Interesting spin on Schiff's loss

Miscellaneous Current Events
1

Here’s a piece celebrating Schiff’s loss in Connecticut (McMahon’s “victory”) as a win for anti-establishment sentiment (dare I say “Tea Party”?). Of course, McMahon spent $24 million of her own cold, hard cash just to win the primary. Schiff reportedly spent $1 million. That McMahon beat the incumbent is supposed to be a “warning shot” over the bow of the establishment.

The narrative I’ve heard that makes the most sense to me is that the RNC realized that Schiff really could beat their boy in Connecticut, Simmons. Terrified at the thought of a Senatorial Ron Paul, they sent out an SOS to all the Connecticut big-shots, looking for somebody that could do a “big, big favor”, and Vince McMahon’s wife answered the call. The McMahons are not millionaires, they are billionaires. That $24M was pocket change and will be repaid a hundred-fold, one way or the other. Now that the wool has been pulled from my eyes, it’s downright comical to read spin pieces like the above

At this point, it doesn’t matter whether Linda McMahon wins or loses. Mission Accomplished: Schiff has been neutralized.

Clayton -

2

On the plus side, Schiff got 27,000 votes.

3

Way to drain them of net $23m.

4

Wait a second, the profeshunal wrassling McMahons are involved?!

Come to think of it, when I was a little child watching wrassling, I remember that a lot of the stuff talked on the show was Republican talking points. The heel would be Harvard graduate Christopher Nowinski. The head would be the patriotic Scott Steiner, who beats him up for suggesting that American occupation of Afghanistan is bad.

Wow. Just wow.

So the American political establishment already had a few comedians, wrestlers, and such, so I guess these circus business owners are only next in line.

5

I like how Schiff only got the barest whisper of a mention. God, news reporting sickens me nowadays. It’ll be fun to see people outraged over McMahon “realizing” it’s good to be the king, and vow to “Vote her out!” while she destroys further wealth.

6

I dont usually go in for conspiracy theorys but this makes sense. Simmons obviously did not care that much about running he largely backed out of the campagin early. It seems plausable that higher ups pursuaded him to come back to split the anti-McMahon vote.

7

Schiff’s campaign was really not very well run. He made his push too late, he was too invested in come from behind victories. His last couple weeks of YouTube videos where he begged and berated his own supporters to phone bank for him (which should have been started 6 months ago) was really disappointing.

Also, organizing your own money/phone bombs completely misses the point of bombs. They are a grass roots thing. There is little energy behind them if the grass roots are being directed by, or waiting on, the main campaign.

In the end, I never got the feeling Schiff was running to win. I felt like he was always running behind.

8

@liberty_student: I can’t comment on Schiff’s campaign, I wasn’t following it that closely (seeing as I’m on the opposite coast from Connecticut). That said, I find it highly plausible that the Establishment took steps to ensure that Schiff could not win. Even if he ran his campaign poorly once he was facing serious opposition, he was doing pretty good early on and that likely made TPTB nervous.

Clayton -

9

I watched the first debate on Youtube among the 3 candidates. McMahon was dreadful.

10

I wouldn’t go far as to say he is the Senatorial Ron Paul. He’s on target with fiscal policy but that is about it.

11

Wow. Just watched some YouTube videos about the McMahon’s; their entire family is extremely vulgar. Democracy is hitting new lows here.

12

If you consider that the so called Tea Party movement is already being taken over by old scoundrels in new clothes the following phrase makes a lot of sense:

McMahon’s victory is yet another by political newcomers defying political conventional wisdom by upsetting incumbents and party-backed candidates. This year, being seen as part of the Washington establishment has been more of a hindrance than help for many candidates.

The trick is simply to replace old faces with new faces spouting generic stuff that may have an appeal to the more braindead less informed part of the electorate which got fed up of being squeezed dry to have little in return. Remember that episode of Family Guy in which Lois successfully run for major by spouting out idiotic one liners after her attempts at serious debate failed? Same thing here.

If things keep on going the way they are going expect people like Vinnie’s girl to become senators and congressmen and be hailed as “serious change”. And of course “change” won’t arrive: you’ll get more war (both at home and abroad), more debt, more monetary and fiscal politics conceived in a mental institution.But, hey, you can be sure those “new faces” will appear in the news to say how the latest bill (they voted for without blinking) is an abomination.

