Althouse: "God acted through people on my behalf... It’s an unbelievable miracle."

June 10, 2014

"God acted through people on my behalf... It’s an unbelievable miracle."

Said Dave Brat.

93 comments:

Original Mike said...: Oh, no.; 6/10/14, 10:19 PM
cubanbob said...: I'm an immigrant myself so I have a hard time being opposed to illegal immigration but does the Republican leadership seriously believe this country has a shortage of poor people thus necessitating policies that encourage illegal immigration? Apparently the Democrats do but Cantor's district isn't a likely swing district.; 6/10/14, 10:23 PM
Danno said...: Although I support many tea-party ideas, I always worry they will act like a child with a temper tantrum rather than address the realities of governing. I have no knowledge of Mr. Brat.; 6/10/14, 10:32 PM
Gahrie said...: OK..so he's a kook Christianist...which means he wants to enslave women, take away abortion and free birth control and oppress the gays. The media is going to climb all over this guy for the Democrats.; 6/10/14, 10:47 PM
traditionalguy said...: This is a very intelligent man. He is from Michigan . He attended the Theology school once called Old Princeton for its reformed Presbyterian Calvinism. Mix that with being Catholic and you have a finished product of a strong intelligence that is not easily confused.

Let's see how the Dems' media allies will attack him. I don,t think ridicule will work. Maybe call him an egg head.; 6/10/14, 10:47 PM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: Cool, now we can mock him for invoking the Deity. Crazy racist tea-bagger Christer!; 6/10/14, 10:51 PM
Joe Schmoe said...: Interesting analysis at 538, although it would appear that even the great Nate didn't get this one right.; 6/10/14, 10:52 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: I've been reading up on him - he's a nut job.

Ought to be fun going forward,...; 6/10/14, 10:52 PM
a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...: Well I don't know. There was speculation if the Jewish Republican
in Waxman's vacated House seat in CA could part the Blue sea, and he did!; 6/10/14, 10:54 PM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: "I've been reading up on him - he's a nut job.

Ought to be fun going forward,..."

Dude! Exactly what I think when I see the first Crack avatar photo in a comment thread....; 6/10/14, 11:09 PM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: Skeptical he believes what he professes?; 6/10/14, 11:13 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: traditionalguy,

"This is a very intelligent man. He is from Michigan."

I'm sorry, Tg, but that's just the funniest thing I've read all day,...; 6/10/14, 11:17 PM
Michael K said...: "The media is going to climb all over this guy for the Democrats."

The Democrats did not enter a candidate.; 6/10/14, 11:22 PM
Michael K said...: "(Many northern Republicans voted in favor of civil rights legislation, while many New Deal Democrats from the South voted against it.)"

This is the fact that is consistently denied by the left which tries to link Republicans with the racist Democrat past in the south.; 6/10/14, 11:25 PM
Anonymous said...: I've been reading up on him.

He's brilliant and reasonable and will represent his district well.; 6/11/14, 12:16 AM
MathMom said...: I have been reading his website. Sounds like a man who believes what I believe.

Hope he makes it to Congress.; 6/11/14, 12:29 AM
LilyBart said...: Of all the things Dave Brat said tonight - that's what your heard?

Good grief!; 6/11/14, 12:30 AM
Chef Mojo said...: Ought to be fun going forward,...

Actually, it should.

The Dem endorsed candidate won't be on the ballot because he filed too late. Virginia Dems figured Cantor was a shoe-in and decided not to oppose him.

The independent candidate is a strip club owner.

VA7 is an R+10 district.

I'm loving it! Gonna be quite fun! And if Crack thinks he's a nut job? I consider that the icing on the cake!; 6/11/14, 12:32 AM
LilyBart said...: The Crack Emcee said...
I've been reading up on him - he's a nut job.

Heh. Takes one to know one?; 6/11/14, 12:32 AM
LilyBart said...: ..so he's a kook Christianist...

Yep, going to bring out all the anti-Christian bigots.; 6/11/14, 12:33 AM
Pianoman said...: Dear Dave Brat: God doesn't care about who wins a political battle. Thank you.; 6/11/14, 12:42 AM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Cantor runs as an independent. Big deal.; 6/11/14, 1:50 AM
Alex said...: It's too bad we can't have a Tea Party Libertarian atheist.; 6/11/14, 1:55 AM
Once written, twice... said...: As I said earlier, I suspect Cantor being Jewish played a role in his defeat amoung the Tea Party rabble.; 6/11/14, 4:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Every-one remember:

This means that POTUS HRC is going to happen after all, by-product of GOP backwardness.; 6/11/14, 4:57 AM
Anonymous said...: This will make no difference. Why? NYT has already endorsed her book and her for 2016.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/06/10/abc-newss-diane-sawyer-destroys-hillary-rodham-clinton-on-benghazi/; 6/11/14, 5:05 AM
Horseball said...: It seems to me they'll have to decide : religious fanatic or Ayn Rand; 6/11/14, 5:13 AM
B said...: You didn't cast that vote. God did.; 6/11/14, 5:24 AM
stlcdr said...: "I'm an immigrant myself so I have a hard time being opposed to illegal immigration..."

