Reason Morning Links: Fenty Loses in D.C., Tea Party Candidates Pull Upsets, Big Senate Votes Coming Before Recess

|

NEXT: Torture Tort Terror

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. High fructose corn syrup would like you to call it corn sugar.

    It begins.

    1. That’s “Mr. Corn Sugar” to you!

      1. Anyone here old enough to remember Sugar Frosted Flakes, Sugar Pops, Sugar Crisp, Sugar Puffs, Sugar Smacks? The names have been changed to protect the profits, and four out of five dentists approve.

        1. Yup. I remember when the “sugar” first went to a very small typeface on the package, and then disappeared altogether.

          1. It was replaced by “golden” in many instances, and who doesn’t like gold? I think corn “syrup” should be replaced with corn “gold.”

            1. I think corn “syrup” should be replaced with corn “gold.” “hole.”

              That’s what ADM thinks, anyway.

        2. I figured the word “Smacks” was taken out to placate the Drug Warriors, as smack is slang for drug use…

          1. Er, not enough coffee… the word “sugar”, but it’s ironic that the word “smack” appears on a food box…

            1. and the violence…I seem to remember twin brothers in boxing attire singing:

              Hey give me a Smack
              A wonderful Smack
              (his twin viciously hits him and replies)
              .and ’cause you’re me brother.
              I’ll give ya another.

    2. If its in white powder form and not syrup form, I would be okay with calling it corn sugar.

      1. Corn starch, corn oil…it seems there are precedents…

      2. The word sugar does has nothing to do with white powder. Sucrose, lactose, and fructose are all sugars regardless of whether or not they are in the form of solid crystals, syrup, or dissolved in milk.

    3. I think that the term “corn sugar” is already used to refer to pure glucose, often used for carbonation in beer brewing.

      1. True. It’s usually used for priming, which is adding sugar just before bottling so it can ferment in the bottles to provide carbonation.

    4. Will you pumice my corn, sugar?

  2. I could see the loose folds of flesh dripping off of Rangel’s misshapen skull at his press conference. “20 term Congressman.”

    20 times democracy has sent that crook to Congress. Democracy is broken beyond repair.

    1. Voting for Rangel could be considered a rational act if you assume that he will steal more for you than he will steal from you.

      The per-constituent dollar value of his transgressions is fairly miniscule.

      I’m happy when a Congresscritter gets bagged for something, but we shouldn’t put too much hope in the sudden revelation that our Congress is made up of crooks. Their secret personal crimes are petty compared to the policy crimes they commit in the clear light of day.

      1. I don’t doubt the rationality of his voters; they are quite wise to keep an effective thief on the payroll considering they must not be concerned about thievery.

        I just wonder what the end of this political set-up is going to look like. Will it be a whimper or a bang?

        1. And ‘ol Charlie is a staunch supporter of the Drug War. How many people from his district are in prison for drug crimes? The voters get what they deserve.

      2. Yup. That is why in some ways I kind of feel bad for Rangel. Yeah he is a crook. But he is no worse of a crook than the rest of them. Why is he the only one going before the ethics committee?

        1. Maybe because he was a tax cheat writing tax laws?

          1. As opposed to Chris Dood writing financial laws while taking sweetheart mortgage deals as a “Friend of Angelo”? And he didn’t just start being a tax cheat. He has been one for years. These stories have been floating around forever. And the Dems still put him in the chairmanship in 2006.

            Again, Rangle is a thief. But I don’t buy for a minute he is anything more than an average one in Congress.

        2. Hey, we all get our turn in the barrel. No biggie.

        3. I think what gets under my skin is that he’s such a big-mouthed playah who is truly intolerable. The fact that he has such senior leadership positions where he gets serious camera time doesn’t help.

          Which is to say that he’s no different than any of the other gongressvermin, but his style is so particularly grating and insidious that the desire of watching him get fucked big time overwhelms any rational analysis.

          This is not too much unlike the thrill of watching a particualrly nasty movie villian get offed in glorious slo-mo by the hero, who’s throwing out catchy one-liners.

          1. For some reason Rangle has never grated on me as badly as other Congress creatures.

            Rather than your scene, I look at it more like when the Russian mobsters whack Denzell Washington at the end of Training Day. One scumbag finally being done it by other scumbags. It is not like the House Ethics committee are heroes.

      3. Sometimes I’m watching Match Game ’74 and there’s a fill-in-the-blank playing on the public’s obvious disgust with “those crooks in Congress”. What the heck happened? Yeah, we don’t make of old people or “orientals” anymore… but Congress?! How humorless and complacent we’ve become.

  3. Well, at least an incumbent got voted out in Delaware. Don’t really care which party has majority in the Senate.

    1. As long as the Democrats don’t have a filibuster proof majority, I agree.

    2. I contend the GOP is better off not controlling the Senate. The public is going to blame someone for the coming depression.

    3. I just read the O’Donnell thread below. Ken Shultz has a pretty good argument that it’s ideal for the worst imaginable candidates to beat TARP-voting assbags.

  4. Adrian Fenty’s tears of defeat are delicious and added an extra little ray of sunshine to my morning commute.

    Yeah, I don’t like that jackass.

    1. And the alternative of Gray is better?

      I don’t care much for Fenty either, but Gray is one sinister motherfucker.

      1. Well to be honest, I don’t know anything about Gray. I just heard on the radio on the way in that Fenty was out, and I chuckled a bit.

        1. Oh, I will enjoy the yummy sweet tears of the lefties at work today, that’s for sure. Right up until they become annoying with their incessant whining.

        2. Gray is backed by the teachers union, which was enough for me to vote Fenty.

          Seriously, Fenty’s a prick. So what? I wasn’t going to marry him.

    2. What’s with the Fenty hate? His backing of Rhee should have made him the clear lesser of two evil’s among Democratic candidates.

      1. Don’t get me wrong, Fenty is to be given major kudos for Rhee, but DC is such a slobbering constituency city, with so many “what have you gotten for me lately” shitbags that I don’t hold out hope for anyone unless they burn the fucking city gummint to the ground and start over.

        Even then, I’m skeptical.

    3. Fenty losing just shows that DC is no better than Zimbabwe. Yeah he is a jerk. But he stole considerably less than other mayors. And he didn’t do a bad job. Gray won for all the wrong reasons. The black community discovered Fenty was half white and voted him out after they realized he wasn’t going to steal for them the way past mayors had.

      This election was a case of the voters voting for corruption.

      1. That and apparently Rhee is a racist or something.

  5. Regarding NH, don’t confuse a Palin endorsement with a Tea Party candidate. Kelly Ayotte is the establishment pick.

  6. I think the Tea Party had little thought of winning six months ago, so they went ahead and nominated some flawed but fervent candidates. Some of them won and many will get killed on Nov. 2nd. Lesson for the Tea Party 2012 – find candidates who can win in the general election not just beat the moribund GOP establishment that brought us Bush, Bush, Dole, McCain, McConnell, etc. etc.

    1. Paul will win, Miller will win. Who are the “many” who will get killed?

      I think the real lesson is for the GOP. Find candidates who can win in Republican primaries, not just be the moribund GOP establishment

      1. I’d say Nevada and Delaware for starters. Harry Reid has new life and Delaware Democrats are dancing in the streets this morning over Coons’ chances now (except Beau – he’s lamenting his decision not to run).
        Those two seats could spell doom to the GOP’s 2010 chances but could be a longer run victory if the tea party wises up and nominates fewer lightweights.

        1. It looks like it was the establishment GOP nominating lightweights, if they cant even beat tea party lightweights.

          1. So would that be welterweights? flyweights? I cant keep my boxing weight categories straight. Establishment GOP candidates were whatever is much tinier than lightweight.

            1. super-flyweight, equal to or less than the weight of a superfly

    2. I think the Tea Party had little thought of winning six months ago, so they went ahead and nominated some flawed but fervent candidates.

      Umm, the “Tea Party” didn’t nominate anybody. A loosely affiliated group of citizens who are emphatically not a political party threw their support behind anti-establishment candidates in various Republican primaries, and Republicans nominated them.

  7. Oh, noes! My blog commenters are mean to me! Wah!

    You run a political blog in the age of hyperpartisanship. It’s not going to be the state debate club final.

    1. Balko shut down commenters on his site a while back (a decision since reversed). That’s when I stopped regularly reading it. Silence commenters at your own peril.

      1. I love flame wars! Episiarch is my hero!

    2. “A good comments section is a reason to visit a blog,” he adds.

      Then what the hell do we come here for?

      1. The bad comments. The Joel Piles. The Jezebels.

        I mean the sharp political discourse.

        1. That reminds me. Does Joel Pile fuck sheep?

        1. MAX!! How many times do I have to tell you, lock the door if you’re going to do that in my house!

    3. Smith has been called …a “piece of snot,”…

      Wouldn’t you call it quits if some Internet toughguy talked like that to you?

    4. A political blogger (of any stripe) who isn’t constantly and ferociously attacked probably isn’t worth reading.

    5. You have a blog?

    6. You have a blog?

      1. Damn my clumsy tiger paws!

        1. time to consume some corn sugar!

    7. You have a blog?

      1. I know I should have put the linked portion in quotes to indicate it was not me speaking. You don’t have to go all Grammar Nazi on me. Jeez.

        1. Just for that, I’m going to go over to your blog and be mean to you. And I’ll do it when you least expect it, you transsexual journolist.

      2. Ah, HA!!

        1. You’re not grrrrreat!

          1. Touch?! 🙂

    8. “Smith has been called a “weasel,” a “flaming liberal,” a “Journolister,” a “liberal hack,” an “establishment politico” who will be eaten by Sarah Palin for lunch, a “first grader,” “a basketball player with no jump shot,” a “piece of snot,” a “3 year old transexual, wanker,” and a “commie.”

      I love it that “journolister” is now an insult. It basically shot the credibility of everyone involved. Now whenever they say anything the response is “oh so that is the journolist talking point today”.

    9. Smith has been called a “weasel,” a “flaming liberal,” a “Journolister,” a “liberal hack,” an “establishment politico” who will be eaten by Sarah Palin for lunch, a “first grader,” “a basketball player with no jump shot,” a “piece of snot,” a “3 year old transexual, wanker,” and a “commie.”

      Not bad.

      1. Is a “3 year old transexual, wanker” one who wanks three-year old transsexuals, or is the commenter implying that the blogger is a three-year-old transsexual and a wanker? If the latter, I can understand his anger.

        1. Assuming it has been chopped out of context and the comma was correct, it was probably part of a sentence like “You dress like a 3 year old transexual, wanker.” So the state wankerishness is incidental to the transexualism.

          1. I’m glad we cleared THAT up.

      2. I found the insults kind of pathetic in the scope of internet insults. It looks like the list was formed by a team of geriatrics after pudding time.

        I was kind of amazed ninny wasn’t cited as an insult.

      3. Until he’s been called a rat bagging tea fucker, he hasn’t lived.

    10. Mean internet people.

  8. I’m enjoying the ‘concern troll’ trolling of the democrats today.

    “Tsk, tsk. those teabaggers are going to make America ungovernable.
    Where will we (the ruling class) find pliant GOPers for bipartisanship-ness

    1. No doubt you are right, but there are some who realize what is going on. I was a big surprised to see this in Newsweek:

      Tea Party Win Shows Voters In a Mood For Vengeance

      Democrats are trying to convince themselves the GOP is hopelessly divided, but that’s wishful thinking.

      Christine O’Donnell’s win against moderate Rep. Mike Castle in Delaware is the culmination of a growing anti-establishment feeling among Republicans.
      Nothing like getting outside the Beltway ? even if only by driving up I-95 to Delaware. Because what I heard at a little polling place in Newark, Del., told me, even before the day’s election results were in, exactly what to expect in November:

      An earthquake.

      President Obama, meanwhile, is behaving like a guy unsure of which way to run as buildings collapse around him.

  9. I am very happy O’Donnell won. It just shows how angry people are in the country. It was an absolute insult to Republican voters to take someone as awful as Castle and expect the rank and file to vote for him just so Jim DeMint can be majority leader. Republican voters played that game in the 00s. And swallowed their principles and voted for lousy candidates in the name of keeping Democrats out. Well no more. That is the fallout of the 00s. Yeah, people want to get rid of the Democrats. But they are not going to do it if doing so means putting the same garbage that gave us Abramoff and the rest of the 04-06 Congress. And if that offends the delicate sensibilities of the Republican pundit establishment, well sometimes life is like that. And they better get used to it. Because the days of people like Castle winning in that party are over.

    1. I like this. Perhaps in 20 years I could consider voting for a couple of “R”s.

      1. Think about the message it sends to people like Susan Collins. The fact that you can win isn’t good enough. I don’t care how bad O’Donnell is. Castle winning and the Republican establishment thinking that they can send any statist piece of shit they want up before the voters would have been worse.

    2. John, you give Delaware voters much too much credit if you think they are voting strategically. Primary politics are very, very, very local.

      1. They are not voting “strategically”. They refused to support an awful big government candidate that the Republican establishment tried to cram down their throats. It is just that simple. No one cared what kind of a candidate O’Donnell was. They just didn’t want Castle.

        1. The day after the national election, how many incumbents (as a percentage of the total) will have been reseated, in your opinion? If it’s less than 90% it’ll be a story.

          1. Castle is an incumbent Rep looking to move up to the Senate. So, thanks to last night, at least on incumbent won’t be moving up.

        2. That’s the problem: “no one cared what kind of candidate O’Donnell was.”
          But I think enough will care when she has to run in the general election.
          The Castles of the GOP need to be defeated by competent, experienced, and ideologically attractive candidates, not just by any Joe or Jane who “isn’t Mike Castle.”

