US House Majority Leader Eric Cantor defeated in primary

[Guest Phailadelphia]

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/10/5798458/eric-cantor-defeated-in-shocking-primary-upset

 

 

In the most stunning upset of this election season so far, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his primary election to conservative challenger Dave Brat on Tuesday, according to the Associated Press.

Brat, an economics professor at Randolph-Macon College in Virginia, criticized Cantor for being too willing to compromise with Democrats on immigration reform. "It's nothing personal against Eric," Brat told PBS Newshour in a recent interview. "It's just I don't see what he's doing on immigration." Cantor insisted that "my position on immigration has never wavered," and that he opposed the Democrats' "amnesty" bill. But those assurances apparently weren't enough for Virginia's GOP voters.

It was Cantor's idea to deny President Obama every House GOP vote on the stimulus bill

Cantor has never faced a serious electoral challenge since his very first Congressional primary in 2000, which he won by only 263 votes. Only two years after joining the House, he rose to be chief deputy whip, then the number four position in the House GOP's leadership. In 2008, he became John Boehner's number two — and frequently pushed for harder-line conservative policies and strategies. According to a profile by Jason Zengerle, shortly after Obama's inauguration, it was Cantor's idea to deny the new president any Republican votes for his stimulus bill. This strategy of opposition appeared to pay off when the GOP won control of the House in 2010.

Almost immediately after Cantor was chosen as majority leader, DC insiders speculated about the possibility that he could overthrow Boehner as Speaker with the support of hard-line conservatives. What followed in 2011, according to Politico, was "a year of bitter behind-the-scenes fighting. "When Boehner began having talks with Obama over raising the debt ceiling that summer, Cantor talked him out of it, as he later told Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker.

However, when conservatives tried to organize a challenge to Boehner in January 2013, Cantor made clear that he wanted nothing to do with it, and backed the Speaker's policies ever since. Talk of a Cantor challenge died down — partly because this unified front with Boehner caused conservative activists to lose interest in a Cantor speakership.

There was little attention paid to the possibility that Cantor himself might be vulnerable on his right. Brat had only managed to raise about $200,000, while Cantor had a multimillion-dollar war chest. But Tuesday's result shows that the right-wing primary challenge is alive and well — and should strike fear into the hearts of any Republicans thinking of working with Democrats on immigration reform.

 

This is a pretty big deal. Hasn't happened since 1899.

[Vin+ 3,121]

Brat, or braht?

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Call him a dog 'cause Brat is just the wurst.

[OSUViking 505]

So is this saying that Cantor is being replaced by someone even more partisan and conservative than him? I don't really care about the more conservative part, but if he's more partisan then I think this might actually be bad.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Good, you'd be hard pressed to find and incumbent congressman who actually deserves to be re-elected.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

So is this saying that Cantor is being replaced by someone even more partisan and conservative than him? I don't really care about the more conservative part, but if he's more partisan then I think this might actually be bad.

 

Worse. Far more partisan. Far more crazy.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Phailadelphia

[OSUViking 505]

 

Worse. Far more partisan. Far more crazy.

 

Unless I'm mistaken, he won't retain Cantor's Majority Leader position. Correct? That's at least a start - unless I'm wrong.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Cantor was ignoring his district and lost touch with the people that put him into office. Brat had the backing of the community and nothing short of a grass roots movement to get him elected in this massive upset.

 

Cantor deserved to lose. This is what politics is about... What it should be about, anyway. If Brat beats his democratic opponent he won't be any serious threat right away.

 

The story here , other than politics finally working as intended , is that Boehner is going to have free reign to cause havoc. I used to like him a lot but have he has really fallen out of favor with me in recent times.

[seanbrock 1,684]

The Tea Party is such bullshit. Lets take away all the regulations and let banks and big business do whatever they want. Worked out realllllllly well in the 19th century. They just manipulate working class white people with nationalism, racism and homophobia and in doing so make republicans look more sane to the rest of the people in the country. BUT GUNS GUYS. Funny part is that most of the tea party members would greatly benefit from things like minimum wage increases but most tea party members are too uneducated to understand that and are therefore easily manipulated. It's incredible how easy it is to get people to turn against their neighbors and give all their money and support to people who couldn't give 2 shits about them and don't even really live in the same world as them. They're fully conditioned to love their servitude.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

That isn't just tea party folk... That is practically every devout political follower of any party. There is no common sense... No room for logical thought processes. Only the " republican way " or it's all about the party rather than the views and platform.

