October 31, 2009

Dede's Farewell
— Ace

I feel bad for her. Not a bad person, but the wrong person for the job. She's obviously upset about this.

The question here, which Allah keeps asking, is "Does this prompt a spate of third-party conservative challengers who wind up drawing just enough support from GOP candidates to give the House to the Democrats?"

The answer: There's a good chance of that. This was the danger, and this was what Newt Gingrinch was worried about.

As Allah also pointed out, there are two conflicting camps here: The Rush Limbaugh camp, which recognizes this danger and doesn't seek to encourage it -- not enough to harm our chances, anyway -- and the Glenn Beck camp, which seems to, at least rhetorically, call for near-complete purity, or else, the thinking goes, there is no difference between Republican and Democratic candidate, and we might as well drive Republicans to defeat until they "listen."

I hope the Limbaugh view prevails. Limbaugh will, I am pretty sure, not publicize detrimental third-party spoiler challengers, and will seek, more often than not, to urge his listeners to vote for the candidate who can actually win or who was fairly victorious in a primary. And much of the conservative blogosphere will also take this view, and not push spoiler candidates, or no-chance-to-win-but-only-to-take-away-15%-of-the-vote candidates, and support instead duly-nominated Republican opponents.

That camp will seek to limit this sort of thing, to the extent they (by which I mean "we") can.

What made Hoffman the right choice here? 1, Dede Scozzafava was not merely a wobbly Republican, she was a not-very-wobbly-at-all Democrat; 2, there had been no primary, no true testing of the caucus' wishes, and the whole deal seemed like a directed-from-above decision, almost a sham, and a tactically-poor one at that, 3, Hoffman could actually win, even from the outset; he seemed viable, if unlikely; and 4, because Scozzafava was so out of sync with mainstream Republicans (and obviously conservatives) this really was a case of "it doesn't matter if the Democrat or Republican wins." In this case, it really was the case that the Democrat was arguably more conservative than the Republican. (Indeed, Markos made this very case, before un-endorsing the more-"progressive" candidate Scozzafava.)

But if Glenn Beck is serious and not merely engaging in bluffing rhetoric, he really does believe that the only way to get back to a "Constitutionalist Majority" is to have a series of punishing losses, and full Democratic control of the government, for 5, 10, 15, maybe 20 years or so, unless the GOP "learns its lesson."

The trouble with that is this: There is hardly any guarantee whatsoever that this very-purified new party will be able to win elections and have any power, either. It is a fact that conservatives sometimes like to dismiss, but a good 40% of the country is liberal (I know they don't call themselves that; but many people who claim to be "moderate" are in fact liberal -- you know that from reporters telling you so, and the thousand liberals you've encountered online purporting to be "moderate") and another 20% is not politically principled and simply votes for whatever guy seem to be offering the most stuff at any time.

The other 40%? Conservative, yes. In this landscape, it is doubtful that true, absolute conservatives could win many elections. Some here and there. But how many? Not nearly a working majority, I don't think.

Hey-- ask all those midwest and mountain state conservatives if they want to give up farm subsidies in the interest of True Conservatism. Answer: No, they most emphatically do not, even if they agree with your statement of True Conservatism in principle. They would immediately lose their seats if they voted this way; which means, well, more votes for liberal Supreme Court justices.

I don't know if Beck is bluffing in order to drive the party to the right. If he is, that's not a bad exercise; Kos and his nutroots did that to the Democratic Party in 2004-2006, and that worked out all right for them.

But if he really does mean it? If it's not just rhetoric? If he really would rather see the more conservative party lose, and the more liberal party win, for a generation because the more conservative party still isn't conservative enough?

That would be bad, and I'm not sure what would happen. Beck could provide his slate of protest candidates with enough free media to get money and then get 20% of the vote... which would be doomsday for conservatism, at least before this 20 year project comes to fruition.

I hope that's not where we're heading.

I really hope Rush Limbaugh's jaded pragmatism wins out over Glenn Beck's revolutionary idealism.

That word "idealistic." I have never really understood why people believe that to be a positive thing, or call themselves that as if it's a compliment. I've always thought it was a cop-out.

From American Power, with text of her suspension letter.

Posted by: Ace at 12:05 PM | Comments (826)
Post contains 833 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Ace, are you saying that there is a limit to how Conservative the USA can get? If so, I agree. Who sets that limit? And what should it be?

Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 12:10 PM (ZzgoC)

2 This word "purity" you use.  I don't think it means what you think it means.

It is not purity to not want pro-abortion, anti-gun, high taxing, TARP supporting socialist representing the Republican Party.  And this doesn't have a damn thing to do with Republicans anyway, as a hell of a lot of conservatives aren't Republicans.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at October 31, 2009 12:10 PM (qWLc4)

3

For me, the big deal was that the DIABLO was picked behind closed doors.  If whazzerface had won a primary (WITHOUT NRCC butting in), then we close ranks behind her.  She wasn't, she is/was a DIABLO (thank you, Mark Steyn), so the Republicans who were unhappy about it made themselves known, and the national party types (the same ones who continue to insist we MUST have amnesty) wouldn't listen. 

Can you hear us now?  Good.

Just remember, folks.  Perot gave Clinton the presidency.  Never forget that.

Posted by: Stephen at October 31, 2009 12:12 PM (YoO+e)

4
Does this prompt a spate of third-party conservative GOP Primary challengers.

FIFY

Posted by: Robert_Paulson at October 31, 2009 12:13 PM (+deq6)

5 eman, I would say that if a more conservative candidate can't even win a GOP *primary,* then there is no chance whatsoever he can prevail in a general election. Doesn't that make sense? If a guy can't even get a majority (or mere plurality -- usually lots of candidates running) of the more conservative-leaning vote, how in the hell is he going to get a majority of the general vote, with liberals and liberals-calling-themselves-moderates and squishes and RINOs all voting? If you can't even beat the guys on the undercard, how can you think you have a shot at the champion? I support Mario Rubio, for example. I want him to beat Crist. But what if Crist wins? Should Rubio run as an independent or conservative in a three-man field? If Rubio cannot even win a majority or plurality of the Republican vote, how the heck is he going to win in the general election?

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 12:14 PM (WXvWz)

6 I can't figure out why the press keeps calling her a "Moderate" republican. 
She is plainly liberal, leftist.

If she is a "moderate", shouldn't we call conservative democrats instead "moderate" democrats? 

To call her moderate is to say there is no such thing as leftist or liberal.

She held almost every far left position.  If she was elected, she would have been the furthest left republican in the house.

Posted by: Village Idiot at October 31, 2009 12:14 PM (vdzXc)

7 Hey-- ask all those midwest and mountain state conservatives if they want to give up farm subsidies in the interest of True Conservatism. Answer: No, they most emphatically do not, even if they agree with your statement of True Conservatism in principle.

As a Midwestern conservative who knows a lot about farming, you are full of shit, here. 

This will seem like a drive-by, as I'm getting ready to take the kids trick-or-treating, and for that I apologize.  Maybe later this evening.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at October 31, 2009 12:15 PM (qWLc4)

8 For me, the big deal was that the DIABLO was picked behind closed doors.  If whazzerface had won a primary (WITHOUT NRCC butting in), then we close ranks behind her.

Bingo.

I am not of the mind that we should be applying purity tests in the sense that "you must be exactly what we want on every one of these points, or you're dead to us".  But there should be some "Like it or forget it" ones, and if a candidate meets those and wins the primary, then party unity comes into play.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 12:16 PM (DTOF+)

9 Conservative primary challengers, absolutely. But if they lose -- shall they mount third-party challenges in the general election? Or should some other guy jump in, because he doesn't like a moderate view taken by the GOP primary winner? Could get ugly. These races are usually no more than 10% affairs, even in fairly "safe" districts. If someone takes 15% away from the more-conservative candidate, that "safe" seat is lost.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 12:16 PM (WXvWz)

10 This woman deserves what she got. She refused to debate, then turned around and accused the other side of refusing to debate. She also did a classless thing not endorsing Hoffman and not encouraging her supporters to do likewise. Good riddance to a candidate that would not represent our values.

Posted by: Hotspur at October 31, 2009 12:16 PM (c158/)

11 I find it hard to see how this could have turned out much better.  The conservative candidate is likely to win.  More importantly, a strong and very clear message has been sent to the party.  They will think twice before pulling something like this again, and that is the key to '10 and '12.  A crisis averted is much better than a fight won. 

Posted by: pep at October 31, 2009 12:17 PM (DZyVK)

12

"Does this prompt a spate of third-party conservative challengers who wind up drawing just enough support from GOP candidates to give the House to the Democrats?"

The answer: There's a good chance of that. This was the danger, and this was what Newt Gingrinch was worried about.

Yeah, well if the GOP actually recruited and ran conservative candidates instead of three-quarters liberals like Scozzafava, this wouldn't be a problem. So Gingrich can go suck the barbed cock of Satan.

Posted by: OregonMuse at October 31, 2009 12:17 PM (eR37w)

13 Herr: I meant politicians. I did not say that, but I am speaking of the actual candidates. That is who I meant. As far as the voters: Conservatives, I am guessing, are split, because otherwise this would be a live issue, and as far as I know it's not. Pretty much everyone is in agreement that the fast way to win in farm states is to get a dumb candidate who opposes farm subsidies.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 12:17 PM (WXvWz)

14 "Does this prompt a spate of third-party conservative challengers who wind up drawing just enough support from GOP candidates to give the House to the Democrats?"

Hello?!?  Putting up Rinos ain't working now.

Posted by: The Brothers 2006 & 2008 at October 31, 2009 12:18 PM (PD1tk)

15 I meant politicians. I did not say that, but I am speaking of the actual candidates.

OK.  My misread. You're definitely right there.  Apologies.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at October 31, 2009 12:19 PM (qWLc4)

16 boy ,that Allah dude sure is smart, he can write two blogs at once, cheers.

Posted by: wildwood at October 31, 2009 12:19 PM (VSWPU)

17

De l'audace, encore de l'audace, et toujours de l'audace!

You don't win by being meek or questioning your losses.

We're in a fight here against tyranny and the real end of freedom as we've known it..

If you're willing to make compromises for the sake our your own skin, please get out of the way and allow those with guts to vote THEIRS.

Thanks very much, but we don't need any summer soldiers to lecture us about lost causes.

You go with your conscience. You don't dither..

Posted by: Patton's Great-Niece at October 31, 2009 12:20 PM (GkYyh)

18 I am throwing a penalty flag on Ace's ridiculous claim that Beck wants: "full Democratic control of the government, for 5, 10, 15, maybe 20 years or so, unless the GOP "learns its lesson."

Ridiculous straw man attack... Ace is putting bogus words in Beck's mouth and attacking a position he doesn't hold.  He's never said anything REMOTELY like saying that he wants Democrats to have control of government for 5-20 years.


Posted by: Village Idiot at October 31, 2009 12:20 PM (vdzXc)

19 Farm subsidies, in reality, have fucked the markets up so bad that anyone with less than 500 acres in grain loses money.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at October 31, 2009 12:21 PM (qWLc4)

20 Ace,

The democrats have been far better than the republicans at blurring the lines between their ideologically pure, but unelectable candidates (See: Obama, Barack, 2008 Presidential election), and their run-of-the-mill left of center (or right-of-center for the republicans) drones. I don't see that this will change in the near term, nor do I think it should.

Posted by: NJconservative at October 31, 2009 12:21 PM (/Ywwg)

21 When i said this a few days ago i was raked over the coals

Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2009 12:21 PM (bftbi)

22 Like most things in life this comes down to location, location, location.

Dede was awful for a reasonably conservative, historically Republican district.

Now if we could magically transplant this race to Westchester County, NY or parts of LI, Dede wold be a reasonable Republican candidate and Hoffman would be a disastrous choice.

We need to be smart about this.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 12:23 PM (ur6Ar)

23 I think idealistic is a great word for a mindset.  I think Ronny was idealistic - in fact I think it breeds optimism.  But one can be idealistic in mindset and pragmatic in action if one takes actions as steps towards a goal.

What Beck is, imo, is something else.

Posted by: Amused Observer at October 31, 2009 12:23 PM (xGXz7)

24

What ace is talking about could happen, Ny 23 is a fluke because voters didn't get a chance to pick their candidate. What also could happen is that conservatives show the same energy they showed in ny 23 and rally for the conservative in the primaries and carry the enthusiasm on to the general.

It looks like conservatives are getting more involved than before. As promised Obama has been a uniter.

Posted by: robtr at October 31, 2009 12:23 PM (fwSHf)

25 Seems to me the Republicans have been trying the big-tent, get-along-with-the-libs method for a few decades now.  Hasn't worked very well as far as I can see.  The only time the Republicans do well is when they run on a no apology, tough, smaller government philosophy, such as with Reagan and the Contract With America.

The way I see it, the method you say Rush likes is a slow boat to oblivion while Beck's is a torpedo.  Either way we end up at the bottom of the ocean.

