Steve Stockman won’t go away

A poll released today shows Steve Stockman potentially forcing a runoff in the Republican primary for the US Senate seat currently held by John Cornyn. This news is particularly stunning as Stockman has been almost entirely absent from the campaign trail.

These poll numbers are fairly consistent with the pattern David Dewhurst faced in his campaign against Ted Cruz two years ago. Very few Texas Republican primary voters are aware of Stockman, but they are pretty convinced that Cornyn, one of the Senate’s most far-right conservatives, is not crazy enough to represent them.

It remains unlikely that Stockman can find a way to win. He’s just as nutty as Ted Cruz, but he’s not half as competent. As I wrote after Stockman launched his campaign:

Though Cornyn’s poll numbers are very weak for an incumbent, it is unlikely that Stockman will do to Cornyn what Cruz did to David Dewhurst. Cruz may be a modern day Confederate, but he’s also a politically calculating Ivy Leaguer who knows which fork to use.

Stockman, on the other hand, is a walking disaster. He has earned his place in the political world as an opportunist with a talent for the political grift who is probably incapable of managing the most basic mechanics of a campaign on that scale. Stockman makes Ted Cruz look like a credible leadership figure.

These poll numbers almost certainly reflect the blind ‘throw the bums out’ logic of the Tea Party rather than any affection for Stockman. That said, like some sort of political herpes, Stockman just won’t go away.

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in Election 2014, Republican Party
162 comments on “Steve Stockman won’t go away
  1. geronl says:

    We need more members of Congress like Ted Cruz, most of the rest of the so-called GOP are hard to distinguish from the Democrats

  2. desperado says:

    Just the opposite of what Bob Corker said. Keep listening to Republicans.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/19/us-vw-usplant-idUSBREA1I0S820140219

    • CaptSternn says:

      So German unions don’t likethe will of the people. Was there any other point there?

      • bubbabobcat says:

        No Cappy, the German OWNERS (there are no “German unions” in the US) decided to play the same blackmailing game Bob Corker and his fellow Repub thugs started. I thought you were all about the business can do anything they want and they are always right mantra? Except when it doesn’t fit in your “perfect logic”.

        “State Senator Bo Watson, who represents some of Chattanooga’s suburbs, warned that the Republican-dominated legislature was not likely to approve a new incentive package for VW if the plant’s workers embraced the U.A.W. Gerald McCormick, the House majority leader, a Republican, who represents Chattanooga, also warned that such incentives were at risk.”

        http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/business/labor-regroups-in-south-after-vw-vote.html

      • CaptSternn says:

        “Volkswagen’s top labor representative …”

        Not the owners.

  3. DanMan says:

    another day another OFA story of cheating…

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/19/O-Keefe-Battleground-Texas-is-the-New-ACORN

    y’all can’t help yourselves can you?

    • desperado says:

      Heavily edited video tape at 11.

    • Crogged says:

      Well, if this criminal mastermind volunteer just meant that they wrote down the name and number of the person they registered without glancing at the form there would be no violation (which is why the word “apparent” and question marks are used in all the writings about this issue). As with any election records, the forms are also available to the public, which would mean representatives of both political parties.

      http://sos.texas.gov/elections/elo/jwf24.pdf

      So another tempest in a tea pot, full of innuendo. I love the teeth gnashing comments when following these links.

      • desperado says:

        IOW, typical Breitbart and O’Keefe “reporting.” I for one am shocked.

      • DanMan says:

        per your link, see paragraph 4. They perform voter registration as a method for data mining. Hold an event that will attract like minded liberals and make sure you have the means to steer them to the polls.

        Let’s see what happens to Ms. Longoria. I’m thinking she and Mr. Rathke will have to do some dancing soon.

      • Crogged says:

        I think they register voters because they want voters, as opposed to the mysterious and possibly deadly “data mining”, but knock yourself out with this massive conspiracy. Maybe you have a financial connection to Brietbart dot com, which doesn’t have any self-interest in continually milking faux controversies, does it?

    • Tuttabella says:

      This reminds me of an incident from about 7 years ago. I was about to enter my local public library, and there was this lady with a clipboard standing outside who asked if I would sign a petition supporting the right of Mr. So-and-So to run for city council, that it was not a sign of support for the candidate himself, but only for his right to run for office, and I read the petition, and it said exactly that, so silly me, I signed.

      A few days before the election itself, I received an email from the gentleman himself thanking me for my support for his candidacy. I replied to his email, telling him that I did not support him, and that I did not appreciate his people’s tactics.

      Of course, there was no particular political party involved, since it was a city race, so I have no idea which “side” to blame (besides myself, for falling for the ploy.)

      • Tuttabella says:

        You can do something as innocuous as attending a university lecture by a candidate, signing the guestbook, and then having that used as a sign of your “support” for that candidate, or emailing an inquiry to a political party’s website, and having that used as a sign of support for that party. I guess those are just innocuous, political games and tricks, but I think it’s a good idea not to leave any kind of paper trail.

      • Crogged says:

        Sort of like the old days in movie advertising —the movie critic wrote “I saw this horrible movie and it stunk to heaven!” and the ad copy on the poster read “I saw this…..movie and.. …. heaven!”

    • rucasdad says:

      It’s crazy to imagine how O’Keefe (a known criminal by the way) has so much time on his hands when he’s always busy dealing with legal trouble, creating/editing/manipulating videos or paying off people who he smeared in the past. And to think that this is pretty much what Andrew Breitbart will be remembered for. Such a shame for people who like those guys.

  4. texan5142 says:

    “I would like to see Cruz run for president in 2016”

    Me too! It will be a hoot, he tap dances almost as well as you Cap.

