Comments on: Big upset in Virginia: Brat beats Cantor

By: Sergey

Sergey — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 20:18:46 +0000

May be, they look alike, but when their faces are put against each other there is no question who looks more like intellectual and who more stupid and mediocre.

By: Michael Adams

Michael Adams — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 17:43:07 +0000

People outside the South can not understand how we can say that someone “looks Southern.” Cantor, who might “look Jewish” to someone in New York, looked very Southern in this quadrant of the country. So does Brat. In that sense, they sort of look alike. The whole “Look Southern/Look Jewish” thing is sort of an inside joke among many Jewish and Gentile friends, both Demagogue and Republican. I’ve been in a committee meeting when the subject was touched, and the Jewish Republican woman and I dared not look at each other, for fear that we’d burst out laughing and disrupt an otherwise serious meeting. I’ve known Louise and her Demagogue mother since Louise was a child, and we went out for a burger afterward, picking up my wife along the way, and nearly choked on our fries.

By: expat

expat — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 17:36:21 +0000

I don’t see why the Republican establishment would not support Brat if he doesn’t come across as a nut or a witch. I’ve seen comments elsewhere that are even drawing Karl Rove into this discussion. I wish such people would think instead of emote and stamp their feet. We have a real chance with someone like Brat to present alternative views with some strength in a way that doesn’t support the Dems’ portayal of all conservatives as racist biggoted gun nuts. We need to use the opportunity.

By: KLSmith

KLSmith — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 17:33:14 +0000

physics geek: thank-you for voting! So many people stay at home thinking their vote won’t make a difference.

Steve: exactly.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 17:04:05 +0000

“That said, he couldn’t scare up even much Tea Party support prior to tonight.”

You mean the ‘official’ tea party groups? The tea party is like AA. There are no dues or fees for membership. It is a voluntary ‘fellowship.’ What does it mean to have tea party support? To me, it means having the support of this fellowship not an organization. Does the GOP establishment have a problem with this fellowship? You bet.

By: carl in atlanta

carl in atlanta — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 16:36:31 +0000

When I was in college Randolph Macon College was a very well regarded women-only school. I see that they’re now co-ed.

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 16:14:31 +0000

Alex: I meant to designate them as "scholarly and connected with his work as a professor at Randolph-Macon" as opposed to "political and connected with his campaign." I wasn't meaning to judge the articles on their scholarly worth, the status of the journals in which they were published, or the usefulness of their content. The idea of linking to them was to give a picture of what he's been doing as a professor in terms of scholarly (i.e. connected with academia and economics/ethics) publications. I don't think anyone's suggesting that the guy's a giant in economics. I'm certainly not. But he most definitely has a background that's pretty unusual and unusually strong in that arena for a mere Congressman. Also interestingly eclectic: MA in divinity studies from Princeton (doesn't sound like a dummy, does he?) and PhD in economics from American University. American's not a prestigious program, I would wager, but I'd also wager it's respectable. And professor at Randolph-Macon in economics and ethics (and chair of its economics and business department) is very respectable too. Not that any of that has much to do with what he'll do if elected. I'm not suggesting we send a group of professors to populate Congress. By the way, his Democratic opponent Jack Trammel is a professor (variously described as "assistant" or "associate") at Randolph-Macon, too! His field is sociology, specializes in disability issues in education. Small world, eh?

By: RickZ

RickZ — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 15:59:44 +0000

The irony of that red-blue party color identification is that prior to the 2000 election, the Dems were shown as red. I guess there was too much truth in that color designation for the Democrat Party hacks to handle. So the media (Russert) did the ol’ flip flop switcheroo and ‘hoped nobody noticed the change’.

By: waitforit

waitforit — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 15:52:57 +0000

The David Steinberg article (see Tonawanda’s link), I think, hits it right on. It was Cantor’s “tacking.” Graham, at least, was honest about his amnesty. I hope Cantor’s being a Jew didn’t have anything to do with his defeat. I hope it was his lack of principle and his $128K spent at steakhouses.

Brat spoke really well on the Glenn Beck show. He quickly put down any idea that the GOP would not get behind him. If there is anybody who represents a possibility to get some transfer between the TP and the GOP, it is him and his idea that principles unite all Republicans.

By: rickl

rickl — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 15:45:30 +0000

Don Carlos Says:
June 11th, 2014 at 10:29 am

Please let’s stop calling GOP districts “Red”. The Red v. Blue thing came from the video media, which is just a tad biased as we all know. Red has been the color of socialists and communists the world over forever, and selecting that for GOP areas is no accident.

I agree completely, and I never use that color scheme myself. It’s yet another example of allowing the Left to set the terms of debate. We really ought to know better by now.