Posted by: jjmurphy at October 31, 2009 12:24 PM (onqWT)

26 Hey-- ask all those midwest and mountain state conservatives if they want to give up farm subsidies in the interest of True Conservatism. Answer: No, they most emphatically do not, even if they agree with your statement of True Conservatism in principle. The

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 12:24 PM (DTOF+)

27 Hey-- ask all those midwest and mountain state conservatives if they want to give up farm subsidies in the interest of True Conservatism. Answer: No, they most emphatically do not, even if they agree with your statement of True Conservatism in principle. They would immediately lose their seats if they voted this way

Actually, what is forgotten in that analysis is that farm subsidies only benefit one class of farmers -- those who primarily raise grain.

Farm subsidies HURT ones like my family, who primarily raise animals, by artificially increasing the cost of grain that goes into animal feed.

Farm subsidies also punish ethanol makers, chemical manufacturers, and food processors, all of whom have to pay an artificially inflated price, and by doing that, consumers, who pay elevated prices for food, fuel, and other products made from grain.

In short, farm subsidies hurt everyone EXCEPT the grain farmers -- who, last I looked, comprise a single-digit portion of the US population and, even in the high-ag states, aren't a majority by any stretch of the imagination.

Somehow, I think conservatives could win by pointing out that government interference, while it benefits a tiny, tiny group of people with relatively good PR, does so at the expense of about 95% of everyone else.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 12:25 PM (DTOF+)

28 But if Glenn Beck is serious and not merely engaging in bluffing rhetoric, he really does believe that the only way to get back to a "Constitutionalist Majority" is to have a series of punishing losses, and full Democratic control of the government, for 5, 10, 15, maybe 20 years or so, unless the GOP "learns its lesson." Glenn Beck doesn't think the Republic will survive more than 4 years of the current administration, and isn't even sure of that.

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at October 31, 2009 12:25 PM (kKFG5)

29 Short answer: no. Long answer: no. There will not be third-party challenges that will split the GOP vote and hand victory to Democrats either in a few days or next year. It won't happen.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 12:26 PM (mFUln)

30 I think the 23rd was a chance for the Republicans to run a candidate that would help the Republican brand for 2010. A fiscal conservative who could run on the runaway debt/deficit. Instead, all the republican leadership could see was the election Tuesday. This should get their attention, win or lose.

Posted by: Dr. Spank at October 31, 2009 12:26 PM (muUqs)

31 Awww gimme a gd break we had 12 'effin years of the 'Republican' Bush's and all we got to show for it IS Clinton and this SOB Kenyan.

let's not forget the "I'm Bob Dole" Show.

got a little throw up in your throat yet?

Any Republican associated with this train wreck needs to go. The Country needs another RINO like it needs the crap we got there now. For Crimminies sake...TARP was a 'effin RINO bill.

spit

Posted by: torabora at October 31, 2009 12:27 PM (H1b4W)

32 The way some people act you'd think this was November 5th 2008 or something. Once again the pundits are substituting their own cleverness for the way things really are. People won't vote for a third party candidate if the GOP candidate appeals to them. If the GOP candidate doesn't, they will. If conservatives beat moderates and liberals in next year's primaries, all this ridiculous whining about how the party is being split and how it's handing Democrats victory will be forgotten much faster than it took to wrote. First post of Ace's I've really disagreed with almost entirely. You're veering off into Frumland on this one.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 12:28 PM (mFUln)

33

Actually, when i said i felt bad for scuzzy, i got racked over the coals.

I don't know where beck is headed. I agree with  the concepts, but the reality is that conservatism CANNOT win everywhere.

A conservative will never be elected in certain areas. So we have to settle for the best we can get. NY 23 is not one of those.

 

I do think that both parties are taking us towards a collapse, however one is taking jet, the other a speeding car. I guess then we have to choose the speeding car, because there is no viable third option.

this whole democratic republic thing is tough. Sometimes I think the israelis were onto something with their Philosopher King idea.

Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2009 12:29 PM (bftbi)

34 "A conservative will never be elected in certain areas." Sorta like how Reagan won re-election by taking 49 states and was half a percent or something from taking all 50? People vote for results far more often than you'd suspect.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 12:32 PM (mFUln)

35

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 05:25 PM (DTOF+)

Agreed, though for very different reasons.  The only people who can afford to get "fallow ground checks" are those that can spare the land.  Then they get huge checks, buy large, ultra efficient equipment, which drives down grain prices, and leave the small farmer that can't afford such equipment farming less ground less efficiently.  Economies of scale are everything in grain production.  I believe grain prices are artificially low, myself.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at October 31, 2009 12:33 PM (qWLc4)

36 They (the left) are playing all of the GOP.

They continue to have their netroots, and win elections very easily.

DeDe wouldn't have won anyway.....

What is the whoop....900,000.00 down the hole and maybe we will shape some people within the establishment  to right up....(withold money from them, that will work).......really newt, al sharpton and education....how much is a republican supposed to take...it is like laura bush and her "oh george" take on anything too conservative....enough....stand for something.

Posted by: non_dhimmie at October 31, 2009 12:34 PM (cFwGO)

37 I can't help but shake the feeling that arguments similar to Ace's can't help but boil down to "Vote whom the Party chooses."

I'm sorry, but I vote for candidates, not parties, unless it's absolutely necessary otherwise.

Look, the Dems aren't some unshakable monolith.  They'll start fracturing when the going gets tough.

Posted by: Techie at October 31, 2009 12:34 PM (cxW4X)

38 Remember this is NY, and this wasn't a third party run. The Conservative and Liberal (+ now Working Families Party) lines have been available for years. Most time the GOP candidate also runs on the conservative line and the Dem runs on the Liberal/WFP line. The GOP in NYS is essentially a patronage/graft machine like the Dems, not a real ideological party. They have their own union backers etc. Ditto for New Jersey. So a guy like Hoffman is not just a conservative, he is also a reform guy by definition

Posted by: DirtyJobsGuy at October 31, 2009 12:35 PM (wpT1k)

39 Ace, people's thoughts and feelings and wants and needs are not static. Persuasion works. Keeping a seat R is not good enough if the R is really a D. In fact, the more the Rs act like Ds just to win the more the D's win in the end. The Conservative Party doesn't have to be a third party forever. It could replace the Republican Party. I think it is worth a try. The Republican Party we have now is just the Democrat Party on doggy downers.

Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 12:35 PM (ZzgoC)

40 Off to ring doorbells.  Later.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at October 31, 2009 12:36 PM (qWLc4)

41

Glenn Beck doesn't think the Republic will survive more than 4 years of the current administration, and isn't even sure of that

 

It's possible. Destruction in this instanse might not means mass devistation, but instead it means a vastly different place which most of us will find unrecognizable.

America 1928  was a vastly different place compared to America 1945.

One administration can change a country, for the better or worse. We can, and often do lose freedoms, under just about every president and their "reforms" in spite of the good hearted nature of those reforms.

I would only vote 3rd party if one of the three situations happened.

1. A NY 23 situation, where the third party candidate had a viable chance of winning and the republican/democrat views were further away from mine than the third parties.

2. The Republicans nominate someone to the left of McCain. I like most of you held my nose and voted McCain, howver that is as far to the left as I can go.

3. There is a catastrophe that both parties are responsible for.

Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2009 12:36 PM (bftbi)

42 Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 05:32 PM (mFUln)

You can't look at a presidential race the same as a House race.

Congressional districts are discrete areas specifically drawn to get a certain outcome 9 times out of 10.

If you can steal that 10th time by giving up a little (sometimes a lot) in terms of ideology, you are way ahead of the game.

Also, Reagan won over 25 years ago. The demographics of this country have changed. A lot. Can you really imagine Reagan winning California at this point? Really?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 12:36 PM (ur6Ar)

43 Now if we could magically transplant this race to Westchester County, NY or parts of LI, Dede wold be a reasonable Republican candidate and Hoffman would be a disastrous choice. We need to be smart about this. Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 05:23 PM In other words, "Republican" means whatever we want it to mean, depending on the audience. If we're in a liberal-trending part of the country, then "Republican" means liberal values. If we're in a conservative-trending part of the country, then "Republican" means conservative values. So, basically, "Republican" has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. And "RINO" has absolutely no meaning whatsoever, since you can't go against the "Republican" platform when there is no platform, except "stand for whatever will get you elected in a particular part of the country". Basically, instead of being leaders of certain values, what it means to be a "Republican" nowadays is that you follow whatever people want. Very inspiring. And people wonder why supposedly 50% of we conservatives no longer are part of the "Republican" Party. I don't see the point to having a "Republican" majority when that majority consists of 1/3 who are Conservative, 1/3 who will vote 50-50 with Democrats and 1/3 who are liberals and will vote for liberal policies.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 12:36 PM (ObTcs)

44 Thank you for stating my feelings, Michael.

Posted by: Techie at October 31, 2009 12:38 PM (cxW4X)

45 chaos: Really? Hypothetical: A Republican rep in a purplish-red district has a challenger. The challenger is not a very good politician. Less a bona fide candidate than a protest candidate. The rep has been in office for years, and is, let's say, a 90% conservative voter. The rep, however, voted, years ago for the Assault Weapons Ban. Why? He was scared shitless about the Columbine fallout. He has recanted that vote and now votes mainly pro-2nd-Amendment. But he does have that vote and a few other bad ones on his resume. So the challenger is a 2nd-Amendment champion. He is pure on that. He runs third-party. As he's not a very good politician, he attracts only say 5% of the votes, also from very strong 2nd-Amendment voters. The rep loses, the Dem wins. 48-46-5. Are you seriously claiming that a single-issue candidate can't draw 5%? Do you really believe 5% is chump change in elections and you can afford to toss it away?

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 12:38 PM (WXvWz)

46 "People vote for results far more often than you'd suspect."

This is so true and its a shame that its insightful because this should be obvious.  The problem with Republicans is that they run on spin instead of principals, when you don't control the media, its no shock that you get your ass handed to you.

Reagan, Newt (before he started indulging in Andrew Sullivan's drug stash), the tea partiers and Palin (except for that period when she decided to tow the McCain party line instead of being herself) have shown that the right message can rise above the media and get straight to the people with results.

Posted by: Just Another Poster at October 31, 2009 12:39 PM (HAdov)

47 The fact is a very conservative candidate is not going to win in every district, so pragmatism is indeed warranted in some cases. I think she was too liberal for that district, but probably a good GOP candidate for San Francisco or likewise. Limbaugh is right.

Posted by: changer1701 at October 31, 2009 12:39 PM (rrLGs)

48

Now if we could magically transplant this race to Westchester County, NY or parts of LI, Dede wold be a reasonable Republican candidate

No, she wouldn't.

Dede is not an acceptable republican anywhere.

Posted by: Entropy at October 31, 2009 12:39 PM (cok/k)

49

and the Glenn Beck camp, which seems to, at least rhetorically, call for near-complete purity,

This "purity" straw-man is often brought up.  The amnesty supporters used to use it a lot, to somehow claim that their desires to destroy al concepts of US sovereignty and ignore the rule of law, and common sense, were somehow ideas that should be acceptable to all but "the purists".

The uestion to be asked is, what would have happened with the totally un-American and un-Constitutional health care takeover plans of the feral government without the tea parties, town halls, and the 9/12 rally in DC?  I know that the dems have been acting as if nothing in the past has really occured, but one must question what effects those events had (to stave off the insane expansion of the feral government until now).  Given that, one will arrive at a serious estimate of how those same events should effect the GOP going forward and how much candidates should pay attention to the concerns that were raised (and there is nothing about "purity" in that).

I would remind all that the disintegration of the GOP was really kicked off by the Shamnesty debacle, which McShame and Co. tried to ram down our throats (not unlike what the dems are doing now with their zombie health care legislation - though the dems have supercharged the ramming mentality by orders of magnitude) which was what really tore the GOP apart and lowered the trust that people have in the party down to near zero.  Nothing has been done by the GOP, since then, to gain back that trust, and there is little left to do (as we are in the end game of the US, for those who don't realize it) but make the GOP aware that they have to stop pandering to dems and start toeing the line of conservativism.  This is not purity, but trust and honesty.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 31, 2009 12:39 PM (A46hP)

50 What's the opposite of this so-called "Purity"?

Dilution IMO.

Posted by: Techie at October 31, 2009 12:41 PM (cxW4X)

51 I think this was ultimately what had to happen.  The stupid people here are the GOP bigwigs who decided Dede should be the nominee when she has no real republican positions whatsoever (except maybe on guns).  If there had been a primary or a caucus this situation wouldn't have arisen, even if she had won.

It sounds like this was a mixture of the NRCC demanding a woman and the local bigwigs picking somebody who could shovel pork to their favorite causes.  We can't keep ignoring the Republican party platform because we are eager to win, and if the GOP believe the Republican party platform is so unpopular it alienates moderates, then we are doomed anyways.


Posted by: Zuggs at October 31, 2009 12:42 PM (h60Tu)

52 Otherwise, you end up with a party of Olympia Snowes and Lincoln Chafees.

Posted by: Techie at October 31, 2009 12:43 PM (cxW4X)

53 I don't know where beck is headed. I agree with  the concepts, but the reality is that conservatism CANNOT win everywhere.

