Party bullshiat in the first place.
 
2013-11-09 04:58:18 PM

quatchi: So... in the battle of the Super PACs the Dems have a couple of umbrella groups who look after all the Dem House races with very little in-fighting, lowered overhead and skim off by lawyers and the like.

Meanwhile over on the GOP side you've got internecine warfare between a whole bunch of little groups (some of whom have only one donor but are named "Americans for...") some advocating for ideological purity and some for electability. Teatards and old school GOP fighting it out for the brand name of RepublicanTM.

Kinda like watching two junkies fighting over a plastic spoon.


It's really beautiful, actually. Like seeing an old ugly factory imploded in slow motion.
 
2013-11-09 05:18:41 PM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Bareefer Obonghit: When a turd cannibalizes itself does it sh*t out sh*t? And doesn't that mean there will still be sh*t everywhere?

We're gonna make you eat our shiat, then shiat out our shiat, and eat that shiat, which is made up our shiat that we made you eat. (NSFW language)


Heh. I named my fantasy team "YOU ARE THE ONE WHO ARE THE BALL LICKERS"

That move is friggin stupid, but awesome.
 
2013-11-09 05:29:11 PM

shastacola: shower_in_my_socks: vpb: The money will win.  Crazy doesn't have the staying power that greed has.

Except that the Tea Party has all of the grass roots support that the traditional big business-backed candidates don't have. That's why the 'baggers have stuck around so long. They have more than just the Koch's writing them checks.

No, they don't. The Tea Party will cease to exist as soon as their  powerful friends realize the money has dried up at which time they'll take their place among the small right wing fringe rural/southern groups.


What I suspect/hope will happen is that if the RINO GOP candidate wins primary, the disgruntled TP will put up a Real Conservative guy and split the vote.

Would be consistent with their beliefs of 'purity' more correct than 'reality'
 
2013-11-09 05:30:33 PM
"Internecine". Rare that an author or subby sends us to a dictionary. Well done.

The Tea Party is prepared for losses.

/at least this one is
 
2013-11-09 05:50:29 PM
Good. I hope the Tea Party and GOP get slaughtered in many elections to come.
 
2013-11-09 05:53:02 PM
Ask Senator Mourdock from Indiana what he thinks about exclusive Teatard support. But to be fair, it's not like the seat was held by a man who literally has a letter of merit from President Ronald Reagan and has served consistently since the Carter administration; a man who would have been President Pro Tempore  of the Senate and third in line for the Presidency (if the GOP took the Senate).
 
2013-11-09 06:06:04 PM

cchris_39: "Internecine". Rare that an author or subby sends us to a dictionary. Well done.

The Tea Party is prepared for losses.

/at least this one is


If you had to look up internecine, you are a Teabagger. If you already knew what it meant, you are a Democrat.
 
2013-11-09 06:18:06 PM
Three thoughts:

1) This will play out like 2012's presidential election over a wider scale, wherein the Republican candidates wear themselves out defending themselves from each other, leaving a lot of nice vulnerable spots for the Democratic candidate to pick on.

2) Romney outspent Obama in 2012, so money definitely distorts our elective process but the bigger pile of money and more dedicated corporate backing does not guarantee the bigger pile of votes.

3) This is all going to come down to who the usual conservative media blowhards decide to support.

3a) If we're lucky we'll get infighting between those too.
 
2013-11-09 06:18:26 PM

ghare: cchris_39: "Internecine". Rare that an author or subby sends us to a dictionary. Well done.

The Tea Party is prepared for losses.

/at least this one is

If you had to look up internecine, you are a Teabagger. If you already knew what it meant, you are a Democrat.


And if you didn't know what it meant but refused to look it up, you're an establishment Republican?

I suppose that makes sense.

/oh wait.  I think I had it confused with interregnum.
 
2013-11-09 06:29:16 PM

HooskerDoo: "THIS ISN'T SOME DAMN GAME"!!

[img.fark.net image 300x168]


Where's the juggalo version?
 