'I take money out of the bank, so I have a hard time being opposed to bank robbers.'; 6/11/14, 5:49 AM
PB said...: According to the mainstream media, all Christians are kooks. Jews are tolerated because they're disappearing in importance, but Muslims are placed on a pedestal. I think this may be the media's believe that Islam will take over the West and this position will have advantages in the new order.; 6/11/14, 5:57 AM
stlcdr said...: "Although I support many tea-party ideas, I always worry they will act like a child with a temper tantrum rather than address the realities of governing. I have no knowledge of Mr. Brat."

What if the tea party advocates in power actually implement the ideas you support? It will look like a tantrum, I'm sure.

Unfortunately, acting on your principles tends to be held in a negative light by those opposed to said principles. Further, acting on principles - particularly Christian based principles - is hard. It will be hard for the country, but that doesn't mean it is the wrong thing to do.

When you have no money and you kid asks for a lollipop, do you buy the lollipop and give it to your kid, buy the lollipop and say we can't afford it and keep the lollipop, or just say no? I think it will be the opposition which will have the tantrum (as Democrats and Democrat supporters dutily demonstrate).; 6/11/14, 5:59 AM
stlcdr said...: I forgot to add, regarding tantrums: the irony will be delicious, particularly with a plate of sausages.; 6/11/14, 6:04 AM
Saint Croix said...: The Washington Post reported last month that he no-showed meetings with key conservative activists in the capital. His excuse: He had final exams to grade.

Professor Brat. I love it.; 6/11/14, 6:29 AM
Saint Croix said...: Mr. Brat will face Democrat Jack Trammell, who is a professor at Randolph-Macon College, the same school where Mr. Brat teaches.

Oh shit, academic squabble just got real!

Those Randolph-Macon kids must be peeing themselves. Keg party!; 6/11/14, 6:33 AM
Dr Weevil said...: Someone who publicly endorses raping his critics' mothers thinks Brat's a "nut job"? Sounds like a point in Brat's favor to me.; 6/11/14, 6:34 AM
Saint Croix said...: I've been reading up on him - he's a nut job.

He sounds like a professor I would love to take. One of his papers is

An Analysis of the Moral Foundations in Ayn Rand.

Cool!; 6/11/14, 6:37 AM
The Drill SGT said...: I wish him well.

Our Feudal Political Overlords from both parties need a bit of a scare once in a while. "Cantor lost with a 20-1 money advantage? Sweet Jesus, that could happen to me!"; 6/11/14, 6:46 AM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: The Crack Emcee said...
I've been reading up on him - he's a nut job.

And you're a particularly nasty human being for saying that.

Ad hominem attack? Check.

No specifics or examples to back up your scurrilous charge? Check.

Screw you, Crack. Look in the mirror. YOU'RE the problem.; 6/11/14, 6:49 AM
tim maguire said...: cubanbob said...
I'm an immigrant myself so I have a hard time being opposed to illegal immigration

What?!?

I'm an immigrant myself so I have a hard time being opposed to legal immigration. The illegal kind I am totally comfortable opposing.

Why aren't you?; 6/11/14, 6:52 AM
Jaq said...: " he's a nut job" - Crack

Crack discovers he has an 'R' after his name.; 6/11/14, 6:52 AM
Jaq said...: I was arguing on the blog of his campaign manager that expanding immigration increases competition for low wage jobs and hurts the poor most while the rich are quite happy for the cheap help and cheap labor.

He called me a racist. I wonder if that is why they lost?; 6/11/14, 6:54 AM
Brando said...: The problem with a lot of these Tea Party folk is that they're not so much in favor of passing any particular agenda as they are making some sort of statement regarding how much they hate Obama and the left.

Which works--it wins some elections--but when it's all said and done and you get into office you actually have to get some normal business done. I don't mean "give in to whatever Obama wants" but things like "pass budgets and pay our debts" which any serious person would agree has to happen whether you're in favor of smaller or larger government. The shutdown mess from last fall was a good example--the Tea folk thought that was a great maneuver and was only scuttled by a weak willed GOP leadership when frankly the only thing it accomplished was to take the Obamacare rollout off the front pages for its duration.

And if you do favor smaller government--and generally I do!--you'd have to agree that at some point we need to pass something that achieves that. And passing anything will mean compromising--the Democrats are not going away, the Tea Party is never going to have a veto-proof majority so the only way anything gets done is with some trading. The problem is the Tea folks would no sooner compromise with the Democrats than they would with a rattlesnake. If you see your opposition not as opponents but as evil and illegitimate, you can't even consider working something out so that you can get half a loaf. Better to gridlock everything and hope the American people don't abandon you at the polls.

Maybe at some point the Tea Party voters will see that the folks they put into office aren't actually achieving anything in the way of reforming or fixing the system. And hopefully that comes soon or we'll have a term or two of Hillary to solidify the mess that Obama started.; 6/11/14, 6:54 AM
paminwi said...: Eric Cantor did not campaign in his own district - just spent a boatload of dough. Sounds like Dave Brat did the retail politics thing by meeting people and only spending around $150,000 of the money he raised. Dave Brat campaigned on that he was Eric Cantor's term limit.

Sounds to me like hard work won the seat.

A democrat on Morning Joe this morning, Becerra of California, said tea party people were not Americans.; 6/11/14, 6:56 AM
Wince said...: Evidently when winning a big, unexpected victory it's more PC to announce a high carbon emitting pilgrimage to godless Disney than to thank the Almighty.; 6/11/14, 7:03 AM
Brando said...: As for immigration reform, I get that we can't just open our borders and let the country get swamped with millions of people who can't find work (in an already weak economy). But the reality is we already have a large number--perhaps a few million--of illegal immigrants already in the country, and simply finding and rounding up and deporting all of them is not as easy as it sounds. Many of them have simply overstayed their work visas, many of them have children (born in this country) here, many of them hold jobs and apparently many even serve in the armed forces (who were the subject of a limited amnesty proposal). And many of the ones with jobs are working in highly skilled industries like computer technology, with high demand. There are genuine legal, economic and moral concerns with trying to get them all out, and it certainly can't be done right away and certainly not with the resources INS has.

Maybe a blanket "amnesty" isn't the answer, but surely there are cases where the immigrant can pay a fine and get properly documented or on a path to citizenship. As for whether that "rewards" them for jumping the line ahead of those who come here legally, I'm not sure how much of a reward it is to endure hardships to get into this country, and have to spend perhaps years ducking INS and afraid to use government services like hospitals or the police for fear of getting deported, in the hope that one of these days you'll get amnesty with a fine.

What is clear though is that the current situation of having so many people here illegally and under the radar is not optimal. If you want stronger borders and better enforcement, it's not unreasonable to come up with a compromise that addresses the millions already here illegally. Do these Tea Partiers really like the status quo so much that they're unwilling to even bargain for better border enforcement because absolutely no illegal aliens in this country should get anything short of deportation?; 6/11/14, 7:08 AM
Robert Cook said...: Any person who credits the Deity for having acted to help him or her achieve some professional goal is either a lying phony or a true believer that the maker of all that is intervened in earthly affairs to insure this "special" man or woman got a job promotion or won the game, or prevailed in an election.

The true believer is the more scary and dangerous person.; 6/11/14, 7:09 AM
Mid-Life Lawyer said...: Yeah, so maybe he got a little carried away... or maybe he didn't.; 6/11/14, 7:31 AM
madAsHell said...: Apologies to our hostess, but I'm always a little concerned about academics taking elected office. It never seems to work out....; 6/11/14, 7:32 AM
SJ said...: Is this more stupid, or less stupid than the statement:

Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.

--Barack Obama, June 2008.

Obama doesn't talk about God much.

(If forced to guess why, I'd say that Obama worships the sound of his own voice, and is unable to spare any energy for a Higher Being...)

However, Obama did promise miracles while stumping for votes.

Brat credits God for encouraging voters to help him come to a success.

Whatever else it means, there is some hint that Brat acknowledges the existence of a Being who is more important than himself. While that may not make him a good politician, it also doesn't make him a bad politician.

The other statements and actions of the politician ought to be enough to help us figure out whether he is a good or bad politician.

(It may seem crassly cynical for a politician to invoke God.

If so, it is more crass or cynical than President Clinton giving Sunday Morning campaign speeches in churches?); 6/11/14, 7:35 AM
Larry J said...: broomhandle said...

Cool, now we can mock him for invoking the Deity. Crazy racist tea-bagger Christer!

I'm sure that approach will play well with the voters in Virginia.; 6/11/14, 7:39 AM
sojerofgod said...: So now invoking God (and thanking Him) is cause for ridicule in the public square? Seriously? How low we have sunk in such a short time. The WSJ is taking pains to point out that Brat has published writings that have a Christian viewpoint as if that is somehow disqualifying for public office!

