Division: that starts with D and that rhymes with “Tea”

And “GOP”.  Whoopsie!  Who possibly could have seen this coming?:

Republican officials are working to derail the campaign of a tea party supported candidate in North Carolina — circulating documents from the man’s messy divorce that depict him as a pot smoker who has called himself the messiah. [...]

Republican leaders in both Raleigh and Washington, however, are worried about his electability in November if he wins a primary runoff next month. They’re publicizing court documents about D’Annunzio’s past legal, martial and business troubles and denouncing him as unfit for office.

“The Messiah”?  I thought Obama was Teh Messiah, and he got elected.  Of course, he didn’t call himself The Messiah, and I guess that makes all the difference.

To the terrified chagrin of the GOP establishment, they have been unable as yet to absorb the tea party and get it under control. Too late for all that: anti-establishment candidates appear to be in the ascendancy on both sides of the aisle.  Now that the ‘baggers have discovered they can run — and elect — their own candidates, they’re understandably excited about it.  If some of their candidates win in November, the GOP may find itself absorbed by the tea party instead of the other way around.

15 Responses to “Division: that starts with D and that rhymes with “Tea””


  1. 1 AlisonS Tuesday, May 25, 2010 at 12:27 pm

    And we, in Canada, can tell them how well that works out (relatively speaking)!

  2. 2 Reality.Bites Tuesday, May 25, 2010 at 12:32 pm

    I have to say one thing I don’t like about either the American or the Canadian system is the ability to hijack nominations. In the American system all you have to do is register as a Dem or Rep (and in some states not even that) and you get a voice in deciding who that party puts forward as a candidate.

    In Canada you have to be an actual member of the party, but you’re generally allowed to join once the nomination race is on, so the candidates sell memberships to friends and supporters – this is how the Liberals ended up with scum like Tom Wappel. Campaign Life decided to hijack the party.

    I would prefer to see candidates chosen by people who actually have a commitment to a party. And that means if you don’t like what a party stands for, you work inside it to change their policies or you form a new party

  3. 3 Janus Tuesday, May 25, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    I would like to be able to do away with party politics altogether, and simply vote for the people who put themselves forward and apply for the job based on what they think they can do on my behalf.

  4. 4 Reality.Bites Tuesday, May 25, 2010 at 7:54 pm

    Groups of people will always organize themselves into smaller groups – cliques, friends, those who work well together, have similar thoughts or beliefs, etc.

    Best to have it out in the open – and your MP, acting alone, can do nothing on your behalf.

  5. 5 Janus Tuesday, May 25, 2010 at 10:50 pm

    “…and your MP, acting alone, can do nothing on your behalf.”

    That would actually be very close to a perfect political situation!

    And yes, people will always form little groups. But they do not stay in the same groups all the time. They move naturally from one group to another, and those who share a group one day will find themselves in different groups the next.

  6. 6 Bleatmop Wednesday, May 26, 2010 at 2:34 am

    RB – Isn’t it party rules that allow people to buy memberships and vote to see who the candidate is in a riding or is that mandated by law?

  7. 7 Reality.Bites Wednesday, May 26, 2010 at 5:42 am

    It is a combination of both, in that that certain aspects of how parties are run are under legislation and others are not. There’s nothing in law requiring candidates to be chosen by the members in a riding – as the Conservative Party members in Helena Guergis’s riding could tell you. ;)

    I don’t have a problem at all with the princicple of local members choosing their candidate. I do have a problem with “instant” members. I’d want to see something like 6 monnths minimum membership before you can vote in a nomination race. The parties, on the other hand, don’t like that idea because the instant members bring in money (their membership fees) and most of the time it doesn’t cause any problem for the party.

    Parties may also veto individual candidates. For example, John Pacheco (“Paycheck” of “Socon or Bust” and FD fame) was not allowed to run for the Conservative Party nomination in an Ottawa riding against John Baird – not because there was any danger of him winning, but because they wouldn’t want him associated with the party in any way, based on things he’d done in past election campaigns running for fringe parties.