That's fine and I think most of us acknowledge that. However, there should be some minimum standard that we can all rally around. Like the fiscal stuff.

I'm here in Florida and the national party's stuck it's nose in and endorsed Crist- who isn't just squishy on the social stuff but he's flopped all over the radar on the fiscal stuff, too. Scozzawhatever-her-name-is wasn't only liberal on the social stuff but supported porkulus, tax increases, the bailouts, the cap-and-tax and card check. That's horrible for the economy and those are the issues that most reasonable Americans can agree upon. If we can pound those issues that's where we can pull in the "moderates".

I think most of us, even the majority of the social-cons, can justify compromise somewhat on the social issues so long as the candidate is fiscally in-line. But when we've got the national party throwing their weight behind candidates who aren't even in the same zip code as fiscal conservatism, we have a problem.

Posted by: Mandy P. at October 31, 2009 12:43 PM (MK6Kx)

54 Basically, instead of being leaders of certain values, what it means to be a "Republican" nowadays is that you follow whatever people want.

Amen. And therein lies the problem. If consensus were the best method of decision-making, the Bay of Pigs invasion would have been one of the most brilliant military operations in history.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 12:43 PM (DTOF+)

55

 

I don't feel bad for Scozzafava at all. She was to the left of the liberal candidate in this contest and got endorsed by Kos for chrissakes. Its not the Limbaugh and Beck camps, its the folks who blindly vote for anyone with an (R) next to their name who will baby step us into socialism vs. the folks who want  true fiscal conservatives who actually care about the Constitution and will fight against the nanny state tooth and nail.

We are not the problem, the party is. Hopefully what just happened in NY will shake things up a little and wake people up.

Posted by: Blazer at October 31, 2009 12:43 PM (AoS9J)

56 >>>Ace, people's thoughts and feelings and wants and needs are not static. >>>Persuasion works. Reagan was the best ambassador to conservatism we ever had. Did he manage a 51% conservative country? Persuasion does not work, not in the sense you are talking about, and the entire political-advertising business should tell you that. Political advertising does not seek to persuade people to accept new principles. It seeks to stimulate principles people already have. I don't know what kind of world you imagine where people are willing to sit down with you for six or eight hours straight to debate First Principles with you, or anyone else. They're not willing. They never have been so willing. If you could point out to me a single case where a large sector of the populace voluntarily decided to pay attention to an ideological pitch, a pitch of sound principles, much like a religious conversion pitch, then I'd think your view holds water. The best "conversion speech" is a positive record of peace and prosperity. Squishes are squishes for a reason. If they wanted this ideological backbone and underpinning you want them to have, *they would already have it.* They don't want to sit around and debate First Principles or vote on ideology. They want to know which guy (like Clinton) seems to be producing good value for the country, or who (like Obama) is promising them more free shit. You keep claiming these people can be "persuaded" in the sense of becoming doctrinal conservatives. How many? What fraction?

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 12:44 PM (WXvWz)

57 Very inspiring.
Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 05:36 PM (ObTcs)

Breaking news: The goal is not to inspire. It's to win so that you may can peruse the right policy.

Inspiring is a tool to that end but so is hard core numbers crunching.

If you want to be inspired rent Miracle.

Out in the real world it's about winning elections

Ever hear the saying that "politics is the art of the possible? Guess what, it's the truth. Winning a majority in the House of Representatives with hard core conservatives is not possible.

Look at the current House and Senate. They have huge majorities and yet the true believers can't get what they want (single payer isn't even on the table).

I don't get where the idea that America is really 60-75% hardcore conservative. The evidence seems to be unanimously to the contrary.


Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 12:44 PM (ur6Ar)

58 Good Lord, Beck perhaps wants 20 years of Obama-Pelosi California- like Socialism? At the enf of which a thoroughly socialised, welfare addicted Europeanized electorate will magically rediscover its American Frontier roots? Insane. A surer bet: the Republican Party can preclude independent challengers by selecting candidates that are actually Republicans, not wannabe Democrat Lites. After all: why does the RNC think DEMOCRATS don't worry about independents stealing THEIR thunder?

Posted by: CoolCzech at October 31, 2009 12:45 PM (QECjC)

59

Beck wants PURITY??  Pffffffffffffffft.   Beck is demontrably pointing out vile crap and garbage.   He's pointing out bad policy, bad people and immorality.

He's not saying you should be burnnt at the stake if you are PURE.

Tell me one thing JUST ONE, that Beck says that isn't correct.

Posted by: gus at October 31, 2009 12:45 PM (Vqruj)

60 Other news, PPP is hinting that as a democratic pollster that even they can't find any good news in NJ, VA or NY-23.  Looking better and better for a sweep on Tuesday.

Posted by: Just Another Poster at October 31, 2009 12:45 PM (HAdov)

61 "Are you seriously claiming that a single-issue candidate can't draw 5%? Do you really believe 5% is chump change in elections and you can afford to toss it away?" I'm serious in saying that the single-issue candidate should not be a fucking retard and should withdraw and support the Republican. And if the Republican has been in office for years, considering what both parties have done to districts and such, the Democrat isn't going to be getting within 5% of him. Let's not kid ourselves with unrealistic hypotheticals, sorry.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 12:45 PM (mFUln)

62 "That word idealistic. I have never understood why people believe that to be a positive thing." Really? The Declaration of Independence was penned by idealists. Idealism is informed by reason, according to Webster ("a theory that the essential nature of reality lies in consciousness or reason.") I'm not talking about the perfectability of man, which is unattainable, but in his ability to consensually establish evolving concepts of social and economic behavior so he and his coevals can individually realize their highest potential while preserving individual rights. Seems like a pretty lofty goal. I think idealism underpins civilization; the alternative is a two-dimensional acceptance that life is nasty, brutish, and short without at least acknowledging the possibility that it can be less so. You probably see "idealistic" as a synonym for "unrealistic," "naive," or "liberal." I think a lot of people do. The dictionary definition doesn't seem to suggest these as alternatives. I think it's another term that's been incorrectly co-opted in service of an agenda, like substituting the cheery "progressive" for the aptly maligned "liberal."

Posted by: railwriter at October 31, 2009 12:45 PM (daRzV)

63

Left leaning republicans are inevitable people.

Try to get a conservative to win in Vermont. Just try.

It won't happen.

There will never be a truly conservative Republican party, ever.

What we can do, is our part to ensure that the majority of the party is conservative.  But be willing to accept Republicans who will vote with use 50 percent of the time, as opposed to a democrat who votes with us 10 percent of the time.

We have to be realists.  Tell me, how can a conservative win the congressional district that encompases San Franciso? Seattle?  Etc. 

I would rather have a majority in the house and senate with 80 percent of the republicans being conservative, than super minorities in both houses and having 100 percent conservative republicans. We can be ultra conservative and it wouldn't matter if we had no power or a seat at the table.

The best we can do is push for conservative candidates that can win, and in left leaning districts hold our nose and pull the lever for the person with the R next to their name.

Also we need to focus on the 2012 election. I know everyone says it is so far away, but what happened in 2007-2008. Conservatives split their votes between Huckabee, Thompson, Romney, and Giuliani and we ended up with McCain.

It is important that by the end of 2010 and beginning of 2011 we have someone in mind that we can put our full force and effort behind.

That is my humble opinion.

Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2009 12:45 PM (bftbi)

64

So long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, goodbye. Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye. Un-like Ace I hope she friggin' dies.

Posted by: zombie captain von trapp's zombie family singers at October 31, 2009 12:46 PM (2qU2d)

65

When's the last time any of you were able to vote for someone at the local, state, or national level that represented *everything* to which you hold dear?

Never for me. Then again I'm young, so more power to you if you've had the luxury.

I think I can *safely* say we're all here for one reason-to defeat progressive dogma that's leaving the history and exceptionalism of this country left to circle the drain.

We all have the same goal. Yet if there are 20 people here and if we are polled on what it means to be a "conservative", "Republican" or "RINO", you're most likely going to get 20 different answers.

At at end of four quarters, two halves, or nine innings, I just want a winner. It doesn't mean I enjoyed watching the game or that I'm even going to brag about a shallow victory. But we can always recruit "better" players for the next season.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2009 12:46 PM (Wkb8U)

66 Why are we still having this discussion? Hoffman is a third party and with proper support he rose to the top almost overnight. If the GOP doesn't get its act together we will work around them. This isn't the '90s folks! I understand Rush's view and I'll bet Beck wishes that were so too. But the GOP hasn't learned a damn thing. If we keep getting into pissing matches about third party, Perot, blah, blah, blah then we will lose the battle perhaps even the war. We are in very dangerous waters. It's time to be radical Ace. Very radical. I wish we could lose the whole "conservative" label, that's for another post, what are we conserving? It's time we use the right label: Pro-American or Pro-Constitution something like that. If you're a progressive then you aren't Pro-American but Anti-American. It's time we named the enemy and called them out, it's the Progressives. destroy that ideology the rest will follow. The Progressive movement is a disease we need to be cured of it. It'll be easier to elevate an established third party then to reform the GOP. Look at quotes from the founders of Planned Parenthood, ACLU, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, etc. They are despicable. I don't give a damn anymore about the RNC, always hated the DNC (racist party always has been since 1840). Our litmus test should be how close to the Constitution is the candidate. Perhaps we're engaging in the wrong strategy. Maybe we need to focus on the founders of the Progressive movement and its present leaders. Most leftists don't even know just how racist and evil the Progressives really are. It's time we showed them. This will force the Progressives to go on the defensive. Imagine if most right wing blogs featured once a week an in depth attack on the Progressive foundation. I'm telling you the reason why Beck has been so effective is he's using the word Progressive a lot and calling them out. We all need to do this. Sorry for the long comment. Thanks for your work Ace.

Posted by: USMC at October 31, 2009 12:46 PM (wDAko)

67 BTW, go McDonnell. I have a feeling it's gonna be a slaughter here in the once-pure commonwealth...

Posted by: railwriter at October 31, 2009 12:47 PM (daRzV)

68 45, Ace, if you get too wrapped up in election tactics and playing with numbers you lose sight of the big picture. Our Republic is already being strangled by Socialism. Getting Congress to be 80% moderately conservative 72% of the time is not the right goal. The growth in government that has occurred in the last 100 years must be reversed. RINOs and Democrats will never do that. There is no more middle ground.

Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 12:47 PM (ZzgoC)

69 If you're going to be a bitch and fuck over the country because you want to throw a temper tantrum and you get Democrats elected because you split the vote, I'm not going to sit around and listen about how it was really the Republican Party's fault. No. It was your fault, and you're a fucking asshole. Simple as that.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 12:47 PM (mFUln)

70 But Drew, it seems your approach ensures that those policies NEVER get implemented

We elect a "non-pure" slate of RINOs and ....... then what?  They reform the tax code?  Battle Amnesty?  Suddenly go hard-line on the budget?

It's like you're expected people to change views and actions once installed in office.

Posted by: Techie at October 31, 2009 12:47 PM (cxW4X)

71 I want to see how many "Republicans" can win any election from now on by advocating and rubber stamping Obamunist lite policies. If they can't adhere to conservatism then they should run as Democrats because from here on out they are not going to win as a Republican.

Posted by: El Duende at October 31, 2009 12:48 PM (LnF5D)

72

The fact is a very conservative candidate is not going to win in every district, so pragmatism is indeed warranted in some cases.

Yes. But 2 things:

1) A REPUBLICAN is not going to win in every district. A conservative should want republicans to press hard to challenge in the ones a conservative might win, in which the republicans do not all hold. Because the Republican party is not the conservative party.

2) Dede is not pragmatic, anywhere.

I'm not a purist. If you agre with me 80% of the time, you're on my side.

Correllary: If you disagree with me 80% of the time, you're not on my side.

I think she was too liberal for that district, but probably a good GOP candidate for San Francisco or likewise

Another person who thinks the GOP needs to win San Francisco.

We don't need to win San Francisco. By all rights the GOP ought not represent SF because it does not represent SF.

Posted by: Entropy at October 31, 2009 12:48 PM (cok/k)

73

Sigh.. I miss Reagan and Milton Freidman so much...

Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2009 12:50 PM (bftbi)

74 71 Bravo. Don't destroy the party, change it. If "conservatives" destroy the GOP and hand power to the Dems in election after election by splitting the vote, I'll never vote for a "conservative" candidate.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 12:50 PM (mFUln)

75 I don't want a "GOP" representative from San Francisco.

The GOP should not represent San Fran.  They have the Pelosis of the world for that

Posted by: Techie at October 31, 2009 12:50 PM (cxW4X)

76 Beck and Rush? What States or Districts do they represent?

Posted by: nevergiveup at October 31, 2009 12:51 PM (UF00K)

77 Breaking news: The goal is not to inspire. It's to win so that you may can peruse the right policy.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 05:44 PM (ur6Ar)

A Freudian typo.  Too telling, really.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 31, 2009 12:52 PM (A46hP)

78 Are you seriously claiming that a single-issue candidate can't draw 5%? Do you really believe 5% is chump change in elections and you can afford to toss it away?

