Thursday, November 09, 2006

THANKS FOR THE SENATE, FOOL!


You tell me, out of the following list, which state does not belong:

Missouri, Minnessota, Maryland, Massachusetts, California.

Ah, I know you're guessing California, right? It's the only one that doesn't start with an "M", right?

BRRAAAWWWWKKKK! Wrong answer.

The correct response is, of course, Missouri. Why? Because of course, in the realm of politics, Missouri is the only one of the states listed above that is not a blue state, but is generally considered dependably and solidly red. It is the only state listed above that did not vote for Al Gore in 2000 nor did it vote for John Kerry in 2004, again unlike the others listed.

It is even one of the states that came out in the 2004 election solidly against gay marriage and in favor of a constitutional amendment to describe marriage as being between a man and a woman. In doing so, it increased the margin of Republican victory in that years Presidential election by bringing to the polls voters who might to some extent have stayed home otherwise.

Missouri is about as red as it gets. Certainly not the most red. It might well be in the top ten, though.

Still, Democrat Claire McCaskill managed to not only beat incumbent Republican Senator Jim Talent for the Senate seat, therefore helping to guarantee what looks to be now a Democratic Senate majority, but she actually did it quite handily, by getting something like 53% of the vote.

Here is another statistic that should really chill the Republicans soul-McCaskill isn't really a conservative, she's a-gasp-left of center moderate. A left of center moderate Democrat is, of course, according to most Republicans, a wild eyed liberal. And I'm really giving her the benefit of the doubt here, as I really don't know that much about her, except that she pretty much tows the Democratic Party line on immigration issues.

She certainly isn't as conservative as Virginia's Jim Webb, or Mr. Buzz Cutt from Montana, maybe not even as conservtive as Harold Ford Jr. I would put her more along the lines of Sherwood Brown of Ohio.

So how did she win? Well, she won because people are tired of Republicans in general and Bush in partiular. Still, she shouldn't have won by this big a majority. Not in Missouri. For that, you can thank Mr. Blowhard pictured above courtesy of Brad Trent.

America has spoken loud and clearly about one issue in particular. Americans want EMBRYONIC stem cell research, and they want government funding of said research. I put that in all caps for the simple reason that many Republicans tried to adopt the disingenous stance that they were actually in favor of stem cell research, that any Democratic claims to the contrary was a lie.

They should have known better than to try that line of shit in Missouri, but they did, and it resulted in their asses being handed to them. Rush Limbaugh, meanwhile, increased the margin of victory by at least one or two percentage points by suddenly becomming the face of the national Republican Party. The face of a fat, drug addled, self-righteous blowhard, and worse-a bully, something that most Americans do not like, and especially despise when the bullying is directed at someone who is perceived as being gravely ill, as in the case of Michael J. Fox, who campaigned for McCaskill.

For one thing, Fox has the right to campaign for anybody he damned well pleases, and should be able to do so without being belittled, mocked, or otherwise denigrated. It's one thing to speak in opposition to someone. But Rush Limbagh could not be content with delivering a thoughtful response in opposition. He had to engage in childish, sophomoric behavior meant to make Fox look both foolish, and like a liar.

And because he thought it would work, and because he thought it would get some laughs, get this-HE FILMED HIS FUCKING RADIO SHOW WHERE HE DID THIS VILE SHIT! Now, you tell me, why do you film a radio show? A radio show should be heard, and not seen. But Limbaugh just had to make sure he got as many laughs as possible at the expense of a man who is suffering from one of the most debilitating diseases known to man by imitating his spastic uncontrollable movements which is a result of the Parkinsons Disease Fox was diagnosed with in the early 1990's.

You can hear him calling Fox a liar, by suggesting that he either exaggerated his movements in campaign ads, or purposely meglected to take his medication. But you can't hear him mocking him. That takes a visual aid.

What it all boils down to is, and I never thought I would ever say this, but the Democratic Party owes Rush Limbaugh a debt of gratitude. Because of his bullying and arrogance, the Democratic Party now holds the najority in the Senate for the first time in twelve years.

What is even more remarkable, according to Rufus over at Grad Student Madness, Limbaugh may have actually done this intentionally, albeit on some deep sub-conscous level. It seems that Limbaugh is supposedly relieved the Republicans lost, he is tired of carrying their water for them despite the betrayal of conservative ideals.

I tend to think, however,that he knew exaclty what he was doing, and meant to do it, and thought it would work. Unfortunately for him, most Americans are just not as shallow and mean spirited as Rush Limbaugh is, and assummed they were. Not in Missouri. Not this year.

I wonder what a person looks like when they willingly neglect to take their Oxycontin?

8 comments:

sonia said...

Missouri is about as red as it gets

Actually, Missouri is the most perfect bellweather state, ALWAYS voting for the winner (Dem or Rep) in every election. Simultaneously Southern, Western and Mid-Western, Missouri is as close to 'average' America as you can possibly get, with a mix of large cosmopolitan cities (St.Louis, Kansas City), yuppi suburbs and Bible-Belt countryside. Elections could just as well only be held only in Missouri and the results would be exactly the same. Even the McCaskill's 53% was exactly the national average...

A better example would be Montana, a safely Republican state where an incumbent GOP senator was defeated.

SecondComingOfBast said...