  8. 8 JJ Wednesday, May 26, 2010 at 11:04 am

    Alison – Haha, that was the last line of the post before I deleted it. Something to the tune of “this all brings back fond memories for Canadians…” ;)

  9. 9 JJ Wednesday, May 26, 2010 at 11:10 am

    RB

    I would prefer to see candidates chosen by people who actually have a commitment to a party. And that means if you don’t like what a party stands for, you work inside it to change their policies or you form a new party

    I think that might have been what Campaign Life Coalition had in mind. CLC is basically a Catholic organization, and Catholics are well-known for voting Liberal — probably because of the LPC’s anti-capital punishment, anti-war stances. (And because most of our Liberal PMs have been Catholics.)

    They haven’t done a bad job — 25% of the LPC is anti-choice :shock: Big tent :roll:

  10. 10 JJ Wednesday, May 26, 2010 at 11:18 am

    Janus

    I would like to be able to do away with party politics altogether,

    Partisan politics does indeed suck, because there is no party that really represents ME, since my beliefs span the entire spectrum. I increasingly feel that voting for any party just validates a dumb and broken system.

    and simply vote for the people who put themselves forward and apply for the job based on what they think they can do on my behalf.

    We had a glimpse of that with the vote on the long gun registry — NDP and LPC MPs breaking ranks and voting to ditch it because that’s what their constituents want. And wow — that didn’t work out too well. Iggy says he’ll whip the next vote on it (I don’t know about Jack).

  11. 11 JJ Wednesday, May 26, 2010 at 11:29 am

    RB

    For example, John Pacheco (“Paycheck” of “Socon or Bust” and FD fame) was not allowed to run for the Conservative Party nomination in an Ottawa riding against John Baird – not because there was any danger of him winning, but because they wouldn’t want him associated with the party in any way, based on things he’d done in past election campaigns running for fringe parties.

    Bwahaa! I LOVE that Baird was the guy he tried to run against.

    Can you imagine how fast the CPC would get buried alive in “hidden agenda” rumours with Pacheco as one of their MPs?? They’ve already got some knuckledraggers, but he’s in a class all his own.

  12. 12 Janus Wednesday, May 26, 2010 at 11:30 am

    In a partyless system, the gun registry would not have been put into place to begin with. But I get your point.

  13. 14 Bleatmop Wednesday, May 26, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    RB – In some ways I agree that the instant members shouldn’t be allowed to decide who runs in a particular riding. However, I think part of the problem with our broken party system isn’t necessarily the parties but the lack of political participation. We can’t even get people to vote, none-the-less become an active member of a political party.

    I think the average Canadian, while probably having slightly left of center views when it concerns us all is, is probably the quite apathetic and self centered type of person. That includes myself, as I have never been a member of a political party. The parties are not completely without blame though. The LPC, before campaign contribution limits, were notorious for extreme patronage, where you only got your voice heard if you donated extreme amounts of money. $10,000 seats to fund raising dinners by invitation only to the liberal elite is being the only place you can get your voice heard is, at least partially, to blame for people feeling disenfranchised by the whole political game. I’m sure the average Canadian persons sense of entitlement has something to do with it too.

    Lol, but I digress. I suppose what I’m saying is that any participation on the local party level is a good thing and that if we want to stop groups from hijacking parties, we need to organize and create participation again.

  14. 15 Reality.Bites Thursday, May 27, 2010 at 2:39 am

    Hmmm. My reply got swallowed, I think because of a long URL. I was checking google to see how badly he lost running as an independent against Baird and stumbled on the 36-page FD thread about it, full of contributions from the man himself. The thread ultimately led to a minor political scandal as one of the contributors was forced to resign as campaign manager for an Edmonton-area MP because of his support for western separation. I won’t try the URL again, but if you google “john pacheco wiki” it’s about the 6th item down, titled “View topic – John Pacheco for Ottawa-West Nepean? :: Free Dominion ”

    Anyway, I said something about the apathy helping to make it possible to hijack a riding. In the thread above, Pacheco mentioned he signed up 100 members. That wouldn’t have been enough to swing the nomination had he been allowed to run, but in a riding with a less active local party it could work.

    I’m not sure where one would draw the line between working for change and hijacking. Campaign Life had other parties to work with/in that were already closer to their views. They chose the Liberals because they had power at the time.

    When Preston Manning was dissatisfied with the PCs, he didn’t think to himself, “Hey, in most Alberta ridings the Liberals have no real organization. It would be easy to take them over.”


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s




Mac Security Portal
Rose's Place
Blogging Change

Incoming!

  • 618,250
[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

Archives


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers

%d bloggers like this: