Carl Paladino: The Teabagger’s Candidate Par Excellence

Politics • Views: 4,445

We covered the Carl Paladino story at LGF when he was caught sending around emails full of overt racism, misogyny, and hard core pornography (including bestiality), last April: Tea Parties? Racism? No Way!

Here’s a screenshot of a video he forwarded (now deleted from YouTube for terms of use violation), titled “Obama Inauguration Rehearsal,” which was previously posted at the neo-Nazi site Stormfront (the link goes to a Google search page).

Today I’m seeing a lot of people speculate that he was nominated for governor of New York despite this almost unbelievable background.

But I have to ask the question: what if he was nominated because of this racist, sexist insanity?

What makes anyone think the teabaggers who voted for Paladino don’t approve of this stuff?

Jump to bottom

102 comments
1 laZardo  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:19:12am

He's practically the embodiment of American conservatism. Racism, sexism, and above all, insanity.

2 Cannadian Club Akbar  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:20:11am

Lovely.
/

3 erraticsphinx  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:20:23am

He was also over-the-top in his mosque hate.

It will be a miracle if he cracks 35% against Cuomo, though.

4 Political Atheist  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:20:30am

Even Karl Rove sees the foolishness here with the Tea Party candidates. Losing possible seats with each and every misstep. I guess we will not see this video mentioned at Politico or CNN. Too bad.

5 jamesfirecat  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:20:43am

//Hold on, can we be sure he's not a democratic plant who intends to make the Tea party look bad in the eyes of America?

6 Charles Johnson  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:23:13am

Rush Limbaugh is bashing Karl Rove. And Dan Riehl is calling for Rove to be fired from Fox News and investigated.

There's a major meltdown going on. The teabaggers really shot themselves in the foot by electing these goons.

7 erraticsphinx  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:23:33am

re: #5 jamesfirecat

Drats. You caught them.

But seriously, I'm going to have to see how my Republican friends will justify voting for this racist lunatic.

8 jamesfirecat  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:24:36am

re: #6 Charles

Rush Limbaugh is bashing Karl Rove. And Dan Riehl is calling for Rove to be fired from Fox News and investigated.

There's a major meltdown going on. The teabaggers really shot themselves in the foot by electing these goonsloons.

Fixed that for you Charles.

9 DaddyG  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:24:53am

Darth Rove is now going to have to crush the rebellion in order to save the Empire. This is going to end badly. /

10 lawhawk  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:25:26am

Rick Lazio has little name recognition statewide despite running for the Senate when he filled in for Rudy. Paladino made a splash with his personally funded campaign. He got people who were angry at the GOP to jump in (think to how the GOP botched the NY-23 campaign and enabled a Democrat to win a seat that a moderate GOPer would have won handily).

Paladino has the money that Lazio lacked, and both candidates were pushing the same basic policies - especially in re: Cordoba House. Paladino came out first against it - and Lazio jumped on that bandwagon of hate. Paladino stoked the craziness and proffered eminent domain as his solution. Lazio was left floundering.

At least the GOP leadership in the state can say that they didn't want this guy on the ballot because he'd be toxic, but the state GOP can't boast too much since they lack any candidates of substance who can run a credible race on the statewide ballot and are lacking credible candidates in many parts of NY.

Frankly, I don't think the racist and nutty background was what attracted voters - it was that he took on the GOP establishment and did so with his own money. They were sending the state GOP a message, but it will only backfire on them in a big way when Cuomo crushes him in November. Lazio might have run a slightly more credible campaign (and still losing to Cuomo but by a smaller margin).

Expect this to set the state GOP back further - or at least spur the party to do something I've been urging for a good long time now - build up from the grassroots a cadre of candidates who are moderate socially and fiscally conservative who can deal with the state's tremendous fiscal problems due to profligate spending for decades with a tax and spend manta.

11 researchok  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:25:30am

I don't believe that most TP'ers are inherently racist.

I also don't believe TP'ers are the sharpest knives in the drawer. Paladino says a lot of the things TPers want to hear when it comes to taxes, spending, government waste, etc., and they find that very appealing. They pretend the other stuff doesn't exist or he was just kidding- kind of like German politics in the 30's

What is most disturbing to me is the shallowness of the TP'ers. They are backing candidates that are unfit, simply because they can parrot a certain line and make them feel good and relevant.

They are treating the political process as if it were a reality TV show featuring their favorite characters. Too many forget that reality TV is just TV.

12 Mark Pennington  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:26:26am

re: #6 Charles

Rush Limbaugh is bashing Karl Rove. And Dan Riehl is calling for Rove to be fired from Fox News and investigated.

There's a major meltdown going on. The teabaggers really shot themselves in the foot by electing these goons.

This is so much fun to watch but I hope the dems don't get cocky and let these nutbars actually win. Scary.

13 Gus  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:26:43am

re: #6 Charles

Rush Limbaugh is bashing Karl Rove. And Dan Riehl is calling for Rove to be fired from Fox News and investigated.

There's a major meltdown going on. The teabaggers really shot themselves in the foot by electing these goons.

Such irony. Such blind ignorance. From a Republican strategy viewpoint Karl Rover is 100 percent correct regarding O'Donnell and the rest of the kooks. It's amazing how quickly they're moving to throw Mr. Rove under the bus. The right wing has always been a well organized circular firing squad.