 

Big banks run this country including both major parties. It's the way the world works now a days. All political factions also use scare tactics to beat their constituency into favor... Obama's campaign beat the daylights out of the race card ... Either vote for him or you obviously are in favor of suppressing blacks! It's called " progress " . Republicans and tea party goers do it all the time too... " don't vote for that guy , he isn't Ronald Reagan ! "

 

It's the political age we live in and it is not limited to one party or group.

 

Although there isn't anyone that actual benefits from minimum wage hikes.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Favre4Ever

[Guest Phailadelphia]

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/10/5798702/things-to-know-about-dave-brat-the-man-who-took-down-eric-cantor

 

This Brat guy admires Ayn Rand's moral & economic philosophies. He and Paul Ryan will be buddies, I think.

 

And say what you will about both parties being the same (I think that's a pretty stupid think to say, but that's neither here nor there), but liberals do not elect the extreme wing of their party to replace incumbents. Republicans over the last 4 years are churning out some legitimate nut jobs (see: Cruz, Ted), and each election cycle they seem to elect candidates more extreme than the last.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Liberals elected Barack Obama, lol. He was far left at the time of his election.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Obama, even in 2008, was not as far left as most Tea Party candidates are far right. I'm not even sure this comparison fits. Obama wasn't replacing an incumbent, and it was a nationwide election, which requires swing voters and independent voters to win.

[Thanatos 2,847]

What's the difference between putting up a fringe left candidate for your presidential candidate, and a fringe right guy who everyone overlooks taking out the House Majority Leader?

 

The former seems more egregious to me.

 

And Obama was dead left on practically everything when he was elected. He has since come more to the center, because that's what presidents do.

Edited June 14, 2014 by Thanatos19

[Guest Phailadelphia]

I think we have differing perceptions of far left.

[seanbrock 1,684]

If you look at Obama's track record, he's actually more conservative than Nixon was lol. What about Obama's presidency makes you think he's liberal? I can't stand the democrats either but the republicans are clearly far more insane.

[OSUViking 505]

Nixon was pretty liberal for a Republican, and even then he was a Republican in the age before Reagan revitalized conservatism. If Nixon had existed in the post-Reagan era, I don't think he would have even won a primary for a congressional seat.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Between tax raises and a willingness to regulate firearms, Reagan would probably be considered a liberal by today's GOP standards.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

If you look at Obama's track record, he's actually more conservative than Nixon was lol. What about Obama's presidency makes you think he's liberal? I can't stand the democrats either but the republicans are clearly far more insane.

For every *enter crazy republican here* there is a Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid on the other side. Gross.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

For every *enter crazy republican here* there is a Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid on the other side. Gross.

 

Wait, when has Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi every said anything as crazy as this? When's the last time ANY Democrat said something that insane?

 

Matter of fact, let's extrapolate. Where are the Glenn Becks, Sarah Palins, Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannitys, Alex Joneses, and the plethora of clinically insane radio talk show hosts of the left? I read a story recently where a public talk radio host tried to tell his viewers Obama won in 2012 because he released 45,000 felons from prisons on the condition that they vote for him (who, yanno, can't vote on account of being felons). A host of a conservative public radio show in Atlanta actually said that on air.

 

When is the last time a Democrat tried to win an election by saying they're more liberal than their opponent? That's literally every GOP race now. I got to witness it first hand in the Texas Governorship primaries a couple of months ago. They had a debate and literally every candidate for Governor and for Lieutenant Governor did nothing but try to "out-conservative" the others. Every single one of them said something to the effect of "I'm a real conservative and Mr XYZ isn't because..." Policy substance didn't matter. For Lt Gov, voters just wanted the most extremely far right candidate on the stage, and they got him in Dan Patrick.

 

Where's the Democrats that have been the most obstructionist Congress in the history of the US?

 

Where are all the left-wing nut jobs carrying out assaults on police officers and holding stand-offs with federal agencies?

 

There are crazies on the left, sure. But the scales are tipped very strongly on the right side. It's not even close. And the biggest difference is the crazies on the left aren't in positions of power or influence. They don't get elected, and they're not on TV.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Phailadelphia

[southgadawg 52]

For the most part I have stayed out of this discussion for a multiple of reasons but I guess I will open up a whole other can of worms now.

 

Obviously not everyone has the same definition of far right or far left.

 

Obviously this country is made of a bunch of different thoughts and opinions.