2013-11-09 06:46:53 PM

Gyrfalcon: quatchi: So... in the battle of the Super PACs the Dems have a couple of umbrella groups who look after all the Dem House races with very little in-fighting, lowered overhead and skim off by lawyers and the like.

Meanwhile over on the GOP side you've got internecine warfare between a whole bunch of little groups (some of whom have only one donor but are named "Americans for...") some advocating for ideological purity and some for electability. Teatards and old school GOP fighting it out for the brand name of RepublicanTM.

Kinda like watching two junkies fighting over a plastic spoon.

It's really beautiful, actually. Like seeing an old ugly factory imploded in slow motion.


I do NOT like your imagery... It immediately brought to mind the face of Slick Dick Cheney, grinning like an opossum when the towers fell.
 
2013-11-09 06:53:13 PM

andrewagill: ghare: cchris_39: "Internecine". Rare that an author or subby sends us to a dictionary. Well done.

The Tea Party is prepared for losses.

/at least this one is

If you had to look up internecine, you are a Teabagger. If you already knew what it meant, you are a Democrat.

And if you didn't know what it meant but refused to look it up, you're an establishment Republican?

I suppose that makes sense.

/oh wait.  I think I had it confused with interregnum.


Easy mistake to make.
 
2013-11-09 07:40:21 PM
2014 is going to be nasty, no good, very bad year.
 
2013-11-09 08:40:05 PM
Sounds like their could be some very nasty and expensive GOP primaries.
 
2013-11-09 09:34:53 PM
With any luck the two groups will start shooting each other to bring back jesus before christmas to save us all.
 
2013-11-09 10:03:53 PM
FTFA: Super PACs - unlike congressional campaigns - are permitted to raise and spend unlimited funds. The downside, however, is that the campaign and the PAC are forbidden from coordinating. The Federal Election Commission requires a strict firewall between a campaign and a super PAC - meaning that a trusted aide usually needs to helm the outside effort.

In my opinion this rule against PACs coordinating with campaigns has been a driving force behind this Republican party schism. Used to be the National Republican Party would be the main focal point of the big money donors, and they would sort of dictate what went where. This gave the GOP a unified strategy and message.

Now You have a lot of the big donors bypassing the National Republican Party and creating their own PACs. Rather than spreading a unified message with a single strategy, you have a bunch of conflicting personal agendas. Naturally with the current "attack" culture dominant in today's conservatism, those conflicting agendas view each other as the enemy who needs to be destroyed for the sake of "AMERICA!TM", "JesusTM", and "Ronald ReaganTM".
 
2013-11-09 10:12:36 PM

heavymetal: FTFA: Super PACs - unlike congressional campaigns - are permitted to raise and spend unlimited funds. The downside, however, is that the campaign and the PAC are forbidden from coordinating. The Federal Election Commission requires a strict firewall between a campaign and a super PAC - meaning that a trusted aide usually needs to helm the outside effort.

In my opinion this rule against PACs coordinating with campaigns has been a driving force behind this Republican party schism. Used to be the National Republican Party would be the main focal point of the big money donors, and they would sort of dictate what went where. This gave the GOP a unified strategy and message.

Now You have a lot of the big donors bypassing the National Republican Party and creating their own PACs. Rather than spreading a unified message with a single strategy, you have a bunch of conflicting personal agendas. Naturally with the current "attack" culture dominant in today's conservatism, those conflicting agendas view each other as the enemy who needs to be destroyed for the sake of "AMERICA!TM", "JesusTM", and "Ronald ReaganTM".


The unintended consequences of Citizens United strikes again! Ooorah!
 
2013-11-09 10:52:20 PM

Gyrfalcon: The unintended consequences of Citizens United strikes again! Ooorah!


Citizens United was the UTTERLY CORRECT decision.  There's a reason why it was 9-4 (as in 4 judges said "Yeah, this is the correct decision, I just don't like what it implies").

/With the 4.  Absolutely correct.  REALLY don't like where it leads.
 
2013-11-10 01:28:04 AM
Winning a political referendum with money doesn't work forever. I can't speak for all examples, but I remember a bit of progressive legislation that came up in our state some time ago. The first time it popped up, the plucky liberal grassroots organization spent, say, one million dollars; the church-backed conservatives spent, say, ten million dollars. The measure went down in defeat.