  5. Texan5142 says:

    Kabuzz wrote,

    “You guys drink the same Kool Aid everyday. Spouting the same talking points regardless of truth”

    LOL! You probably think irony is something your wife sprays on your shirt to get the wrinkles out.

  6. Tuttabella says:

    Fly – I know the public expects it nowadays, but I personally don’t think it’s becoming of politicians to use Facebook and Twitter and other similar forms of social media. I consider it undignified for grown men and women, especially those in positions of power, to express themselves on forums which provide so many opportunities for remarks which are unnecessary, misconstrued, or just plain dumb, and where good judgment and civility go out the window.

    • flypusher says:

      Tutt, while I think that the anonymity of the Internet can give some people “keyboard courage”, and they will say things online that they wouldn’t dare to say to someone’s face, with some of theses policians they already have the tendency to say really dumb things out loud to people. Social media is just another opportunity to be stupid for them. Stockman’s gun tweet is especially bad; someone running for the Senate ought to be better than the lowest of online trolls.

      • Crogged says:

        And speaking of our huge, unsustainable, out of control debt and our poor children (at least the poor ones who won’t be getting paid the interest on the debt)……in 10 or more years……..

        http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/04/news/economy/budget-outlook-deficits-cbo/index.html?iid=obinsite

      • CaptSternn says:

        One site that starts out with juvenile name calling, and another site run by crooks and liars.

        The claim that he was mocking gun deaths is false. The gun control advocates create free kill zones where a maniac can get the most kills possible before police show up, then cry and demand that the rights of law abiding citizens be further restricted, setting up more free kill zones, making the world safer for criminals. People that call for national registration and background checks for private sales or giving a firearm to a family member are the ones using those deaths, cheapening the loss for political gain and more government control. If they really cared, they would call for an end to those free kill zones.

      • Crogged says:

        And the overwhelming rising tide of violent crime and the need to arm ourselves, oops I mean the overwhelming publicity affecting public opinion regarding the overwhelming rise of crime……….

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/150464/americans-believe-crime-worsening.aspx

      • CaptSternn says:

        Only crime has been going down as more firearms are bought and more states offer CHLs. Remember, you are the only person responsible for your protection. When seconds count, police are minutes away.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Crogged, that is a fine example of why a person should always have a weapon at hand.

      • Crogged says:

        Especially the shower and bathroom said the Smith and Wesson salesman.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Crogged, it’s not about tides of rising crime, or what the news reports say, it’s about simple, basic protection for oneself, and one’s own personal experience, especially in the case of ladies.

        Over the years I’ve been in situations where I felt threatened by guys who were harassing me. Fortunately, I was able to talk my way out of it or call the police for help. There are no guarantees that I will always be so lucky. (Excuse me, sir, while I call the police.)

        So, no, my need for a firearm is not determined by what the newspapers say. Firearms are not a joking matter.

      • Crogged says:

        Ok Tuttabella, I’ll take this. I’m not a woman and haven’t feared for my safety, because I suffer the illusion of nearly all men with regards to physical threats and my ability to meet them. It is a problem in our culture and in many others that men feel a right to make threats against women who don’t do what they want.

        Then, after a divorce, one morning I walked out of my bathroom to an ex sitting in my living room. Guns are for real threats, not existential ones, but this situation was each. What better outcome would have occurred if I had been armed with a gun?

        In your situations, having a gun at that time in your life would have what result right now?

        I told my ex, “What the bad word are you bad word doing bad word here?” Or I could have threatened her with a gun. Or I could have shot her. She left.

        Yes, for people announcing bad intentions to your person then a gun would enable you to stop them. Usually.

        A gun puts holes in people and, solely in my opinion, after that all hell breaks loose if you have any conscience whatsoever, I don’t see any way around that. I may be killed by a gun, I will never kill with a gun.

        For what you’ve been through in your life, your gun makes you feel better. I respect that and why you feel that way.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Crogged, thanks, I respect your decision, too, but it seems you are “essentially” saying that you would rather be dead than to kill someone. To me it sounds self-sacrificial, but I guess you literally would not be able to “live with yourself” after killing someone. I can respect that, too.

        There was one particular guy whom I was able to deter by calling the police, so I figured he was “harmless,” but then I heard years later that he was in prison for murder. You never know, Crogged, what people are capable of.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Crogged, it’s not just about you, it’s also about your loved ones. Could you live with yourself if someone killed your family member, knowing you could have used a firearm, or any other weapon, to prevent it but chose not to?

      • Tuttabella says:

        Crogged, it’s not meant to be a scare tactic, but an honest question, because you really don’t know what might happen.

      • Crogged says:

        No, the other concerns were my children and I treat their safety absolutely and, well, that ex—-no way did we need to have fire arms around. Self sacrificing was more about self preservation.

        The only way a gun would be safe in my house would require minutes to react to any perceived threat. In my situation I assessed the downside as bigger and more certain than the upside.

        People have a right to guns. Is it an absolute, anything, all the time, we have to do everything in our power to have more people have more guns within reach more of the time–not so much.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Crogged, many years ago I shared an apartment with a roommate. Said roommate got into some bad habits and a bad crowd. He ended up owing money to somebody that owed money to somebody else. That somebody else pushed his way into our apartment one evening. Big man with a little gun. Snub nose .38 revolover. I was the one that got robbed.

        Want to know what fear is like? Fear is having a revolver in your face, seeing the bullets in the cylinder, knowing you are about to take one in the face and praying you don’t piss yourself until after taking one in the face. I had time and opportunity to arm myself, and even had the drop on the guy, only not having a firearm.