 

Obviously some areas of the country lean more one way than the other.

 

Obviously Phail not everyone will agree with you (nor will they agree with me)......in fact I seriously doubt you find two people who agree on EVERYTHING the exact same way.

 

Obviously Palin, Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Alex Jones are NOT clinically insane and they have their supporters. (Obviously neither are Pelosi, Reid nor the President.)

 

Please stop your name calling it belittles your viewpoints and your intelligence.

Edited June 12, 2014 by southgadawg

[Omerta+ 1,206]

 

Wait, when has Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi every said anything as crazy as this? When's the last time ANY Democrat said something that insane?

 

Have you heard that cunt Diane Fienstein lately ?

[Guest Phailadelphia]

 

Have you heard that cunt Diane Fienstein lately ?

Feinstein says stupid things, not crazy things. At least not that I can recall off the top of my head.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

What is crazy? What is insane? I mean, I certainly have my opinions and what I feel are justified under those terms -- as do you. And they are clearly very different. That bible thumper link you posted? I call that guy irrelevant and will disappear after his 5 minutes of infamy.

Obviously we have a differing opinion on the matter, and that's more than OK. I am not expecting to sway you or change your mind in the least bit. Heck, I know I won't or couldn't do that even if I tried. All I can offer is perspective and a point of view that differs from yours. Do what you will with that.

The difference between you and I and the problems we look at to determine "crazy" or "insane" is grossly different. You are sitting there worried about rhetoric and things that will never in the world pass legally in this country. Gays aren't going to be stoned to death... "crazy" I suppose... But I see that guy as no real threat to our liberty.

I am more worried about the people who are actually elected.. Who actually hold positions of power... That actually are looking to pass legislation that could infringe on our rights.

If you are a Democrat and aren't ashamed of the leadership of Pelosi and Reid, you need to reevaluate. That, is what scares me. Likewise is Mitch McConnell and to a lesser degree, John Boehner don't scare you as a Republican... It's time to reevaluate.

Saying you are more liberal than your opponent will guarantee you a loss. That's probably why Democrats don't use that line. Even if you are super far left, you don't brag about it. You keep it to yourself and hide in the closet. Being far right (not stone gay people to death far right) actually pays off with a lot a lot of the sheeple's vote.

 

"Left wing nutjobs" (your words) are very different from "Right Wing Nutjobs"... You've put forth, even in this thread I believe, that while many speculate that both parties are practically the same, you aren't buying it. And while you don't agree that the parties are the same, you expect their voters to act and react the same exact way.

That's not how the world works, fortunately. People are different, people react differently. You have people on the right who love their guns and are willing to go oddly long lengths to show it... You have people on the left who sit at home and suck off the teat of the American public... You have people on the right who are extreme Bible thumpers and want to carry it out completely, you have people on the Left who don't think any one person should have too much financial success and should redistribute that wealth.

It seems like you want the world and American politics to be a single candy bar... One flavor, every bite being the same. You have to begin seeing the world and life for what it is... A box of chocolates -- you never know what you are going to get.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Saying you are more liberal than your opponent will guarantee you a loss. That's probably why Democrats don't use that line. Even if you are super far left, you don't brag about it. You keep it to yourself and hide in the closet. Being far right (not stone gay people to death far right) actually pays off with a lot a lot of the sheeple's vote.

 

...that's my point. The GOP is catering to the radical side of its party and, when the country rejects their increasingly partisan and fringe ideologies in national elections (see: 2012, where Republicans were in a complete state of shock that they lost to Obama, and by a huge margin) they decided not that they should move back towards the center, but instead that they haven't been sufficiently crazy and need to move further to the right. And they've shown no signs of letting up.

 

Outside of 2012 elections, another great example of this is when the DoJ (I think, may have been the CIA or FBI) warned of the increasing violence and terrorist acts of violent, right-wing and usually white supremacist-tinged groups in the US. That riled up the crazy wing of the right and they caused GOP leaders (like Boehner) to push back on that report, claim it as some kind of tool of Obama to turn the country against its roots (or whatever that bullshit means), and the federal agency that published the report actually pulled back. Think about how insane that is. And congressional Republicans are enabling these crazy ass "revolutionaries"!

 

I have no issue with libertarians in general, at least not the ones advocating armed revolt. They're as irrelevant as ever. My concern is primarily with the increasingly angry, white, armed crazy asses who believe were on our way to some sort of armed revolt or civil war and their influence on elected officials who can no longer win without their support.