Shawn Lindsay still thinks you're stupid

Carla Axtman

In his op-ed to the Oregonian yesterday, Rep. Shawn Lindsay (R-Hillsboro) chewed up a big plate of sour grapes over his loss a few weeks ago. Somehow I missed his interview from last week with the Hillsboro Argus, however.

In this gem of a Q&A, Lindsay blames Republican woes on being outspent, a Libertarian challenge and voter registration. Not once does he examine his policy positions on issues or look inward for a possible problem.

When asked about Republican losses nationwide, Lindsay heads straight to blame and comes across like a jackass:

I think it's pure operations. If you crunch the numbers, Romney lost by a total of 403,000 votes in swing states. If he had gotten those votes, he would have won. Obviously, we need to tweak the platform and message, but let's be honest. The Democrats have a machine to get out the vote. They have labor unions, a lot of special interests and they're all well oiled. (Nationally), the Republican (voting) surge is after 5 o'clock because that's when Republicans get off of work. We need to reverse engineer what the Democrats do. Take what they do and improve it.

Crunch the numbers means "Romney needed to get more votes"? Well gee, there's some insight.

"Tweak the platform and message"? What Lindsay just witnessed is a mandate for the President. 332 electoral votes vs 206 for Romney. Were the tables turned on this one, no doubt Lindsay would be out front talking about how his guy had his own mandate to do his thing. There's more than a "tweak" needed. There's a fundamental shift required for the Republican party if they hope to truly recover. The GOP also lost ground in the Senate (unprecedented given the amount of seats the Dems had to defend) and the only reason they held the House was due to their massive gerrymandering of districts following the 2010 census.

And that crack about Republicans having to wait until 5:00 to vote while Dems have all day because they don't work? Please. Is it common practice in Lindsay's world to roundly insult half of the electorate by inferring that they don't know an honest day's work and therefore have nothing else to do but vote?


It would seem he can't burn his bridges fast enough.

And really, the "machine" is getting out the vote for the Dems? What...the Koch brothers, Karl Rove and the multitude of GOP PACs can't buy themselves a decent field operation? It's called working your base and the grassroots, Shawn. Climb down off your hobby horse and maybe you'll learn something.

What a tool.

  • (Show?)

    Maybe Lindsay would have been a better candidate if he came up with his own bills instead of getting them from ALEC.

  • (Show?)

    Not half. Just 47 percent.

  • (Show?)

    "the Republican (voting) surge is after 5 o'clock because that's when Republicans get off of work."

    That's pretty early, actually. When do Democrats get off work?

  • (Show?)

    when did progressive democrats start citing the electoral college results as a benchmark for measuring presidiential campaign success? would you call 50.91% of the popular vote a mandate? bush won with 50.73% of the vote in 2004 when he claimed his mandate, i don't remember a single democrat accepting that mandate claim (because it was an objectively stupid claim to make).

    historically, obama is below average and below median for a sitting president (see below).

    and what is he even using his "mandate" for? to try to ram through cuts to social security and medicare.

    popular vote % for sitting president from the beginning of the 20th century to now:

    • 61.05% Johnson+
    • 60.8% FDR 1936
    • 60.67% Nixon
    • 58.77% Reagan
    • 57.37% Eisenhower
    • 56.42% T Roosevelt+
    • 54.74% FDR 1940
    • 54.04% Coolidge*
    • 53.39% FDR 1944
    • 51.64% McKinley
    • 50.91% Obama
    • 50.73% GW Bush
    • 49.55% Truman*
    • 49.23% Clinton*
    • 49.24% Wilson
    • 48.02% Ford-+
    • 41.01% Carter*-
    • 39.75% Hoover-
    • 37.43% GHW Bush*-

    average percentage: 51.82%

    median percentage: 51.64%

    • third party with substantial share of vote.
    • lost
    • entered Presidency by succession rather than election
    • (Show?)

      Peter, you wrote: "[W]ould you call 50.91% of the popular vote a mandate?"