14 erraticsphinx  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:27:03am

re: #9 DaddyG

Oh, I'm afraid the teabagger Death Star will be quite operational by the time your friends arrive.

15 researchok  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:27:35am

re: #10 lawhawk

Rick Lazio has little name recognition statewide despite running for the Senate when he filled in for Rudy. Paladino made a splash with his personally funded campaign. He got people who were angry at the GOP to jump in (think to how the GOP botched the NY-23 campaign and enabled a Democrat to win a seat that a moderate GOPer would have won handily).

Paladino has the money that Lazio lacked, and both candidates were pushing the same basic policies - especially in re: Cordoba House. Paladino came out first against it - and Lazio jumped on that bandwagon of hate. Paladino stoked the craziness and proffered eminent domain as his solution. Lazio was left floundering.

At least the GOP leadership in the state can say that they didn't want this guy on the ballot because he'd be toxic, but the state GOP can't boast too much since they lack any candidates of substance who can run a credible race on the statewide ballot and are lacking credible candidates in many parts of NY.

Frankly, I don't think the racist and nutty background was what attracted voters - it was that he took on the GOP establishment and did so with his own money. They were sending the state GOP a message, but it will only backfire on them in a big way when Cuomo crushes him in November. Lazio might have run a slightly more credible campaign (and still losing to Cuomo but by a smaller margin).

Expect this to set the state GOP back further - or at least spur the party to do something I've been urging for a good long time now - build up from the grassroots a cadre of candidates who are moderate socially and fiscally conservative who can deal with the state's tremendous fiscal problems due to profligate spending for decades with a tax and spend manta.

They have given Cuomo a bed of roses to walk on.

16 Political Atheist  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:27:39am

Wiki sure gives the scandals a light touch

Controversy

Paladino has allegedly forwarded improper e-mails to unidentified friends. [37] Campaign manager Michael Caputo initially stated that the authenticity of some of the e-mails could not be verified,[38] and the site that initially broke the story has been accused in the past of forging e-mails pertaining to another scandal.[39] Paladino later acknowledged that some of the e-mails were authentic, but denied that he originated any of them, saying that he was "somewhat careless" about forwarding them to others.[40] The state of New York was attempting to terminate their binding contracts and leases with Ellicott Development because of the accusations,[41] though it was later discovered that they could not legally do so, and the state will be forced to honor the contracts.

17 Charles Johnson  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:27:43am

At what point does tacit enabling of racism and looking the other way turn into outright racism itself?

How could any sane individual cast a vote for Paladino?

18 Varek Raith  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:28:36am

re: #13 Gus 802

Such irony. Such blind ignorance. From a Republican strategy viewpoint Karl Rover is 100 percent correct regarding O'Donnell and the rest of the kooks. It's amazing how quickly they're moving to throw Mr. Rove under the bus. The right wing has always been a well organized circular firing squad.

Armed with Davy Crockett's no less.

19 researchok  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:28:57am

re: #13 Gus 802

Such irony. Such blind ignorance. From a Republican strategy viewpoint Karl Rover is 100 percent correct regarding O'Donnell and the rest of the kooks. It's amazing how quickly they're moving to throw Mr. Rove under the bus. The right wing has always been a well organized circular firing squad.

They have fingers in their ears and telling Rive 'nananana we can't hear you'.

Profound political strategy.

20 Charles Johnson  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:28:58am

Mitt Romney has endorsed Christine O'Donnell. Pathetic. I'm so done with this screwed up party.

21 Varek Raith  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:30:26am

re: #20 Charles

Mitt Romney has endorsed Christine O'Donnell. Pathetic. I'm so done with this screwed up party.

Helm, set course for off that cliff at maximum warp.
Engage.

22 jaunte  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:30:48am

re: #13 Gus 802

Such irony. Such blind ignorance. From a Republican strategy viewpoint Karl Rover is 100 percent correct regarding O'Donnell and the rest of the kooks. It's amazing how quickly they're moving to throw Mr. Rove under the bus. The right wing has always been a well organized circular firing squad.


It's laughable that Dan Riehl is the one calling Karl Rove a 'knucklehead.'

23 Gus  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:30:50am

re: #20 Charles

Mitt Romney has endorsed Christine O'Donnell. Pathetic. I'm so done with this screwed up party.

My goodness. Mitt Romney endorsing O'Donnell and he's headed to the Values Voter summit where Bryan Fischer and other kooks will speak. Looks like there are no more nails left and the box is finished.

24 jamesfirecat  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:31:07am

re: #20 Charles

Mitt Romney has endorsed Christine O'Donnell. Pathetic. I'm so done with this screwed up party.

Mitt Romney is cow towing to the far right?

FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP come on guys you know the words!

25 Political Atheist  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:31:45am

These Primaries make the California tickets look pretty same at least by comparison. But seriously being done with the Republicans raises another issue at least for me-How far from your principles and standards can a Democrat be and still get your vote?

In my case Boxer v Fiorina and Whitman v Brown could cause me to vote the rest of the ballot, and withold a vote in those 2 races.

26 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:32:30am

re: #24 jamesfirecat

Mitt Romney is cow towing to the far right?

FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP come on guys you know the words!

That's kowtow.

Cow towing would involve getting Bessie out of a mud puddle.

27 Stanghazi  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:32:51am

re: #12 beekiller

This is so much fun to watch but I hope the dems don't get cocky and let these nutbars actually win. Scary.