          1. In an ideal world yes. But we don’t live in an ideal world. You vote for the candidates you have. And O’Donnell losing in the general election is better than Castle winning.

            1. I think I’d vote for The Joker at this point. Seriously. Watching things burn has a distinctly nice ring to it.

              I want to Congress to turn into an actual an honest-to-god orgy of insanity. O’Donnell is a good start.

              Unfortunately, Babs won the Md Dem primary last night, so we’re stuck with her, not that I expect anything revolutionary to come out of Maryland. It’s HUGE news when an R is elected.

              1. Yeah, even with Ehrlich and the national mood a Dem is going to be governor come next year. It’s a one party cesspool here, like a reverse Deep South state….

                1. Or a Deep South state from a few decades ago, for that matter.

            2. “And O’Donnell losing in the general election is better than Castle winning.”

              I heartily agree!

              1. That is only because you are a hack who will defend anyone with a (D) after their name. Coons is a legitimate Marxist nut. He will be an embarrassment to the national Democratic Party. He won’t be to you. But that is only because you are incapable of embarrassment.

                It is one Senate seat. Word is that O’Donnell may have some serious ethical issues. The Democrats are probably better off with her winning and then using her ethics problems to beat up on the Tea Party than they will be trying to explain away the latest loony thing Coons is saying.

                1. “That is only because you are a hack who will defend anyone with a (D) after their name.”

                  That is why on this very thread, just two posts above your post, I lament the one party (D btw) status of my state.

                  John, the hack you are thinking of is you, and the letter you are thinking of is R.

    3. And besides, who really cares whether or not the sorry-ass republicans get a majority in the senate or not next year; they couldn’t do a whole lot anyway.

      All I want is for them to get a big enough caucus to be able to stop the agenda of the psychopaths in the White House dead in its tracks.

      1. And besides, who really cares whether or not the sorry-ass republicans get a majority in the senate or not next year; they couldn’t do a whole lot anyway.

        The advantage of having a majority isn’t necessarily in passing laws; its in controlling committees and hearings.

        And blocking confirmations. Of course, as long as lightweight wannabe-Ds like Snow and Collins are warming seats, the Republicans would probably need a 53 vote majority (which may not even be mathematically possible this year), its unlikely any major Obama noms would be blocked.

        1. Castle would be a David Brooks type media darling. It would be pretty hard for Republicans in 2012 to set out a credible alternative to Democrats with Castle on the Sunday News shows every week talking about how they are extremist. He was nothing but a fifth columnist. And moreover, I am tired of these rat bastards thinking they are entitled to be in government for life. He is seventy years old. Doesn’t he have something better to do?

          I would rather have the Democratic communist in Coon. If the Republicans control the house and have at least 45 Senators, the outcomes will be exactly the same as they would be if they had 51 Senators. Not being in the majority in the Senate just means you get fewer goodies and get to hire a few less of your cronies. Given that, it is no wonder the Republican beltway establishment is so pissed off about this.

          1. “I would rather have the Democratic communist in Coon.”

            You do realize this way lies Obama’s re-election? Who thought Clinton would be re-elected in 94 when the GOP, leaning toward the hyperbole spewing right wing of the party, took the House and Senate?

            1. Clinton shifted to the right in response, and it worked.

              Will Obama do that? Doubtful.

            2. Clinton was re-elected because he turned right, the economy was good, Perot ran and took 9% of mostly Republican voters, and the Republican establishment insisted on sending up Bob Dole because it was his turn.

              Re-election campaigns are a referendum on the incumbent. In 1996, people liked how things were going and figured four more years of divided government was the way to go.

              Stop repeating this Democratic myth that Clinton won because of the extremist Congress. If the public hadn’t liked the Congress, they would have kicked them out to. But they didn’t do that. 1996 was a totally incumbent election. It is nothing like 2010 or 2012.

              1. Clinton ran to the right of his party, but to the left of the “extremist” Congress. Hell, Dole ran to the left of them too, but it was too little, too late…

                Right now Obama is not popular, but right now he has no opponent. If a nut is picked to run against him, then he will likely be in the position Harry Reid is now in, back in the race…

                1. Clinton ran to the right of his party, but to the left of the “extremist” Congress.

                  LOL, what BS. The Dems picked up 8 seats in the House, while the Reps picked up 2 in the Senate. 1996 was all about the status quo. And why not? The US was still relaxing after the end of the cold war, the budget deficit seemed under control, and the economy was humming. People were not interested in change.

