Shock defeat of majority leader Eric Cantor by Tea Party sends shockwaves through Republican Party

[chuckd]

Spoken like somebody that has no dog in this fight.

[folium]

Thanks for that insightful post UG. I am fairly liberal (I have a cousin who is a Republican representative, though and famil votes politics even at the voting booth), but Condolezza Rice would be an interesting choice. That would certainly mix up a lot of things. Republican, black, a woman and probably less 'bought and paid for' than a lot of politicians on both sides. She's conservaitve, but she doesn't seem to be a little more mellow than some of the hard liners.

She also plays a mean piano.

What is truly staggering is the lack of genuine quality options for POTUS in the next election. The US, and the rest of the decent world, desperately need an effective, focused President.

Hilary seems to be the likely Dem candidate, from the GOP.....? Another Bush?

[ClutchClark]

They tend to act on social issues such as abortion, gun control, prayer in schools, and illegal immigration. All are noble causes.

In the minds of some indoctrinated God botherer maybe.

You don't like people that are religious either? The above mentioned topics are noble causes for any concerned citizen with a little common sense.

Conservative republicans use certain buzz words not typical of Democrats and which they seem to think gives their cause some type if "Righteousness".

Example: "Noble" .

These causes you list are not necessarily "noble", they are simply causes.

I am a religious person. I could care a less if someone likes religious people. What is a religious person? There are plenty of Southern born-agains that I pretty much don't like. To me, the very worst of the bible wavers are the ones with the bible in one hand and the Constitution in the other thinking this gives them type of special righteous authority, when in fact their opinion is no more important than anyone elses.

Edited June 20, 2014 by ClutchClark

[ClutchClark]

Thanks for that insightful post UG. I am fairly liberal (I have a cousin who is a Republican representative, though and famil votes politics even at the voting booth), but Condolezza Rice would be an interesting choice. That would certainly mix up a lot of things. Republican, black, a woman and probably less 'bought and paid for' than a lot of politicians on both sides. She's conservaitve, but she doesn't seem to be a little more mellow than some of the hard liners.

She also plays a mean piano.

What is truly staggering is the lack of genuine quality options for POTUS in the next election. The US, and the rest of the decent world, desperately need an effective, focused President.

Hilary seems to be the likely Dem candidate, from the GOP.....? Another Bush?

It seems Americans vote for candidates anymore to vote "out" rather than to vote "in".

Its a reactive society today.

America needs a statesman but that ended with the Clinton election. I liked Bill and so did my investment accounts but no one can accuse the Clintons of being concerned about America. Bush Sr might have given special favor to his cronies but he was still concerned about America. That was the end of the Statesman/Politician. Jeb doesn't have it and Junior sure didn't have it.

Corporate interests have gained too strong of a foothold and they own our politicians today.

Edited June 20, 2014 by ClutchClark

[Chicog]

Thanks for that insightful post UG. I am fairly liberal (I have a cousin who is a Republican representative, though and famil votes politics even at the voting booth), but Condolezza Rice would be an interesting choice. That would certainly mix up a lot of things. Republican, black, a woman and probably less 'bought and paid for' than a lot of politicians on both sides. She's conservaitve, but she doesn't seem to be a little more mellow than some of the hard liners.

She also plays a mean piano.

What is truly staggering is the lack of genuine quality options for POTUS in the next election. The US, and the rest of the decent world, desperately need an effective, focused President.

Hilary seems to be the likely Dem candidate, from the GOP.....? Another Bush?

I think the phrase is "Read it and Weep".

http://2016.republican-candidates.org/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/if-hillary-clinton-doesnt-run-the-democratic-primary-race-in-2016-could-be-one-for-the-ages/2014/03/16/0a4e4b40-ad16-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html

[ClutchClark]

Thanks for that insightful post UG. I am fairly liberal (I have a cousin who is a Republican representative, though and famil votes politics even at the voting booth), but Condolezza Rice would be an interesting choice. That would certainly mix up a lot of things. Republican, black, a woman and probably less 'bought and paid for' than a lot of politicians on both sides. She's conservaitve, but she doesn't seem to be a little more mellow than some of the hard liners.

She also plays a mean piano.

