Monday, March 01, 2010

Tecs vs Rot

Piling up. Splitting hairs.
REGURGE: Tecs alone in New Seetheland. [rot]
Piling on Tecs. [rot]
Posted by at
Labels: ,

23 comments:

Tecumseh said...

One day, he went over to the Senate and bumped into McCain in the elevator. “I had never met him. So I shake his hand to thank him for doing the fundraiser.” The senator then asked if he could count on Tancredo’s support for McCain-Feingold (a bipartisan campaign reform act McCain had drafted with Democratic senator Russell Feingold). Tancredo opposed this proposed regulation of political campaign financing, and he told McCain. “So I go: ‘I am voting no, I don’t like it. I actually think it’s terrible’.”

“It was like a bomb went off in his head. He exploded! He was screaming at me! It was, ‘When I come across the fucking street, you are…’ And, ‘You don’t know what the fuck you are talking about!’ And I said, ‘What?!’ I was just so taken aback. But then I went after him: ‘Hey, nobody told me you are coming to help me for a quid pro quo for a shit bill!’ It just got worse. It was really bad, I remember us getting out of the elevator and people stepped back way up because they couldn’t handle the screaming.”

The two never reconciled. “From there, it only went downhill,’’ according to Tancredo.

Day at the office. So Mac goes nuclear when a Republican does not support one of his mavericky bills, but turns all mellow and fades into the woodwork when running as a GOP nominee for President. Figures.

3/01/2010 1:13 PM
Mr roT said...

He's nt a very pleasant person, that Tancretino.

3/01/2010 1:13 PM
Tecumseh said...

By the way, that bill that Mac was peddling but Tancredo and most Republicans opposed has been recently turned down by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional.

3/01/2010 1:17 PM
Tecumseh said...

What does the Anthrax madman have to do with Tom Tancredo? So OK, he's not a very pleasant guy -- I grant you that -- but that McCain outburst that he describes rings true -- and very disgusting. It's the kind of deep character flaw that kept many people from voting for him in 2008 (and also back in 2000). I don't understand why he's such a hero of yours.

3/01/2010 1:20 PM
Mr roT said...

Fun from Tecs' Tom #1.

#2.

#3.

...and not to be outdone by David Paterson....(wait for it...#4!

NEXT!

3/01/2010 3:31 PM
Tecumseh said...

Sure, Tancredo is a raving lunatic. But even a stopped clock, etc. Are you telling me he is wrong on the facts about either McCain or Palin? How exactly?

3/01/2010 3:34 PM
Tecumseh said...

A comment from the Guardian piece: As a native Arizonan and one of John McCain's constituents (in fact he used to live a mile from my house) none of this is news to me. John McCain has always had a short fuse. From what I have seen of him over the course of the past 28 years that he has been my Senator, he does have thin skin and can blow up in an instant. I have witnessed it in person with my own eyes. Sorry Hankster, but unless you live here, you have no idea what he is really like. It's strange that the general opinion of him around the country doesn't really match the opinion of the people who have had to put up with him here in the great state of Arizona. As much as I dislike Tom Tancredo, and believe me, I REALLY dislike him, I must admit that what he said about McCain is accurate, based on my personal experience. I have attended enough of his campaign functions and town-hall meetings to have seen how a simple comment can send him off. He gets a very angry look in his eyes when he is challenged and his demeanor is visibly altered. I honestly think he has probably never fully recovered from his capture and torture at the hands of the Vietnamese. I think he still has PTSD which flares up when he is challenged in any way. I pray he gets the psychological counseling that he may need to move past that. I am also thankful that he was not elected President, as his quick temper would certainly be dangerous to the country, and the world. I honor his military service but am not a fan of him or his political methods. What Tom Tancredo said may be outlandish, as is most of what he spews, but in this case he hit the nail on the head.

3/01/2010 3:35 PM
Mr roT said...

He's a nasty nasty man.

3/01/2010 4:24 PM
Tecumseh said...

Who? Tancredo or McCain? Both look rather nasty to me. Are they competing?

On the other hand, compare to someone like Romney. So OK, you don't like him. And surely he's done and said his share of stupid things. But have you ever heard him say something mean or nasty? Surely, to be successful in politics (especially on a national scale), you gotta be ruthless at times. And be prepared to say a cutting thing at the right time. But being a consistently nasty man (like, eg, Reid is also) is something off-putting.

3/01/2010 4:36 PM
Mr roT said...

Agree, but I thought this thread was about Palin. You took Tancredo's side and used his position of civil authority to make some point or other about Palin and McCain. The Hot Air piece you link to hits it right, at the very end.

Ed Morrissey is pretty sharp (as is Allah)--way sharper than Malkin.

3/01/2010 4:45 PM
Tecumseh said...

Moi? I didn't even mention Tancredo's attacks on Palin -- why would I? (He's just dissing, without bringing up anything new.) I only highlighted his gibes at McCain, which you never even tried to refute -- just jabbing wildly in the dark, without connecting those left hooks to anything but hot air.

My link to Ed Morrissey: Yep, he takes a pretty balanced view, trying to stay out of the catfight (or is it mudwrestle?) as much as possible.

AZ Tea Party link you put up: Both McCain and Hayworth’s records during their many years in Washington leave much to be desired on these issues. It is their job to hold themselves up to these values and fight for our votes. Sounds about right. Let's see what both have to say. But certainly neither deserves a cake-walk.

3/01/2010 5:29 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...

"Herr Rot, Vindobonensis said...

Fun from Tecs' Tom #1.

#2.

#3.