Sonia-You know, I guess you are probably right about that. But, it is by and large a red state, though I might have exxaggerated somewhat it's standing as one. Still, when an election is more or less decided by the amount of people that go to the polls to vote in favor of conservative issues, such as against gay marriage in 2004, that it is a pretty good sign of conservative strength. The Democratic strongholds are in St. Louis and in some more urban aeas, like parts of Kansas City. And even most Democrats in Missouri are largely the old fashioned labor Democrats, the so-called Reagan Democrats.

What strikes me is the disparity between the two election cycles. Missourians in 2004 come out to vote in force against gay marriage, and in the meantime vote for Bush,while this year, they come out in force to support embryonic stem cell research and in the meantime vote for McCaskill over incumbent Republican Senator Talent. Definitely a shift from decidely conservative to liberal, or at least center left.

What is surprising is that McCaskill is not exactly a conservative Democrat,or she doesn't strike me as being one. Due to this factor, it wasn't so much a surprise that she won as it was her margin of victory.

Lemuel Calhoon said...

Sorry but if your reasoning was true the margin of support for the embryonic stem cell amendment (otherwise known as the "lets murder lots of human beings for the empty promise of a cure for every ailment known to man” bill) in MO would have grown after Rush started telling the truth about it. Instead it closed to the point that it barely passed.

The truth is that adult and cord blood stem cells have already yielded treatments for a large number of conditions while embryonic stem cells have produced exactly zero in the way of cures. And they hold little promise of ever producing anything of value.

Venture capital is already flowing into adult/cord stem cell research but almost none is going to embryonic research (I would point out that Michael Fox’s foundation has funded adult stem cell research to the tune of almost 2 million dollars and invested no cash into embryonic stem cell research whatsoever). And believe me if venture capitalists saw the potential of profit in embryonic research they would fund it regardless of contraversy, after all they still buy stock in toabcco companies.

Embryonic stem cell research is a con game whose only purpose is to further dehumanize the unborn while funneling government money toward researchers whose work shows no real promise of yielding any useful result.

It is an unspeakably cruel joke to play on the sick and injured.

SecondComingOfBast said...

Lemuel: I thought it passed by a larger margin than that, at least by the same percentage as McCaskills victory. Still, there is no doubt that McCaskill to a great extent owed her victory to this issue. She certainly didn't win on the strength of her "comprehensive" immigration reform policy.

I respect your position on the stem cell issue, though I disagree with it. Limbaugh is another matter. I dislike his bullying and his egotistic arrogance. I still think he was a negative factor for Republicans in Missouri, and when you get right down to it, maybe other places as well, as this was played out across the country. Americans love tough guys, and respect strength and honorable dissent, but they hate bullies, and that's what he came across as.

He needs to hand those stogies of his over to Bill Clinton, it would make a good peace making gesture on his part, show he has some humility, and besides, Clinton can make better use of them.

By the way, I have no problem with the idea of ending in vitrio fertilization by law, which would end this as an issue. But if they are not to end it, you have yet to explain to me how the uilization of existing stem cells would amount to murder when these stem cells will either one day be destroyed, or will eventually die, after being frozen for a period of time.

Other cells can be useful, but in limited ways. They can only be changed to adapt to so much beyond what they have already been differentiated into. Embryonics have no such limitation. True, no one knows for sure how good they are, or whether they are good for aything for that matter. But it is certainly worth the effort to use what oens are availiable to find out, I would think.

Rufus said...

Well, I wasn't saying that I thought he was trying to help the Democrats. But, you might be right that it did help them. Reason is arguing that the stem cell issue played a lot better for the Democrats this time:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/116645.html
I'd have to see a few referendums on the issue before I made up my mind about it; but it's interesting.
Incidentally, the current issue of the New England Journal of Medicine has a few articles on adult stem cell research that might clear up some of the aparent misinformation about the issue.

SecondComingOfBast said...

I'll check into it, Rufus, though I'm sure I'm right, insofar as commonly accepted knowledge holds they have potential, but they are limited in what they can according to what hey have been diferentiated as. Embryonics have not differentiated yet at all, and so their potential is much greater, in that they can be made to become almost anything. According to theory, at least.

And I knew you weren't saying he purposely tried to help the Republicans, I'm sorry if it came across that way. Kind of tired when I wrote that and I guess I kind of mangled my point, as I do sometimes.

The Truffle said...

Now, of course, Mr. Warts-on-Ass is saying that he feels "liberated" at not having to shill for people he doesn't respect. Uh-huh. I'm sure that he and the rest of the right-wing gasbags know which way the wind is blowing. Who else believes that some of them are going to flip sides and reinvent themselves as liberal firebrands? And who'll be the ones to do it? Rushbo? Michael Savage? Laura Ingraham? Michelle Malkin? Hannity? Some other blowhard I'm forgetting?

SecondComingOfBast said...

Truffle: I doubt that any of them could get away with that. Besides, with these people, remember, it's all about the money. They have an audience they play to. If they pretended to change, they would never be forgiven by conservativs, and would never be accepted or believed by liberals. I think Limbaugh is just trying to find excuses for their losses and trying to make out like he knew it all along, and they deserved it, but he just shilled for the Repulicans because he thinks Democrats will be even worse.

Most Republicans are in denial over this, for now, next comes the blame, reriminations, and accussations.