27 thoughts on “The Teabaggers Have Taken Over The House”

  1. This clip has become like watching the Simpson’s. It’s become an “old friend” with the same cast of characters over and over… a few new words with each episode…hilarity ensues.

  2. The scary thing, for me, is that I was imagining EXACTLY that scenario being played out just before sun up Wed. And when The One deigned to speak to the mere mortals on Wed afternoon, I was expecting him to announce a suspension of the Constitution, imposition of Martial Law, and arrest of anyone openly saying they voted for a Republican, until an investigation into voting irregularities could be completed.

    Which he thought would be sometime in late Summer.

    Or early Fall.

    Of 2015!

  3. “Teabaggers Take House: Women, Minorities, Children And Democrat Staffers Hit Hardest.” And Olbermann. Though that might be redundant.

  4. At least Hitler would have known what to do with all those lousy tea baggers. All we get from this administration is talk talk talk.

  5. Not knowing my history that well, I imagine everything Hitler did was legal according to German law (or made so post action.) Obama has his executive orders and unelected stealth bureaucrats but he still has some legal restrictions to his actions. He’d certainly like to expand his powers, but what crisis would he have available to use? Financial meltdown perhaps?

    Those last three lines were priceless.

    They say it takes about three months to corrupt a freshman congress critter. I’m hoping the tea party caucus provides some resistance to that. The GOP needs to get a better ground game. Reid was losing early, but got the casino bosses to make up the difference late in the day. If Clark county ran the same percentages as most of the other counties it would have been a landslide for Angle.

  6. “Thankfully O’Donnell didn’t win.
    Pelosi would feel threatened by a fellow witch over in the Senate.”

    Good dialog

  7. The problem in the Weimar Republic, IMO, was that having just one person (the president) as a check and balance on the executive headed by the chancellor is weak. If the president is senile, like Hindenburg was, you risk an overly powerful and tyrannical executive getting in control. The US Senate is in comparison a good compromise. But even such a scheme may fail, just like it failed in Rome, if people lose faith in the institutions themselves.

    As for the US election: the Republicans lost in California just like I said would happen. I also think that the electoral results were underwhelming compared to the expectations the Republicans had. Bill Clinton did not have the luxury of holding the Senate after his midterm elections under a less deep economic crisis than the one we are facing now. Unfortunately Obama will quite likely waste this opportunity to enact the necessary reforms. He did not manage to do what he wanted with a majority so it is hard to think he can do it now.

    It is doubtful that he will try to seize absolute power. His desired leadership style is what I call ‘the great compromiser’. His problem is that he is not very good at playing it. He is not a master salesman like Bill Clinton was. He can do reasonably nice speeches but the ability to negotiate and do the wheeling and dealing does not seem to be there.

    Every time I see someone in the news call him a technocrat I laugh. How can a lawyer be a technocrat? Just one more proof that journalists usually do not have a clue what they are talking about.

  8. These things are always funny, but I hate when they translate the generals’ names — Jodl, Krebs, Steiner — as words.

  9. Thomas, your link tells me this…

    [Hitler saw] street violence as a direct threat to his power

    It also provided a legal grounding for the Nazi regime, as the German courts and cabinet quickly swept aside centuries of legal prohibition against extra-judicial killings to demonstrate their loyalty to the regime.

    Which is what I said. I have to go with Churchill on this who said something like, “if history records Hitler as just a madman they will have lost an important lesson.”

    Yes, Hitler killed his opponents. He was also very popular with many of the German people. The same way Stalin, killing Ukrainians by starvation is still very popular with Russian people. If Obama saw the chance to kill his opponents, are you absolutely sure he wouldn’t take it?

  10. Ken,

    [[[If Obama saw the chance to kill his opponents, are you absolutely sure he wouldn’t take it?]]]

    Yes, that is not his style.

    However I could see some of the fringe Tea Party candidates doing it, look at Joe Miller’s goon squad and Sharron Angle’s statements, one of the reasons that so many voters rejected those fringe Tea Party candidates. There is something unnerving about a candidate that praises the East German border guards and suggests the Border Patrol be more like them… Or a candidate that threatens to “take a reporter out…”

  11. Godzilla,

    That is because the Republicans did not have the Tea Party “helping” them in 1994 as they did in 2010. Nevada, Delaware and California would all have new Republican senators today if not for Sarah Palin and here Tea Party Express.

  12. Nevada, Delaware and California would all have new Republican senators today if not for Sarah Palin and here Tea Party Express.

    Mr. Matula, I have often been impressed with your knowledge on matters of space/aerospace expressed in the threads here at TTM.

    But on matters of prctical politics you have a great deal in common with musicians who ought to just shut up and sing.

  13. …would all have new Republican senators today if not…

    Which misses the point entirely. The wrong republicans are worse than Reid or Coons. Reid and Coons offer bad examples (a very useful trait.) Bad republicans just confuse the issue.

  14. Yes, that is not his style

    It wasn’t Hitlers style either, but both seem willing to hire people capable of that little detail… if only they could get the red button to work.

  15. McGehee,

    More then 50% of Nevadans dislike Senator Harry Reid. You see signs all over the state ranting against him, and yet he won. And he won only because the Sarah Palin endorsed alternative, Sharron “did I say that?” Angle was seen as a worst option.

    And also note the Nevada Republicans won big beyond the Senate election, picking up a Congressional seat in Nevada as well as seats in the state Assembly and State Senate. In fact the Democrats winning the Senate seat was an anomaly among a major Republican trend in the state. In short, folks had to make a choice to vote for Senator Reid over Sharron Angle.

    The Californian Senate race was nearly tied.

    Just review what folks in California think of Sarah Palin.