Exactly my feeling. See Reid/Angle - what a 2% difference now?

GOTV is going to matter.

28 Henchman Ghazi-808  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:32:56am

WTF did Rove say or do I got to wait for the transcipt?

Can't turn on toob wifey still asleep.

29 Gus  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:33:08am

re: #22 jaunte

It's laughable that Dan Riehl is the one calling Karl Rove a 'knucklehead.'

Like people might say... if Karl Rove is a voice of reason for the GOP that says a lot. The extremism and ignorance has become so mainstream that many of the old guard like Rove, Bush, etc., seem like moderates when compared with the lunatics today.

30 DaddyG  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:33:38am

re: #17 Charles

At what point does tacit enabling of racism and looking the other way turn into outright racism itself?

How could any sane individual cast a vote for Paladino?

Traditional reasons:
1. He's an SOB but he's our SOB (The Shah of Iran ploy)
2. He was framed (the Marion Barry defense)
3. Theirs is worse (Anybody but ____)
4. Its the economy stupid (or insert any other single issue)
5. U-S-A U-S-A! (The Motherland strategy - see Hitler and Stalin)

31 jaunte  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:34:13am

re: #30 DaddyG

6. Rogue!

32 Varek Raith  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:34:34am

re: #30 DaddyG

Traditional reasons:
1. He's an SOB but he's our SOB (The Shah of Iran ploy)
2. He was framed (the Marion Barry defense)
3. Theirs is worse (Anybody but ___)
4. Its the economy stupid (or insert any other single issue)
5. U-S-A U-S-A! (The Motherland strategy - see Hitler and Stalin)

7. RON PAUL

33 Political Atheist  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:34:56am

re: #28 BigPapa

WTF did Rove say or do I got to wait for the transcipt?

Can't turn on toob wifey still asleep.

Check out these links.
[Link: www.google.com...]

I love the Lez get Real entry...

34 jamesfirecat  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:35:01am

re: #25 Rightwingconspirator

These Primaries make the California tickets look pretty same at least by comparison. But seriously being done with the Republicans raises another issue at least for me-How far from your principles and standards can a Democrat be and still get your vote?

In my case Boxer v Fiorina and Whitman v Brown could cause me to vote the rest of the ballot, and withold a vote in those 2 races.

What has Boxer done to earn your ire?

35 Gus  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:35:03am

re: #28 BigPapa

WTF did Rove say or do I got to wait for the transcipt?

Can't turn on toob wifey still asleep.

It's all here.

36 lawhawk  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:35:09am

re: #30 DaddyG

I think the primary boiled down to reason 3 - anybody but Lazio and that Paladino was the outsider running an insurgent campaign (the state GOP had tried to keep him off the primary ballot).

37 Cannadian Club Akbar  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:35:35am

re: #32 Varek Raith

7. RON PAUL

8. Stop Socialism!!

38 What, me worry?  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:37:03am

re: #36 lawhawk

I think the primary boiled down to reason 3 - anybody but Lazio and that Paladino was the outsider running an insurgent campaign (the state GOP had tried to keep him off the primary ballot).

I think you sized that up. Not that I know all that much about NY politics, but if they were trying to send the GOP a message, they certainly did that. Unfortunately, they sent another message to the rest of us outsiders looking in.

39 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:37:43am

No doubt the GOP needs to be cured.

Seems right now, the cure is worse than the disease.

Sigh.

40 Henchman Ghazi-808  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:38:32am

There seems to be a schism here. There seems to be a divide.

No.Shit.Sherlock.

41 DaddyG  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:38:55am

re: #36 lawhawk

I think the primary boiled down to reason 3 - anybody but Lazio and that Paladino was the outsider running an insurgent campaign (the state GOP had tried to keep him off the primary ballot).

You make a very good point. The general dissatisfaction with incumbants has led to some pretty dicey yet new faces getting into the picture.

42 Political Atheist  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:40:07am

re: #34 jamesfirecat

Gun votes and economic policy.

43 DaddyG  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:40:14am

Let's try that with spell check...

You make a very good point. The general dissatisfaction with incumbents has led to some pretty dicey yet new faces getting into the picture.

(I can talk a good game - I just can't spell it worth...)

44 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:40:56am

re: #41 DaddyG

If any of these anti-incumbent weirdos do get elected it'll be really funny watching them run for re-election.

They can't exactly run on anti-incumbency then.

45 Political Atheist  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:42:28am

Anyone that sees Democratic control as an economic or policy panacea should examine California and who has had majority control of the very powerful legislature here for quite some time. Spend baby spend.

46 jamesfirecat  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:42:39am

re: #42 Rightwingconspirator

Gun votes and economic policy.

Because she's done what exactly on those issues?

47 lawhawk  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:43:10am

re: #41 DaddyG

It's not necessarily voter dissatisfaction with incumbents; Lazio was running for an open governor's seat when Paterson announced he wouldn't run for reelection. Lazio was the preferred state GOP candidate and had hoped for an unopposed primary. The dissatisfaction was with the state GOP for their awful candidate; so they chose their own even worse candidate.

At the same time, some other incumbents got whacked (see Espada Jr) - but notably not Charles Rangel who managed to gain 50% of the vote in his primary reelection.

48 Killgore Trout  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:43:20am

Semi-OT: Here we go. Beck and D'Souza on Obama's African Tribal world view....
D'Souza: Obama has sold to the American people a "foreign, strange ideology" from his "Luo tribesman" father

Much More Here

49 Henchman Ghazi-808  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:43:34am

Thanks for the link Gus. Rove committed apostasy and Hannity left no doubt he chooses partisanship above issues.

50 jamesfirecat  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:43:46am

re: #45 Rightwingconspirator

Anyone that sees Democratic control as an economic or policy panacea should examine California and who has had majority control of the very powerful legislature here for quite some time. Spend baby spend.

Ummm... California also has crazy laws where it takes a 2/3rds majority to raise taxes, but only needs a simple majority to spend money.

In short California is in fact already a microcosim of the US, the Democrats have a majority, but due to arcane rules lawyering, it's not a large enough majority to actually do what they want to....

51 erraticsphinx  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:43:50am

In a couple of ways....Scott Brown's win in MA was a good thing for democrats.

It showed the teabaggers that they could win EVERYWHERE! Yay!
So now they're attempting to try anywhere.

Unfortunately, few other Democrats are as incredibly tone-deaf and incompetent as Martha Coakley.

52 erraticsphinx  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:44:33am

re: #50 jamesfirecat

Not to mention a Republican governor..

53 karmic_inquisitor  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:44:35am

This was posted at Reason and is pretty damned funny.

[Link: www.xtranormal.com...]

54 DaddyG  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:45:59am

re: #44 Obdicut

If any of these anti-incumbent weirdos do get elected it'll be really funny watching them run for re-election.

They can't exactly run on anti-incumbency then.

Here in Georgia we have a re-tread ethically challenged Senator and a one term imperial Governor both running for Governor and claiming to be the outsider.

King Roy v. Lets make a Deal

If it weren't so serious for the future of our state it would be hilarious.

Please don't out me. One of these guys will be my next boss =:-o

56 Gus  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:46:46am

As expected some of the argument from the right is that the GOP/RNC should shut up and stand behind the candidate. In this case they're talking about O'Donnell. I would extend that to other candidates around the country. I think they miss point on several levels. One is that the GOP doesn't have a limitless supply of money to throw at these crackpots.

Another, and most importantly, there's no way in hell that I'm going to vote for any of these Tea Party maniacs like O'Donnell, Maes, Buck, Angle, etc. And Romney just shot himself in the foot by endorsing O'Donnell. As it stands I have no plans to vote for any Republican come November and 2012.

57 Political Atheist  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:47:47am

re: #50 jamesfirecat

True but often exaggerated and certainly scapegoated

58 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:47:49am

re: #54 DaddyG

Here in Georgia we have a re-tread ethically challenged Senator and a one term imperial Governor both running for Governor and claiming to be the outsider.

King Roy v. Lets make a Deal

If it weren't so serious for the future of our state it would be hilarious.

Please don't out me. One of these guys will be my next boss =:-o

We have a former governor who is as liberal as they come vs. a former Trailblazer.

For the state house, we have Danny Ainge's brother vs. a guy I see in the hallways at church. (Different ward, overlaps.)

That race I feel at least pretty good about.

59 wrenchwench  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:48:22am

Rush just said, "Obama's out there playing golf, he's out there smoking, he's got a good tan..." He said it casually, like he wasn't thinking...

60 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:48:41am

re: #45 Rightwingconspirator

Anyone that sees Democratic control as an economic or policy panacea should examine California and who has had majority control of the very powerful legislature here for quite some time. Spend baby spend.

Again: California's budgetary problems stem mainly from the immensely arcane budgetary process, where adding things to the budget takes only a majority vote but total acceptance takes a supermajority, meaning a cohesive minority can block the budget forever. In additoin, the existence of line-item veto means that the legislature can't really do deals-- the governor can unmake any deals that are made.

Combine that with the incredible difficult of taxation at the local level ensured by Prop 13, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Blaming the Democrats for it is silly beyond belief.

61 jamesfirecat  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:49:05am

re: #57 Rightwingconspirator

True but often exaggerated and certainly scapegoated

Also there's this chart for anyone who thinks having the Republicans in charge is how you fix an economy.

[Link: www.slate.com...]

62 Political Atheist  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:49:22am

re: #61 jamesfirecat

True!

63 Henchman Ghazi-808  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:50:23am

Wow, Paladino is shooting up the Paulian Scale right quick. He may break it.

64 Political Atheist  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:51:46am

re: #60 Obdicut

You hold them harmless? We did get balanced budgets good years after Prop 13. Scapegoated again. Via exaggeration. Special interests and Gov payrolled unions got their huge fixed benefit pensions despite 13. How did that happen?

65 lawhawk  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:52:24am

re: #55 Alouette

Paladino: Assemblyman Sheldon Silver is Hitler and the Anti-christ.

Paladino can go hell for comments like that. If I were Cuomo, I'd put together an ad lacing together all of Paladino's asinine and insane statements for circulating showing him to be unstable and incapable of leading a diverse state like NY - or even holding a job like dog catcher.

Pathetic.

And I say that as someone who is far from a fan of Silver, who is the Assembly Speaker and pretty much the most powerful man in Albany for the past couple of years. He's done so by ruthlessly running the Assembly for years and not tolerating any dissent within his caucus. Ethically, he leaves plenty to be desired as he takes outside income from a law firm but doesn't disclose his salary or client list at the firm among other things.