        I moved out the next day and have had firearms in my home since then. Now I have a CHL and I am almost always armed when not on duty. I won’t face that kind of fear again. I will kill a person if the need arises. I pray that never happens. And now that Tutt and I are taking long road trips, it is even more important to have the means to protect the both of us. Not always from people, either. We get out into wilderness often, wild animals can be dangerous.

        No, I am not walking around like a badass looking for trouble. I probably go more out of my way now to avoid it than before getting the CHL. A calm word and cool-headed attitude usually difuses any situation, and occasionally gets an apology from the aggressor. And it is easy to remain calm knowing I have the means to deal with a situation that would get out of hand. If I were to get into an argument and then shoot, the law says I would be charged with murder.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        “If I were to get into an argument and then shoot, the law says I would be charged with murder.”

        Apparently “charged” but not convicted. Not in Florida and not if you shoot an unarmed Black kid. Then it’s all open season. Too bad Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis can’t be around to argue the point with you.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Crogged, I don’t think it’s so much a matter of making firearms readily available as it is about NOT CURTAILING access. There is a difference. As you pointed out, it is a right, but not everyone is going to choose to exercise that right.

        In any case, for the record, I find the “Liberal Tears” photo offensive, but I also don’t agree with joking about someone who feels the need to protect him or herself with a firearm. The use of firearms, the valid reasons for it, and the tragedy that can result from their use, are not a laughing matter.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Bubba, the Zimmerman/Martin case was a different matter. Martin physically attacked and attempted to beat Zimmerman to death, bashing his head onto concrete. The original decision not to press charges was correct, as was the verdict.

        Dunn is going to prison. Did you know that there are laws in places that ban vulgar language because it provokes violence? Did you know that it is illegal to threaten to kill somebody? It is called assaul by threat. I disagree with laws against vulgar language, but agree with laws against threatening to kill somebody. The jury had a reasonable doubt on some charges. Blame the prosecution, because he was charged and tried. Or maybe you don’t like the idea of trial by jury?

      • Crogged says:

        Tutt, I have no idea what photo you are talking about? Captain I think your moving away from the situation was the more effective response than arming yourself (you haven’t been attacked since), but I understand why you feel safer with your gun.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Crogged, I had no means of escape in the apartment. Nor do I care for the idea that I should be legally required to retreat. I have not been the victim of a home invasion since then, nor an armed robbery. But it happens to people every day. I hear about it a lot in my line of work, IT support for police officers. They really do encourage people to arm themselves and get a CHL. I have one now because of that encouragement.

        But it isn’t for everybody, nor should it ever be required that people purchase, own and carry firearms. My mom is considering getting a CHL, I neither encourage nor discourage her doing so. I think it would be a good idea, but she has to be prepared to shoot and kill a person. Pulling a weapon means using it. Pulling it and not using it can put the person in even more danger, unless the agressor already intends on doing serious harm or murder. She does keep a loaded weapon in her house, and I have no doubt she could and would use it against an intrruder.

        It is a big responsibility. CHL holders usually know that, which is why we are the most law abiding group, even more so than police officers.

      • CaptSternn says:

        The photo Tutt is talking about is the link in the first post of tis particulare discussion. I don’t so much find it offensive as I do find it in bad taste. It doesn’t help Stockman, but he did introduce a bill against gun free zones like Newtown. Private businesses have every right to prohibit firearms on their property. In my opinion, that is no different than refusing service to certain people for any reason, or no reason at all.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Crogged, one more question before we move on to Lifer’s new blog entry: If given the opportunity, would you have the second amendment repealed?

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Cap where do you have proof Jordan Davis threatened to kill anyone? The word of Dunn? He was proven a liar by his own fiancee’s testimony. Dunn got 60 years for stepping out of his car and shooting a total of 10 times at a car that was driving away and never shot back at him. Dunn was not defending himself. He still needs to be convicted for murdering Davis and the prosecutor will retry him. Would you be happy if someone who murdered your loved one was put in jail for a shoplifting charge?

        If anyone had reason to invoke the “Stand Your Ground” law, it would be Trayvon Martin as we have a 911 call proof that Zimmerman was told to back off by the 911 operator yet he continued to stalk and confront Martin who did nothing wrong. Other than being Black.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Bubba, the jury spoke, and their verdict stands. No double jeapordy.

        And I see you like making things up about the Zimmerman case. None of what you said is true. The 911 operator has no authority, and Zimmerman had already lost sight of Martin and was returning to his truck to wait for police, taking the ADVICE of the 911 operator.

        Go back to trolling Dan. You really have nothing more to say to me. You don’t get to make up your own “facts” or substitute your fantasy over reality.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Whatever Cap. You are one to talk about your own reality. It’s been well documented Zimmerman disregarded the 911 operator and continued to stalk Martin. And the Dunn verdict on the murder charge was deadlocked 9-3 and declared a mistrial and the prosecutor said they will retry him. There is no double jeopardy. Talk about making up your own facts.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      You are making a huge leap fly, even for you. Your hatred has blinded you.

    • flypusher says:

      Bridge burning as a politcal strategy- it should make an interesting cautionary tale for future generations.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Interesting opinion, but not exactly accurate from another point of view. Cruz not only remembers the 2010 elections, but the 2012 primaries. Cruz is standing up for his beliefs, beliefs that would help the people and the nation. The media and a lot of people blame republicans for the government shutdown, but the reality is that democrats shut the government down, unwilling to compromise.

      Now the Obama administration has actually vindicated Cruz and tea party backed republicans. Obama is changing laws at will, skipping congress. He is taking power that does not belong to the executive branch. The fact that democrats and liberals are supporting it is likely to hurt them. RINOs that cave and enable such things will be facing serious challenges in this year’s primaries. Both groups know that, and are afraid.

