Conservative Nutbag Blogger Super Angry That Mike Castle Lost To Christine O’Wackjob
The guy has a point. Castle would have voted for that horrendous healthcare repeal bullshit.
You know it. I know it. Castle, when you pump him full of sodium pentathol, knows it.
Castle was nothing is not loyal to the GOP leadership.
Suck it teabagz.
FACT ATTACK from the comments: “Mike Castle would not have voted for repeal of the health care law. He is a liberal and liberals love big government. He lost so get over it already.”
I like how the commenter just tosses that out with no particular insight into why Castle would or would not have voted a certain way. Castle never voted for the health reform bill in the first place…
It is an article of faith that Castle is a liberal. The liberal Castle is their VirginbirthSantaBunny.
The comments are awesome!
This is like a “Best of the Onion”. Keep sharing these brilliant thinkers with the world and the independents will come racing back. As, I think, Chris Hayes said about Beck: “a tour de force of paranoid ignorance” fits here.
I love the facts in the comments:
Castle is a liberal who loves big government
Joe Miller in Alaska lost because of cheating
Dino Rossi lost in WA because of voter fraud
The fanaticism of O’Donnell supporters give us a glimpse into the upcoming 2012 Republican Presidential primaries. It’s all about purity and principles, and they’re willing to lose to keep these traits intact. These people will never compromise again.
All of this creates a chilling reality. The fact that the GOP may end up running a Santorum, Palin, Demint candidate for the highest office should make every sane person’s blood run cold.
UI, remember the golden rule of Teabaggerdom…. If a Tbag loses an election, no matter the margin, it is voter fraud and cause to have an armmed revolt. When a Tbag wins an election, no matter the margin, it is a unanimous mandate to govern directly from Atlas Shrugged and the Bible.
“It’s all about purity and principles, and they’re willing to lose to keep these traits intact. These people will never compromise again.”
Over at DL’s Bizarro-World doppelganger, Delaware Politics, Frank Knotts keeps writing posts pleading for compromise, then explaining that because social conservatives have been accepting moderates for years, it’s the moderates’ turn to back social conservatives, because they won’t compromise their principles any more. It’s like watching a man with one shoe nailed to the floor wondering why he keeps walking around in circles.
Exactly, Geezer. Frank Knotts’ badly written posts carry the theme of everybody getting along, but when you read them it’s all about giving Frank his way. He’s constantly portraying himself and social conservatives as victims of the RINOs, and yet, when Knotts and company’s ideal candidate won the primary they couldn’t make the win – which, again, in their crazy world wasn’t their fault.
It makes my head hurt to read them.
The corporations and wealthy elite have realized social conservatives are now widely perceived as nutjobs and therefore are no longer effective as the third leg of the conservative stool (an apt metaphor; thank you Ronald Reagan).
So the wealthy elites have dumped (I see a theme here) social conservatives in favor of the superficially secular teabaggers as their new BFFs and third leg of the stool.
It’s over, Social Conservatives, it’s time to move on. You’ll meet someone else – they just won’t be rich.
O08,
i think socal conservatives are the same thing as teabaggers. The teabaggers are made up of the same demographic and funded by the same super rich “christians”* as social conservatives always have been. It isnt a new different movement made up of new people. the Teaparty is repackaged “moral majority” ass holes, a few of which reached a point in mental evolution where they discovered marketing. Look at all the measures the new “small government advocates” are pushing through congress… same old moral control they have always wanted.
*(side note, a very good, very devout christian friend of mine has asked that i start refering to the Koch Bros, Glenny poo.. etc as “christians” …note the quotation marks… since their entire life is a contradiction of the teachings of Jesus… just though id throw that out there)
I love Frank’s posts, in a “high camp” way. His clueless earnestness is compelling. Liberal comedians would give their left nut to be able to write that kind of stuff as parody.
the Teaparty is repackaged “moral majority” ass holes
There is some overlap of personnel, but not entirely. My impression is the teabaggers are not the church ladies, but their retired husbands.
Plus there are always the young firebrands using the movement for some ambition, whether to get into elected office, or make a living off some wingnut welfare.
It is repackaged, but you have to fit the package. If you come to the tea party talking about Jesus and abortion and the gays (at least publicly), you’re out. It doesn’t suit the image.
It is a trap for the GOP. They can’t win with Teabagz out front carrying the hate flag, and they can’t win it they push them to the back of the bus. They are not loyal to the GOP absent some star telling them to be good soldiers. In fact, 46% of Palin supporters say that they will bolt to a third party if Palin does not get the nomination.
You made your bed Republicans.
i respectfuly disagree.
Maybe the ORIGINAL libertarian teaparty pre-We Surround Them… but for the past 2 years, the TP has been co-oped be the right wing and fox news… who ONLY cares about Jesus, abortion, and teh gays. I think they won some independents who were too dumb so see the movement for what it really is… and those few will peel off once the true colors are shown. Boehner has already gone after raped women….pretty much a 100% right wing mission… and i bet he did so with all the support from the “keep the gumment out of my private life” crop.
awww jason, c’mon man. party foul. you said the SP word in no SP month.
They can’t win with Teabagz out front carrying the hate flag
Hate has been very good for the GOP. I see no reason why it won’t work again.
I stand by my assertion that Republucans can’t win nationally by being the Party of hate.
I hope you are right. In 2004 Bush took the Presidency because of a gay marriage amendment on the Ohio ballot bringing haters to the polls. In 2010 they took the House after following an RNC plan to market Obama-hate.
After Gabby Giffords was shot I heard a lot of Democrats agreeing both sides do it and promising a more civil debate. Didn’t hear much Republican agreement though. And the Giffords-inspired wave of civility is dropping from the news like a rock.
“The fact that the GOP may end up running a Santorum, Palin, Demint candidate for the highest office should make every sane person’s blood run cold.”
I understand what you mean, but at the same time I sometimes find myself wanting an outcome like this. If one of the teabag nutjobs were to become the presidential candidate on 2012, it would shine a light on the ramifications of their “philosophy” for months that will not withstand the sustained scrutiny of American people. They will be thoroughly discredited and roundly defeated in the election. The Dems would also have a good chance of winning back the house w/ a whacko leading the ticket for Prez. Sometimes I fantasize that Michele Bachmann is the Republican nominee for Prez. What a field day Dems and the press could have with that outcome.
I wish I could share your optimism, but the GOP nutjobs both in and out of office have already provided a rich supply of ammunition that the Democrats could use against them. We don’t ever seem to be able to sustain the kind of offensive attack that exploits their weaknesses.
While we’re speaking about potential 2012 presidential nominees for the Republican party, I’ll put in my two cents in two words:
Gary Johnson!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!