    Note, 53% of the respondents were LESS inclined to support a candidate Palin endorsed, and who did she endorse and campaign for in California? And Who lost a close race?

    And even Karl Rove noted that Christine O’Donnell winning the Delaware primary would cost the Republicans that Senate seat in the general election. It he enough of an authority for you on politics?

    So now, where is YOUR evidence that those seats would have gone Democrat if non-Palin Puppets had been running as Republicans? All were leaning towards the Republican column until Sarah Palin showed up. SO Sarah Palin did cost the Republicans three Senate seats.

    That is instead of 51 Democrat, 2 Independent and 47 Republicans in the Senate it would have been 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats and 2 Independents.

    And the Alaska Senate seat will only stay Republican because Senator Lisa Murkowski had the courage to run as a write in against the Sarah Palin selection. Yes, even her home state is rejecting Sarah Palin, something to think about.

  16. Ken,

    [[[Which misses the point entirely. The wrong republicans are worse than Reid or Coons. Reid and Coons offer bad examples (a very useful trait.) Bad republicans just confuse the issue.]]]

    So are you now agreeing I was right? That fringe cases like Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell were mistakes, mistakes that cost the Republicans two Senate seats?

  17. Ken anthony,

    [[[It wasn’t Hitlers style either, but both seem willing to hire people capable of that little detail… if only they could get the red button to work.]]]

    Herr Hitler swung a club as good as anyone in the early days, which is why he ended up in prison. And as head of the Nazi Party. Human life was cheap to him by his own admission.

    By contrast I know of no evidence that President Obama was ever involved in any type of group violence at any point in his life. Nor that he ever called for groups to be eradicated, as Herr Hitler did from the very beginning in the early 1920’s… DO you have any evidence to the contrary?

    Please, find a GOOD biography on Adolph Hitler and read it before making comparisons with any American politician.

    I mean I could understand your fear if President Obama had ever showed like Carl Paladino did in New York after losing the election by 25 percentage points, acting like a character out of the Sopranos waving a baseball bat in his hand warning the winner to watch his step because its not over.

  18. The Californian Senate race was nearly tied.

    Yeah, in June, meaning you get skunked in November because The Boxer campaigns in September and October when it matters. Really, the GOP has zero state-wide presence here, there aren’t enough Republicans in the OC to swing the senate and no amount of after-the-fact out-of-state concern trolling is going to change that. Sorry.

  19. Also, Taranto has a good response to the David Frum talking points being echoed above. But yeah, let’s ignore all that and instead listen to the voices that gave us the 2006 and 2008 GOP loses.

  20. Titus,

    Yes, when Sarah Palin destroyed any chance Senator McCain had of winning.


    [[[Sarah Palin: The Governor from Alaska was the wrong choice for Vice President; her folksy charm was not enough to compensate for her inexperience, which also cost McCain his key advantage against Obama. When McCain chose Palin in lieu of Joe Lieberman (who would have helped win Florida), Mitt Romney or even Senator Evan Bayh, the decision was a clear sign that he was more eager to pander to the most extreme wing of the Republican Party instead of the essential moderate voters. Palin, for a while, reinvigorated the Republican base, but became a target of mockery and parody in the process, helping Tina Fey’s career more than John McCain.]]]

    That was an accurate assessment after the election and is still accurate today.

  21. I’m not sure why I should take some recent college grad’s word over anyone else’s — or my own memories. At least he acknowledges that Sarah Palin “reinvigorated the Republican base” — then he goes on to claim that she was still the wrong choice of running mate because of her “inexperience” and the fact that the childish, left-leaning, Obama-adoring media turned against her. To the first I say that she is a lot more experienced at just about everything than Obama: she’s actually been a governor of a state, she’s held down real jobs as opposed to feel-good affirmative-action-created McJobs like “community organizer” — hell, she’s even had more kids than he has. Someone pointed out somewhere that her only “inexperience” that could be considered important in DC is in foreign policy — but it’s the same for Obama, and the subsequent years of watching his many foreign policy gaffes has borne that out. And he’s the president, not the vice-president. Even now the so-called UN Human Rights Committee (or whatever the hell it’s so-called) is basically run by such giants of human rights as Iran and Cuba, who are getting their jollies by raking the US over the coals for our supposed “racism” and “mistreatment of immigrants.” Thanks, Obama voters, for bringing the Carter years back!

  22. Oops, hit the submit button too soon. Anyway, to continue: to the second, I don’t know why we should blame Sarah Palin for the fact that the media is populated by insecure, spiteful, childish suckups who had their lips firmly implanted on Obama’s… you know. Of course they turned on her. And every single other person who had been considered for McCain’s running mate sighed in relief that it wasn’t them. Because it would have been. We’re just lucky Palin was a woman, because we got that extra-special helping of misogyny (which is all right coming from Our Betters In Media, don’t you know?). But it would always have been something, because the point was to undermine Obama’s opposition and get that black man in the White House. If McCain had picked Lieberman, we would have gotten the old person card that the media had already pulled out for McCain (“He’s so old, what if he drops dead?!?!” Ageism, what ageism?), and along with that probably the Jew card (“Oh great, now Israel will run the country openly!”). I’ve watched the news all my life, I know how this is done. It was all about getting their black man in the White House so they could brag to all their SWPL friends about how they helped end racism in America. If you still don’t believe me (and I doubt you do), look at the way the press gave Joe Biden, who they had previously mocked up and down and sideways, the light touch treatment. Obama had touched Biden with his mighty power (the power to make SWPL’s feel better about themselves), and now jokes about Bidey were off limits.

    But I doubt you believe me. Oh well, it was good to get this out anyway. Gotta keep up with the typing skills so I can keep getting those temp jobs in the new Obama-blessed economy of Hope ‘n’ Change.

Comments are closed.