      There is an uprising in progress, the tea party movement. It is time to stop the destruction and harm being done to this great nation, to our liberty and rights. It started back when Bush43 was president, and has gained momentum over the years. We won big in 2010, but not big enough, and managed to hold our ground in 2012. 2014 could be another big year for us.

      Too early to make any real predictions, but things are going badly for democrats and they know it. Obama has attempted to unilaterly change laws, but the laws have not actually been changed. Most likely corporations and insurance companies will abide by the laws as written, not by Obama’s speeches. If that does happen, well, we don’t mind major victories in midterms as long as we win and the nation prospers for it.

      I would like to see Cruz run for president in 2016. Midterms first, then consider 2016.

      • DanMan says:

        Obama had the IRS suppress the heck out of many non profit political groups on the right in 2012. New rules have been developed by the IRS to clarify who gets to play and who doesn’t and the left is shocked to find the rules put unions in the same category as the groups the IRS had not been approving.

        Having Obama use the IRS to do this should bother any American. Oddly, it only bothers the left when it includes their groups.

      • John Galt says:

        I’d like to see him run, too, though I suspect our expectations of the outcome would be rather different.

  7. flypusher says:

    By what criteria would Cornyn be considered a liberal anyway?

    • DanMan says:

      he plays games with his constituents like liberals do

    • texan5142 says:

      Good question, you got me.

      Apparently their main motivation is Cornyn’s refusal to support the idea of shutting down the government if Obamacare isn’t defunded.
      Read more at http://themoderatevoice.com/185266/john-cornyn-liberal/#EhOfOzg214uWT6iQ.99

      http://www.factcheck.org/2013/12/how-liberal-is-sen-cornyn/

      • DanMan says:

        Here’s Cornyn’s latest two-step. Cruz stopped the procedural vote Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell arranged. He forced them to vote for cloture, which would stop any debate (not that there was going to be any, but rules is rules). It takes 60 votes. Democrats needed some republicans. So the liberal caucus within the GOP senate came forward to provide the votes. Now you contend Cornyn did the wise thing by voting not to shut down the government.

        You are aware Cornyn voted against the clean debt limit aren’t you? That is his campaign quality show vote. The vote that mattered was the cloture vote. And he sided with the democrats. He has done this many times and so have several liberal GOP senators. That is the game he plays.

        Anybody voting for Steve Stockman knows this and trusts Mr. Stockman more than McCornyn. Having liberals offer their two cents is merely entertainment.

      • texan5142 says:

        Oh my God you mean he compromised and did what he thought was best for the country….the horror!

      • rucasdad says:

        So basically, the short answer is….he put country before party and wasn’t willing to go along with this idiotic, spiteful, anti-Obama/democrat/librul agenda. That’s respectful and patriotic therefore, I can see why you guys don’t like him.

      • DanMan says:

        No. He lied. And he pushes the lie through his campaign ads.

        I have yet to hear a single liberal, dem or repub explain how they expect this to end? If piling on exorbitant debt is sustainable I would like it explained to me. None have because they can’t. But they will push a lie. Some of believe we are saving the country by requiring normal order legislation with defined costs and outcomes. Liberals do not have such limits because their only reality is the present.

        Cornyn has merely joined the club. He needs to get re-elected to remain in the club.

      • DanMan says:

        texan5142 and rucas, you both are parroting Cornyn’s meme, that he compromised and therefore did what’s best for the country, yet he actually voted against it when he had cover. It’s easy to see how you fell for Obama.

      • rucasdad says:

        A politician lied?! Oh….the HORROR…

      • rucasdad says:

        As it’s easy to see why you can seriously sit there and support someone like Stockman. But hey, to each their own!

      • desperado says:

        Liberal caucus in the GOP Senate. There’s a group that could meet in a phone booth.

      • desperado says:

        Liberal Republicans in the Senate. Party of none, your table is ready.

      • CaptSternn says:

        No, he didn’t country before party. That’s the problem. Cruz does put country before party. We need many more like him in D.C..

      • desperado says:

        Cruz puts Cruz before country, party, or anything else.

      • flypusher says:

        “Cruz does put country before party. ”

        Yeah, because defaulting on financial obligations is exactly what the nation and the world needed. Like treating a blister by suggesting amputation. Nucking Futz!

      • kabuzz61 says:

        You guys drink the same Kool Aid everyday. Spouting the same talking points regardless of truth. If you lefty liberals knew your math, you cannot sustain the debt like this. Impossible.

      • CaptSternn says:

        There would be no default, Fly. That is just a lie fed to you by leftists. Or did you know that and perpetuate the lie?

      • flypusher says:

        “There would be no default, Fly. That is just a lie fed to you by leftists. ”

        Yeah, like all those lying lefties at the WJS.

        http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/02/05/six-ways-debt-ceiling-brinkmanship-can-hurt-the-u-s/

        Your ends do NOT justify these means, even if you weren’t grossly exaggerating.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Fly, there is more than enough revenue to pay the interest on the debt, for defense, social security, medicare and veterans’ benefits. Raising the debt limit without cutting soending has already caused our credit rating to be lowered once. That is the real damage.

      • desperado says:

        “Raising the debt limit without cutting spending has already caused our credit rating to be lowered once. That is the real damage.”

        The next time you get something right will be the first time. Our credit rating was lowered because Republicans took us dangerously close to default.

    • rucasdad says:

      What’s funny is watching the *slightly more intelligent tea people defend Cornyn from the absolute knuckle-draggers….it’s like people arguing whether they want to have throat or colon cancer. It’s deadly and sad.

  8. rucasdad says:

    My question is: Who takes the tea people serious anymore other than the tea people?

