Skip to main content

in a primary, that is.

I like the idea of flooding the Republican Party with liberals. We "help" them nominate Olympia Snowe and then watch as the Tea Party tears her apart like the next iteration of the "Saw" franchise.

Completely unrelated thoughts about Republicans below...............................

If taxpayers are the source of income of entitlement programs...say...Social Security....isn't your Social Security check A TAX CUT?!?!?!? Isn't the medicare payment against a medical bill a tax cut?

Perhaps the money is deferred, but if you live long enough (or your medical needs require it), you get all your money back.

In Republican parlance, tax cuts are "giving money back to the people that earned it." So...therefore...any program that isn't strictly redistributive is a tax cut?

Republicans will say, "Well, I could invest that money better than the government can and I'll get less out of the program than I deserve."

To which I have to respond: Bernie Madoff. Even brilliant people can make bad decisions.

The "big entitlement programs"...the trillions of dollars that Republicans want to cut? Those programs exist as a protection for YOU in the event that SHIT goes south. You pay into them, you reap the benefits.

I'm sorry that some people are going to game the system. If that upsets you, we can talk about ways to mend the programs. There are ways to punish the 1% of freeloaders without harming the right of the 99% to take advantage if they choose to do so.

I'm sorry that some programs are means tested and taxes are higher for the rich.

The rich STILL get to take advantage of government programs and benefits. Again, if conditions merit it you WILL get all of your money back. Plus you get to live in a free country with an environment that provides INCREDIBLE opportunities for people with money.

We have to make tough choices. Republicans spout off about that all the time. Being adult. Making tough choices. Addressing our fiscal crisis seriously.

Well......we live in a democratic republic. Our Senators and Representatives are obligated to reflect our wishes.

When you poll people, what do they consistently say?

1. Don't slash entitlements
2. Tax the rich to balance the budget
3. Cut MY taxes (and not necessarily anyone else's)
4. Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs

That's the will of the people.

Of course Republicans will say that's not what they want. Are they contesting the validity of the polls? When Rasmussen polls it, it comes out roughly the same way.

Are they calling the American people stupid or misinformed? If the polls are accurate and Congress blatantly ignores our will -- they must know something we don't know, right?

Let's get on the right path. The path that the American people themselves want.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (7+ / 0-)

    "Don't worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring its own worries. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34

    by Jonathan4Dean on Mon May 09, 2011 at 09:08:25 PM PDT

    •  You missed the Republican Left. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lujane

      There is such a thing. Solidly Left on economic and international issues, but solidly right against abortion and sorely confused about race.

      Point by point this is progressive position after progressive position.

      No exceptions.

      And the CPAC audience goes wild.

      At primary time this is a winner. Paul's voters are a target for mass conversion in the General Election.

      Financial criminals + Angry White Males + Personality Disorder dreamers + KKKwannabes + George Will =EQ= The GOPer Base (-4.38,-3.74)

      by vets74 on Tue May 10, 2011 at 05:11:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I voted in a Republican primary last June (9+ / 0-)

    to get the teabagger candidate to run against Gerry Connolly. The baggy lost, and Connolly (just barely) won anyway. Whew.

    If you say "gullible" real slow, it sounds like "green beans."

    by weatherdude on Mon May 09, 2011 at 09:21:52 PM PDT

    •  Going back to the 1970's there were times (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vets74, TofG, Amber6541, Lujane

      when one could support a Republican even in the general election with a clear conscience. At least I thought so. Considering factors like seniority and committee assignments, along with a political outlook which was often not so different than most Democrats, the R's were less reprehensible then. A state or district might dump a relatively progressive Republican (once upon a time there were such creatures) in favor of a Democrat with a resulting loss of clout and a significant  shift to the "right" by its representative.

      By the 1980's we had to consider that even if a particular Republican didn't seem particularly odious they would support party leadership which was horrific.

      Even this was before the teabaggers. Now I don't want to do anything which they might even misinterpret as support. Feels too much like playing with fire to me.

      An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out? Rene Descartes

      by Had Enough Right Wing BS on Tue May 10, 2011 at 03:11:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yes, there used to be moderate Repubs around (3+ / 0-)

        especially here in Massachusetts

        "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
        I support Bob Massie for MA-Sen

        by TrueBlueMajority on Tue May 10, 2011 at 05:39:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I voted for John Heinz for many years (3+ / 0-)

        and the reason I did was that he actually was a great senator and represented the state of PA and the people in it wonderfully.  He is the only republican I have voted for over the years.