As I have said before:

Who the hell do you people think you are?; 6/11/14, 7:41 AM
JMS said...: He won because huge Democrat turnout in open primaries.; 6/11/14, 7:45 AM
George M. Spencer said...: "The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong. God can not be for and against the same thing at the same time."

Abraham Lincoln
1862; 6/11/14, 7:52 AM
Gahrie said...: The problem with a lot of these Tea Party folk is that they're not so much in favor of passing any particular agenda

Really? Because those of us who consider ourselves to be Tea Partyers disagree. The agenda is:

1) Shrink the size of government
2) Reduce the number of people dependent on the government
3) Reduce the federal deficiet and federal debt
4) Reform the taxation system, and ultimately reduce taxes

And for those of you who think the Tea Party is nothing more than racists opposed to Obama, remember we've done far more damage to establishment Republicans than we have to liberals and progressives so far. (hopefully that will change in 2015); 6/11/14, 7:59 AM
Hagar said...: Paul Krugman is an economics professor - with a Nobel prize yet.

The way you reduce illegal immigration to tolerable levels and "secure our borders" is that you acknowledge that "illegal" means illegal, i.e. no jobs, no benefits, immediate deportation when discovered.; 6/11/14, 8:09 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Cardinal sin in these parts of the vortex are men wearing shorts, being religious, and opposing same sex marriage. So far the vortex has dinged Brat for the religious one- it won't be long before they nail him for the other two.

P.S. Is the term "cardinal sin" even allowed in the vortex?; 6/11/14, 8:13 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: To add to what Gahrie said...last night I heard Brat say he wanted to return constitutional duties and roles to the states. He essentially was saying there was no reason that taxpayers had to send $100 to the Imperial City to get a lower amount re-distributed back to the states after the feds had taken their cut.

Is that such a horrible and revolutionary idea in your mind?; 6/11/14, 8:16 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Do immigration reform?

What is the last thing the DC poobahs did that had the word "reform" in it? Obamacare.

How is that working out for us? So, why should we expect them to get immigration reform right? Instead, how about they just enforce the current laws for a few years and then we can talk.; 6/11/14, 8:20 AM
Doug said...: cubanbob said: "...so I have a hard time being opposed to illegal immigration ...

Would you have an easier time of it if you looked up the definition of the word "illegal"?; 6/11/14, 8:21 AM
Mark said...: JMS, that little tidbit either (a) a coordinated attack by Democratic operatives against Cantor (not out of the question, but I think coordinating that many false-flag voters would be hard to hide, and I've heard nothing about a "take down Cantor" operation) or (b) grass-root democrats really, really, really don't like amnesty.

If it's (b) then a lot of Democrats are going to have to run away from Obama -- and big money donors -- in the Generals this year.; 6/11/14, 8:29 AM
Doug said...: " ... it's not unreasonable to come up with a compromise that addresses the millions already here illegally."
The way to address the millions already here illegally is to strictly enforce E-Verify, shut down employers who hire illegals, and shut off the payroll dollars - illegals will self-deport. Let's remember that the bad guys in this debacle are the American businesses, not the poor people.; 6/11/14, 8:34 AM
Anonymous said...: I repeatedly explain the realities of southern-border immigration this way: If we secure the border, all immigration issues are temporary(1 generation, max). If we do not secure the border, all immigration issues are permanent.; 6/11/14, 8:37 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: Brando said...

Do these Tea Partiers really like the status quo so much that they're unwilling to even bargain for better border enforcement because absolutely no illegal aliens in this country should get anything short of deportation?

It's not that they like the status quo so much, it is that they know that if they trade amnesty for border enforcement, the amnesty will happen, and the border enforcement won't, and there will be nothing that they can do about it at that point.; 6/11/14, 8:39 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Two comments from a single, solitary black guy - just four sentences - and that ALWAYS brings out the white racists, in mass, as though they got the Bat Signal from KKK headquarters. They can't help it - black guy speaking freely? ATTACK!!!!:

broomhandle,
Chef Mojo,
LilyBart,
Saint Croix,
tim in vermont
Dr Weevil

It's as though they're compelled, I tell you, as racists in America have always been. No black can comment without their white shadows retorting, because THEY'RE WHITE AND 400 YEARS OF THEIR LONE OPINIONS AREN'T ENOUGH - WHITES MUST ALWAYS BE HEARD.

We outlawed whipping, so - whatever.