    • DanMan says:

      the old guard of the GOP

      • rucasdad says:

        Ok, but other than those who are directly effected by the GOP civil war…who takes these guys serious?

      • DanMan says:

        why would anyone who is not affected care? why do you care? you wouldn’t vote for Cornyn if you were here

      • rucasdad says:

        No, but Dan….who takes these guys serious? Please, don’t shy away from the question…

      • DanMan says:

        I did answer the question. See my first response.

      • rucasdad says:

        I’ll give you that. Establishment Reps definitely are yet they’re the ones who helped create this monster so that’s well deserved. However, that is all. The rest of America is just over this anti-Obama silliness and would rather move forward to getting this country on track and that’s regardless if the tea people are on board or not. It’s called being left behind and the ones being left behind are usually the last ones to know it.

    • CaptSternn says:

      The GOP establishment takes us seriously, as do democrats. That’s why democrats are running from Obama and Obamacare as fast as they can. That’s why Obama is usurping power and bypassing congress, changing laws by executive action in hopes of fending us off in the coming elections.

      • rucasdad says:

        If you were to give me a tea person minus the social issues and the heavy bible-thumping, I’d honestly be terrified or impressed. But that’ll never happen so there’s that.

    • all the democrats who were forced out in 2010 giving the GOP control of the house of representatives . . . and all the democrats and republicans who are facing tough elections in 2014.

      • rucasdad says:

        Yea, all the incumbent Republicans in deep red states but on the flip side, that’ll just be better for Democrats in the long run. It’s chess my friend, not checkers.

  9. Texan5142 says:

    What is it with Texas and their love for carpetbaggers.

  10. flypusher says:

    Still nobody wants to tell us about Stockman himself. OK. Then I’ll get it started:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/10/Cloud-of-financial-ethical-questions-surrounds-Steve-Stockman

  11. Daniel Marsh says:

    When the bums are so reprehensible, so liberal, so corrupt, so spineless, so possessed by insider interests, what’s wrong with throwing the bums out? Especially when the bum runs the NRSC into the dirt by consistently backing the likes of Arlen Specter?

  12. kabuzz61 says:

    How sad. The extreme left echo chamber doesn’t understand the TEA Party. How could they when their own views are so far left and off the charts Mao looks like a TEA Party member.

    And John Galt, if you don’t know the difference between quantity and severity, well, that says it all.

    Now we have a president that doesn’t even follow his own law passed by congress. He refuses to enforce it.

    Personally I love it when Obama plays gold or has star studded party’s because that means our country has a reprieve.

    The mid terms are coming and the dem’s can’t run fast enough away from their record and Obama’s. You know it’s true. Then when the senate is under GOP control, we’ll see how important these scandal’s are.

  13. DougH says:

    “blind ‘throw the bums out’”

    Do you really believe that? That only people who will vote like you are casting an informed vote? What arrogance!

    I am one voter who hopefully will help throw the race into a runoff, and I’d wager that I know more about the voting records and stances of several of the candidates than do you and your backup band.

    • flypusher says:

      Then inform us Doug. What qualities does Stockman posses that would make you vote for him?

    • Turtles Run says:

      So please. Share with us, why would Stockman make a better Senator than John Cornyn? Because despite the topic not one tea party supporter has expressed why they are voting for him.

      This invitation is open to all.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Turtles, Dan has made some good points about the problems Cornyn has with conservatives. He caves in when democrats and establishment GOP push. He compromises to the left, never able to pull democrats to compromise to the right. We ned more real conservatives with spines. The nation is not headed in a good direction, and has suffered over the past seven years of democrats and RINOs running things. Not that it didn’t suffer when RINOs were running things, just not nearly as badly.

      • flypusher says:

        And still NOTHING about Stockman’s specific virtues. Can’t you find any?

      • Turtles Run says:

        Cappy – I agree. I keep reading all the bad Cornyn has done: put country first and all but where are the comments listing the positive qualities of Stockman. If tea party members are going to vote for someone I would think they would be able to say something about his record that they like.

        Sems to me that the Stockman votes are simply a negative reaction to someone that dared to not blackmail the nation again.

  14. lomamonster says:

    It is painfully obvious that right wing Tea Party nut cases first state that President Obama is NOT a leader, then they counter that argument by proclaiming that he is a dictator ruling by decree and executive orders. Does anyone see anything convoluted about their having it both ways?

    Face it, the Tea Party is toast and will be eaten with royal jelly come election time.
    Tastes mighty fine!

    • flypusher says:

      We also have people who claim out of one side of their mouths that Obama is a Muslim, but the other side is castigating him for Rev. Wright. Make up your minds.

      • lomamonster says:

        If anything, the right wing has aroused the Moral Majority in America once again (their mistake), for out of their mouths have issued the most grievous utterances against Man and Nature. There will be a severe price to pay.

    • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

      We have mid-term elections in 2014, and I absolutely would bet that the Tea Party folks will do more toasting of victory than they will be toast come election time.

      Presidential and other elections in 2016 likely will be a different story, but a small band of highly motivated folks can make big differences in mid-term elections.

      Regardless of the source of their motivations or the particularly poor direction some of those motivations might lead the country, it is safe to say that the Tea Party folks are much more motivated than your typical voter.

      I believe that before Nate Silver went dark developing his own website, he had the Senate as a toss up between Democrats and Republicans.

      • flypusher says:

        2016 will be very interesting. I’ve learned that 2 years can be an eternity in politics, but I’ve never seen the alarm bells go off the way they’ve been sounding (in so many different places) concerning the future electoral prospects for the GOP. Even the people who get that can’t refrain from shooting the party in the foot as they try to help (Huckabee being the latest). It’s like watching the horror movie and you’re yelling at the screen, “Don’t go into the basement. You’ll be sorry!”

