When a Congressmen says this about a person:
“You’re here today because Congress is convinced you played a bait-and-switch and you’re not doing anything to convince us otherwise.”
…and six years later says this about the same person:
“(insert state name) Democrats have a disastrous record of passing job-killing laws and regulations that have destroyed the middle class; it’s clearly time for new leadership to help restore the strength of our private sector and put people back to work. I’m pleased to endorse (insert candidate name) because he is an honest, hard-working person who is clearly committed to public service, and I believe he’s the right candidate to lead the Republican ticket in (insert state name) this November.”
What does that say about the Congressman?
Comments 38
Brian,
Yes! No more true words spoken. Here is an article doing just that…questioning an endorsemnet, the wisdom, and potential nefarious aspects behind it.
http://barbwire.com/2014/04/27/san-diego-republicans-endorse-openly-gay-gop-congressional-candidate/
“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
John 8:32
So ready for the primary to be over.
The difference between myself and some ultra-conservative types is that I will gladly vote for Donnelly/Jorgensen/Simon if they win. But I don’t expect FF or Karen Grube to vote for DeMaio/Kashkari should they win.
We all need to agree to support our nominees come November.
FF,
So it really is about the fact that DeMaio is gay. Let me find my “shocked” expression.
HQ,
No, its about bad endorsements…as I have said (whew..ad nosiem), CD and Scott Peters possess the exact same positions on two stated platform items on the current GOP platform…but in your world, and apparently the world of the “New Generation”, if you oppose Carl, you are a immediately a “homophobe”.
The ad is his..the patronizing the Gay community is his…his attempt to placate GOP conservatives along with the local GOP leadership is his…and theirs… Truth in advertising..CD does not recognize the Sanctity of Marriage, or Life..those are the facts…and we should not be afarid or obfuscate or try to muddle the facts.
Would you not agree with that? Is there anything in the atached article that is inaccurate or falsely claimed? Do you, HQ, not see the inherent HYPOCRICY in the stated GOP platform and the endorsement of DeMaio?
Are is your own brand of hypocrisy clouded your able to view it rationally?
Founding Father delivers his daily dose of hate.
How predictable.
Now truth is hate speech…welcome to the New Generation….
The headline to the article you cited said “san-diego-republicans-endorse-openly-gay-gop-congressional-candidate.” Excuse me for thinking it was about DeMaio being gay.
“some ultra-conservative” yes, those pesky conservatives…how they dare they demand the GOP actually adhere to its own platform…extreme..
But you are right, UB, on the fact I will not support CD in the general..(and I am even more confident many GOP-ers won’t) the same reason I won’t vote for Scott Peters..his POLICIES on the platform issues are incongruent with my convictions…not his sexual preferences…
However, that is so inconvenient for you and the “all in” New Majority types..b/c its just easier to take the Obama-esque tact that anyone who disagrees with CD is simply bigoted..now THAT’S predictable!
So…Brian’s article here is about Congressman Issa endorsing Kashkari for governor even though a few years ago he called him a liar and a thief. Maybe we could talk about….that?
..yes, HQ…and your point? Isn’t that the truth? Isn’t that what he is expressing with his ads and videos? And doesn’t that fly in the face faith-based voters? Whether it does or doesn’t isn’t the issue..its a clear shift in the platform and ideology. newsflash- CD is gay!…And guess what, he can also be a weak candidate, and wrong on levels that have NOTHING to do with his sexuality. But try not to obfuscate yourself…those are his ads..his words, his parade, his choices!
FF,
…and the main (if not only) problem you have with him.
FF-
You always said this wasn’t about DeMaio’s choice of partners; that article suggests that it is. (I actually believe that you don’t care that much about his choice of partners)
Forgive me for bringing the topic back to the post, FF but do you agree with Issa’s endorsement or will you be voting for someone other than the bailout boy for Governor?