66 Taqyia2Me  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:52:55am

re: #25 Rightwingconspirator

Same here, Illinois Senate-wise...

67 Political Atheist  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:53:02am

Going upstairs...

68 William Barnett-Lewis  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:57:00am

re: #25 Rightwingconspirator

These Primaries make the California tickets look pretty same at least by comparison. But seriously being done with the Republicans raises another issue at least for me-How far from your principles and standards can a Democrat be and still get your vote?

In my case Boxer v Fiorina and Whitman v Brown could cause me to vote the rest of the ballot, and withold a vote in those 2 races.

While I can understand you disliking Boxer, she hasn't actively destroyed multiple corporations with her incompentence (Lucid - almost, Compaq - destroyed, DEC - swallowed by Compaq & desrtroyed, HP - almost but _still_ got a golden parachute even after gutting the company to with in an inch of its existence...) Hold your nose if you have to, but I'd say to please find a way to vote against Fiorina. For the good of the nation, if nothing else.

69 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:57:15am

re: #64 Rightwingconspirator

You hold them harmless?

No. That's not what I said.

Solely blaming the Democrats, as you did, is silly.

We did get balanced budgets good years after Prop 13.

That's nice. Prop 13 made local areas incredibly dependent on the state for funding, removing their ability to locally raise funds and deal with problems. Instead, they had to either creatively come up with ways to raise money-- speed traps-- engage in deficit spending, reduce services, or try to find a state program that would give them money. It added layers of bearacracy. In addition, the loophole that allows corporations to benefit more than individuals (give that they're immortal) is absolutely asinine.

Scapegoated again. Via exaggeration.

What did I exaggerate? Please be specific.

Special interests and Gov payrolled unions got their huge fixed benefit pensions despite 13. How did that happen?

I would guess that the government signed a contract with the unions promising them fixed pension benefits.

I don't really know what you're asking. Yes, pensions are a large problematic item on the California budget.

70 Slap  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 9:58:13am

re: #11 researchok

They are backing candidates that are unfit, simply because they can parrot a certain line and make them feel good and relevant.

Man, you pushed a button here.

I understand why my fellow citizens are frustrated with Washington's ways. Truly, I do. And there are plenty of ideas out there with which I agree, far more with which I don't.

The "vote 'em out" mentality that's being thrown, scattershot, by the Enough Already with the Taxes folk, is catching on in all manner of ways. To a degree, I understand that, too.

As a people, when we act en masse, we tend to be a bit short-sighted sometimes. I believe the "vote em out" at all costs mentality is short-sighted and just plain dumb. (I have never liked throwing the baby out with the bathwater.) And I believe it's going to be costly. By simply saying "vote em out", we actively disengage any intellectual examination of the pols and their positions and their records.

My own view would be best sound-bit as "vote the bad ones out".

Rather than adopting the "vote 'em all out" mentality, wouldn't a mass disaffiliation from party-based voter registration send a more significant message? To me, maintaining party registration implies tacit approval of the activities of the party in question, and implies to the leaders of the parties that they can pretty much preach to the converted with that registered bunch. I'm not a political scientist, so I can't pretend to know if there's a giant fallacy in this -- but if the major parties no longer believed they had a significant partisan audience to which to blather (in other words, a voting populace whose majority is unaffiliated with a specific party), it seems to me their approach would have to become more broad-based and cooperative, and less rigidly partisan.

Disaffiliation has certain limitations, but it never limits how a voter can cast a vote -- a person can be independent and still vote exclusively D or R if they choose.

(A caveat -- I've never been much of a "joiner", and I have difficulty relating to those who feel that belonging to a big, amorphous karass is useful -- whether it's a political party, or people who all watch a tv program for the water-cooler chatter, or religions -- so I'm naturally inclined toward NOT belonging to a party.)

I think rank partisanship -- and the "LET'S GO THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION, YEE-HAW" mindset is its spiritual cousin -- is the worst enemy we face in politics.

71 karmic_inquisitor  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 10:04:25am

I will pose a theory here and probably get my ass handed to me for it but here goes -

The Tea Party started as an organic and diffuse expression of frustration that was initially aimed at spending. That was what the MSNBC rant was about that got it going.

Having been a former active member in the California GOP, I saw what happened to a party that was about smaller more competent government and social freedom. It was eviscerated by Social Conservatives who wanted "country club" Republicans thrown out so that evolution could be banned from schools and school prayer (Chrisitian only school prayer) would be part of every school day.

These nuts were laughed at when they got started but many Republicans wanted to get their votes and figured they'd be a contained minority. What actually happened is that they took over the party and expanded their troglodyte social agenda. As a result the GOP is in permanent minority status in the state and there is nothing to keep the other side from indulging their ideologues.

That I have said here before. But what about the Tea Party? Well the SoCons demonstrated their absolute control of the GOP in the 2000 primaries when GWB was assured of a win. Primaries were moved so as to ensure SoCon momentum.

When the Tea Party hit they could have fought it, placing the argument that Social Issues trump Fiscal Issues. These lying bastards aren't about that. Instead the coopted the Tea Party and pressed hard early for social issues to be a constant part of the mix and the message. All of the Tea Party nominees just "happen" to be rigid social moralists. the Tea Party has yet to back someone who is pro-choice/fiscal conservative. Scott Brown was not a Tea Party nominee (contrary to the narrative many here have bought into). He is and was what these morons would call a RINO because he is not wired into the social agenda. And the coopted Tea Party have ragged on Brown since his acceptance speech. If all they were about is Fiscal Conservatism they wouldn't care a wit.

So the basic theory? The SoCons are in a no lose situation with the Tea Party. If the Tea Party "takes over" the SoCons are still in charge (ask Dick Armey). If the Tea Party fails, the SoCons declare Fiscal Conservatism dead. Either way, the Talibinization of America via the GOP continues.

And the ranks of independents will grow.

72 Political Atheist  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 10:04:40am

re: #69 Obdicut

I am saying that to California budget critics in general Prop 13 is exaggerated and scapegoated. Its the red herring that allegedly must be fixed first. Well, no (IMO) because this state overspends regardless of revenues.

"Fix" 13 and revenues will increase. So will spending. That's not much help for the price of the tax increases. 13 is the "blame first" place for all who seek to avoid other kinds of policy change. Show me a strong spending cap and I'll change my attitude on 13.

73 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 10:07:07am

re: #72 Rightwingconspirator

I am saying that to California budget critics in general Prop 13 is exaggerated and scapegoated.

It might be nice if you did something to support that contention, then.

Its the red herring that allegedly must be fixed first. Well, no (IMO) because this state overspends regardless of revenues.

Right. Which is why included that long section about the budget process.


"Fix" 13 and revenues will increase. So will spending.

Well, 'fix' 13 and towns, counties, etc. will be able to raise revenue again to deal with local problems, and they actually tend to be much more fiscally restrained than state government-- Wasilla nonwithstanding. You do know that part of Prop 13, right?


That's not much help for the price of the tax increases. 13 is the "blame first" place for all who seek to avoid other kinds of policy change. Show me a strong spending cap and I'll change my attitude on 13.

Why are you being so insulting and patronizing?

74 wrenchwench  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 10:12:38am

re: #71 karmic_inquisitor

I think your analysis is accurate, except for the beginning:

The Tea Party started as an organic and diffuse expression of frustration that was initially aimed at spending. That was what the MSNBC rant was about that got it going.

Tea parties were being held by Ron Paul for years before that, and a few organizations, started by mainstream, career political types, were instrumental from the start. I had not considered before how central the social issues probably were, despite the claims to the contrary. Thanks for the insight.

75 William Barnett-Lewis  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 10:16:18am

re: #68 wlewisiii
PIMF:
Lucid = Lucent

I'd not worry but there used to be a wonderful lisp compiler from a company called Lucid but they went under without her help.

76 karmic_inquisitor  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 10:28:00am

re: #74 wrenchwench

I think your analysis is accurate, except for the beginning:


Tea parties were being held by Ron Paul for years before that, and a few organizations, started by mainstream, career political types, were instrumental from the start. I had not considered before how central the social issues probably were, despite the claims to the contrary. Thanks for the insight.

Santelli (sp?) didn't know that, nor did the hundreds of thousands who watched him and then passed the video around virally.

It struck a chord. As Charlie Cook said yesterday morning, this election is one about independents voting against Democrats, and interpretations to the contrary are perilous.

Uncle Ron and his merry band will stake out credit for anything they can, and the story has morphed a million times since then.

People can adopt the narrative they are comfortable with. I am not comfortable with the narrative that I think is accurate. Not at all.

These "Tea Party" nominees will mostly lose and take others down with them. The SoCons will attach "Fiscal Conservatism" to those failures and complete their purge of the GOP.

Then we will have two moralist movements dominating the two major parties - the Progressive movement on the left (which is historically rooted in the last Christian moralist uprising this country dealt with - that they abandoned the Christian parts doesn't make them less morally motivated) and the SoCons on the right.

For people who want the streets paved, the schools producing rational workers (not ideological / skill free mind slaves) and the economy humming it is a baren landscape for a generation or two.

77 Feline Fearless Leader  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 10:45:34am

re: #39 brownbagj

No doubt the GOP needs to be cured.

Seems right now, the cure is worse than the disease.

Sigh.

I'm not sure I'd be willing to touch GOP Bacon. It's bacon, but possibly very creepy bacon... o_O

78 Political Atheist  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 11:03:20am

re: #73 Obdicut

No intent to insult, as a policy I am a strong advocate for tying spending to revenues reasonably, and ending expanding services beyond the states ability to support. I want 13 in place until spending restrictions are in place. Post 13 revenues can and have been adequate in the past. To me that diminished the anti 13 argument.

Reorganizing the way the monies are distributed is on the table as far as I'm concerned, BTW I agree with you there.

79 William Barnett-Lewis  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 11:10:36am

re: #77 oaktree

I'm not sure I'd be willing to touch GOP Bacon. It's bacon, but possibly very creepy bacon... o_O

I'll stay the full 6 steps away from that bacon, thanks.

80 Political Atheist  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 11:24:34am

re: #73 Obdicut

LA is not more apt to be frugal than Sacramento. Shasta? Maybe. LA, SF, Anaheim? I'd have to see their records on that in the past.

81 brownbagj  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 11:26:15am

re: #79 wlewisiii

I'll stay the full 6 steps away from that bacon, thanks.

Someone has to save their bacon!

82 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 11:28:30am

re: #78 Rightwingconspirator

You ignored everything I said about the budget process to focus on Prop 13, and you didn't actually address what I said about prop 13, either. You simply asserted it was a red herring because we had balanced budgets for a few years in the wake of it.