      • bubbabobcat says:

        So Cap you admit you are not pro-business or pro-employee or pro-middle class. You just want to hoard your guns, gold, and cans of beans all by your lonesome in your apocalypse shelter.

        Got it.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Sorry for the above misplaced post. Overshot the correct thread by a mile.

      • DanMan says:

        no worries, no one could tell anyway

  15. CaptSternn says:

    Did I say that this format sucks? Why do I keep getting kicked out and have to reccreate trhe profile?

    • John Galt says:

      I have to re-login almost every time I post, mostly using the “Change” link to the right of my info below the reply box. It is annoying.

    • goplifer says:

      I don’t know. This one is completely open except for spam and posts with more than two URLs.

    • flypusher says:

      I occasionally have to re-enter my password, but that’s it. I’m using Apple products to browse/ post.

      • Tuttabella says:

        I seem to be permanently logged in, whether it’s Apple, Android, or Windows. I don’t even see a Log OFF button. Strange. As I’ve said, this place is like Sartre’s NO EXIT. Repetitive, circular conversations. Wanting to leave but not able to resist the pull of this place. No mirrors, dependent on the views of others to tell us what we look like and how we appear. As the title of this blog says: “Because leaving isn’t exactly an option.”

      • desperado says:

        Welcome to the Hotel California. You can check out any time you like but you can never leave.

    • Turtles Run says:

      I only have to log in once a week. I use a WordPress account and I reply most often from my tablet or home PC.

  16. Tuttabella says:

    Today’s talk of “savage” cultures and SENATOR Cruz (how’s that for civilized?) knowing which fork to use brings to my mind the episode of Gilligan’s Island that went something like this:

    The mysterious mute, savage boy who washed ashore (Kurt Russell?) is getting ready to eat a coconut, or whatever the meal consists of, and he’s being observed closely by Mr. and Mrs. Howell, who are trying to determine where he came from:

    Mr. Howell says: “Lovey, if he uses the fork on the left side, he’s a Harvard man. If he uses the fork on the right side, he’s a Princeton man.”

    The savage boy suddenly starts attacking the coconut with his mouth, and Mr. Howell cries, mortified: “Good God, Lovey, he’s a YALE man!”

  17. CaptSternn says:

    Well, you see, many people that voted for Dewhurst in the first round changed their minds. They are now quite happy that Cruz won the nomination and the senate seat. I didn’t vote in the first round, but did vote in the runoff. Cruz has not only lived up to his word, he has been vindicated.

    It is good that incumbents won’t feel safe in the primaries, and that the republican nominee will win the general election. It holds their feet to the fire if nothing else. Holds them accountable for their actions and senate votes.

    You said you are a Lifer because you have no choice, imprisoned. But you do have a choice and you are not imprisoned. The GOP establishment fears us more than democrats. That is because we can pull the GOP back to right of center rather than be a DNC Lite. This year could be a very good year for us.

    Obama is attempting to rule by decree, not even issuing executive orders. Rule as a dictator. But the laws have not been changed. He can’t do that by decree, he is not a dictator and more people are starting to wake up.

    After the 2006 elections I figured teh deocrats, the leftists, winning would be a good thing. Not for the nation in the short term, but in the long term. Let them have the power so people will see what damage will be done. But most of the leftists had no idea that ddemocrats won in 2006, so they voted democrat in 2008. Now see what damage has been done by the leftists, including the GOP establishment? Nope, still blaming Bush43 and republicans in general. Nor did I have a clue about the extent of the damage that would be done.

    And the tea party movement was declared dead on April 15, 2009. Up to 100 million people will be losing health insurance this year. No predictions, but it could be a very good year for us, and that would mean a very good year for the people and the nation in general. Does that frighte you, Lifer?

    • flypusher says:

      Cappy, do you know ANYTHING about Stockman? Seriously do you? Your response has nothing to say about why he specifically would be an improvement over Cornyn. That should make you pause. Stockman is the one candidate with the potential to be a bigger disaster than Akin, Angle, And O’Donnell combined.

    • John Galt says:

      “The GOP establishment fears us more than democrats.”

      And for good reason. The Democrats seem unable or unwilling to split the GOP by appearing centrist. So the TP can do the job for them by splitting the GOP in the crazy and crazier wings.

      And, Sternn. Words have meanings. Saying Obama is ruling as a dictator does not make it so, it just makes you appear to be a frightened Chicken Little screaming that the sky is falling.

      • DanMan says:

        words have meaning…from Capt Sternn’s link

        “This is very disturbing…The problem is not simply that he said one thing and then did the opposite, but rather that he knew when saying it the first times that the more young people kept their existing insurance coverage the harder it would be to control the costs of the increased coverage for older and more at-risk people under the new law. Thus he knew that the more he kept his promise the more trouble he could be in. And therefore it has to be said that he knew when he was promising that he would do his damndest to break the promise. He knew not only that it was not going to be true but also that he would be the chief actor in its not being true. This deserves not four Pinocchios, but eight, or fifteen, or fifty.”

        Obama is absolutely spanking the young and the pain will last a very long time. My prediction is that in ten years no one will admit voting for the guy.

    • John Galt says:

      And 100 million might lose health insurance? Seriously? 50 million American are on Medicare, 70 million on Medicaid and 50 million are/were uninsured. Another 12 million are government employees, who aren’t about to lose their insurance. So that’s 182 million (plus the dependents of government employees), meaning there’s only 120 million left.

