Murkowski
Steve Manacek ·
Sep 17, 2010 at 5:55pm
Can you say "self-absorbed menace"? How about "egotistical, delusional pest"? Is there a point of principle here large enough for the most acute observer to find with a microscope? Anything at all beyond a sense of (undeserved) entitlement and sore-loser syndrome? THIS is why the Tea Party movement resonates. It's not so much right-versus-left-versus-center; it's absolute revulsion at these self-important pararsites who seem to think nothing in the world is remotely as important as their own positions and careers. A pox upon you, soon-to-be-ex-Senator.
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Murkowski
I'd love to add something insightful but you seem to have said it all, Steve. It's a shame that the worst we can do is send her off in defeat to a profitable career as a lobbyist.
Sep '10
Re: Murkowski
I'm thinking her and Murphy could form a consulting firm--powerhouse.
May '10
Re: Murkowski
In a sense, it's even worse than Crist, since he has (had) a fighting chance to win. Murkowski has none and she knows it. Pure spite, nothing else.
Jul '10
Re: Murkowski
Wow. With tempers riding high following the Delaware kerfuffle... I say it's time to call in Linda McMahon. The first ever Ricochet Cage Match. Manacek v. Long in The Least Principled Republican. Crist or Murkowski? Murkowski or Crist?
Edited on Sep 17, 2010 at 6:32pmMay '10
Re: Murkowski
Craig McLaughlin writes, "I'm thinking her and Murphy could form a consulting firm--powerhouse," and at the end of the podcast this week Rob reiterates the Code.
It's been a couple of days and we're still beating up on Murph. There is the possibility that by doing so that we are just asking for a smack upside the head. However, being the trained but non-practicing journalist that I am, I recognize in this one of the basic tenants of the trade: Times v Sullivan.
In this case the Supremes ruled that those that offered themselves up to the public (politicians, entertainers, etc.) are held to a different standard. Any criticism of their public acts is fair game as long as you do not act with "actual malice," that is, knowing that what you're saying about them is untrue. Murphy makes a living commenting on, as well as running, political campaigns. As such, his performance in that role is fair game, including questioning motive.
When I offered up the Ricochet video, it was fair game. That's what I do for a living. If Rob writes a lousy script, that's fair game, too.
CONTINUED BELOW
May '10
Re: Murkowski
Just don't question our heritage or mental capacity. (I spent 30 years on the sandlots as an umpire, so I doubt you could say much I haven't already been called - at least twice.)
When you raise the idea of principles to someone who makes their living in the political arena, you get a squishy, "Oh, yeah... that, too. Definitely that!"
That's what people seem to be most upset with. It's not just win, baby. In sports, they tell you to act like you've been there before. Well, we have. We captured the House and the Senate in '94 and the White House in 2000. Had the whole enchilada. And then? And then we acted like Democrats. And those same people look at you and say, "But this time it will be different."
And we reply, "You have no idea how right you are..."
May '10
Re: Murkowski
And some people are calling Chritine O'Donnell "embarrassing and delusional"?
Sep '10
Re: Murkowski
Palaeologus
Wow. With tempers riding high following the Delaware kerfuffle... I say it's time to call in Linda McMahon. The first ever Ricochet Cage Match. Manacek v. Long in The Least Principled Republican. Crist or Murkowski? Murkowski or Crist? · Sep 17 at 6:26pm
Edited on Sep 17 at 06:32 pm
As I think this is really a Murko-Palin knock down drag out, the Linda McMahon suggestion really resonates.
Edited on Sep 17, 2010 at 9:27pmMay '10
Re: Murkowski
Hear! Hear!
Jul '10
Re: Murkowski
I actually think Christ and Murkowski are doing us a favor.
They demonstrate, in the most glaring possible way, how grasping and selfish much of our political class is. It's not about "public service" or love of nation for most of these guys, it's about status and privilege.
By the way, I won't be surprised if Mike Castle goes this route, too.
Politics, someone once said, is Hollywood for ugly people.
Edited on Sep 17, 2010 at 9:58pmJul '10
Re: Murkowski
(Redundant post from another thread)
Dick Morris has said that this year it is not about ideology, but about Sincerety.
The Tea Party is looking for candidates who will sincerely stand up for Fiscal Responisibility. (You know, like not whimp out at the first sign of resistance like defunding the National Endowment for the Arts)
I'd say the Actions of Write Me In Murkowski , Indipendant Party Crist, and I may support Coons Castle, we can say categorically that the Tea Party is better at spotting the insincere vs. the Sincere than the Republican Establishment.
It isn't the Tea Partiers going Third Party, it's the Establishment Choice.
Can you say Jeffords? Or Spectre?
In Statistics we say;
Once is an occurance;
Twice is an anomoly;
Three or more times is a Trend!
Houston, we have a trend!
Edited on Sep 17, 2010 at 9:57pmJul '10
Re: Murkowski
Kenneth: Politics, someone once said, is Hollywood for ugly people. · Sep 17 at 9:56pm
Edited on Sep 17 at 09:58 pm
Sure it is, but the pros know their lines.
Aug '10
Re: Murkowski
Preach it, Steve!
May '10
Re: Murkowski
That's true, though I'd put it a little differently. I'd say it's also not about stellar cv's and political connections. It's about being the real deal when it comes to conservative principles.
You are right, Jaydee: the tea party has a knack for spotting the phonies.
Americans are cleaning house.
Jun '10
Re: Murkowski
Does this happen in the Democrat Party? To me it proves the stink I smell from Republican politicians is not just my imagination.
Jul '10
Re: Murkowski
Spending and taxes are only a symptom. Why should not Murkowski and other politicians see themselves as the ruling class? We name buildings, roads, airports (sorry RR) after them and allow them to treat us as a distraction from getting on with their job of "re-educating" us, and living the good life on our money. So when GOP primary voters choose the Joe Millers, Christine O'Donnells, etc., they have crossed the line from democracy to demogoguery and must be punished. If the GOP is so disunited before the election, what hope do we have that it will be principled and effective after November 2?
Edited on Sep 18, 2010 at 6:46amMay '10
Re: Murkowski
Murkowski is an self-absorbed idiot, and I hope that both she and Crist are ignominiously defeated and never heard from again. I also hope that if any people in the national party are encouraging them secretly, they are "outed" and purged as well.
But, Jaydee, that does not mean that the Republicans should get into a witch hunt and drive out candidates who do not agree with Jim DeMint about everything.
Lindsey Graham drives me nuts at times, but he is almost 90% voting with us. Why does he support Cap'n Trade? Because he represents a huge company in his state that employs a lot of people (Duke Energy) and is well-positioned for that execrable policy. Graham is wrong, and we should look at a primary challenge next time around, as well as pressure him now to shift. But he is still a "real" Republican. We need to start pointing our guns outward- toward Murkowski and Crist.
Byron York said it quite well yesterday.
Re: Murkowski
I read this post and promptly donated $25 to this guy. It's not a large amount, but imagine is hundreds of thousands of us ticked off folks in the lower forty-eight did likewise.
May '10
Re: Murkowski
This is what happens when our Republic morphs into the terminal phase of the Roman Republic, and we routinely elect officials based on nepotism. Murkowski feels she has a hereditary right to be a Senator, just like any Julius, Cornelius, Scipio or Claudius. How DARE the Plebs try and injure her dignitas.