It is really irritating to write out a long bit about the budget process and its contribution to the mess and have you focus only on Prop 13. If it's a red herring, then focus on the budget part of what I said.

Reorganizing the way the monies are distributed is on the table as far as I'm concerned, BTW I agree with you there.

Well, you're going to have to fix Prop 13 then, since that's what stops it from happening.

83 Political Atheist  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 11:58:54am

re: #82 Obdicut

Look I think we can agree there is this list of things wrong in Ca. You put 13 at the fiscal top. I do not. I called it a rhetorical red herring because of how its critics often use it as the first thing we have to fix. To me that's dead backwards. Balanced budgets do fly in the face of the argument against it. "diminishes the argument" is what I wrote. I get your point about the process, I saw your chart the other day. But much of the process is that way with or without 13. Any process that allows fixed benefit pensions for Union workers when 13 is in effect illustrates my point well.
So my conclusion is fix the spending, then address 13.

84 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 12:12:38pm

re: #83 Rightwingconspirator

You put 13 at the fiscal top.

No I don't. I put the budgetary process at the top.

That's why I, you know, put it at the top of what I wrote.

I know you really, really, really, really want me to have blamed Prop 13 alone, but it's not what I actually said.

What happened was that you blamed Democrats entirely for the budget problems in California. Which is crap. The budget is a bipartisan fuckup.

85 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 12:27:40pm

re: #6 Charles

Rush Limbaugh is bashing Karl Rove. And Dan Riehl is calling for Rove to be fired from Fox News and investigated.

There's a major meltdown going on. The teabaggers really shot themselves in the foot by electing these goons.

Karl Rove must be looking around and going "what. the. balls."

86 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 12:30:30pm

re: #83 Rightwingconspirator

Look I think we can agree there is this list of things wrong in Ca. You put 13 at the fiscal top. I do not. I called it a rhetorical red herring because of how its critics often use it as the first thing we have to fix. To me that's dead backwards. Balanced budgets do fly in the face of the argument against it. "diminishes the argument" is what I wrote. I get your point about the process, I saw your chart the other day. But much of the process is that way with or without 13. Any process that allows fixed benefit pensions for Union workers when 13 is in effect illustrates my point well.
So my conclusion is fix the spending, then address 13.

So basically, you want to fix something (budget) that requires a rational political process and machinery in place to achieve any sort of consensus


...

...

and you want to do that before you fix the political machinery itself.

That's like, real logical, man! That makes a lot of sense to me!

Basically, it's like I have a car with a completely shot transmission and you come up and say "DRIVE ME TO SEATTLE!" And I tell you, car's fucked, tranny's blown. And you repeat. "DRIVE ME TO SEATTLE FIRST. WORRY ABOUT THE TRANSMISSION LATER!" And then I shrug.

Doesn't work that way!

87 Political Atheist  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 12:31:06pm

You go after 13 pretty regular, if I took the wrong impression I apologize.

I blamed Democrats entirely?
No here is my quote, and yet how long have they held both houses? Quite a while so they had plenty of opportunity to make good policy changes.

"Anyone that sees Democratic control as an economic or policy panacea should examine California and who has had majority control of the very powerful legislature here for quite some time. Spend baby spend."

What I attack is the idea the Dems can be counted on to fix these things. By our experience here in Ca its misplaces expectations. IMO.

Heh, just suggesting we reasonably tie spending and services to revenues got dinged by WUB. As if I made some unreasonable point. Spending limits scare people. Even the mere suggestion.

88 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 12:32:48pm

re: #87 Rightwingconspirator

You go after 13 pretty regular, if I took the wrong impression I apologize.

I blamed Democrats entirely?
No here is my quote, and yet how long have they held both houses? Quite a while so they had plenty of opportunity to make good policy changes.

"Anyone that sees Democratic control as an economic or policy panacea should examine California and who has had majority control of the very powerful legislature here for quite some time. Spend baby spend."

What I attack is the idea the Dems can be counted on to fix these things. By our experience here in Ca its misplaces expectations. IMO.

Heh, just suggesting we reasonably tie spending and services to revenues got dinged by WUB. As if I made some unreasonable point. Spending limits scare people. Even the mere suggestion.

Your whole conversation was dinged because you want to fix spending before you fix the mechanism by which you fix spending, which makes no sense.

I am just not down with your completely backwards order of operations, hence the downdinginess

89 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 12:33:51pm

re: #83 Rightwingconspirator


So my conclusion is fix the spending, then address 13.


As if...


you made some unreasonable point


Man I can't imagine what that point could be

90 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 12:35:56pm

I like having a political process that works and makes sense, and I bet Californians like that as well, unfortuantely, they haven't had that for many many years.

I'm sorta funny like that, I thought that was the whole point of this American thing, that the machinery at least kinda sorta works, that it doesn't take unbelievable hurdles singular in our nation just to pass a budget

When the machine doesn't work at all, I think it's imperative to fix it, not hold it hostage for ideology's sake

91 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 12:38:03pm

re: #87 Rightwingconspirator

You go after 13 pretty regular, if I took the wrong impression I apologize.

That doesn't mean it's at the top for me. The fact that I wrote about the budget, not just this time, but in detail on another occasion, and placed primary blame on that, should really stop you from accusing me of putting Prop 13 at the top of my complaints.