What is truly staggering is the lack of genuine quality options for POTUS in the next election. The US, and the rest of the decent world, desperately need an effective, focused President.

Hilary seems to be the likely Dem candidate, from the GOP.....? Another Bush?

I think the phrase is "Read it and Weep".

http://2016.republican-candidates.org/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/if-hillary-clinton-doesnt-run-the-democratic-primary-race-in-2016-could-be-one-for-the-ages/2014/03/16/0a4e4b40-ad16-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html

I like Jindahl but he has that pigmentation problem for some Republicans.

All I know is that the Republican Debates of 2011 were like some sort of reality series skit where the cast are chosen for their oddball entertainment value to keep ratings up rather than any actual expertise. They even added the most endangered species of them all--an honest politician--Ron Paul.

Maybe the GOP could try and choose candidates that won't make such easy fodder for SNL.

Edited June 20, 2014 by ClutchClark

[folium]

Personally, as a non-voter in the US, but someone with a significant vested interest in a successful USA (on the geopolitical front plus elsewhere), I would take enormous vicarious pleasure to see a Hilary-Condi showdown for President.

The US has got over the Catholic issue, to some degree the black issue..the last remaining shibboleths remain a female and/or gay President, selected on a meritocratic, blind to prejudice, basis. That's what the US should be all about...talent trumps tribalism. But I won't hold my breath....!

[NeverSure]

What happened to the thread about an entrenched House majority leader getting his butt kicked and even shocking the pollsters who had him far ahead even at the end?

No one, not even the pollsters can read tea leaves.

From the OP:

"“Eric Cantor’s loss tonight is an apocalyptic moment for the GOP establishment,” L. Brent Bozell, chairman of ForAmerica, a conservative group that targeted Mr Cantor throughout the primary told the Washington Post. “The grassroots is in revolt and marching.”

Mr Cantor became the first House Majority Leader ever to lose a primary.

Just hours before Mr Brat was declared the winner the Washington Post reported confidently, “The question in this race is how large Cantor’s margin of victory will be.” An internal Cantor campaign poll taken last month had him leading Mr Brat by 62 per cent to 28 per cent."

Edited June 20, 2014 by NeverSure

[folium]

What happened to the thread about an entrenched House majority leader getting his butt kicked and even shocking the pollsters who had him far ahead even at the end?

No one, not even the pollsters can read tea leaves.

From the OP:

"“Eric Cantor’s loss tonight is an apocalyptic moment for the GOP establishment,” L. Brent Bozell, chairman of ForAmerica, a conservative group that targeted Mr Cantor throughout the primary told the Washington Post. “The grassroots is in revolt and marching.”

Mr Cantor became the first House Majority Leader ever to lose a primary.

The victory is ominous for the Republican Party establishment as it suggests the insurgent Tea Party may continue winning primary competitions leaving it with ferociously conservative candidates who fail at general elections.

Just hours before Mr Brat was declared the winner the Washington Post reported confidently, “The question in this race is how large Cantor’s margin of victory will be.” An internal Cantor campaign poll taken last month had him leading Mr Brat by 62 per cent to 28 per cent."

Looks like we, like the few voters in Virginia's primary who bothered to turn out, got bored with the self-serving Mr Cantor...

[Ulysses G.]

They tend to act on social issues such as abortion, gun control, prayer in schools, and illegal immigration. All are noble causes.

In the minds of some indoctrinated God botherer maybe.

You don't like people that are religious either? The above mentioned topics are noble causes for any concerned citizen with a little common sense.

Conservative republicans use certain buzz words not typical of Democrats and which they seem to think gives their cause some type if "Righteousness".

Democrats never use buzz words or talking points do they? It is only those darn republicans.

[Ulysses G.]

I like Jindahl but he has that pigmentation problem for some Republicans.

Talking of dishonest talking points, didn't Herman Cain have that same "pigmentation problem" when he was the front-runner for the republican presidential nomination in the fall of 2011?

[Berkshire]

I like Jindahl but he has that pigmentation problem for some Republicans.

Talking of dishonest talking points, didn't Herman Cain have that same "pigmentation problem" when he was the front-runner for the republican presidential nomination in the fall of 2011?

Cain was a "front-runner?" Cmon UG, you can't be serious. Cain had zero chance. Romney and Perry were always the front-runner, until Perry choked all over himself in the debates. But I agree with your earlier comment about Condi Rice. I know some die-hard Democrats who would vote Republican if Rice or Colin Powell were to run. Will never happen, of course.

Back on-topic, It will be interesting to see how the Republican elite strategize going forward. The Tea Party is very much like the pro-gun movement--not great in numbers, but very vocal. No one wants the Republicans to put up a Tea Party guy as presidential candidate more than the Democrats. Because the Dems know that they can put up Daffy Duck and beat any Tea Party guy in a national election. All they'd have to do is ask the TP guy his opinion on abortion and gay marriage--almost guaranteed to bring a wacky response.

[Ulysses G.]

Cain was a "front-runner?"

He was according to the Washington Post and many other sources - until the media ripped him apart - and, guess what, he was BLACK.

For months, Herman Cain languished on the margins of the Republican presidential campaign. But in the past few weeks, something happened that even Cain did not see coming. He became a front-runner for the nomination.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/herman-cains-surprising-rise-to-gop-front-runner/2011/10/06/gIQAgn7FRL_story.html

Herman Cain Is Still a Front-Runner for 2012

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/herman-cain-is-still-a-front-runner-for-2012/248066/

Edited June 21, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Berkshire]

Cain was a "front-runner?"

He was according to the Washington Post and many other sources - until the media ripped him apart - and, guess what, he was BLACK.

For months, Herman Cain languished on the margins of the Republican presidential campaign. But in the past few weeks, something happened that even Cain did not see coming. He became a front-runner for the nomination.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/herman-cains-surprising-rise-to-gop-front-runner/2011/10/06/gIQAgn7FRL_story.html

Herman Cain Is Still a Front-Runner for 2012

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/herman-cain-is-still-a-front-runner-for-2012/248066/

Honestly, did YOU ever think he had a chance? Even without the sexual harassment issues, Cain never could have won the hearts and minds of the majority of Republicans. I do think race is still an issue within the Republican party. Perhaps not at the very top, but certainly within the rank-and-file. But nevermind Herman Cain, the GOP has got some soul-searching to do. If they try to appease the far right and the Tea Party, they are going to be left in the dust. America going forward is looking less and less like the America that the TP envisions. Even in Thailand, the demographics of Americans in the LOS is not representative of the Americans in the US.

[Credo]

The Republicans should run Monica Lewinsky for President. I don't know that she'd be worse than a lot of presidents and the debates between her and Hillary would be extremely interesting to watch.

[Ulysses G.]

Honestly, did YOU ever think he had a chance?

Yes, I did think he had a chance - a very good one. I also think that Dr Ben Carson has a good chance, but his lack of political experience works against him after the Obama disaster. I know that I would be very reticent vote for Mr Carson. I learned my lesson about two weeks after making a huge mistake in the 2008 election.

IMO, there is still some racism in America in both parties - not a lot - but - despite the dishonest political rhetoric - the democrats are just as guilty as the republicans.

Edited June 21, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[baboon]

That kind of dishonest rhetoric is simple-minded. Many Republicans would vote for Dr Ben Carsons or Sarah Palin. I don't consider myself a Republican but I would vote for Condoleezza Rice before any other candidate that I can think of on either side.

You don't consider yourself a Republican? Eh? Where do you see yourself?

[Ulysses G.]

An Independent. Actually, I have only voted for 2 republicans in my life.

[baboon]

..But you would agree your politics are right of centre?

[Ulysses G.]

Center right. When I was younger, they were center left.

[HeijoshinCool]

I am forever amazed at the number people who actually believe there is a nickel's worth of difference between any of the "parties."

[Ulysses G.]

There is a difference: a lot more far left wackos in the democrat party and a lot more far right wackos in the republican party. The moderates are hard to find these days.

[HeijoshinCool]

All are paid actors, following a script.

[baboon]

There is a difference: a lot more far left wackos in the democrat party and a lot more far right wackos in the republican party. The moderates are hard to find these days.

So where do you see me? Moderate far left wacko, maybe?

[Johpa]

There is a difference: a lot more far left wackos in the democrat party and a lot more far right wackos in the republican party. The moderates are hard to find these days.