        I am going to vote for a republican woman in our local country commissioner election.  She is by far the smartest and most educated of all the candidates.  The rest of the field from both parties are old men who have held office now for some time and have never accomplished much.

      •  I was very happy with our Republican (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Had Enough Right Wing BS

        Senator "Mac" Mathias and voted for him a couple times before he retired.  He was even to the left of some current day Democrats.   From his Wikipedia page:

        In 1960, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Western Maryland. He served in the House for eight years, where he aligned himself with the then-influential liberal wing of the Republican Party.

        Mathias was elected to the Senate in 1968, unseating incumbent Democrat Daniel Brewster. He continued his record as a liberal Republican in the Senate, and frequently clashed with the conservative wing of his party. For a few months in late 1975 and early 1976, Mathias considered running an insurgent presidential campaign in an attempt to stave off the increasing influence of conservative Republicans led by Ronald Reagan.

        His confrontations with conservatives cost him several leadership positions in the Senate, including chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. Despite isolation from his conservative colleagues, Mathias played an influential role in fostering African American civil rights, ending the Vietnam War, preserving the Chesapeake Bay, and constructing the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. He retired from the Senate in 1987, having served in Congress for 25 years.

        •  A little more on Mathias (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Had Enough Right Wing BS

          To read about his first Senate race, one would think Mathias was the Democrat and his opponent the Republican based on today's ideology:

          Mathias officially declared his candidacy for the Senate on February 10, 1968, calling for troop reductions in the Vietnam War, and identifying urban blight, racial discrimination, welfare reform, and improving public schools as major issues.[11] As the campaign drew on, the two primary issues became the War and criminal activity. Mathias argued that the extensive bombing campaigns in North Vietnam should be reduced, while Brewster had argued for increasing bombardment. Brewster adopted a hard line stance on law and order, while Mathias advocated addressing the precipiating causes of poverty and the low standard of living in urban ghettos. Campaign finances were also an issue, with controversy erupting over Brewster's receipt of $15,000 in campaign contributions from his Senate staff and their families.

          Once he took office

          He was appointed to the District of Columbia committee, where he argued in favor of home rule in the district and providing D.C. residents full representation in both chambers of Congress.

          •  It was before I could vote, but here in Oregon we (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lujane

            had Wayne Morse and Clay Myers, probably as fine of people who have ever served. Both remain greatly honored.

            Even after I could vote Senators Mark Hatfield and Bob Packwood were hardly fire breathing conservatives.

            Serious people in both parties used to at least try to deal with the nation's issues.

            An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out? Rene Descartes

            by Had Enough Right Wing BS on Tue May 10, 2011 at 06:43:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  They've Long Distorted Our Primaries in Some (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    historys mysteries, TofG, Amber6541

    places.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon May 09, 2011 at 09:40:15 PM PDT

  •  Wouldn't it be better (7+ / 0-)

    to vote for the teabagger opponent to Olympia Snowe, in your example? If you nominated her for the Republicans she'd just win again due to her massive crossover support and popularity. Nominating a teabagger on the other hand would lead to a near-certain senate pickup, because Maine would much rather elect a Democrat than a radical right-winger (with LePage being a product of very specific circumstances).

    •  Agree. Olympia Snow does more harm to (8+ / 0-)

      progressive goals than do the teabaggers.  Get the mealy mouthed, fake moderates like Snowe out of there.  If it weren't for her, we would have gotten a stimulus in 2009 that was 100% stimulus instead of 66% stimulus and 33% tax cuts.

      Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

      by Miggles on Mon May 09, 2011 at 10:03:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Honestly, no.. (0+ / 0-)

      I'd rather face a Senate full of Snowe's than a senate full of Rand Pauls.

      Yes, voting for the most conservative option would probably win us more seats - but at the same time a handful of radical republicans WOULD win.

      I'd rather see Tea Partiers vote against their own candidates (and eventually, frustrated, create their own doomed third party).

      "Don't worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring its own worries. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34

      by Jonathan4Dean on Thu May 12, 2011 at 05:22:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Olympia Snowe is the Lucy Van Pelt of the Senate.. (4+ / 0-)

    The President wasted tons of time & political capital wooing this woman.  In the end, outside the stimulus, she voted like any generic Republican.

    She plays head games.  And her husband was the one who angled for Paul Le Page to get into University by letting him take the entrance exam in French.  She's a Republican to her bone marrow.

    Let Lucy go.....she's no friend of ours.  

Click here for the mobile view of the site