BB,
I am considering Tim Donnelly for governor. The article I believe lifts the rock of muddled marketing regarding DeMaio He doesn’t appear to have the gay-targeted ads anywhere on his main website…But the other “young adults” (ostensibly hetros) he does…why? What is he afraid of? (besides debating Jorgensen..but I digress) Why the two-tracks? Why should it be bifurcated at all? He promotes his life style..his relationship via the ad? Yet, it isn’t featured on his campaign site? Again, why?
HQ-
If what you say is true, then based on that logic, I could vote for Peters, because he, like Jorgensen, is NOT gay. Of course, I will NOT be voting for Peters either…and why…yep, because he and DeMaio share the same POSITIONS on issues that are BOTH antithetical to not only my personal convictions but also to the stated platform of the GOP. In your limited and contrived narrative you desperately try to craft for anyone opposed to DeMaio, as homophobic and bigoted..when in fact I am not voting for Peters for the same reason…and Peters is not gay. Logic…it is a bi&ch…:)
Tim Donnelly for gov.
Carl DeMaio for Congress.
FF,
You must have skipped logic class in college. Let’s try a subject other than homophobia. If Donald Sterling was running for office, I would never vote for him. By your “logic,” if the main reason I wouldn’t vote for Sterling is his blatant racism, then I should vote for anyone who is not a racist regardless of other factors. Do you see the fallacy?
I am sure that their are many heterosexual candidates that you would never vote for. I am also sure that you would never support a homosexual who didn’t hide his/her sexuality.
Michael,
In 2018, Issa will once again be running for re-election. The same cannot be said of any of the Republican Gubernatorial candidates. I think that covers it for the posted topic.
HQ…wrong! …but thanks for playing..I have never advocated anyone “hiding” their sexuality. I disagree with Mr. DeMaio because of his positions. I also didn’t vote for BHO or Bill Clinton, even before they had the “epiphany” about DOMA…again, their positions!
You despeartely want to make it about homophobia (A for effort!)…and I can understand that. Given how the progressives (Reid, Schumer, Pelosi, et al) vilified the conservatives (bigots, racist, intolerant, terrorists) circa 2008-2010..because, they were terrified at the mobilization of millions of conservatives..and because if you say the lie loud enough and long enough, enough people start to believe it (we call them “democrats). You..I get…you despise conservatives because their “NASCAR watching-swamp rubes with arcane ideas and theocratic aspirations.”
Your own “phobias” and mis-conceptions about faith-based conservatives will never change…it is the patronizing GOP operatives that come to places like Skyline Church and other faith-based organizations and pander to the conservatives with notions of “the importance of God, family, faith, morality”…then endorse candidates that are Pro-Abortion and do not recogonize the Sanctity of Marriage. (like, Reid, Schumer, Pelosi…and now DeMaio)
Your “hypocricy” is ingrained…theirs (GOP hypocrites) is a choice..a shift, and many see it as betrayal and purposely shunning and marginalizing conservatives for the fallacy and wet-dream of catering to the “independents.” The same conservatives that brought them the victories in 2010…oh, how times have changed!
The differnece between you and me HQ, is I do not despise you…but you, and many of the “tolerant” ones on this website and others clearly hate/despise conservatives…. and the proof is in the obstensiveshift of the GOP! While you see that at a good thing, I’m sure, I and thousands of others see it as a bad thing. I called it conviction…you call it “phobia.”..
FF,
Quick question. Would you support DeMaio, or any other openly gay candidate, if he/she were supportive of the entire Republican Party platform including being anti-abortion under all circumstances and being opposed to gay marriage?
If you can honestly answer yes, then you have my apologies for my previous comments.
HQ,
Eureka! Yes!…as I have said before..and again, and again, and again…I DON’T CARE WHAT PEOPLE DO IN THEIR PERSONAL LIVES. I can believe in the Sanctity of Marriage between OM/OW and NOT infringe on the same legal rights for any person under the law. Civil Unions did that, while preserving the socially/anthropologically unique aspect to marriage as it relates to the moral, social, and cultural building block to our society.
I’m not voting for openly gay Carl DeMaio, but not because he is gay, but rather the views he has due to being gay.
It’s not that Kirk Jorgensen’s views on issues like gay marriage are any different than Carl DeMaio’s, it’s that his non-gayness leads him to completely different political views that are exactly the same as Carl DeMaio’s.
It isn’t that I dislike Carl DeMaio for being gay, but he is gay so I don’t like him, but not because he is gay.
You shouldn’t tell anyone you are gay, but also shouldn’t hide it. As a candidate, every piece of literature you produce really should disclose that you are gay, but not in a way so people actually know you are gay otherwise you are simply flaunting it.
Flaunt it, but in a very private manner so that nobody knows you’re gay even after you’ve been honest with everyone about it.
So it’s not so much that I support Kirk Jorgenson’s vastly different identical views to Carl DeMaio because he is straight, it’s that I don’t support Carl’s views and he is gay and privately telling everyone about it while publically hiding it from everyone.
Hey TA..I thought we have been through this…perfectly willing to “suffer” the slings and arrows of all the ad hominem attacks from the established and clearly identifiable Rostra-ians..the friendly and non-friendly…this is just an attempt by trolls and probably DeMaio hacks to conflate my positions. I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to Post as Karl DiMyio, or Rick Rider…or Bryan Braydee…
If the post is so important, they can easily make another comment avatar and address whatever issues they choose in a distinguishable and accountable name. To allow otherwise is BS.
Thanks.
Other than the fact that Founding Father is not your real name — and our educated guess is Founding Flounder is not this person’s.
We don’t believe anyone will really think you wrote that; it’s basically satire.
But, we tend to agree with you, since you did “scout out” the FF name here.
Commenters, we’d ask that you pick a distinguishable enough pseudonym to … well … distinguish yourself from the other distinguished anonymous commenters.
Carry on.
Years ago someone posted as Michael A. Noying. I still laugh at that. I can’t remember exactly what or how they ripped into me, but the name was awesome. A little ribbing never hurt anyone.
Is there anything you disagree with that you don’t want banned?
Anyway, the Founding Flounder post was me and it really reflects how you come off, FF. It is either your views or how you express them, but it is generally how you sound.
TA, please take it down if it truly offends him. But, FF, my little snarky paragraph on the views you choose to have is nowhere near as offensive to you as your views are to a group of people who didn’t choose to fall in love with who they love. Know that.
We’ve stated our peace. It’s not offensive and only slightly A. Noying.
TA– wait! Here, it is my real name..I have a persona here that is increasingly recognizable and is being followed by both Rostians and non-rostians alike. I get satire..I relish in it..but it is “satire” designed to paint my views as deliberately homophobic SIMPLY because I do not agree with DeMaio.
Christian/Conservative Baiting in the classic sense.
For the same reasons I won’t vote for Peters, my views are EXACTLY analogous with both Clinton and Obama visivis DOMA…yet, there are still “anti-Christian/Anti conservative”” forces that continue to hurl the ad hominem hammers of “homphobe” etc..I get that..the other side is desparate and thought they were simply going to walk into the general election end-zone..yet, they see the momentum building for what is allowed here labeling KJ or his supporters as “homophobes..”
Shame on you!
The only one allowing these repeated and unabated offensive, baseless, and directed attacks at me or other KJ supporters, whether from known SDR commentors (UB, RR, others) or unknowns, (Flounder…Enough Hate) is you!
I have made adroit and consistent arguments against CD the candidate..and yes, I disagree with him under the same premises I disagree with Peters, or any other social progressive libertine. Yet, the most reprehensible and twisted, euphamistic “hate” speech comes from those claiming to support DeMaio. Very Mozilla-esque.
All I ask is that the playing field remain level…
Why doesn’t that surprise me…and it wasn’t even well written satire…but, wait…how is Schwartz able to post as a different moniker…how many more “defenders” of any position are in fact the same people?
wow!
I get it! You are “in” it Michael…full tilt for the New Generation. Tell me, would you be so “in” if the same candidate you support was for regulating the 2A?
