I do like those old-fashioned, folksy Americanisms, so much more gentle than the usual Anglo-Saxon way of expressing gob-smacked disbelief. However one says it, expletive deleted incredulity must be expressed on reading the result of the Republican primary for the Senate seat held in Delaware yesterday. An absolute outsider, Ms. Christine O'Donnell, thrashed - not just won - an archetypal 'machine pol' who has been a fixture in the State's Republican hierarchy for a generation. She did so, not just against the individual politician she was running against, but also against the entire might of the national Republican leadership. How did she do that? Easy really, Superwoman flew in and touched her with her magic wand!
MDS (my Darling Sarah) struck again and I suspect that the GOP leadership is seething because they still haven't woken up and smelled the perfume! I must admit (personal feelings aside) that I was not sure exactly how wide and how powerful the anti-establishment movement, as demonstrated by the Tea Party and expressed by MDS, really was but now I think I know and I am convinced it is hugely significant. Almost all of the commentariat are insisting that Ms. O'Donnell now stands no chance against her Democrat opponent in November, particularly as the GOP bosses, their noses out of joint, have refused to back her. I cannot deny their prognosis because I simply do not know enough about the politics of Delaware, however, I have a sneaky feeling that the result will be a lot closer than the 'experts' believe (after all, they wrote her off in this election - so much for their 'expertise'!) and I would not drop dead from shock if she nicked it - particularly if MDS breezes in to offer full support.
I cannot wait for November to come round to settle all the 'ifs, buts and maybes' that fog our vision at present. The only thing likely to save the Democrats from massacre is the unerring stupidity and cupidity of the Republican party leadership who have still not woken up to the fact that the electoral ground is shifting beneath them. Even so, I would still offer up a fairly hefty caveat in the event of a Tea Party 'revolution' winning in November - and perhaps again in 2012 - and that is that Washington, like 'sin cities' everywhere, has seen it all before. An influx of bright, shiny-eyed idealists determined to cut down federal power will be met with the usual deadly mix of flattery, guile, money and promises of power. They will be urged to bend a bit here, give a little there, compromise everywhere and before you know it they will be bought and sold!
Stand by for repetition of my favourite Shakespearean political quote and stop complaining, old men are allowed to repeat themselves:
Hence shall we see / If power change purpose, what our seemers be.
Measure for Measure I.iii
Oh, this has caused much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the left-wing rags!
*hugs self*
It's just delicious to watch! Check out Matthew Norman in the 'Independent' today (sorry, no link, am on phone) - he's clearly gone round the bend!
Posted by: JuliaM | Wednesday, 15 September 2010 at 12:54
'Mouth dribbling' and 'eye-ball swivelling' doesn't get near to a proper description of Mr. Norman's "antic rage" but, alas, his approving mention of Chomsky tells us exactly from whence, politically, he comes.
Mind you, he does write well, give him that.
Posted by: David Duff | Wednesday, 15 September 2010 at 14:11
Just to give you a taste of what "Middle America" (and as you once said "You can't get much more middle America than Arkansas" (now whether my prognosticatin' is this newspaper thread is likely to get a buncha comments...) but the first - and thus far sole - seems to be a pert near sum up in my opinion.
http://www.baxterbulletin.com/article/20100914/OPINION0101/9140318/Politicians-and-jobs
Posted by: JK | Thursday, 16 September 2010 at 01:16
I do hope this gets you where I'm intending:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/#39229456
Posted by: JK | Friday, 17 September 2010 at 17:26
If I had access to an American bookie I'd lay $10 she will win!
Also, what is that blonde bimbo for in the programme? She nearly wet herself laughing at the word 'masturbation' and there-after she said nothing. What does he get paid for? At least the blondes (with the fright-white teeth) on Fox have plenty to say, even if it does come out in a high-pitched nasal whine!
Posted by: David Duff | Friday, 17 September 2010 at 21:43
Duh! 'What does she get paid for'?
Posted by: David Duff | Friday, 17 September 2010 at 21:44
I can't answer with any degree of certainty how she actually got the job, except to say she's the daughter of Zbigniew Brzezinski (of Jimmy Carter fame). As to what she gets paid for? Can't answer that either, Wiki doesn't explain.
Posted by: JK | Friday, 17 September 2010 at 22:05
Further research indicates she "may not" qualify as a complete bimbo. I direct your attention to "Notable Incidents" on the jump (scroll down). I think you'll enjoy the male host's 'notable incident' upon hearing Rahm Emanual was to be Obama's Chief of Staff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_Joe
Posted by: JK | Friday, 17 September 2010 at 22:40
Yeah, I was right first time, she's a bimbo!
Posted by: David Duff | Saturday, 18 September 2010 at 16:58
Beginning next year, the government plans to publish new, supplemental poverty figures that are expected to show even higher numbers of people in poverty than previously known. The figures will take into account rising costs of medical care, transportation and child care, a change analysts believe will add to the ranks of both seniors and working-age people in poverty.
Posted by: viagra online | Tuesday, 21 September 2010 at 22:26