      Try to keep the hyperbole to a reasonable level.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, John, the democrats and leftists walk in lock-step. There is no questioning. just follow like good little sheeple and repeat the mantra, the propagamda. Yes, up to 100 million will lose health insurance, but that only promotes socialsism and communism, total government control over health care.

        Yes, ruling by decree, changing laws with statements, not even executive orders. Dictator. Guess what, the next republican president will have that same power. What if that is Ted Cruz? Be careful what you wish for, because it could just as well be Stockman or Palin.

        Boo!

      • flypusher says:

        We really do need to set up a betting pool over Palin’s or Cruz’s chances in 2016.

        I’ll put my chips on “snowball’s chance in the infernal regions”.

      • John Galt says:

        I guess I am not too worried about the next Republican president abusing the powers Obama has been using, since every president in living memory has done exactly the same thing. Heck, Obama isn’t even in the lead in terms of using signing statements and executive orders – not even close, actually.

        You are suggesting that pretty much every single American with employer-sponsored health insurance will lose it this year. That is a ridiculous statement that shows, yet again, that you are at no risk of coming within a country mile of actual facts.

      • CaptSternn says:

        No John, we are not talking executive orders. Just ruling by decree. Presidential statements issued to the media. Changing and creating legislation by decree. Bypassing the legislative branch. No executive orders. Yes, 100 million people will likely lose health insurance. Thems the facts. Happy with that?

        Seriousl? Now I can’t post with my account?

      • John Galt says:

        Except that none of what you write is true. None of it. It’s just nonsense you dreamed up after falling asleep in front of the TV tuned to Glenn Beck after a dinner of bad nachos.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Stern…we are a touch over 300 million people in the US…and your position is that fully a third of the US population is going to lose their insurance due to Obamacare?

        Heck, I think estimates are that 40 million folks didn’t have healthcare before Obamacare, so now we are talking about 40% of folks with health insurance will now lose it?

        Would you mind walking us through the steps of how that happens?

      • flypusher says:

        So come next Feb 18, if I still have my employer provided health insurance, I’ll be back to post “Nyah, Nyah, Nyah.” Because seriously, that’s the level of response that claim currently merits, given the lack of any evidence to back it up.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Sure, John. Obama never tried to unilaterly change the law and require end of life counseling, a.k.a. death panels, bypassing congress, except when he did and reversed course when exposed. He never just up and changed the law, saying insurance companies could continue to offer illegal policies, bypassing congress after abou 6 million people lost their policies. He never tried to unilaterly change the law by saying companies between 50 and 99 employees would not have to insure those employees, violating the law. He would never stand before the nation in a State of the Union adress and openly admit he would bypass congress. It’s all lies, just a vast right wing conspiracy, right, John?

      • CaptSternn says:

        HT, it isn’t my position, it is the position of the Obama administration.
        http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/

        Fly, what you are saying is that if you get to keep yours, to hell with everybody else. And the left calls us greedy and uncaring.

      • flypusher says:

        No, I’m holding you to your dire predictions. If I keep mine, the large numbers of people who are also insured the same way would also keep theirs.

      • John Galt says:

        Despite the incendiary headline to that blog post, the administration did not at any point suggest that 93 million Americans would lose their health coverage. The estimate was about a fairly arcane issue of grandfathered health plans. Pre-existing plans that were not 100% ACA compliant were (are) allowed to continue under a grandfathering provision. If there were, in the future, substantive changes to the terms of these plans, then they would lose their grandfathering. What constituted a substantive change was defined in a link that the blog author assumed no one would read. So will insurance plans for many Americans eventually change? Yes, and some of them will get better. I don’t know about you, but my insurance plan changes pretty much every year, and it’s never for the better. Will 93 million Americans be dropped from employer-sponsored plans? No, absolutely not. Although, frankly, I think we’d be better off if there were a functioning insurance exchange market that could reasonably replace the employer option. Tying one’s health insurance to employment is an anachronism of terrible industrial policy from 60+ years ago and ought to disappear.

      • DanMan says:

        Obama is undercutting the method that was enacted into law to make the wealth transfer Galt. He has been given a clean new debt limit to prove he can make this work. I predict it won’t.

        This whole failure is all Obama and democrats. They made it so wonderful when they were pushing it through and now can’t get far enough away from it. Obama has made 28 changes to the law so far and all them have delayed the disastrous impacts that began unfolding within two weeks of the opening of the exchanges.

        You are not ignorant of these facts, you are willfully ignoring them.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        So in addition to regurgitating his own tired unsupportable alternate reality, Cappy regurgitates already debunked sky is falling Chicken Little fearmongering histrionics. OV already linked to this OPINION piece of a PROJECTED figure from 2010. And it was 93 million, not 100 million. Not that factual accuracy was ever a concern for you.

        It does say that a 2010 projection (i.e. guess, educated or otherwise) MAY have a large number of employer sponsored health insurance lose their grandfathered status. Horrors!

        Have you used an employer sponsored health plan? They change yearly and raised their rates yearly long prior to the ACA was a gleam in anyone’s eyes. As Chris already noted in a previous blog and you conveniently ignored.

        Now Cappy, 1t’s 2014 and not 2010 and the ACA has been implemented. No projections/guesses/stabs in the dark needed much less valid from 4 years ago. Please provide data (i.e. hard facts) of the “up to 100 million who will be losing health insurance this year”.

      • DanMan says:

        The disconnect is wide for bubba isn’t it? An article written one month after the exchanges opened reveals facts that were never disclosed to explain the disaster that was unfolding.

      • flypusher says:

        “I don’t know about you, but my insurance plan changes pretty much every year, and it’s never for the better. ”

        Tell me about it. For example, when I started my postdoc, the dental portion of my insurance actually covered a big chunk of the cost of wisdom teeth removal. I jumped on that immediately (and it needed to be done, because they were impacted and pressing on neighboring teeth). Had I waited, I would have had to pay more and more, because each year the plan offered covered less and less.