Of course not…then by your satirical logic, that must make you a gun zealot…a Tea-Bagging shrimp dick trying to prove his manhood with a “big gun..”…
But I know better..you are no more a gun zealot than I am a homophobe…the difference is, you are able to throw that hammer with impunity…
The rule is very simple. If you use a pseudonym, you get one handle, not multiple ones. If someone posts under their own name, that doesn’t mean they can’t use a pseudonym when they’d like, for the same reason anonymity is allowed here in the first place. So, although the huge majority of commenters use only one or the other, there are a few that post using their own names and at times using their chosen pseudonym, for whatever reasons they choose.
Will someone PLEASE comment on what this Thread was really about???!!!
How can Issa endorse and support Kashkari after Kashkari’s presentation before the House Sub Committee concerning TARP?
How can any Republican elected official?
Brian Brady makes a good point….AND CAN WE PLEASE GET BACK TO IT?
I think it might not say much about Issa because my guess is that the snippet from the Congressional hearing probably did not reflect Issa’s full opinion of Kashkari then and doesn’t reflect it now. But I think what the gubernatorial race says is that the GOP is in big trouble if bailout boy is winning the endorsements and misdemeanor man is winning the opinion polls. Seriously, are these two guys the best the GOP can do?
Wasn’t TARP George W. Bush’s program?
Author
“Wasn’t TARP George W. Bush’s program?”
Yep … and Pelosi’s and Reid’s.
73% of the Democratic House Caucus voted for it and over 80% of the Democratic Senate Caucus did too. 45% of the Republican House Caucus and 69% of the Republican Senate Caucus voted for TARP.
Locally, Susan Davis was the only member who voted for TARP. All others voted against it: Filner, Bilbray, Hunter, and…yes…even Issa voted against TARP.
That’s what makes his endorsement so odd.
It was voted on while Bush was still in office, but that was Oct 2008. Most of the administration of TARP was under Obama. As troubling as the passage of TARP was, the administration of it was even worse.
The bait-and-switch that Issa refers to has to do with the administration of it compared to how it was passed. It was supposed to buy some “toxic assets”, but was used as a loan program through banks, sold to the public as a bailout, and then used as leverage over banks to change their business models and pay structure.
Many banks didn’t want it, didn’t need it, took it under the pretense that it was a “reward” for being one of the good banks, and then paid it back as quickly as they could to get out from under the Obama administration’s thumb. It actually took a while to pay it back because the Obama administration wouldn’t allow them to pay it back.
Important to point out, Kashkari worked under Bush and Obama. He left his TARP position in May 2009.
Michael,
Thanks for the explanation. I thought it strange that Rostrafarians were criticizing someone for supporting the leader of the Republican party, but now it makes sense.
Republicans ditched the Party in 2006 and 2008 over the bad decisions Bush made.
Can’t say the same for the Democrats in 2012. Success doesn’t seem to matter to Dems as much as the “D” in front of their name.
Michael,
Did the Democrats ditch their party in 2010 and why didn’t the Republicans ditch theirs in 2004?
In 2010 there was a well documented grassroots effort to change the leadership in local, state, and federal politics. Mostly by people whose politics are right of center. Many of them were the very same Republicans who ditched the party in 2006 and especially in 2008. If you Google “Tea Party” something should pop up. I don;t know a whole lot of Tea Party folks who like Bush. Nor should they. He was a bad president. Plain and simple.
In 2004 Bush still benefited from his leadership after 9/11, the fact that economy turned around, and lowering income tax which increased tax revenue to the federal government. The debt being added and the CRA expansion ruining the housing market hadn’t sunk in yet. Neither had the mistake that Iraq turned into. So generally, his first term was by most measures a good one. It was soon after his re-election that things started to turn.
Author
“I thought it strange that Rostrafarians were criticizing someone for supporting the leader of the Republican party”
Republicans probably catch heat on Rostra more than most “center-right” blogs. Why? Because they read it..
Even Brian Jones and Joel Andersen aren’t immune from criticism here and they’re some of my favorite legislators. I praise them here too because I love catching Republicans when they do things right,