I do think that 2 things about 13 are terrible:

1. It takes away self-sufficiency in funding from local government, making them very dependent on the state. This is incredibly inefficient, especially when the budget process at the state level is so incredibly inflexible.

2. The loophole that lets corporations benefit as though they were immortal individuals is whacky.

I blamed Democrats entirely?

Yes. You know, or ought to know, that a majority in the senate is not enough to pass a budget. So the 'majority' is a red herring. Furthermore, you should know that the line-item veto allows for the striking out of revenue increasers-- taxation, fees, what have you-- without striking out the expenditure.

The deregulation of the energy market-- sought for and achieved by the GOP and conservative Democrats-- was also a large part of the budgetary collapse.

So yes, by saying that the Democrats controlling both houses = spend baby spend is disingenuous.


What I attack is the idea the Dems can be counted on to fix these things. By our experience here in Ca its misplaces expectations. IMO.

I think, in general, Democrats can be counted on to behave marginally more fiscally responsible than Republicans, though that's not saying much, since Republicans are disasters economically. In general.

Spending limits scare people. Even the mere suggestion.

Being penny-wise and pound-foolish scares me.

92 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 12:38:47pm

re: #88 WindUpBird

Your whole conversation was dinged because you want to fix spending before you fix the mechanism by which you fix spending, which makes no sense.

I am just not down with your completely backwards order of operations, hence the downdinginess

I didn't downding, but this is a good point.

How do we actually go about 'stopping the spending'?

93 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 12:40:09pm

re: #92 Obdicut

I didn't downding, but this is a good point.

How do we actually go about 'stopping the spending'?

I'm liberal with the downdinger :D

And yeah, exactly! With what mechansim do we stop the spending, if the mechanism is the thing holding up any work on the budget at all?

94 Political Atheist  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 1:01:19pm

re: #88 WindUpBird

Fixing spending is backwards? Ohhkay. re: #93 WindUpBird

13 is not what holds up the whole process as Obdicut showed. !3 is not the big bugaboo, bad policy is.

95 Political Atheist  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 1:04:26pm

re: #89 WindUpBird

Your imagination is not needed, just take a look at balanced budget years in Ca. After 13 passed. The example was set then. I realize Socon principles are really unhealthy and unwelcome. But you are reacting as if fiscal conservatism was the same way. History shows it can and has been done with 13 in full effect. BTW line item vetos can be overridden.

96 Political Atheist  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 1:05:16pm

I'm off to some work, darn it the most involved conversation we have had shows up while I'm work lurking.

97 Mark Pennington  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 1:05:38pm

Carl Paladino is on CNN right now with Rick Sanchez...

98 Political Atheist  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 1:55:53pm

re: #88 WindUpBird

The mechanism to fix spending is legislative restraint. Not increasing revenues. Not changing Prop 13, already shown to be unnecessary by history.

99 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 2:04:54pm

re: #94 Rightwingconspirator

Fixing spending is backwards? Ohhkay. re: #93 WindUpBird

13 is not what holds up the whole process as Obdicut showed. !3 is not the big bugaboo, bad policy is.

He wasn't saying 13 was holding up the process.

Again: How do we go about stopping spending? Saying 'legislative restraint' won't achieve it.

100 Political Atheist  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 3:22:27pm

re: #99 Obdicut

Getting further into this is fine with me, WUB you too. I think you might have put a meme or two on my motives here, I'm curious to see.

This must be an email thread by now... :) Maybe we should shelve this for now or take it upstairs somewhere?

I'm not calling for stopping spending. That's silly. I'm calling (again) for a reasonable link between revenues and spending plans. "Legislative restraint" is a short way to express a policy of having that connection as a matter of fiscal policy. Like when you expand pensions or services for big revenue years and fail to adjust accordingly to years of less or lackadaisical growth.

101 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 5:44:02pm

re: #98 Rightwingconspirator

The mechanism to fix spending is legislative restraint. Not increasing revenues. Not changing Prop 13, already shown to be unnecessary by history.

You're totally avoiding the fact that California's system is utter shit because of Prop 13, it was fashioned in such a way as to destroy the process

So yeah, your motives are pretty clear, you approve of sabotage

I like a smoothly running legislative system, not a system which has impossible hurdles build into it, that's full on grover Norquist crazy territory

102 ClaudeMonet  Wed, Sep 15, 2010 8:24:40pm

re: #65 lawhawk

Paladino can go hell for comments like that. If I were Cuomo, I'd put together an ad lacing together all of Paladino's asinine and insane statements for circulating showing him to be unstable and incapable of leading a diverse state like NY - or even holding a job like dog catcher.

Pathetic.

And I say that as someone who is far from a fan of Silver, who is the Assembly Speaker and pretty much the most powerful man in Albany for the past couple of years. He's done so by ruthlessly running the Assembly for years and not tolerating any dissent within his caucus. Ethically, he leaves plenty to be desired as he takes outside income from a law firm but doesn't disclose his salary or client list at the firm among other things.

Last night, I e-mailed by college best buddy, who's lived in Buffalo for 30 years and who is the farthest thing possible from a TP person. I asked him for some juicy Paladino quotes. Since he's a writer who is heavily into politics, I figured he'd have a bunch.

His answer was that he thought Paladino was so far out there that it hadn't bothered to start a file.

That told me a lot.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 152 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1