That's what these whites consider freedom, you see. "No black unattended" is their motto. Every comment must be put through the white filter, for fear it'll infect the rest, like public swimming pools in the old days.

Fortunately for these guys, THEY don't attach their American characters to,…THE historical American character. So, TO THEM, past white racist behavior doesn't reflect on today's white racist behavior because - as they're quick to tell you - THOSE RACISTS are all dead, so there.

These NEW RACISTS are "colorblind," so they can attack blacks until the cows come home - wait.

That racist rationalization only works on whites. I can't even believe I wrote it.

And, according to these whites, black life had BETTER be good, or else. One of them told me, yesterday, whites gave us "clean water" and everything. I betcha, today, somebody says whites made the sun rise.

I'm going to masturbate now,….; 6/11/14, 8:40 AM
Brando said...: "Really? Because those of us who consider ourselves to be Tea Partyers disagree. The agenda is:

1) Shrink the size of government
2) Reduce the number of people dependent on the government
3) Reduce the federal deficiet and federal debt
4) Reform the taxation system, and ultimately reduce taxes

And for those of you who think the Tea Party is nothing more than racists opposed to Obama, remember we've done far more damage to establishment Republicans than we have to liberals and progressives so far. (hopefully that will change in 2015)"

First off, I never said the Tea Party is racist--but it clearly is animated primarily if not entirely by opposition to Obama. This is why no matter what the details are of any deal that might be struck with Obama, the Tea Party will be opposed, even if Obama caved 90%. They don't trust him, and can't imagine that any deal he'd agree to would be anything short of a total capitulation.

As for the goals above that you mention, I keep hearing that those are what the Tea Party wants--however, how do you achieve any of that simply with gridlock and blocking debt ceiling increases? (Remember the debt ceiling increase isn't an increase in what we spend--it is paying the liabilities already incurred by government. Refusing to raise it is like saying you're cutting your expenses by refusing to pay your credit card bill).

I'm all for those things--but recognize that we need some pragmatism in getting them done. That means getting moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans on board at the very least, and sometimes that even means offering a concession to the left when they can otherwise scuttle what you want.

If the Tea Party folks in Washington had any realistic opportunity to get those things done--without requiring 67 Tea Party seats in the Senate and 2/3 of the House seats--I'd take it more seriously. But the past several years have seemed more like a display of raw emotion than an agenda.; 6/11/14, 8:46 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Gahrie,

The agenda is:

1) Shrink the size of government

Which blacks will be happy to do - once whites give back all THEY got from it and stop hypocritically complaining about others wanting the same.

2) Reduce the number of people dependent on the government

Which will hurt blacks because government is our bull work against the actions of racists - who conveniently forget WHITES get free shit from the government, and have for centuries. Cliven Bundy, please step UP!

3) Reduce the federal deficiet and federal debt

By cutting subsidies going to blacks - because the money isn't going to WHITES anymore.

But you're not racists.

4) Reform the taxation system, and ultimately reduce taxes

Because you only want to TAKE from the country and stop anyone else from getting. That's American History on the ground - not the legend.

"And for those of you who think the Tea Party is nothing more than racists opposed to Obama, remember we've done far more damage to establishment Republicans than we have to liberals and progressives so far. (hopefully that will change in 2015)"

No, it won't, because you have no strategy beyond pulling down low-hanging fruit. You can't open your mouth without saying something racist, or sexist, or homophobic, so your chances of beating anyone - but yourselves - is ZIP.

Eric Cantor is a perfect example. Nobody likes him - he's gone. Oooooh! YOU ARE SO BIG AND POWERFUL!!!

Rather than DUMPING tea in the harbor, as a political protest, the new Tea Party is more prone to JUMPING in.

AKA The Slowest Suicide EVAH,...; 6/11/14, 8:58 AM
Unknown said...: Brando "As for immigration reform, I get that we can't just open our borders and let the country get swamped with millions of people who can't find work (in an already weak economy). But the reality is we already have a large number--perhaps a few million--of illegal immigrants already in the country, and simply finding and rounding up and deporting all of them is not as easy as it sounds."

How about outsourcing border security, and some part of it commission for identification, successful prosecution, and deportation of illegal aliens? Creates jobs, fixes the intentional gutting of immigration policy, and sends an unambiguous message that illegally entering this country is, well, illegal.; 6/11/14, 9:01 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: AJ Lynch,

"To add to what Gahrie said…"

Please don't - you'll only hurt yourself.

"last night I heard Brat say he wanted to return constitutional duties and roles to the states."

The slavery play - figures. He looks the type - and "sees" God's actions - so what do you know?

"He essentially was saying there was no reason that taxpayers had to send $100 to the Imperial City to get a lower amount re-distributed back to the states after the feds had taken their cut."

But we want to meet the Wizard Of Oz! Wait - that's the Emerald City.

"Is that such a horrible and revolutionary idea in your mind?"

Nothing "revolutionary" about it - racists have been saying that shit since slavery ended. Whites never notice. They so smart.

Unfortunately, Dorthy freed the flying monkeys, so the point is mute,...; 6/11/14, 9:07 AM
Dr Weevil said...: M. C. ButtCrack finishes off his latest lying rant with "I'm going to masturbate now, . . .". From previous comments of his, one of them just yesterday, it's likely that his self-abuse (a nice change from other-abuse!) will include fantasizing about black men raping white women as he watches. That I criticize any black man with an opinion is simply a lie. That I will continue to criticize him - just him, no one else - for his filthy lies and filthier fantasies doesn't make me a racist, it just makes me a relatively normal human being.

I'm still waiting for ButtCrack to help answer YoungHegelian's question yesterday about the sociology or psychology of Egyptian rapists: though the supports mass rape of other races, he can't be bothered to help us understand how anyone who claims to be human could do so such a vile thing.; 6/11/14, 9:10 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Brando,

"The agenda is:

1) Shrink the size of government
2) Reduce the number of people dependent on the government
3) Reduce the federal deficiet and federal debt
4) Reform the taxation system, and ultimately reduce taxes"

That's weird because - at the last Tea Party gathering I attended - what got the biggest applause lines was the desire to build "Heaven On Earth" so I don't know:

I think somebody's lying and it's not me,...; 6/11/14, 9:12 AM
carrie said...: Danno, you are describing how the democratic party acts--the democrats have temper tantrums, refuse to follow the rules, think the rules don't apply to them, refuse to listen to other POVs, and refuse to make the difficult decisions. The tea party is the victim of a biased media that works hard to portray the tea party as being anything but reasonable and rational, and the media keeps winning that battle but the tea party refuses to go away. The media is already going to work on Mr. Brat . . .; 6/11/14, 9:13 AM
MaxedOutMama said...: Well, Cantor had 5.7 million and Brat, the unknown, had under 250K. In American politics today, his win could be considered as something of a miracle.

However Brat has been active in community banking circles in VA for some years, and he is probably more widely known than the political intelligentsia would suspect. And his campaign message about the GOP forgetting Main Street in its obsession with Wall Street is very, very strongly embedded in CB culture. So I think there was lateral penetration.

A Democrat running on the same message would probably get much stronger support than expected also.

Brat's comments about religion can best be viewed by reading one of his economic papers. There is a Google link here to the doc:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Is+Growth+Exogenous+-+taking+bernanke+seriously+but+how+can+a+fed+guy+forget+the+institutions%3F; 6/11/14, 9:23 AM
exhelodrvr1 said...: "So now invoking God (and thanking Him) is cause for ridicule in the public square?"

The Democrats never complain when a Democrat does that, just when it's done by a Republican.; 6/11/14, 9:35 AM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: "I'm going to masturbate now,…."

That explains the blind and crazy...; 6/11/14, 9:38 AM
lb said...: Wow - seems as though when someone can't offer any specifics and others disagree, must be about race. Just a suggestion, stop attacking people specifically because they are white and/or republican, build a case as to why you disagree based on actual facts, and you will then have a leg to stand on. As it is, you just sound like an ill-informed knee jerk racist - which may be how you want to come across, but seems kind of pathetic to me.; 6/11/14, 9:40 AM
Larry J said...: John Lynch said...
Cantor runs as an independent. Big deal.

I read last night that Virginia has a "sore loser" law that prohibits a candidate that lost in the primary from appearing on the ballot in November. He'd have to run as a write-in candidate and seeing as how he lost by over 10 points, that seems unlikely.

Once written, twice... said...
As I said earlier, I suspect Cantor being Jewish played a role in his defeat amoung the Tea Party rabble.

Your suspicion has no basis in reality but it's likely a case of projection on your part. Thanks for playing.; 6/11/14, 9:50 AM
MathMom said...: Whites made the sun rise.; 6/11/14, 9:56 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: Brando said...

...how do you achieve any of that simply with gridlock and blocking debt ceiling increases? (Remember the debt ceiling increase isn't an increase in what we spend--it is paying the liabilities already incurred by government. Refusing to raise it is like saying you're cutting your expenses by refusing to pay your credit card bill).

You don't achieve any of that with gridlock, but at least you stop us from going further in the wrong direction.

Not raising the debt ceiling is not like refusing to pay your credit card bill. It is like refusing to raise your credit card limit. We have enough revenue coming in to pay the debts. There is a real problem in that we don't have enough coming in to pay all bills for services rendered, such as paying invoices for defense contract work or similar things. In such cases, the real blame belongs to the people who authorized such spending when we didn't have, and could not legally borrow, the money to pay for it.

I do think the Tea Party candidates have been handling the PR wrong. My recommendation:

1) Insist that debt ceiling votes are separate, but aligned with, budget votes. Each year when congress votes on the budget, they should have to explicitly vote to raise the debt ceiling enough to cover that year's spending.
2) Save the government shutdown type stuff for significant, fiscal reform issues. I'd start with Social Security reform. No privatization, or phasing out. Just insist that it be adjusted in a way that it is guaranteed to be permanently fiscally/actuarially sound.; 6/11/14, 9:57 AM
JMS said...: Mark, here's a story from DailyKos on the Dem turnout for the open Repub primary:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/11/1306055/-Cantor-s-End-A-Cooter-d-Etat#

Note the 50% increase in turnout, and that Cantor won everywhere except where lots of Democrats live. http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/eric-cantor-s-pollster-tries-to-explain-why-his-survey-showed-cantor-up-34-points-20140611; 6/11/14, 9:59 AM
Dr Weevil said...: Ignorance Is Bliss: "Not raising the debt ceiling . . . is like refusing to raise your credit card limit."

Absolutely, and here's another simile to go with it:

Raising the debt limit over and over as recent Congresses have done is like buying bigger pants every month or two becuase you're gaining massive amounts of weight. If you are gaining (e.g.) ten pounds a month, every month, for years, you don't have a clothing problem - not primarily anyway -, you have a health problem that will kill you within a very few years. Bigger pants will only disguise the problem, and only partially: getting your weight under control is what you must do. Refusing to buy new pants when the current ones get too tight is a good first step, providing a strong incentive towards sticking to a diet that is the only thing that will save your life.

Hmmm . . . like Prince Hal, do I have "the most unsavory similes"? Maybe, but it's still a good one.; 6/11/14, 10:20 AM
Birches said...: As the product of illegal immigration from both sides of my family tree, I am also ambivalent to most of the hard line approaches that many in the Republican Party take towards Illegal immigration.

You have to understand that from a immigrant's standpoint, the speed limit has been posted at 55mph for 30 years, but you've been passing cops who smile and wave at you when you were doing 75mph. And now, there are people that are saying, we're not only going to enforce the 55mph speed limit, we're going to retroactively ticket anyone who ever broke the speed limit in the past 30 years.

Ultimately, it's the government's fault so many people have been breaking the law to enter this country, because they've been treating it like the crime of speeding, or even encouraging it with a wink and a nod.

That said, there should be no path to citizenship for anyone who entered this country illegally. Green cards, yes; citizenship, no. And that's forever. I'm not sure why that's such a hard distinction that politicians have not made yet.

BTW, from my experience, it's not the illegal immigrants who are sucking at the welfare system. They're too scared to get deported and they actually want to work. It's the 2nd generation who was born here who will take advantage of everything Uncle Sam has to offer. And there's not a lot to do about that, besides claw back on the size of the welfare state (which I'm in favor of).; 6/11/14, 10:23 AM
Brando said...: Ignorance is Bliss--

The revenue we have coming in can sustain the government for a period of time, but that runs out pretty quickly when the debt ceiling isn't raised. The only reason we have to raise it repeatedly is because we (or Congress, anyway) keep appropriating more money than we take in every year, bumping up our total debt. And a bigger part of that isn't just the appropriations--it's entitlements, which get paid out even if Congress takes no action at all. If we don't increase the debt ceiling when we bump up against it, we default and create a real mess--at the very least forcing the interest paid on federal debt to jump up.

The problem is if we want to address that big issue--entitlements--Congress has to actually take action. The problem has been on autopilot for a long time, and we're doing ourselves no favors by doing nothing.

Frankly, we ought to just eliminate the debt ceiling as it does nothing to rein in spending--the threat of not raising it can't make us go back in time and not spend what we already spent. The ceiling only functions now as a constant regular reminder that Congress can't reduce its deficit.

Now, any of these actions--particularly reducing entitlement spending--is going to require the support of a lot of people who aren't Tea Partiers. So there's really two options--get more people on your side, or find an acceptable compromise with those whose votes you need who aren't already on your side. But if "compromise" is in itself an absolute nonstarter, because you consider the other party to be evil, well then we'll see more gridlock, more deficits, and more status quo.