    4. We are watching the slow destruction of the Republican party as we know it. It may take ten or twenty years but the writing is on the wall.

      1. “We are watching the slow destruction of the Republican party as we know it.”

        I don’t think so. You are just seeing it reform itself. This is how it is supposed to work.

        1. I agree. And in the world of politics, it’s almost impossible to predict 10 or 20 years down the road.

    5. I agree. Taking over the Senate with candidates like Castle would teach the GOP nothing. Rather than being chastened by the 2006-2008 elections, they think they are going to take power, push the Dems aside, and stick their heads in the trough as usual. They need a serious kick in the ass. O’Donnell is a fruitcake, but as a kick in the ass, she’ll do.

  10. So, burning gets one fired. More mosquerbation.

  11. If you find yourself in the mood for a paranoid rant…

    As I’ve said before, supplant “patriarchy” with “telepathic bear-squid from Venus” and you have your average subway entrance tin-foil hatter.

    1. I was really hoping for a delicious, filling meal here, but it was only a light snack. Meh.

    2. I dare somebody to go flash their feminist credentials over there by saying Ayn Rand is the best American Novelist of all time, and anybody who disagrees has just been brainwashed by the left wing patriarchy.

  12. In Canada, we spy on your trash:

    http://www.nationalpost.com/Ga…..story.html

    1. Dammit, Gobbler, now I can’t get “Alice’s Restaurant” out of my head!

  13. It should be clear by now that the overwhelming message to the political class is “No, we don’t trust you. No, we’re not going to elect more people like you.” It happened in 2008 (although it turned out to be an establishment candidate pretending to be an insurgent), and its happening again in 2010. However things turn out in the general election, the primaries have been good for the hater of the status quo. You can see that the NRSC has zero credibility, as their candidates have been walloped in competitive primaries. I love it.

    1. As if to underscore the point, a new CNN poll just out shows that only 25% of the country trusts the government, and my guess is that 25% consists almost entirely of the ruling class.

      The disconnect between the rulers and the citizens is bigger than at any time since the revolution.

      1. “my guess is that 25% consists almost entirely of the ruling class”

        That’s one big oligarchy…

        1. If you count public sector employees, it makes sense.

        2. If you count public sector employees, it makes sense.

          1. Especially if you count them twice.

  14. Enjoy, for no particular reason.

    1. No, YOU enjoy. For every reason.

      1. I don’t think I’ve ever linked to Morbid Angel here. Fixed.

  15. When I used to go to this, there was no catapult. I feel cheated. Also, I’m pretty sure I was the only child in history who liked hardtack.

    1. I liked hardtack as a kid as well.

  16. Frank Rich gets a little moist when he sees the new fightin’ Obama.

  17. So far, his administration’s seeming coziness with some of the same powerful interests now vilifying him has left middle-class voters, including Democrats suffering that enthusiasm gap, confused as to which side he is on. If ever there was a time for him to clear up the ambiguity, this is it.

    Sure Frank. The problem is the ambiguity, not the actual coziness (excuse me, seeming coziness) or his idiotic policies and the consequences thereof.

  18. For Watchmen fans a story on an alternative direction that the movie would have taken if Paul Greengrass chose to direct it instead of completing the Bourne series:

    The link.

    From a political perspective this quote got my attention:

    “At that time, I thought it was very poignant because it was written under the backdrop of Reaganism and all that in America and the Cold War being in full effect. I thought that the political climate from Bush was escalated to a similar point, with us on the brink of something quite catastrophic, so I thought making a version of ‘Watchmen’ that was more contemporary and applying it to the decade of the ’00s was a good idea and was a lot more relevant than it turned out to be. I think the difference between Zack Snyder’s ‘Watchmen’ and ours would’ve been night and day. He pretty much made the movie page-to-page from the graphic novel. Ours was definitely going to be based on the graphic novel and all the characters would’ve been drawn on that, but we’d have updated it somewhat.

    Would that version of the film reflect the left anarchism of Alan Moore and had been an interesting take on the original or would it have been a rehash of the views of a typical DNC shitstain instead? Having seen Greenzone and a lot of recent Hollywood fair, it seems they have no idea how unradical and agenda serving their views actually are when they are attempting to be something better than that.

  19. From that same article.

    Up next in the theaters from Watkins is the remake of the ’80s cult classic “Red Dawn” with director Dan Bradley, whom he met on the “Bourne” films. “This time it’s about the Chinese, and they invade basically to occupy America so they can get their money back. It was a neat premise for it and should be kind of interesting.

    That is a neat take, and as always, if they don’t fuck it up. Sounds like something to keep an eye on and will likely wind up being a topic here.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.