A few years later, it popped up again. Again, the plucky liberal grassroots organization spent one million dollars, the church-backed conservatives spent ten. Again the measure went down - but the vote was closer.

A few years later, it popped up again.

Now, imagine you're a church-backed conservative with a countermeasure. You're already twenty million into this thing. What's more, polls show a dead heat in this race; even if you do win, it'll probably pop up again in a few years, and next time it'll definitely lose. Do you really want to burn through another ten million dollars of your backers' money on a high risk just to buy a few more years on the winning side of the culture wars? Can you continue to count on your backers' fat checks?

Like gerrymandering, shoveling money into an election seems like it might buy you a couple of cycles, but it won't halt the arc of history. What the church-backed conservatives did third time 'round was gather the usual speechifiers, throw a half-hearted campaign with a few leftover funds, and let the progressives roll right over 'em in a landslide.

I could be wrong about all this. There might be a few referenda that a wheelbarrow of cash have stopped right in their tracks. But I'd be willing to bet that there's a limit to the amount of cash the Koch Bros. are willing to pour into an election before they decide to cut their losses. It's one thing to literally invent your own political party out of the most intransigent of the right-leaners, but if the movement isn't self-sustaining at this point, sooner or later they're going to halt the gravy train.
 
2013-11-10 02:17:10 AM
Oh I love this so much.  Not only because of the entertainment value and not even because the chickens have come home to roost, but because all this money they are spending against each other is money they are not spending against Democrats.

Go Conservative Teatards go!  No compromise!  Death to RINOs!  Take back America!  Do not surrender in this... YOUR MOMENT OF TRIUMPH!
 
2013-11-10 04:03:58 AM

worlddan: The role of money in politics is overblown. Money is necessary but the idea that the person with the biggest war chest wins is false. Having a good candidate with an effective message who has the organizing skills to get out the vote is more important than tens of millions of dollars.


Exactly the reason why Republicans have to cheat and gerrymander and disenfranchise to win. History will bury them.
 
2013-11-10 04:36:36 AM

dr_blasto: My hope is these groups dig in and fight until there is only one standing and don't reach some kind of compromise (not that I'm really concerned with these conservatives finding out what compromise is at this point in the game) that allows for the existence of mildly disgruntled social nutters and teabaggers to remain in the Republican Party.


MY hope is that they rip each other apart until, finally, the Tea Party is kicked forcefully out of the Republican fold. At which point, guided by retardedly uncompromising principles, the Tea Party becomes an actual 3rd party funded by SuperPACs established by rich religious figures and organizations.  The R's and the T's smash each other to bits for a few election cycles while the Dems look on in amusement until the religious right is finally marginalized out of existence and we can conduct our elections in a much more sane fashion henceforth.
 
2013-11-10 04:58:09 AM

meyerkev: Gyrfalcon: The unintended consequences of Citizens United strikes again! Ooorah!

Citizens United was the UTTERLY CORRECT decision.  There's a reason why it was 9-4 (as in 4 judges said "Yeah, this is the correct decision, I just don't like what it implies").

/With the 4.  Absolutely correct.  REALLY don't like where it leads.



"The Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution."

I don't see how one can read this to mean anything resembling "yeah, this is the correct decision."
 
2013-11-10 05:07:06 AM

meyerkev: Gyrfalcon: The unintended consequences of Citizens United strikes again! Ooorah!

Citizens United was the UTTERLY CORRECT decision.  There's a reason why it was 9-4 (as in 4 judges said "Yeah, this is the correct decision, I just don't like what it implies").

/With the 4.  Absolutely correct.  REALLY don't like where it leads.


...9 to 4?

Anyway, Citizens United would have had a vastly different outcome had it not been argued as a 1st Amendment case. It was that argument--and only that argument--that kept it from being 9-0 or 8-0.

It was a TERRIBLE and UTTERLY WRONG decision.
 
Displayed 25 of 75 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report