      • CaptSternn says:

        So basically, and predictably, it goes from, “You’re crazy, that would never happen” to, “Of course it will happen, and that’s a good thing.” Will be an interesting November.

      • John Galt says:

        While some employers will drop health insurance, most won’t. I think, as do most economists, that it would be better overall for health insurance to not be linked to one’s job. This limits choice for consumers (I have one and only one option for provider) and limits the ability of people, particularly those with pre-existing conditions, to change jobs or become entrepreneurs. It is also a mostly hidden cost whose runaway inflation has suppressed wages for the last few decades. But this was not the purpose of the ACA.

        I know that was a complex set of ideas, so I typed slowly to help you understand it in between grunts of, “Obamacare, bad.”

      • bubbabobcat says:

        In other words, the consummate Obama haters Dan and Cappy fell for the Fox fake ACA horror stories because that’s what they want to believe.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/us/politics/human-volleyballs-in-the-health-care-clash.html?ref=health

        Where’s the 93 – 100 million losing insurance? On Fox of course!

      • CaptSternn says:

        John, do you think a paycheck should be linked to a person’s job? Or do you support people having an income whether they work or not?

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Nice totally irrelevant non sequitur Cappy. But you are the expert at deflection and nonsensical rants.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Benefits are a form of pay, Crogged. vacation time, sick days, paid holidays, paychecks, insurance, all forms of reimbursement.

      • CaptSternn says:

        D’oh! My appologies to Crogged. I was replying to Bubba.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Cap I still don’t see how that relates to JG’s point of job mobility and entrepreneurship with universal independent health insurance that is not tied to a job. People are now free to leave their crappy job if they wish and still can get affordable health insurance. They can also become independent business people and contractors without having to worry about coverage or how to pay for a catastrophic medical or health issue. That point has already been made (by Chris I believe). As crappy as the ACA rollout has been, it should still be a boon for the economy, small businesses, and independent entrepreneurs.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Insurance policies were always available separate from employer provided benefits. Many employers that do offer the benefits also allow an employee to opt out. About 6 million such plans were canceled late last year because of Obamacare.

        So what other benefits do you want the government to hand out rather than earning as a form of compensation for work?

      • rucasdad says:

        Mmmmm….nachos.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        So Cap you admit you are not pro-business or pro-employee or pro-middle class. You just want to hoard your guns, gold, and cans of beans all by your lonesome in your apocalypse shelter.

        Got it.

      • John Galt says:

        Getting one’s health insurance through an employer makes exactly as much sense as getting one’s car insurance that way. This silly system began as a way to get around pay freezes in the post-WWII era (the horrible industrial policy) by offering non-monetary benefits. My comment had nothing to do with government benefits.

        My employer offers an opt-out, too. I can choose to not accept their health insurance. If I do so not one red cent of the premium they pay on my behalf (part of my compensation) will be converted into my paycheck. So, of course, that would be insane for me to do.

      • DanMan says:

        It adds to your income for tax purposes.

      • CaptSternn says:

        No, Bubba, you don’t “got it”. In fact, it looks more like you have lost it.

        John, maybe we are making progress here. Yes, companies had to start offering benefits to attract the better employees because the progressives, liberals, thought there was a problem they needed to fix. As usual with the federal government, they didn’t fix any problems, just created more. Now modern progressives/liberals are going to fix those problems by causing even more problems, which they are having to fix again and again. Their real problem is that the people are free to make choices and live in ways progressives don’t agree with, so they need to destroy said freedom and gain more control. Seriiously, who here doesn’t know this whole Obamacare mess is designed to destroy the private health insurance and health care sector and give the progressives total control over our health care?

      • DanMan says:

        Well it sure appears the entire rucas posse is fully on board with it as they endorse the lies and don’t believe Obama pulling sticks from his Obamacare jenga puzzle matters at all.

      • flypusher says:

        More declarations of absolute black and white. If we don’t buy into all your dire predictions and conspiracy theories about the ACA, we’re a bunch of mindless zombies who believe without question everything Obama has said. This issue has already been discussed ad nauseum, and plenty of us have pointed out quite a few things that we regard as flaws and screw ups. But you Dan and Cappy, always conveniently forget that. No, if we don’t think that it’s the apocalypse to end all apocalypses like you do, we support all of it without reservations.

      • John Galt says:

        There actually was a problem, Sternn, and that’s what conservatives rarely seem to get. Sometimes there are problems and sometimes the government is best placed to solve them. The wage freezes are a perfect example: the problem was that during WWII U.S. industrial production was running beyond capacity with labor as the crucial limiting factor. Perhaps you remember Rosie the Riveter as a symbol of women drawn into the work force to heavy industrial jobs. Normally, this would lead to a spiral of wage increases and inflation, which would have exacerbated the inflationary potential of a government printing money as fast as it could to fight a war. That could have had dangerous consequences, so rationing and wage freezes were an (imperfect) answer to that. I’m not an economist, so perhaps there was a better way to solve this problem, but the solution inherently required the government’s involvement, since it was the biggest customer for this industrial output.

        Unfortunately, a series of tax decisions led to many forms of non-monetary compensation being declared tax-exempt and thus the rise of the employer-provided health insurance in post-war days. No administration, Democrat or Republican, has seriously sought to end this exemption, but they should.

        I know that concepts like this are hard for you, since they involve difficult decisions, shades of grey, and they don’t fit into 5 second FoxNews sound bites.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

Goodreads

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 472 other followers

%d bloggers like this: