Tea Party endorsement n all. I realize what the choices were, but the GOP is going to have to do much better than this. I never did trust this guy to begin with. I don’t remember who said it, but it looks like that pickup doesn’t take ya where ya wanna go after all.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Tea Party endorsement n all. I realize what the choices were, but the GOP is going to have to do much better than this. I never did trust this guy to begin with. I don’t remember who said it, but it looks like that pickup doesn’t take ya where ya wanna go after all.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/12/white-house-shrugs-concern-financial-overhaul-hurt-job-growth/[/quote]
A Republican elected to office in MA HAS to be a stealth-lib, or they’d never get elected. The east and west coasts are dominated by parasites who want to leech off the system and Dems give 'em what they want. Brown only won because these vampires realized that the ‘victims’ are dying.
If the economy turns around (HA!), watch how quickly they go back to hiring a vampire/thug who’ll get the gravy train rolling again.
When are we going to finally realize that it’s a broken SYSTEM???
We get whipped around every election, being promised by someone who “talks our talk” (independent of WHAT your views and/or ideology are)…that they will “fix” it…
And guess what? They learn in short order how things “work”.
Nothing short of a Constitutional Convention will fix “it”…and that’s the reason why I’ve become very cynical and jaded about the promises of any one candidate and/or party. (“Tea” or otherwise).
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Nothing short of a Constitutional Convention will fix “it”…and that’s the reason why I’ve become very cynical and jaded about the promises of any one candidate and/or party. (“Tea” or otherwise).
Mufasa[/quote]
The last time someone tried this a war happened, and the carpet baggers made off with all the money.
Did I miss something? Scott Brown was not mentioned in the article linked.
[quote]Otep wrote:
Did I miss something? Scott Brown was not mentioned in the article linked.[/quote]
Sorry, fixed the link in the first post too. I had a different one on the clipboard and forgot to copy the one I wanted.
Well, for one thing you have to give the Tea Party credit for now going after him. That pretty much shuts up the they are just republicans nonsense that has been going around.
And lets just be fair, a republican in massachusetts is basically a democrat in the midwest.
[quote]John S. wrote:
And lets just be fair, a republican in massachusetts is basically a democrat in the midwest.[/quote]
That is still better than a Democrat from the North East and West Coast.
[quote]John S. wrote:
And lets just be fair, a republican in massachusetts is basically a democrat in the midwest.[/quote]
Hey now…no need for attacks 
I knew he’d be like that - but I fought like hell here to get him elected; for the simple, desperate reason that he was the 41st vote on the healthcare bill. And there was no one else to look to. Which tells us two things: 1. we need to work and focus more closely on the local level so that we have better choices in the first place. 2. more often than not, politics is about compromises, and choosing between or among suboptimal choices. Also, remember it’s Massachusetts for heaven’s sake. It’s rather amazing we even got him in.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
I knew he’d be like that - but I fought like hell here to get him elected; for the simple, desperate reason that he was the 41st vote on the healthcare bill. And there was no one else to look to. Which tells us two things: 1. we need to work and focus more closely on the local level so that we have better choices in the first place. 2. more often than not, politics is about compromises, and choosing between or among suboptimal choices. Also, remember it’s Massachusetts for heaven’s sake. It’s rather amazing we even got him in.
[/quote]
It doesn’t matter how “local” a candidate is. Once he moves to D.C. he will be a beltway boy and be golfing/dining/partying with lobbyists on a daily basis.
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
I knew he’d be like that - but I fought like hell here to get him elected; for the simple, desperate reason that he was the 41st vote on the healthcare bill. And there was no one else to look to. Which tells us two things: 1. we need to work and focus more closely on the local level so that we have better choices in the first place. 2. more often than not, politics is about compromises, and choosing between or among suboptimal choices. Also, remember it’s Massachusetts for heaven’s sake. It’s rather amazing we even got him in.
[/quote]
It doesn’t matter how “local” a candidate is. Once he moves to D.C. he will be a beltway boy and be golfing/dining/partying with lobbyists on a daily basis.[/quote]
Well, every candidate is ultimately “local” - I mean that rather than trying to sort out the pathetic choices we end up with at election time and in the ballot box, that we try to create better choices by working at the local level to organize for, encourage, advocate, fund better candidates in the first place.
And no, I don’t believe that everyone is equally corruptible.
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
LOL, just saw your post. Please point out where anyone in that thread said that Scott Brown is a true Conservative Republican.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
LOL, just saw your post. Please point out where anyone in that thread said that Scott Brown is a true Conservative Republican. [/quote]
I can point to where I said it was incredibly significant that he took Kennedy’s seat, but also that I wasn’t real optimistic about his conservative credentials.