Problem is that there are very few from the true left that are allowed to speak on a national stage. Only those that the true leftist Chris Hedges calls "liberal apologists" are allowed to speak in opposition to the far right, and they are for the most part centrists. It is only the extremism on the right that allow these centrists to be branded "leftists". The voice of the true left, the voices of a Chomsky, an Alperovits, or a Nader, are rarely heard on any mass media forum. The corporate controlled media, whether it be FOX or MSNBC, silences these voices and creates a narrative that attempts to marginalizes these people on the true left. So the larger US populace is not given any chance to hear from the true left, only from the liberal apologists of corporate greed who are falsely labeled as being from the left. This is in stark opposition to the period before WWII when socialists and communists and organized labor had loud voices in the national discourse. The healthy result was Roosevelt's New Deal which incorporated some of the more reasonable demands of the true left into national policy. Today even many of the liberal apologists bad mouth organized labor and that is one of the reasons that the USA is slowly crossing the River Styx in a handbasket.

For those wanting to get an introduction to the true left I recommend reading Hedges before delving into the far more difficult discourse of Chomsky.

[ClutchClark]

You don't like people that are religious either? The above mentioned topics are noble causes for any concerned citizen with a little common sense.

Conservative republicans use certain buzz words not typical of Democrats and which they seem to think gives their cause some type if "Righteousness".

Democrats never use buzz words or talking points do they? It is only those darn republicans.

You need to read closer UG as I never suggested anything of the sort. Ofcourse liberal democrats have their own buzzwords but they are not the same as conservatives.

Why do you always look for an argument UG? You even have to put words in a person's mouth just so that you can find an argument and use your negativity inspired sarcasm.

Edited June 21, 2014 by ClutchClark

[Ulysses G.]

I did not put words in your mouth. I quoted you exactly. As far as looking for an argument goes, this is yet another case of the pot calling the kettle black. Please go back and look at your own posts - including the one that I am replying to, before you went back and edited it.

Edited June 22, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[baboon]

Of course UG argues - he has a firm point of view he is prepared to defend. It is healthy discourse I am greatful for, even if I do disagree with the man on pretty much everything.

[ClutchClark]

I did not put words in your mouth. I quoted you exactly. As far as looking for an argument goes, this is yet another case of the pot calling the kettle black. Please go back and look at your own posts - including the one that I am replying to, before you went back and edited it.

I completed editing my post prior to your submitting yours.

I stated Republicans have certain buzz words and I named one that had just appeared in a post.

I then said they are not the words used by Democrats.

So I say it again, when no argument is available then you need to create one by placing words in my mouth.

Atleast NeverSure is intelligent and offers good insight. You and chuckd are like little lapdogs nipping at heels.

Edited June 22, 2014 by ClutchClark

[CMNightRider]

There is a difference: a lot more far left wackos in the democrat party and a lot more far right wackos in the republican party. The moderates are hard to find these days.

Problem is that there are very few from the true left that are allowed to speak on a national stage. Only those that the true leftist Chris Hedges calls "liberal apologists" are allowed to speak in opposition to the far right, and they are for the most part centrists. It is only the extremism on the right that allow these centrists to be branded "leftists". The voice of the true left, the voices of a Chomsky, an Alperovits, or a Nader, are rarely heard on any mass media forum. The corporate controlled media, whether it be FOX or MSNBC, silences these voices and creates a narrative that attempts to marginalizes these people on the true left. So the larger US populace is not given any chance to hear from the true left, only from the liberal apologists of corporate greed who are falsely labeled as being from the left. This is in stark opposition to the period before WWII when socialists and communists and organized labor had loud voices in the national discourse. The healthy result was Roosevelt's New Deal which incorporated some of the more reasonable demands of the true left into national policy. Today even many of the liberal apologists bad mouth organized labor and that is one of the reasons that the USA is slowly crossing the River Styx in a handbasket.

For those wanting to get an introduction to the true left I recommend reading Hedges before delving into the far more difficult discourse of Chomsky.

I'm not certain what you mean "there are very few from the true left that are allowed to speak on a national stage." How do you get more left than Obama, Reid, and Pelosi?