      Hell, yes. If the winner gets the seat, then he or she has a mandate to govern. That's what the Constitution says.

      All of this chatter about it not really being a mandate is just pure sour grapes.

      • (Show?)

        it's not sour grapes on my part since i did not support romney. it is indeed hypocritical for republicans since they claimed bush's 50.73% win in 2004 to be a mandate. it is also hypocritical for dems to claim obama has a mandate since they spent the aftermath of 2004 decrying bush's mandate claim.

        the big irony there is that anti-mandate energy was used to fight bush's social security privatization scheme, and now here we are 8 years later and dems are proclaiming "mandate" while obama is getting ready to use it cut medicare and social security. sad.

        • (Show?)

          the President won a strong victory, and polls showed that even Rmoney voters agree with his policy on taxes (tax the rich more). in modern America (and even in Amercia), that's a mandate, dude. Boehner & his cohorts are hoping they can turn that tide, but i'm not sure it's possible.

          • (Show?)

            ok. fair enough. then in 4 years when President T. Bagger wins with barely 50% of the vote, i will look forward to you, carla, and tim bovee accepting his/her "mandate" to hollow out america completely.

        • (Show?)

          The President is rightfully claiming a mandate to raise taxes on the rich, because it was the centerpiece of his campaign and he won.

          [Major Campaign Promise] + [Win] = [Mandate to Keep Promise]

          Social Security wasn't an issue in the 2004 campaign so GW Bush's claim to have a mandate to cut Social Security made no sense.

          Regarding proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare, nobody campaigned on that, so there is no mandate to do it. Obviously Obama hasn't said he wants to do it, only that he'll consider it as part of a deal with Republicans.

          • (Show?)

            funny thing about "raising taxes on the rich", he's really just letting tax cuts expire that he extended. letting them expire is the least he should do.

            social security privatization was a key point in bush's speech at the 2004 republican national convention.

            obama tried to cut ss/medicare/medicaid last year [1]. obama campained on supporting bowles-simpson which entailed a 3% cut to ss. obama agreed with mitt romney in the debates that ss needed to be cut. etc. the information was there.

            anyway, your logic is sound, at least.


  • (Show?)

    Whats truly sad, and bodes poorly for the GOP over the long term is this ridiculous echo chamber they live in.

    Lindsay and his RW friends truly believe that opposition to their agenda, can only be explained by shiftless lazy mooches who refuse to work and demand that someone else care for them.

    I'll keep that in mind the next time I'm at work at 3 in the morning staring down the second half of an 80 hour work week, as a reminder to myself as to why I'll never under any circumstances vote for one of their candidates.

  • (Show?)

    I guess people of Hillsboro voted for a decent good hearted civic minded human being like Joe Gallegos instead of hateful jerk. Not too difficult to grasp that concept.

  • (Show?)

    having spent 11 days in a swing state at the end of the election (Iowa), i can attest to the "machine". but in the face of Citizens United money, relying on old-fashioned people-to-people politics was the only choice Democrats had.

    labor unions, btw, are people - at least the people who knock on doors & make phone calls. so, too, are the thousands of volunteers who make the machine possible. have over 300 gotv staging sites in Iowa meant we could knock on 300,000 doors the Saturday & Sunday before Election Day. a "machine" is nothing more than a party or campaign spending months reaching out to the voters, collecting data, and asking people to volunteer.

    because, in the end, it was the volunteers & staff who reached out to voters across America, who knocked on doors & made phone calls, who demonstrated their commitment to the President and other candidates with their time & energy - it was these people who overcame a billion dollars of corporate money to ensure we have a fair & democratic election. not a result purchased by the Koch Bros et al.

  • (Show?)

    I'd like to know how many hours a day the Lindsey camp were putting in. My guess is not nearly the amount as Mr. Gallegos. I was out that way quite a bit and the lights were off in the office that Lindsey shared. I guess that's what happens when your day ends at 5pm, you lose.

connect with blueoregon