I suppose my question for Tea Partiers is this--realistically, how do you imagine getting what you want? Do you think you'll win over an overwhelming majority of the American people (and in turn, elect an overwhelming majority of Congress and the presidency) to enact exactly what you want? Or do you think there's anything you can horse trade with the opposition to get at least some part of that? Because the status quo isn't going to work.; 6/11/14, 10:38 AM
traditionalguy said...: Crack.... Mentioning Brat is from Michigan was for your benefit. It means Brat is not tainted by slave owning or defending ancestors. He must be intelligent because he pursued and succeeded in a sound Christian theological education;
and has a career working as a Professor at a good school. I expect good things from this white man. Wait and see.; 6/11/14, 10:43 AM
traditionalguy said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/11/14, 10:43 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Crack - I do my best to ignore you.

Please return the favor.; 6/11/14, 11:08 AM
Saint Croix said...: Crack, I appreciate it if you would leave me out of your rants, thanks.; 6/11/14, 11:33 AM
Danno said...: Brando, Thanks for expounding on the temper tantrum behavior of bringing every debt limit increase or other key votes to a crisis stage, knowing Obama and the Dem-controlled Senate will not cave and can rely on the lapdog media to paint a negative picture of any tea-party actions. I see from the comments that many here do not understand that this is a longer-term fix as you build a Senate majority and (hopefully) a Republican President in 2016, but it will never get accomplished if Nancy Pelosi is back at Speaker of the House.; 6/11/14, 11:57 AM
Chef Mojo said...: Holy cow! I give some reasons why Brat is more than likely to win in November, and Crack gets his panties in a twist and whines about me attacking the poor lone black dude in the comments.

Of course, disagreeing with Crack and pointing out some reality regarding the VA8 campaign from the perspective of a guy who actually worked on it = RACISM!

Weird shit.; 6/11/14, 12:38 PM
Larry J said...: Brando said...

Do these Tea Partiers really like the status quo so much that they're unwilling to even bargain for better border enforcement because absolutely no illegal aliens in this country should get anything short of deportation?

Politicians have lied to us so many times about strict border enforcement that we no longer believe them. They promise border enforcement as part of "comprehensive immigration reform" but it never happens. How about breaking the legislation into smaller pieces and work the problems one by one. Make border enforcement the first piece of legislation and see how that goes. Legislate, implement, enforce, observe, and adjust as necessary.

Any attempt at "comprehensive" reform (e.g. ObamaCare) is going to fail.; 6/11/14, 12:46 PM
Original Mike said...: "I suppose my question for Tea Partiers is this--realistically, how do you imagine getting what you want? ... Or do you think there's anything you can horse trade with the opposition to get at least some part of that? Because the status quo isn't going to work."

I see absolutely no hope of horse trading with the Democrats. To address the mess we are in the Republicans need to win the Senate and White House. Then let the Tea Party and the establishment GOP bargin.; 6/11/14, 3:25 PM
traditionalguy said...: Last night on Hannity the live interview with Brat was unusual. Brat started into a teaching of Reagan's Economics and kept teaching them for 5 uninterupted minutes.

Hannity, who seldom lets guests speak an entire sentence, seemed oddly depressed and speechless. With Professor Brat around, who will need Hannity's blarney anymore?; 6/11/14, 4:18 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: God gave me zombie voters and remotely controlled their journeys to the polls and ballot box!; 6/11/14, 9:33 PM
Brando said...: "I see absolutely no hope of horse trading with the Democrats. To address the mess we are in the Republicans need to win the Senate and White House. Then let the Tea Party and the establishment GOP bargin."

Well, whether that comment was serious or not, it does seem to represent the Tea Party's strategy--hold out until total victory, and cut no deals until that's been achieved.

The thing is, the electorate doesn't tend to swing too far to either pole, even when certain events (e.g., Great Depression) tend to shift the center to one side for a while. So when any party gets a majority, it's because they've gotten a lot more moderates elected who tend to represent swing states/districts. In '06 and '08, the Dems took Congress and it wasn't so much because a bunch of Pelosi-clones got elected as it was because a bunch of Heath Shulers--moderate to conservative Democrats--got elected in places where Republicans used to. Republican majorities likewise depend on holding swing seats with their own moderates or at least conservatives who can appeal to enough moderates.

What this boils down to is if the GOP were to get a governing majority--and White House for good measure--it will have a broader coalition, and much greater friction between Tea Party purists and moderates who know they have to face voters who aren't so much on board. Maybe this seems preferable to cutting the same deals with Democrats who would be even less sympathetic to your aims, but whether you're dealing with a Heath Shuler or a Susan Collins you're going to have to compromise.

Of course the other option is for the electorate to shift ideologically as it did in the 1930s. I'd prefer not to see a cataclysmic event though.; 6/12/14, 6:06 AM