13

Indeed! As the democratic corollary to Murphy’s law goes, when you think democracy can’t get worse, it does!

BTW, here’s a Greek guy’s thoughts on the Schiff campaign. Perhaps not so eloquent, but still…

14

Alight, now that this particular circus act is over, can we agree at least as a strategy, to quit this whole circus business and get on with the business of promoting and actually achieving liberty?

Or do we need a few more of these ridiculous attempts to actively participate in the democratic process in order to eventually abolish it?

15

I agree, but I would like to see more promoters of liberty learn how to influence people without being arrogant and condescending.

16

Yeah at this point, the only way I would ever vote for a politician is if his platform was something like:

  1. Government is always bad because the only thing it can do is force people into less satisfactory outcomes than they would have pursued absent government coercion.

  2. Therefore, I will always push for ANY negative legislation (legislation that reduces existing government power).

  3. I will also vehemently oppose ANY positive legislation (any legislation that grants government new or expanded power in any area), and during debate will read the applicable chapter of Economics in One Lesson to demonstrate why this particular intervention, like all others, is doomed to fail.

  4. My goal is to be the last person to hold this office, because if I’m successful it will no longer exist by the end of my term.

Anything less than that, and I will not be voting. Unfortunately, I don’t think most voters are ready to hear a message like that, so I’d say the chances I will be voting are basically nil.

17

It’s not possible in a certain situation.

Yes, you could be not arrogant and not condescending, if you never took interest in politics or public affairs.

But the moment a man starts becoming political, the rot in his humanity becomes evident. It starts out simple. First you lose interest in fishing. Then in hunting. Then in bicycling. Then in jogging. Then in beautiful women. Then in playing videogames or reading interesting novels.

Then you shut off your computer, and instead start reading books on economics, books on politics, books on philosophy, magazine articles and editorials, and show sudden obsessions with things like the history of labour laws and what effect they had. Then you only open your computer just to dispute such matters on news sites or blogs. Then in informal conversations with friends, the topic somehow suddenly shifts to such matters and leaves you passionately involved in it - and more than you need to be.

The loss of all positive passions and strivings is replaced with easily justified outrage, with you going: “How can a man see those innocents killed in Iraq and defend those soldiers, dammit?!” And in this environment of intellectual hostility, and only negative emotions left, bad manners become high class behaviour, sarcasm becomes intelligent and refined, and condescension useful and necessary.

And suddenly, you are very much like David Cameron facing off Gordon Brown in the parliament - arrogant and condescending in every breath.

What I am saying applies to every person who gives serious thought to political matters - syndicated columnists, TV talking heads, journalists, political cartoonists, political commentators, protesters on the streets, and ordinary folks.

What I am saying applies to all sides of the political spectrum. Leftists, conservatives, warmongerers, anti-warriors, and so on. Just open Creators.Com, and see all the fuming and furious anger coming from Robert Scheer, Benjamin Shapiro, Marc Dion, R. Emmett Tyrell, Froma Harrop, and Mona Charen.

Did the above things happen to me? No. Was I once falling down that slippery slope? Yes, I have and a few times. Every time, I recover by telling myself that I am an apolitical person and have no interest in the political process to begin with anyway. The interest in short stories leaps back, I can hear people say outrageous and despicable things without getting offended, and mostly get back to worrying about matters like whether I can reach the planet Neptune in my lifetime.

The only thing promoters of liberty can do is socialize, discuss, and mingle with fellow men and talk about whatever interesting matters they can talk about. Living life in civil society is the only way of protecting civil society. We don’t become moral beings by memorizing lists of rules, but only by living among our communities and building life on it.

18

Schiff’s loss is indicative that right-wing socialism is still popular, which really sucks.

19

I sent a few bucks Schiff’s way, something I’ve never done before with a politician. I’m glad I didn’t send more and I won’t be giving money to politicians any more in the future (voluntarily, that is).

As soon as true libertarians begin to win high office, they will cease being libertarian.

20

Well said. And I would add, that to live in a community, one needs to be a social creature, not an anti-social one. That means mastering the art of persuasion.