...and not to be outdone by David Paterson....(wait for it...#4!

NEXT!"

Hmmm, the last one, calling SotoMayor a racist, is dead right. She is a racist, pure and simple as La Raza. [++]
Against illegal immigration? Nothing wrong with that. Immigration should be under the regulation of the law. Kind of idiotic to claim otherwise. [+] The terrorism label for it? Whacky. [--]
Against the multiculti dogmas of the day? Sanity itself. [++]
The Jack Ripper response to terrorism? Whacky [--].
His estimation of Johnny "Chamberlain to the Dems" McCain? Unfortunately correct. [+]

These sum up to [++].
If he's a baseball player, over .500 batter. Tancredo's not bad at all, on substance, even if he's the anti-McCain in style.
Rott should be so good.

3/01/2010 5:29 PM
Mr roT said...

AA, you're the white Farrakhan. Of course you think Tancretino's on-target.

3/01/2010 5:33 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...

Thanky, Herr SotoMayor.

3/01/2010 5:36 PM
Tecumseh said...

Herr Rot is jabbing wildly. But that left hook is rather limp. Have some spiked wine to fortify those bicepses.

3/01/2010 5:37 PM
Mr roT said...

You calling me Barbara Boxer?
WTF is bicepses? Like biceps with sepsis?

3/01/2010 5:40 PM
Tecumseh said...

Actually, there is more to the Tancredo interview than the juicy tidbits about McCain and Palin:

Meanwhile, the real target of the Tea Party movement is president Obama, his proposed healthcare reforms and his bailout of the banks and the auto industry. At the Tea Party convention, Tancredo referred to Obama as a “committed socialist ideologue’’.

What makes him a socialist?

“Well, first of all, the definition of socialism is constantly evolving it seems. And given today’s definition, I guess I should have used the word ‘euro socialism’. European type socialists think that big government is acceptable. You don’t own the means of production but you tax the hell out of them for the purpose of redistribution of wealth. That’s closer to his position than the textbook definition in which the government own the means of production.’’

So it’s not necessarily true that he is socialist?

“No. But the ends are the same. You have a flattening income curve and redistribution of wealth mostly based on taxation. He has talked about that. He likes that idea. He talks about the people that have influenced him, and some of them are committed Marxists. So he thinks that way, he works with people who think like that, and he really has no qualms about the government taking over General Motors. I mean, the government saying who can be the chairman of GM? I do not understand that anybody can look at that and say, ‘No that’s not socialism’.’’

In Congress you voted for the bailout. Doesn’t that make you a socialist?

“In September 2008, when I was still in Congress, we voted on the purchase of toxic assets for 700 billion dollar. In my view that was not socialism.’’

The government took over AIG, the world’s biggest insurer, with that money.

“But there you have the problem: that is not what we voted for. The idea, as they presented it, was to give tax brakes to companies in trouble. That’s not socialism. And it is not meant to redistribute wealth. That’s the whole thing.

“The difference from my point of view is the government deciding who has enough and who doesn’t. And then stepping in, demonstrative, to change that arrangement. That to me is socialism.

“Giving tax breaks to companies is something else. I don’t like it, but under those circumstances I supported it because I believed the alternative would have put an end to our free market system. I was told by everybody – Bernanke, Paulson, and other specialists, all brilliant guys – that if we didn’t do this in 48 hours, nobody will be able to get money out of the ATM.”

“But I am happy to acknowledge that things ended quite differently. The biggest mistake I made was that I ended up voting for something that was not clearly defined. They talked about toxic assets. But apparently it wasn’t narrowly defined, they could use the 700 billion where ever they thought it was best.’’

But there you were, staunch conservative Tom Tancredo in one of his last days in Congress, supporting a huge government program for the financial sector on the side of all the liberals you loathed your whole life.

“Oh, it was very strange. It was bizarre! But let me tell you the interesting aspect from my point of view. There were several people that essentially said to me (and many, many, many more who didn’t say it), ‘I can’t vote for it, but my God, I hope it passes’.’’

They wanted to be re-elected, and you were not?

“Right.”

So it comes down to the hypocrisy of politics?

“Of course!” he laughed. “Everything does.”

Do the Tea Party people realise that you supported the bailout?

“I don’t know.’’

And if they knew, wouldn’t they be angry with you?

“Yeah, I am sure that would take the lustre off.’’

3/01/2010 5:44 PM
Mr roT said...

I read that. Sounds like your other heartthrob Ron Paul, Tecs!

3/01/2010 5:47 PM
Mr roT said...

Life's a Mitch?

3/01/2010 7:47 PM
Tecumseh said...

From your posting, purportedly "piling on Tecs": Hayworth's formulation-- Obama should prove his constitutional eligibility -- is a good enough formulation, I think. If it panders too much -- well, that's up to people to decide. I think it's fine. I say as much myself every time this issue comes up.
[..]
McCain was -- is -- a hero. He deserves respect. But there must be consequences to forever thwarting one's supposed constituents. We cannot afford to have a Senator from a red state perpetually selling us out to the left.

Do you even read the articles you link to, Herr Rott?

3/01/2010 8:10 PM
Mr roT said...

You?

Honestly, while I [Ace] knew that, I barely knew that, if you know what I mean. I have read (and promptly forgotten) Hayworth was a pal of Abramoff's.

3/01/2010 8:18 PM
Tecumseh said...

Well, so? McCain was a pal of Charles Keating, back in the late 1980s. He should have resigned after that scandal.

3/01/2010 8:37 PM
Mr roT said...

They never had anything on him.

3/01/2010 8:42 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)