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 05:38 PM (WXvWz)

Single issue candidates usually don't get 5% of the vote, they get somewhere around 1% because they don't have money and they don't have get out the vote machinery. New York is the only state that I know of that even has a conservative party that is of any consequence. From what I understand the conservative party has been there for years and is entrenched and is the only reason Hoffman survived long enough to win, if he does. Most states just don't have that backing for a third party candidate.

Posted by: robtr at October 31, 2009 12:52 PM (fwSHf)

79 Glenn Beck doesn't think the Republic will survive more than 4 years of the current administration, and isn't even sure of that.

And he's wrong which is why I'm agnostic to skeptical when it comes to Beck.

Historically we've survived far worse ideologues than Obama (Wilson and FDR come to mind) as well as general incompetence. We're actually a strong country and not prone to wild ideological swings as some people like to imagine. Obama can only do so much damage before the Constitution and the moderate nature of the voters rein him and his party back in. If you look at the history of the US, we've muddled through worse than this. So yeah I guess that makes me an optimist.

And I can't tell if Beck really believes his apocalyptic tone. If it's shtick, it'll eventually wear thin along with the messenger. If he really does believe it, I worry about him having a meltdown or wandering off into 3rd-party crackpotism.

Posted by: Mætenloch at October 31, 2009 12:52 PM (z843g)

80 Whenever someone is arguing for a choice -- say Choice A -- they of course want to also establish that there is no downside whatsoever to that choice. In other words, it's all gravy, all positive, no negative costs. A purely good choice, with no caveat. Thus liberals argue about torture -- not only is it morally reprehensible, they claim, but on top of that, it produces no valuable information, ever, in all of human history! Um, allow me to disagree with both prongs of that argument, but specifically with the second, which is not an opinion but simply a false statement, entirely untrue. At any rate: Some of you are contending that Choice A -- challenge! Third party! Purify! -- comes with *no downside* whatsoever. I do not believe that. I do not believe that many decisions at all in life come with "no downside whatsoever." I believe that 95% of choices come with a downside, and you have to decide if that downside is so bad you can live with it. (the 5% of cases where there is no downside to a choice aren't even choices -- of course you choose it, it's not even a question. We're not even aware we're making a choice in these cases because the other possible choices are so plainly inferior.) This argument being made-- we can do all these things and *never even have to worry that we are losing races that we could otherwise win* -- seems every bit as specious and *convenient* as liberals natterings about torture never working. To be honest, the moment I hear "and there are no downsides to this choice!," I shut my ears and listen no more, because i'm being sold nonsense. There is ALWAYS a cost to your choices. It is not neither honest nor productive to pretend otherwise.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 12:52 PM (WXvWz)

81

The RNC has ignored its base for too long.  The big tent thing and mushy middle has pushed them nearly into irrelevantcy.  Were it not for the base asserting itself cap and trade and national healthcare would be in effect right now.    The best they did was reluctantly follow along after the tide had turned.  The worst was exemplified by Newt scolding conservatives from endorsing a conservative over the party's chosen liberal. 

For all the bluster of congressional R's the Tea Party and explosive town hall meetings have changed the course of the political tide.  No more McCain's, Dole's, Specter's, Snow's et al.  The RNC ignores this at their own peril.  If you wish to lead have a direction.

Posted by: Ohio Dan at October 31, 2009 12:52 PM (RQ+qN)

82 Dede is not an acceptable republican anywhere.
Posted by: Entropy at October 31, 2009 05:39 PM (cok/k)

That's insanity.

She's not acceptle to base voters and a Republican district but I'd prefer to have her than say Eliot Engle or John Hall.

If you'd rather a D than a liberal R in those kinds of districts, you are profoundly unserious about how politics works in the real world.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 12:52 PM (ur6Ar)

83 The debate should be about whether such costs are worth it, not if the costs exist at all.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 12:52 PM (WXvWz)

84 Michael Steele is the wrong tool for the job.

Posted by: Mr. Pissed at October 31, 2009 12:52 PM (EL+OC)

85 56, Ace, if this is so, then how did Reagan win? I do not mean persuasion by Power Point presentation. I mean it to mean a list of things that change how people think. Every time compromise lets a RINO win we lose. And by we I mean Conservatives and the Nation.

Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 12:53 PM (ZzgoC)

86

72

Entropy.

If we can get a republican of Dede's type in San Fran I would take it in a second. Look at the alternative. Nancy Pelosi.

Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2009 12:54 PM (bftbi)

87 >>>Single issue candidates usually don't get 5% of the vote, they get somewhere around 1% because they don't have money and they don't have get out the vote machinery. But we are talking post-Hoffman, and we are talking about an environment where radio talkers and bloggers could help get someone the free media (and the money) they did not previously have. And that can get you to 5% pretty quick.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 12:54 PM (WXvWz)

88 "When's the last time any of you were able to vote for someone at the local, state, or national level that represented *everything* to which you hold dear?"

I think this misses the point, lets say that someone truly believes that if we don't control the border that the country will eventually not survive under the weight of immigration.

Then there is someone else who truly believes that abortion is murder.

Then there are the people who won't vote for anyone not fiscally conservative (probably a large majority of ace's readers)

If a candidate doesn't support both all these he will lose x% of the vote from either A, B, C or all three if the candidate is really bad.

The problem that people are missing is that there isn't all these super-uber Conservatives demanding everything.  There are small pockets of issue voters that demand the representative support that issue or they simply will not vote.  Its not so much ideologically purity as it is single issue voters.  Until the party leaders figure out a coalition that doesn't require all 3, voters will peel off if the candidate doesn't support their issue.  Fiscal cons like to blame the social cons, but I know some that threaten to sit on the sidelines if Palin is president, so there is a lot of blame to go around on the Right.

Posted by: Just Another Poster at October 31, 2009 12:54 PM (HAdov)

89 She's not acceptle to base voters and a Republican district but I'd prefer to have her than say Eliot Engle or John Hall.

So, what are you going to do, run her as a Democrat Lite in a Democrat district?  If she's not acceptable to the base or to a "Republican District"?

That's a wise use of political capital.

Posted by: Techie at October 31, 2009 12:54 PM (cxW4X)

90 Breaking news: The goal is not to inspire. It's to win so that you may can peruse the right policy.

Be that as it may, DrewM, you pointed out the problem with that indirectly in the very same post.

Look at the current House and Senate. They have huge majorities and yet the true believers can't get what they want (single payer isn't even on the table).

A prime example of what happens when you set aside principles in order to win. Pelosi and her mob of moonbats did exactly that, and now here they are, unable to "pursue the right policy" (in their eyes) because, if they do, it will be obvious that a huge chunk of them lied to their constituents.

Republicans didn't need to what Scozzafava or whatever would be beholden.

Also, within that Pelosi point, lies another thing: the only way that the Obama Party could get back into power was to pretend to be conservative. If you add the GOP plus the conservative and Blue Dog Dems, you have 65 - 70% of the population that has already demonstrated they will vote for conservative principles regardless of party.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 12:55 PM (DTOF+)

91 This is the question. Hoffman's election (whoops, getting ahead of myself) is a fine thing in and of itself. It's also a good thing if it serves as a shot across the bow of the GOP establishment. Now: If it encourages a spate of Spoiler Conservatives, is it a good thing?

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 12:56 PM (WXvWz)

92 "This argument being made-- we can do all these things and *never even have to worry that we are losing races that we could otherwise win* -- seems every bit as specious and *convenient* as liberals natterings about torture never working. " If Owens wins, you have a point. But if Owens wins, there won't be third-party conservative challenges. If Hoffman wins, you don't have a point. He's going to caucus with the GOP, it's obvious that Dede dropped because the national GOP leadership abandoned her, they want winners and they don't care about ideology. So, elect conservatives in primaries and general elections and the GOP leadership will be as conservative as anyone could want. They do what they do based on their best estimation of what will win elections. We have only ourselves to blame if we fail to elect conservatives and the national party leadership consequently doesn't act conservative enough for us. Get out and vote for conservatives and this problem disappears.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 12:56 PM (mFUln)

93 Ben, you can't win every baseball or football game, but you try.

Posted by: gus at October 31, 2009 12:56 PM (Vqruj)

94 If you'd rather a D than a liberal R in those kinds of districts, you are profoundly unserious about how politics works in the real world. Posted by: DrewM What is the difference between a D and a Liberal R?

Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 12:56 PM (ZzgoC)

95 2. The Republicans nominate someone to the left of McCain. I like most of you held my nose and voted McCain, howver that is as far to the left as I can go. Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2009 05:36 PM Well, as many have told me, that makes you a traitor and means you're handing the reigns of this nation to the Democrats. blah blah blah See, for you, McCain is as far left as you can go. For many others last election cycle, McCain was past their limit for as far Left as they would go. YET, they were demonized as being traitors to the nation, since they decided to vote 3rd Party. Thus, I can see you being treated for this opinion in the same way many other conservatives were treated last year for deciding they were not voting for McCain. As far as I can tell, there is no liberal Candidate that the Republicans can put up that conservative-leaning blogs will accept is too far and will endorse 3rd Party. If we had Hillary switch parties and win the Republican nomination in 2012 against Obama, I would bet anything that 99% of conservative-leaning blogs would say "vote for Hillary or else". And this is what happens when you just keep up with the "lesser of two evils" nonsense. You get the Democrat Party moving further and further Left, and then anyone barely to the right of them is seen as the "lesser of two evils".

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 12:57 PM (ObTcs)

96 But Drew, it seems your approach ensures that those policies NEVER get implemented.

We elect a "non-pure" slate of RINOs and ....... then what?  They reform the tax code?  Battle Amnesty?  Suddenly go hard-line on the budget?
Posted by: Techie at October 31, 2009 05:47 PM (cxW4X)

Except that's not what I'm arguing.

I've always held that we should run the most conservative candidate with a reasonable shot at winning.

In some places that will be Eric Cantor. In some it might even be as bad as Dede.

In the Senate, Tom Coburn will never chair a committee unless you win some moderate to liberal states.

You need those RINOs to top off the real conservatives. Without the filler candidates from toss-up or liberal districts you never get good solid conservatives in the leadership spots.

This isn't my personal preference, it's simply the math.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 12:57 PM (ur6Ar)

97 I would take Allah's worries and perceptions with a boulder of salt since his idea of winning back is to listen to his buddy David Frum and his heartthrob Meggie Mac

Conservatives may not make a majority of the electorate but they make a large enough voting bloc to make it fatal to ignore them. Much smaller voting blocs are pandered to by both parties, blacks making up 12 percent of the electorate, senior citizens maybe 18 percent, hispanics at 14 percent, jews at 6 percent and gays at 1 percent.

"We Suck Less Than the Other Guys" isn't exactly a winner.

Posted by: kbdabear at October 31, 2009 12:57 PM (sYxEE)

98 What is the difference between a D and a Liberal R?
Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 05:56 PM (ZzgoC)

Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Speaker John Boehner

Majority Leader Harry Reid or Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

Big enough difference?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 12:58 PM (ur6Ar)

99

>> Ace, if this is so, then how did Reagan win?

Jimmy. Fuckin. Carter.

How is it that Reagan's lansdslide win didn't translate to landslide majorities in Congress?

I'm pleased that Dede took the hit and made what I think is really a pretty good decision on her part. I'm not listening much to the "distorted record" shit, it's patently obvious that there are enough conservatives in NY-23 to have given Hoffman this shot at all.

I don't see superconservative Senators coming out of Maine, or sitting in the Governor's office in Mass. Not happening.  Not there and not in a lot of other places either.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 31, 2009 12:59 PM (Wh0W+)

100 "What is the difference between a D and a Liberal R?"

When a single Liberal R votes for a POS then the media can claim that the vote was bi-partisan and we all really support it deep down.


Just for the record I do agree compromises have to made, but you make them out of necessity and not before they are need or even required.  (i.e. running a Democrat in a district that a Conservative can win in a cake walk).

Posted by: Just Another Poster at October 31, 2009 12:59 PM (HAdov)

101

Now: If it encourages a spate of Spoiler Conservatives, is it a good thing?

do you mean in primaries or in the general.

In the primaries I am all for it. That is why I want Rubio who has a potential to lose in the generals over Christ who would almost definately beat Meeks, but that is an acceptable consequense for me in that specific instanse

However if you mean third party spoilers, then no of course not. Unless they have a chance at winning, like Hoffman

Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2009 12:59 PM (bftbi)

102 So, what are you going to do, run her as a Democrat Lite in a Democrat district?  If she's not acceptable to the base or to a "Republican District"?

That's a wise use of political capital.

Posted by: Techie at October 31, 2009 05:54 PM (cxW4X)

I'd rather compete in places where competition is possible. If you are willing to write off districts you don't even live in because the candidates don't suit your personal tastes, I hope you enjoy being in the minority for a good long time.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 01:00 PM (ur6Ar)

103 I've always held that we should run the most conservative candidate with a reasonable shot at winning. In some places that will be Eric Cantor. In some it might even be as bad as Dede. In the Senate, Tom Coburn will never chair a committee unless you win some moderate to liberal states. You need those RINOs to top off the real conservatives. Without the filler candidates from toss-up or liberal districts you never get good solid conservatives in the leadership spots. This isn't my personal preference, it's simply the math. Posted by: DrewM. Again, you assume the situation is static. Create more Conservatives.

Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 01:00 PM (ZzgoC)

104

There seems to be an assumption that adherence to principles is a bad thing and pragmatism can be successful divorced from all principle.

To make a true success as a pragmatic policitian you need to have a clearer idea of your principles and what they mean than the ideologue, since you must judge at each turn how the grey area decisions are to be matched against your black and white goals. This is why politicians like Reagan or Lincoln could move through the difficult times, grab support from previous political enemies because they had an exact sense of the issues involved.

If instead, you use pragmatic as an excuse to avoid decision and controversy, both you supporters and your enemies will know that you are weak and can be bullied into any position..

I don't know whether this politican would have been a net win for us if she got elected, but the fact that nobody in her camp or in the RNC had any plan of how to respond to conservative concerns and assuage them leads me to think that this woman was not going to be a good Republican soldier, so the win would have been empty.

Posted by: Oldcat at October 31, 2009 01:00 PM (KuxzT)

105 #4:

true. That is where we need to work. And, 99 out of 100 times, I would still vote with/for the RINO if (s)he wins the primary. BUT, this was a unique case. And I hope a (hopefully) Hoffman win sends a message that in a Primary challenge, we'll be there to check their asses. I, for one, no longer want to just be treated like shit by the RNC bigwigs who constantly beg for $$ from me, yet keep pushing RINOs upon us.

Also, as to accepting RINOs, yes, I am all for it. I would put up with them on abortion if it meant they would vote with us on shit like tax cuts, cap & trade (remember the 8 RINOs in the House who helped pass that bill?), blocking O-care, etc.

Posted by: eddiebear at October 31, 2009 01:00 PM (bFb7b)

106 Historically we've survived far worse ideologues than Obama (Wilson and FDR come to mind) as well as general incompetence.

Posted by: MĂŠtenloch at October 31, 2009 05:52 PM (z843g)

Not true.  And you don't seem to factor in the monetary storm that we are within, at the moment.  The dollar will not survive the policies of this feral government (and that's even if the states acquiesce and give all of their powers and responsibilities to the forming superstate in Washington).

I am still amazed by how many people have already forgotten Sept/Oct 2008, or don't seem to understand the actual meaning of what happened and the risks it presents for the future.  Take a look at Iceland and try to factor in that the US is too big to rescue.

People just don't understand what a collapse of the dollar and a disintegration of our monetary system would actually do.  I'll give you a hint - nothing like it has ever happened before in history.  For us, there would be no escape.  You really have to come to grips with what that means, exactly, and we are headed straight into that monetary hell.  Every Dem policy is pointed towards it.  If it doesn't scare the living shit out of you, then you don't understand the implications and dangers.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 31, 2009 01:00 PM (A46hP)

107 chaos, are you new here? I am frigging a Hoffman supporter. You are talking to me as if I oppose Hoffman's candidacy. I do not. I began supporting it the third or fourth day after Michelle Malkin began publicizing it, and have done so since then. I don't get it. Are you new here or do not read what I'm saying? I am in favor of Hoffman. I am, however, worried that a lot of third-party Issue Candidates *in the future* will drain enough votes from Republicans to give Democrats a TRUE filibuster-proof majority of liberals.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 01:00 PM (WXvWz)

108 jesus I gotta get out of here.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 01:01 PM (WXvWz)

109 So are you guys in or out?

Posted by: Free Soil Party at October 31, 2009 01:01 PM (bftbi)

110 "How is it that Reagan's lansdslide win didn't translate to landslide majorities in Congress?"

The R stands for retarded and not Republican.  They have no clue how to win unless they are running a national election.  They have no clue how to get things done at the state and local level (with few exceptions)

Posted by: Just Another Poster at October 31, 2009 01:01 PM (HAdov)

111

What good is it to say "voting them out (or against them) will send them *the message*" when we'll never regain the House or Court again?

If my choice is a Republican lite/RINO or Democratic controlled everything until the day I die, I'll go with the former.

My "that'll show em!" outrage directed at RINOs doesn't keep me warm at night. Sorry it just doesn't.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2009 01:01 PM (Wkb8U)

112 I'd rather Democrats lose elections first, foremost, last, second, all. Don't care about much else.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 01:01 PM (mFUln)

113

 

I agree we will never be a 100 % ideologically pure party if there is such a thing, thats a fantasy. A few squishes here and there dont hurt you when you have a majority, but right now more than ever we need an opposition party to fight the socialist crap coming down the pike.

Unfortunately now, we are at the mercy of the same few folks who less than 4 years ago didn't amount to diddly squat and they know it. Its a great big vanity show for them now.

Take Snowe for instance. Does anyone doubt she doesn't get off from all of the attention she gets from the boys on both sides of the aisle trying to constantly woo her vote from her? I'll bet the spinster rarely got asked to dance or asked out on a date in H.S and college.

Posted by: Blazer at October 31, 2009 01:01 PM (AoS9J)

114 Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 06:00 PM (ZzgoC)

Look, if you want to live in fantasy land that's your choice.

I'm going to stick with the real world.


Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 01:02 PM (ur6Ar)

115 You need those RINOs to top off the real conservatives. Without the filler candidates from toss-up or liberal districts you never get good solid conservatives in the leadership spots.

This isn't my personal preference, it's simply the math.
Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 05:57 PM

You make a very good point Drew, I'll use my own state as a prime example.

Let's say you have two GOP hopefuls for Barbara Boxer's senate seat next year. Carly Fiorina is a RINO to be sure but with California's demographics she'd probably stand a better chance in the general election than a bright and solid conservative like Tom McClintock.

Let's face it, most of the time in life you've got to hit what's pitched

Posted by: kbdabear at October 31, 2009 01:02 PM (sYxEE)

116 And that can get you to 5% pretty quick.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 05:54 PM (WXvWz)

Didn't think of that, if Beck and Limbaugh teamed up to get rid of what they percieve to be a RINO they could probably do it and give the seat to a real democrat. I am not sure they would though if their guy lost the primary, I don't think Rush would, Beck is crazy though who knows what he is going to do and how far people will follow him when he does it.

Posted by: robtr at October 31, 2009 01:03 PM (fwSHf)

117
In the Senate, Tom Coburn will never chair a committee unless you win some moderate to liberal states.

Agreed, DrewM, but the argument here is in how best to win those moderate to liberal states.

In my opinion, it doesn't come from simply agreeing with moderate or liberal issues. It comes from demonstrating to them the cost of those issues, then making it clear that, if they want to pay for them, as they will, they can vote accordingly -- or they can follow the conservative pathway in government and choose to spend their own money moderately or liberally.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 01:04 PM (DTOF+)

118 The trouble with that is this: There is hardly any guarantee whatsoever that this very-purified new party will be able to win elections and have any power, either. It is a fact that conservatives sometimes like to dismiss, but a good 40% of the country is liberal (I know they don't call themselves that; but many people who claim to be "moderate" are in fact liberal -- you know that from reporters telling you so, and the thousand liberals you've encountered online purporting to be "moderate") and another 20% is not politically principled and simply votes for whatever guy seem to be offering the most stuff at any time. The other 40%? Conservative, yes.... Ace-- This is rubbish. Conservatives outnumber liberals in every state in the union. The most recent Gallup poll, and it's pretty consistent for over a decade is that conservatives hold a 2-to-1 advantage over liberals. The current numbers are 40 (C) to 20 (L). You have presented no evidence that self-identification is incorrect. Until you do, I am going to assume you are being an Eyore here. Conservatives have the best shot in the majority of the elections across the country. Some districts will require more plasticity. But that's not the same thing as saying squishy moderates are essential to GOP success.

Posted by: Fresh Air at October 31, 2009 01:04 PM (7r9DK)

119 >>>Again, you assume the situation is static. Create more Conservatives. Okay. This is a debate that can never be resolved. Sorry to bash you, eman, but some of us are speaking about the world as it is, and you and others are speaking of the world as you *hope it might be.* When that world comes around, I will gladly support your candidates. But it's premature to pretend that world exists now. If you don't like Drew's math, what can be said? You are rejecting reality.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 01:04 PM (WXvWz)

120 I would remind all that the disintegration of the GOP was really kicked off by the Shamnesty debacle, which McShame and Co. tried to ram down our throats (not unlike what the dems are doing now with their zombie health care legislation - though the dems have supercharged the ramming mentality by orders of magnitude) which was what really tore the GOP apart and lowered the trust that people have in the party down to near zero. Nothing has been done by the GOP, since then, to gain back that trust, and there is little left to do (as we are in the end game of the US, for those who don't realize it) but make the GOP aware that they have to stop pandering to dems and start toeing the line of conservativism. This is not purity, but trust and honesty. Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 31, 2009 05:39 PM Exactly. That's when I left the GOP, was over the Amnesty 'debate'. And I also lost all respect for "conservatives" who said we should still support Republicans even if they supported Amnesty. Told me right there that there was no issue over which these so-called conservatives would throw away their principles for the sake of "party unity".

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 01:04 PM (ObTcs)

121 Drew, you're profoundly unserious about paying attention to a damn thing a write.

Posted by: Entropy at October 31, 2009 01:05 PM (cok/k)

122 "I am, however, worried that a lot of third-party Issue Candidates *in the future* will drain enough votes from Republicans to give Democrats a TRUE filibuster-proof majority of liberals." They won't. That's what I'm saying. It's completely ludicrous to think so. Hoffman isn't an "issue" candidate. You just pulled that out of left field. Ron Paul is an "issue" candidate, although that's really stretching the word. How well did he do last year? Third-party spoilers are going to hand victory to Democrats if we don't wring our hands more about the state of the party! K, whatever. The People don't give a shit about any of this. Stop imagining that the Political Class, which you and I and everyone here is a part of, is representative of the country. We are not.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 01:05 PM (mFUln)

123 "Historically we've survived far worse ideologues than Obama (Wilson and FDR come to mind) as well as general incompetence."

I would disagree that the country survived these people.  After their work in office we emerged  a different country.  Same with Obama.  The country will physically survive, but it won't be the same country.  The collectivists have been winning for almost 100 years now.

Posted by: jjmurphy at October 31, 2009 01:05 PM (onqWT)

124 99, Ok, so Conservative victories are not always across the board. So what? Keep pushing. Obama will make a Palin victory possible even if only a small fraction of the electorate is Conservative. What is the good of being the majority if it is in name only? 535 RINOs in Congress is the same as what we have now. It will reach the same endpoint as 535 Nancy Pelosi's; it will just take longer.

Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 01:06 PM (ZzgoC)

125 If you are willing to write off districts you don't even live in because the candidates don't suit your personal tastes, I hope you enjoy being in the minority for a good long time.

This assumes that running Democrat Lites = winning liberal districts.  Look, does every single GOP fit "my personal tastes".  Heck no.  I see your point, but I think it relies too much on assumptions.

If a district or a state or a nation truly is "Liberal", then they're going to get liberal representation.  The question, in my mind, is Does the GOP need to get More liberal or less in order to regain control and effect change in Washington?

Posted by: Techie at October 31, 2009 01:07 PM (cxW4X)

126 In 2006 Democrats won Congress by running Conservative Democrats.


The idea that Republicans can't win if they run Conservative candidates is narrow-minded and short-sided.

There is a reason why Democrats lose on 'issues' such as same-sex union between opposite sex,  card check and gun-control-very few Democrat voters support these issues.

Ponder this, Democrats always win when Republicans run  Liberal.

Further; moderate fence-sitters, time you got over your conformist's belief that the 'religious right' is out to get you by taking away your fcuking  porn.

Your fear of the 'religious right' is fcuking marketed conformism-stop being simpletons jerked around by whatever streams out of Bill Maher's anal cavity.

Stop being gullible fools of  fake illusions.


 

Posted by: syn at October 31, 2009 01:07 PM (PkSox)

127

I'm not a Republican or a conservative (in the archaic definition of that last term -- but perhaps I am now according to my ideas on how government should run; maybe conservative libertarian...anyway), so take this as an outsider looking in:

I think Beck is speaking of absolutes and ideals -- not a bad thing to aim for, just don't get hung up on every achieving it completely.  Nothing is ever perfect, and when you start demanding perfection (especially from a political party or movement) you will run into trouble.  So keep the ideals as a shining example to all of what you are supposed to be and strive to be -- just don't expect anyone to completely achieve it.  Accept the ones who at least try, or are the closest to the ideal in that particular election, which is I believe what Limbaugh is suggesting.

You cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater at this point: if you do the fascists will eventually find a way to stay in power forever...or the country will collapse in on itself...or we will end up with a backlash coup eventually and led by someone that makes Pat Buchanan look sane and liberal and we're not much better off (sorry, but Pat is a bit much for me) -- or all of the above (our country is at a tipping point; if we are not careful we could slide into a situation where the republic is lost, and with it, all of us -- I don't believe secession or anything of that sort is a workable long term solution, sorry to those who do, but united we stand divided we fall).  The conservatives and Republicans (or somebody) has to stay in the game, even with impure goods, if only to help keep the balance of power -- which our republic is based upon.  It is dangerously close to being lost right now, and that worries me.

It might also be worthwhile to encourage a purge of leftists/fascists out of the Democratic party as well.  It has never been a party that I have entirely trusted (its history precedes itself and needs no introduction); however, there have in times past at least been some Dems I would not be so frightened of having in office -- at least not compared to the ones that seem to be controlling that party now.  The same goes with liberals -- a true classic liberal should be no lover of statist fascism, and at the very least should not be endeavoring to destroy their own country.  This crop of "liberals" today are very far from that and need to be reined in -- at the very least.

Posted by: unknown jane at October 31, 2009 01:07 PM (5/yRG)

128 Ace, if this is so, then how did Reagan win?

I do not mean persuasion by Power Point presentation. I mean it to mean a list of things that change how people think.

Every time compromise lets a RINO win we lose. And by we I mean Conservatives and the Nation.

Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 05:53 PM (ZzgoC)

Well just remember that Reagan only beat Carter by 50.7% to 40% of the popular vote, and Mondale by 58.8% to 40.6%. And Reagan was an amazing politician with pretty hapless opponents.

Realistically that's probably as good as it will ever get for the GOP since there's a solid 40% of the population who will always vote for the Democrats. The key to victory is holding onto the 40% conservative base and winning over enough of the 20% swing voters to achieve victory.

Posted by: Mætenloch at October 31, 2009 01:07 PM (z843g)

129 "535 RINOs in Congress is the same as what we have now." That's a disservice to men and women like Bachmann and Cantor and Coburn.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 01:07 PM (mFUln)

130

Beck doesn't strike me as someone who'd back only Repubs. If he found a Dem who had demonstrated respect for the Constitution I think he'd have no qualms backing that Dem at all.

It doesn't really have to do with 'conservatism', per se, with him. It just happens that the only ones heeding his call are conservatives.

Posted by: good midnight fluffy bunny what fluffs at midnight at October 31, 2009 01:07 PM (LYTPf)

131 I don't know if I have an answer, which is why no one pays me for it.

That's all.

Posted by: Techie at October 31, 2009 01:07 PM (cxW4X)

132

If you don't like Drew's math, what can be said? You are rejecting reality.

Drew's math is ignoring reality.

It's fucking tiresome to have a 'debate' about math.

Nobody I've found disagreeing with me cares to understand or even address what I'm actually saying. They just pound on straw men.

Does anybody here actually think the GOP can feasibly win 435 seats in the house?

Posted by: Entropy at October 31, 2009 01:08 PM (cok/k)

133 >>>It's completely ludicrous to think so. Hoffman isn't an "issue" candidate. You pulled that out of left field. What? Yes, it was a *hypoethetical.* It isn't based on something that has really happened yet. It is speculative about the future. Hence, "Hypothetical." Okay, I got to get out of here. These arguments are never that cool.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 01:08 PM (WXvWz)

134 Beck is a rabble-rouser. Good for him, I don't pay attention to anything he says or does seriously. If he wants to play muckraker too, more power to him and good for him on that too. When he starts waxing histrionic about how the country is doomed or I read something like "the collectivists have been winning for 100 years now" my eyes automatically start rolling.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 01:08 PM (mFUln)

135 Does anybody here actually even really want a 1 party system?

Posted by: Entropy at October 31, 2009 01:09 PM (cok/k)

136 oh, and I completely agree with the belief that Coburn will never be a Chairman without a few more RINOs, and that a Georgia Republican will never win in Massachusetts, but I just wish that the RINOs we do put in to help get Coburn his Chairmanship wouldn't then goo out of their way to work with the Dems in a "Gang of 14" from 2005 or Lindsey Graham type of moments.


Posted by: eddiebear at October 31, 2009 01:09 PM (bFb7b)

137 This as I see it are the political pragmatist lecturing about what they believe is the political reality. The problem is when they get their way we end up with a big government pro amnesty party that I oppose. When the core of the party supports small government why do the party insiders push Cap and Tax along with amnesty? Why do they tac to the left? They want he votes they don't have. Most politicians try to get the most votes. What we are crying for is principled politicians. We don't mind some fringe republicans in moderate to liberal districts. But if I am not mistaken we ran a pro Cap and Tax, pro amnesty and believer in global warming as our presidential candidate. So I guess I am with Beck on this. If that means the core of our party represents the core of our politicians.

Posted by: Locus Ceruleus at October 31, 2009 01:09 PM (tzcjs)

138 Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 06:04 PM (DTOF+)

Look at NY 19.

It's a swing district. It was represented by a liberal Republican for a number of years before going D in the '06 tidal wave.

Here are your real world choices...

Nominate a squish, maybe someone as liberal as Dede, who might win and help Boehner become Speaker and vote with leadership 90% of the time.

Or

Nominate a guy like Hoffman who will win 30% of the vote and keep the seat in the D column for the foreseeable future.

Which will it be?

Please note...'create more conservatives' in a moderate to liberal district is not an option.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 01:09 PM (ur6Ar)

139 @ #45 / Ace - Assault Weapons Ban -- 1994 Columbine -- 1999

Posted by: brian at October 31, 2009 01:09 PM (DbJf4)

140 "What? Yes, it was a *hypoethetical.* It isn't based on something that has really happened yet. It is speculative about the future. Hence, "Hypothetical." " It was a dumb hypothetical which was my point. There is a difference between good ones and bad ones you know. "Hypothetical" doesn't mean you get to be completely unrealistic and then cover it by saying "it was hypothetical!"

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 01:10 PM (mFUln)

141

I think people are taking too much from the NY 23 race. It was an odd set of circumstances. I don't think it will lead to more third party crap.I think it will lead to tougher primaries for squishing republicans in conservative districts, which is a good thing, but it won't lead to third party spoilers in the general election.

I think a lot of the potential third party spoilers know that they won't be able to count on the support of the conservative movement's "stars" like Hoffman could. This was an odd happening.

 

Also, to everyone that wants to run and make a third party. Keep in mind the last time we did that it got us Bill Clinton, and the last time the Democrats did it they ended up with George Bush over Al Gore.

A third party candidate never benefits the party he is siphoning votes from.

 

Time to go to my front door and give these little entitlement-tykes free candy

Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2009 01:10 PM (bftbi)

142 >>>Does anybody here actually think the GOP can feasibly win 435 seats in the house? Do you think it is feasible to win back the GOP's 2002 high-water mark, with all those Reps from swing districts in the Northeast and Rust belt, with nothing but true blue conservatives? Chris Dodd was one of our guys then. If we couldn't manage a solid majority (say +30 votes) before at our high water mark, at least not without counting all those RINOs, what on earth causes you to propose it has become possible?

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 01:10 PM (WXvWz)

143

>> You have presented no evidence that self-identification is incorrect

How about the results of the 06 and 08 elections?

That evidence?

Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 31, 2009 01:10 PM (Wh0W+)

144 Again, you assume the situation is static. Create more Conservatives.

Amen.

The problem with government in this country is the same as the problem with health care: as long as they think someone else is paying, people don't care about the costs.

What needs to be hammered home is that you ARE paying. For example, it sounds good to pump more money into education, but when it turns out that it's being used to give full salaries and benefits better than what you get to people who are less qualified than you are to teach your children, THEN people discover conservativism very, very quickly.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 01:10 PM (DTOF+)

145 Does anybody here actually think the GOP can feasibly win 435 seats in the house?
Entropy

Tell you what...just show me the map that gets the R's to 218 seats with nothing but people who score 90% and better with the ACU or the NTPU.


Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 01:11 PM (ur6Ar)

146 chaos, Call terminated. Thank you drive through.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 01:11 PM (WXvWz)

147 132:

hey, I like math. That's what helps me feed my family.

122:

yes, Hoffman was an issue candidate. The issue was/is: F8ck off, RINOS and Liberals.

Posted by: eddiebear at October 31, 2009 01:11 PM (bFb7b)

148 "what on earth causes you to propose it has become possible?" In 1900 the idea of Social Security was impossible unless you were a "Red." Why can't it go the other way? Just because?

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 01:12 PM (mFUln)

149 I very much like Beck, he is one of the few people on TV telling it like it is. At the same time though I worry his "throw the bums out" approach will only harm conservatives. At times I wonder whether the White Houses attack on Beck isn't just a ploy to amplify his voice in hopes that he will start a third part movement in time to be the spoiler in 2012.  Its funny how the far left is running the country but they got there by running conservative democrats, in conservative districts who they could easily bully on legislation. I am not saying the republicans should run liberals but certainly when a man like Joe Liberman comes along and says he will campaign for republicans, we shouldn't slap his hand away.

Posted by: Drew in MO at October 31, 2009 01:12 PM (Y50nj)

150 We have this "Republican purity" argument once every week or so, and nothing gets settled. I think few people's minds are changed. And we're on the same side.

Posted by: Dr. Spank at October 31, 2009 01:12 PM (muUqs)

151 Try to be a little more clever Ace, I appreciate good snark.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 01:13 PM (mFUln)

152
For the No RINOs crowd....

I'd be more worried about getting conservatives in the Senate from places like South Carolina and Mississippi before I'd start screaming about others.

Lindsay Graham and  Thad Cochran? Really?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 01:13 PM (ur6Ar)

153 It is false that Conservatives can not grow in number. It is also false that they can not increase in number so that they dominate the political landscape. Ace, you and Drew are too wedded to what you think you can never change. Remember how you both said Sarah Palin was all washed up? She destroyed Obamacare with a facebook post that mentioned "death panels".

Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 01:14 PM (ZzgoC)

154 "yes, Hoffman was an issue candidate. The issue was/is: F8ck off, RINOS and Liberals." Maybe to you that's what his campaign feels like, but he certainly isn't running that kind of campaign himself.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 01:14 PM (mFUln)

155 I guess we have to give the cons one once in a while. That way they'll shut up and do what their told.

Posted by: Michael Steele at October 31, 2009 01:14 PM (QXKjZ)

156

Do you think it is feasible to win back the GOP's 2002 high-water mark, with all those Reps from swing districts in the Northeast and Rust belt, with nothing but true blue conservatives?

I think it's feasible to win back the GOP's 2002 high-water mark without winning all those same seats in the northeast and the rust belt, but by picking up seats we never had were we should have them.

Seats in conservative districts the dems are representing and have been represnting despite the fact that they don't represent them.

Probably because while the dems are doing this, the GOP lets them because it's busy targeting places it has no claims to represent, like.... San Francisco.

We got people saying they want to win San Francisco.

We don't need SF to reclaim 2002 numbers. We need North Dakota.

Posted by: Entropy at October 31, 2009 01:15 PM (cok/k)

157 This is the time and place for the "All Politics Are Local" reminder.

What applies to NY-23 doesn't apply to the NY-1 or the MI Senate or the Georgia state senate races or.......................

Posted by: Techie at October 31, 2009 01:15 PM (cxW4X)

158 The likes of Dede and "Let's Make a Deal Dole" should be out of the way for awhile, even if that means allowing the BO's of the democratic party to run the country further in the ditch. I want the 53% of the BO voters and the likes of Dede and Dole to get a real taste of what they have done. "let them eat [crap] cake". When we have that hunger for personal liberty, fiscal responsibility, and a constitutional compass, we will act!

Posted by: R. Aurum Tar at October 31, 2009 01:15 PM (AUcg4)

159

Lindsay Graham and  Thad Cochran? Really?

This proves my point.

I don't know what you think it proves.

Posted by: Entropy at October 31, 2009 01:16 PM (cok/k)

160 Or....

The GOP dies, and the Conservative party rises from it's ashes.  Let all the of the squishy RINO'S infect the democrap camp.

Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at October 31, 2009 01:16 PM (SrkN5)

161

And we're on the same side.

How you doin'??

Seriously. Let's not take our eye off the ball (Jesus, I'm all about crappy sports cliches today? )

We are not one another's political foes--this ideological conundrum aside. It's the progressive collectivists that should meet our rage.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2009 01:16 PM (Wkb8U)

162 Constitution? Never heard of it.

Posted by: Charlie Gibson at October 31, 2009 01:16 PM (erIg9)

163 57 Very inspiring. Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 05:36 PM (ObTcs) Breaking news: The goal is not to inspire. It's to win so that you may can peruse the right policy. Inspiring is a tool to that end but so is hard core numbers crunching. If you want to be inspired rent Miracle. Out in the real world it's about winning elections Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 05:44 PM You miss my point entirely. You want to win elections? You need GOTV efforts. You want GOTV efforts? You need people like me. When people like me are not inspired, you're not winning jack shit, because people like me inform, educate and inspire LOTS of other people to (1) also join the GOTV effort (2) spread the word on a candidate/candidates by word of mouth to friends/family/coworkers/associates or (3) simply go vote. Now, if I have no reason to be inspired about a Party, a candidate, an ideology, do you think I am going to bother to put in the work to support that cause? Nope. And that means all those probably hundreds of people I could have brought to the cause (through word of mouth and GOTV efforts with people, who turn around and spread the word to their inner circles, who turn around and spread the word, etc) will not be brought to the cause. You know why Obama won? People were inspired for a cause. Yeah, sure the cause was bullshit, but the fact remains people were inspired for a cause. Conservatives, on the other hand, are not dumbass sheep like Obama-voters and will not be inspired by bullshit. We also are not inspired by "our goal is not principles, it's simply to get a majority by any means possible". You say in the real world, the goal is to win elections. I'm telling you exactly how to do that: inspire people. McCain inspired jack f'ing squat. Sarah Palin inspired people. Without her, McCain loses in landslide proportions. If the GOP wants to win, it needs to stand for something and to inspire. After that, winning is easy. But if you stand for nothing except whatever it takes to win, you inspire no one. Period.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 01:16 PM (ObTcs)

164 Nominate a squish, maybe someone as liberal as Dede, who might win and help Boehner become Speaker and vote with leadership 90% of the time.

Unless an asteroid hits the next DNC fundraiser, there is no chance that Dede will ever help Boehner become anything. Remember, she has to run for office again next year, too.

Meanwhile, you have Hoffman, who will vote with leadership, who is polling higher than Dede is, and would also help Boehner become Speaker in the event of aforementioned asteroid.

Indeed, if Scozzafava's whole support now goes to Owens, ask yourself this question; what were the odds that she WOULD actually go along with Republican leadership, if the only people who were supporting her were Obama Party members?

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 01:17 PM (DTOF+)

165 The real problem is we're tired of RINOs being run at the national level and RINOs being handed party leadership positions in Congress and out of it while the Democratic Party has no problem giving True Blue Leftists their nominations for the presidency and leadership in their national party apparatus and their Congressional delegations. Run whatever candidates will win the seats as local politics dictates, but run conservatives for President and put conservatives in charge. That's all we want.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 01:18 PM (mFUln)

166 I'd be more worried about getting conservatives in the Senate from places like South Carolina and Mississippi before I'd start screaming about others.

Lindsay Graham and  Thad Cochran? Really?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 06:13 PM (ur6Ar)

But that's the point.  What did Graham suffer from letting Sotomayor sail out of the judiciary committee?  What he did was absolutely reprehensible, stupid and destructive.  But the GOP - THE GOP - had no reaction at all to his idiocy and leftist idiocy in supporting the notion of empathy in the SCOTUS.

There are candidate problems, but there are also problems with how the GOP does nothing to even try to rein in, or punish, the traitors and fools currently in Congress.  Sotomayor should have been bottled up in committee until the cows came home, because she is unualified in almost every single way.  But the GOP just collapsed and gave The Precedent a big win, and the US a near death blow.  Same for Snowe and her singular power to allow this whole health care idiocy to move along in the process ... only to have her complain after Reid did exactly what many of us said he was going to do after the bill emerged from her committee.

The GOP leadership is absolutely clueless and, at this point, destructive.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 31, 2009 01:18 PM (A46hP)

167

Cochran and Graham.. no kidding.

Hell, even in the heart of my own back yard, even with yink-yanking the shit out of TX-11 and carving off a chunk of it for TX-31, even with an awful goddamn lot of conservative voters,

Chet Edwards beat all comers. Some close, others not even.

And he by and large votes with the Dem caucus.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 31, 2009 01:19 PM (Wh0W+)

168 135 -- Oh absolutely not!  I think you have to have a two party system and the ideal of checks and balances which exists at its best in that two party system. Having extremists completely in charge, from either party, is not good, and neither is a situation where there is little to no difference between the two parties.  Those two situations I would like to see gone from the scene.

Posted by: unknown jane at October 31, 2009 01:19 PM (5/yRG)

169 We may disagree on approaches, but we're all on the same team.

Happy Halloween, y'all.  Remember to eat a lot of candy after all this.

Posted by: Techie at October 31, 2009 01:20 PM (cxW4X)

Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at October 31, 2009 01:20 PM (SrkN5)

171 Eh, I think this case is different from what most of the others are/will be in 2010.  I can handle a moderate Republican more than I can a liberal Republican - but Scozza wasn't just a liberal Republican, she is a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.  One or two - or even three - issues held by a candidate that doesn't match my own doesn't mean I won't vote for them if they're on my party ticket.  But what conservative ideals did she hold?  Gun rights?  That's it?  C'mon...you're going to have to do better than that. 

She couldn't run as Dem because Owens the incumbent already held it, and going against the incumbent on the same party ticket is almost always a sure loss, so she went to the other ticket and said PICK ME PICK ME I LIKE GUNS PICK ME!!

You can't put Scozza in the same camp as the other moderate repubs out there because she's not moderate in the slightest.  Even Markos the Malignant told us that.

As Rush said last week, the fight going on in NY23 is basically a delayed primary.

Posted by: tdpwells at October 31, 2009 01:20 PM (Ei3oZ)

172

Tell you what...just show me the map that gets the R's to 218 seats with nothing but people who score 90% and better with the ACU or the NTPU.

Shove it.

Fuck this.

I say 20% and you read 90%.

I say a candidate who only gets a 16% rating isn't good enough. I say someone who agrees 80% on my side. And you ask me to show you 218 with 90%?

16 = 90? Really? Really?

WHO DOESN'T UNDERSTAND MATH?

God damn, I mean GOD DAMN these total straw mans are so bloody tiresome.

Why don't you just grab a sockpuppet and argue with yourself since you seem to think you know what the opposite argument should be better then the people arguing with you.

Posted by: Entropy at October 31, 2009 01:21 PM (cok/k)

173 And that's all I'm going to say on that!

Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at October 31, 2009 01:21 PM (SrkN5)

174 I think it was Rove who said Scozza was splitting the liberal vote.

Posted by: The Most Interesting Man In the World (rdb) at October 31, 2009 01:21 PM (Tsag4)

175 Posted by: Entropy at October 31, 2009 06:16 PM (cok/k)

What I think it proves is people are kidding themselves if they honestly believe there's a huge crop of untapped conservatives out there dying to vote for the right Republicans.

If SC and MS, two of the most conservative states in the country send those guys to the Senate, where are all these new Jim DeMint And Jim Inhofes coming from? NY? CA? OH?

My point is in the American system (200+ years) it's a two-party deal and that means both parties start and there own end and work to co-opt as much of the middle is possible. And that means compromising on ideology.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 01:22 PM (ur6Ar)

176 Posted by: USMC at October 31, 2009 05:46 PM +100 Amen to everything you stated.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 01:23 PM (ObTcs)

177 Let's use building a team analogy with this

You're not going to get the first pick, have all the points or cash needed for the best player at every position.

The idea is to win the most games, not put up the best looking team.



Posted by: kbdabear at October 31, 2009 01:25 PM (sYxEE)

178 I have been a resident of the 23rd for more than 30 years. I think much of the debate here is over-amplified and rather theoretical since the voters of the 23rd are not understood. Look, it's not abstract politics -- it is local. This a traditional, rural and culturally conservative district. The average age is higher than in Florida. The Democrats here belong to few identifiable groups: a small fraction of natives who are traditional Dems but are as conservative as their neighbors, the college students in the northern part of the district, and wealthy (relative to natives) second home owners who have retired to the area. The possible danger to Hoffman is that the older (most) voters simply vote the Republican line on the ballot. Local pols fight for the Rep. line for this reason. The reaction to Scozzy's nomination was one of anger, as there was about John McCain. I would interpret consensus to be that the Repub. party is nominating idiots and that the voter is considered to be of little value provided they are loyal to party. The local R party apparatus is getting angry phone calls from locals and they are obviously out of step with constituents. I drove through several communities yesterday and saw only one Scozzy sign where previously there had been dozens. Hoffman signs are in yards everywhere. I saw one Owens sign but dozens of signs for dems running in local elections.

Posted by: CT at October 31, 2009 01:25 PM (J50Du)

179 The msm reported this as a purge because she was not conservative enough on social issues (abortion, gay rights) and that really bothered me. Even above Ace initially hints at the same meme, that this was a "purity purge".

The very idea hurts Republicans because it paints the party as intolerant and all those things that liberals want to believe about conservatives and Repubs. (clinging to guns and religion) This is what the Left wants. They want to define the Right and it is most important that the right does not fall into  that trap.

Posted by: jcp at October 31, 2009 01:26 PM (DHNp4)

180 I think you have to have a two party system and the ideal of checks and balances which exists at its best in that two party system. 

Posted by: unknown jane at October 31, 2009 06:19 PM (5/yRG)

Actually, we have a No-Party system.  The Constitution details the only individualistic governmental structure in the world.  This is one of the main differences between the US and the rest of the world.  They all have Euro-style, collectivist, party-oriented parliamentary systems - which happen to include almost no limit on government, no separation of powers, and virtual executives that are only formed when ruling coalitions grab the parliament.  For us, parties are not even Constituional entities, because we are based on the individual.  Too many Americans don't understand this.  Too many democrats are working to destroy this, as we saw with the moron Dems holding "no-confidence" votes in Congress as soon as they took control in 2006.  But "no-confidence" votes have no meaning, at all, in our system. 

This misunderstanding of the US system, and the absolute uniqueness of it (throughout our history) seems to be one of the spots of true vulnerability for the US.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 31, 2009 01:26 PM (A46hP)

181 Given the crap she said about Hoffman, how nice a person can she be?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 31, 2009 01:27 PM (PQY7w)

182 >>Remember how you both said Sarah Palin was all washed up? As a viable politician who can win high elective office, I said. Specifically -- the presidency. I don't think she is "washed up" as far as running for AK senate or a Rep district. I also said she'd be powerful as a grassroots voice. Which she is. I see nothing to change my opinion of her electoral chances re: the presidency. I am neither restating it nor retracting it. I don't bother upsetting you guys with this stuff, but in the latest poll, 71% doubted she was qualified for the presidency. 51% of REPUBLICANS said that. (or close to a majority; something like that.) I said then "She needs to burnish her credentials not as a conservative, but as qualified for the presidency." I was screamed at for saying so, for suggesting she even had a problem of image. The poll reports come out, and I don't post them, because I will be yelled at for doing so. And some people seem to want to pretend they don't exist, or it's just a skewed sample that gets it up to 71% of the country doubting her qualifications to be president. 29% say she's qualified. Dan Quayle was at 23%. This is not an "opinion" and I am not anti-Palin because I present the *facts.* The facts are, Palin has a gaping wound of a credibility problem which some seem to want to make go away by shouting it away. It exists. It will continue to exist, until she does, as her so-called 'haters" like myself suggested, does enough and posts enough political speech and so forth to be considered by a majority of the public qualified for the presidency. Can she do so much? I do not know. I know she cannot win *now.* I know that is impossible. Or, only possible if Obama so destroys the country that the country is willing to gamble on someone they don't think is qualified but is preferable to Obama. Can she repair her image? Maybe, and I'm rooting for her to do so. Some of you guys seem to take this as some kind of "Palin hatred." It is not: I like her. I was screaming in joy about her through the campaign. But you cannot ignore the fact that now, unless she rehabilitates her image, she is unelectable. 29% say she's qualified. 29%. You can yell at me all you like but yelling does not change that figure.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 01:28 PM (WXvWz)

183

First and foremost, putting RINOs in the race has been a massive fail for the past 3 elections.

 

Putting RINOs in office works out to be a massive fail because when key votes come up that almost everybody in the Party is against, the RINOs stab you in the back. We can thank Snowe for the healthscam bill getting out of the committee.

 

We can thank that strategy for the following (besides losing elections)

 

1. Bush tax cuts not permanent – RINOs

2. No drilling in ANWR and coast – RINOs

3. Didn’t even get started on the massive SS fix that is needed – RINOs.

4. Crossing the aisle to push liberal bills like No child, drugs, and amnesty – RINOs

 

When have the Democrats EVER crossed the aisle to work on a real conservative bill? Never in my lifetime.

 

What good does it do for you to win an election with a liberal candidate who is going to vote with the other side 53% of the time (Snowe).

 

What ultimately happens is that the Republican brand no longer means anything. The only ideology is WIN elections. This is what the incumbents already worship.

 

I for one am sick of that shit and will no longer vote based on who I think will WIN.

 

I think the rest of the conservatives in the U.S. are also heartily sick of this shit as well. This is what got the tea party movement started. I guess you missed Rasmussen on TV this morning.  He gave a strong warning to the Republican Party.

 

Its wakeup time.

 

Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2009 01:28 PM (CDUiN)

184 181 From what I could see she was just saying what someone was telling her to say.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 01:28 PM (mFUln)

185 181 Given the crap she said about Hoffman, how nice a person can she be?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 31, 2009 06:27 PM (PQY7w)


And, she smelled of old celery.

Posted by: Unclefacts, Summoner of Meteors at October 31, 2009 01:28 PM (erIg9)

186 180 I think you have to have a two party system and the ideal of checks and balances which exists at its best in that two party system. 

Posted by: unknown jane at October 31, 2009 06:19 PM (5/yRG)

And I would add that checks and balances mean little without the limits on the federal government that were the whole reason behind the Constitution.  Limited government is far more fundamental than checks and balances.  Far more.

But, we currently have many who recognize no limits at all, and that is absolutely deadly.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 31, 2009 01:28 PM (A46hP)

187 You want to win elections? You need GOTV efforts. You want GOTV efforts? You need people like me. When people like me are not inspired, you're not winning jack shit, because people like me inform, educate and inspire LOTS of other people

Michael,
Everyone always thinks the world needs more of 'them' but it's rarely true.

Yes, you need die hard supporters but if you catered to them, you'd only win them. And in districts where voter swing back and forth, that's death to a party.

I think you are wrong about why Obama won last year as well but we can have that discussion some other time (I mean that, it's a fun one to have). But look at Obama's numbers, he's falling because he didn't run as the radical he is and now that people see it, they are walking, no running, away.

Republicans don't have to lie like Democrats but in some districts being pro-choice, pro-gay marriage (and card check), while being anti-tax and spending is a winning formula. I'd rather have that than pro-choice, pro-gay marriage (and card check) and pro tax and spending (and even if Dede is pro-tax and spending, she helps put leaders in place who aren't so her personal proclivities don't matter).

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 01:29 PM (ur6Ar)

188 What I think it proves is people are kidding themselves if they honestly believe there's a huge crop of untapped conservatives out there dying to vote for the right Republicans.

How do you define "conservative", Drew?

My take is that conservatives are naturally suspicious of government involvement, think that with taxation should come accountability, support giving businesses and people the maximum amount of freedom to operate, and think that the Feds should be like a good security guard -- in front keeping the house safe from burglars and otherwise staying quiet.

And I think that describes about 70 - 80% of Americans.

Where it gets dangerous is that people have, over the past fifty years, been slowly and relentlessly told that increasing the size and involvement of government can be done "for free", mainly by hiding the actual costs with creative accounting. Now that Teleprompter Jesus has been stupid enough to actually come out and show people that he plans to tax the hell out of them so that his fellow junkies don't have to work, people are suddenly realizing that nothing, repeat NOTHING, that los Federales do is for free.

Huge opportunity. And we do not capitalize on it by nominating or running people who continue to pretend that said government largesse and pork is free.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 01:29 PM (DTOF+)

189

This will not be a popular sentiment, but people need to leave their wants/desires/idealism at home when they go to vote.

Better to have a majority that represents some your ideologies than a majority thats represents none of your ideological interests.  

And no, I'm not a RINO in the voting booth. I'm a REALIST in the voting booth.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2009 01:29 PM (Wkb8U)

190 The moment Glenn Beck organizes and promotes a third party movement,  the Murdochs and Roger Ailes will boot him off FNC.

Both parties go through this ideological battle on a regular basis.  Al Gore didn't care much for Ralph Nader in 2000.  John Anderson tried to play the spoiler in 1980.  George Wallace was the candidate for disaffected Southern Democrats in 1968.

I'm more worried about deep-pocket liberals encouraging liberals to vote for unelectable Republicans in open primaries.

Posted by: mrp at October 31, 2009 01:30 PM (HjPtV)

191 "I for one am sick of that shit and will no longer vote based on who I think will WIN. " Have fun losing indefinitely then. Nothing like losing time after time after time to change someone's mind on that particular point.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 01:30 PM (mFUln)

192 My belief here was shaped by 1964. For years, the liberal Republican establishment had demanded that conservatives support them in the name of party unity. When Goldwater won the nomination, the Rockefellers, the Keatings, the Cases and the like refused to help in any way. Liberal Republicans have no loyalty to the GOP and when they're caught in a backroom deal that promotes the Democratic agenda they piously claim "principle". Then, like turncoats from John Lindsay to Jim Jeffords and Arlen Specter, show their real colors by joining the Democrats. Enough is enough. So long as conservatives keep supporting Democrats who call themselves Republicans, the party establishment will move in that direction. Party pros usually like big government. It gives the more goodies with which to bribe voters. They like winning regardless of the winner's commitment to anything. They will spend money to elect people who have no beliefs except reelection. When a principled candidate runs, they will savage him ( or her ) as they did Goldwater. Will a conservative revolt lose GOP seats? Maybe. But the Kossack revolt really damaged the Democrats, didn't it? I would rather not depend on the Arlen Specters of the political world for votes in Congress. I have been a loyal Republican for many years and have voted for some fairly liberal GOP candidates when it was the best chance to win. They have, when the chips were down, behaved like the 1964 GOP establishment. Enough is enough. I will never vote for a Democrat. That party is dedicated to principles that I believe damage the country. But I will not vote for or contribute to any more RINOs. If that means a Democrats wins then so be it. If the GOP doesn't stand for anything, it will go the way of the Whigs. That would be too bad, but it is not the worst result. I see your point and I respect it. But I cannot agree.

Posted by: Ken Hahn at October 31, 2009 01:31 PM (Ms1gg)

193

They want to define the Right and it is most important that the right does not fall into  that trap.

 

As I have continuously preached, ONLY you can allow the MSM to define what you are. Just don’t drink the Kool-Aide when they put it out there.

Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2009 01:31 PM (CDUiN)

194 Entropy, Stop using straw men yourself, if you're going to bitch about it. Everyone here, including Drew and Dave, supported Hoffman. EVERYONE supported Hoffman. You are lecturing to us that we should support Hoffman.... like, um, we did. People who beat the hell out of straw men all day sholdn't bitch about strawman assault.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 01:31 PM (WXvWz)

195 Let's face it morons, even the "purest" conservatives will break your hearts after a time inside the Beltway. Congenital idiots like Jack Murtha live in a fairly "red" type of Pennsylvanian, but the crooked old bastard keeps getting re-elected because he robs the treasury to put pork business in a dead area.

Term limits would probably be the only way to get real change, but it's more likely that Megan Fox will show up at my door to offer me a hummer than Congress will legislate themselves out of a cushy place in life.

Posted by: kbdabear at October 31, 2009 01:31 PM (sYxEE)

196

>>There will never be a truly conservative Republican party, ever.

Historically, there never was. Repubs going conservative is actually kinda new. Used to be they were the Liberals.

Posted by: good midnight fluffy bunny what fluffs at midnight at October 31, 2009 01:32 PM (LYTPf)

197 >>>The moment Glenn Beck organizes and promotes a third party movement, the Murdochs and Roger Ailes will boot him off FNC. I don't think so, for several reasons. 1, he gets good ratings, and 2, such a purge would confirm, bigtime, all that stuff about Fox being a GOP mouthpiece. Further, he's already promoting it now. Yes, I know it's *now*, not when it counts. But he's promoting it. So I don't get why you think this.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 01:33 PM (WXvWz)

198 You know, modern American politics began with FDR. The Dem vs Republican paradigm we live in today started when the Dems became a social democratic party back then. Since then, we've had three elections where the GOP candidates ran as hardcore conservatives. Goldwater got crushed, Reagan crushed both times. Bush ran as Reagan 2.0, then got kicked out when he went for a gun ban and tax hikes.

I get sick of the moderates who don't realize that the even the rank and file of Democrats think they believe in liberty and the free market. Look at how they're selling healthcare. The public option is being sold as a competition booster. People want choice, they want freedom, they want the right to make their own decisions and keep the money they make. Back in 1964 Goldwater warned of government out of control. Only 40% of the electorate agreed with him, and with the actor from California giving speeches in support of him. 16 years later that same actor got 60% of the country to follow him because people realized that the government was out of control. It still is, and people still get that. It's just no one has run on that message in 25 years. Why do you think everyone hates politicians, why do you think everyone has no faith in the political process? Because no one stands there and cries "Freedom!". This stupid, stupid, decision to play by the Democrat's rules infuriates me. Damn it, look at healthcare. The message in the GOP leadership is that we can't afford it and that it won't work. This is true, and is an important part of the argument, but it's still playing on their field, fighting on ground of their choosing. The federal government has no right to run my healthcare, they do not have the power granted to them by the US Constitution. Both parties threw out that document a while back I guess.

Ace, you don't get it. I'm not with the GOP to see how many (R-__) we can see on CSPAN. I'm with the GOP because I want them to restore liberty to this country. I'm with them because I need someone to slay the Hyrda of the federal government. Because Reagan said it 45 years ago: "If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth."

This is a fight for my children and grandchildren. I'm not free, not the way I want to be free. The feds take my money, property rights are a joke, free speech is nonexistent because when these rights are infringed at all then they do not exist at all. The feds letting me keep 70% of my money does not count as being free. The feds allowing me to say what I want except within 1 mile of the President, or them letting me keep my property unless they can get more revenue out of it with someone else owning means I am not free.

The GOP has spent twenty years backing up, redrawing the line in the sand and puffing up and talking the talk. No more. Defeat socialism or perish, live free or die. Embracing 80% of the Dem wishlist means you are useless to me and my goals. The choice between handcuffs and a GPS ankle bracelet is a false choice.

If the moderates are right, if Americans really are ready for socialism, then let them have it. I will weep and mourn the loss of the shining city on a hill. Then I will fight for its restoration, yes, with the sword if necessary, because my rights are not abridged by majority vote. I don't care if a majority votes itself my wallet and my property and my freedom. Damn them, and damn those who enabled them. My life, my fortune, and my sacred honor is pledged to the defense of the Republic and not to the Republican Party.


Posted by: Britt at October 31, 2009 01:33 PM (DcWbe)

199 Ace, the "moderate" Republicans, RINO's, Dem-Hags, whatever you want to call them lose anyway. They can be as 'moderate' as they like, 'reach out' with both hands and open mouth, and when the election comes they will still be branded and shunned as racists and warmongers because of the GOP label. If they could and would do that to John McCain, the Dem-Hag's Dem-Hag, who else has a shot with that strategy. Better to cling bitterly to our call beliefs and espouse them as articulate.y as we can. Especially in the next couple of years.

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at October 31, 2009 01:33 PM (8iZnv)

200

If a socialist Utopia is what the majority of the American people now want, let 'em have it, the stupid bastards, and starve with it.

The only question is how the rest of us will survive when they do.

 

Posted by: TexasJew at October 31, 2009 01:33 PM (0Br+6)

201 I say 20% and you read 90%.
Posted by: Entropy at October 31, 2009 06:21 PM (cok/k)

I didn't see that post since it wasn't directed at me. I had to do a search of the thread to find it.

In #72 you wrote:
I'm not a purist. If you agre with me 80% of the time, you're on my side.

Okay so not 90% but 80%.

You still won't get a majority with that.

Any way, as always lots of fun but I'm out for the night.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 01:34 PM (ur6Ar)

202

Concerning the rebuke dealt to the GOP over the Scozzafava nomination: No one learns anything, ever, from success.

 

Of course, if you want RINOs who'll continue to vote your freedom away by little bits and dribbles...well, I have no advice for you.

 

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at October 31, 2009 01:34 PM (GY/ii)

203 But Drew,
Conservative values still win on opinion polls. Gun rights, low taxes, low deficits, school choice, ....

The Ds have a coalition. their voters will vote D no matter what since they know they will hold the line on issues that are important to each faction of the coalition. They do not need a "brand image"

The Rs need to preserve the brand. I vote R because it is fiscally conservative, and when Bush pisses away the treasury i say f him, f the Rs and f the limo they rode in on.

The Rs need to protect the brand.

Posted by: jcp at October 31, 2009 01:34 PM (DHNp4)

204 It's pretty sad though that the GOP has been fighting tooth and nail on the big issues all this year but it's still not doing enough. Taking the One down to 50% in less than a year and turning Congress into Vietnam isn't good enough?

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 01:34 PM (mFUln)

205 This is exactly what the DUer's are fawning over.  Us eating our own.  We've got to admit there are districts where we will have to settle for a Snowe or Collins.  If we get 25% pro Republican votes out of them, we are still 25% ahead.  I hate it, I like the purity idea.  But, I am a realist.  Districts, like NY23, is where we need proper vision from the NRCC, but are there more Doug Hoffman's coming down the pike?  I suspect so.  I am a bit torn even as I type this.  Maybe I need to revisit comments in a bit.  Big hmmmmmmmm from me. 

Posted by: sybilll at October 31, 2009 01:34 PM (MEl/V)

206 She's not acceptle to base voters and a Republican district but I'd prefer to have her than say Eliot Engle or John Hall. If you'd rather a D than a liberal R in those kinds of districts, you are profoundly unserious about how politics works in the real world. Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 05:52 PM What good has it done us to have liberal Republican Senators when they vote on quite a few big issues with Democrats? Snowe, Collins, Gramnesty. On what key issues have their votes helped conservative causes? On what key issues have their votes helped socialist causes? I don't get how a socialist Republican is somehow better than a socialist Democrat. Especially since when I try to convince people that the Republican Party is not as bad as the Democrat Party and people point to all the liberals in the Republican Party and I have no defense/response for them. So yeah, if a vote is going to be a liberal/socialist vote, then I'd rather that vote come from a Democrat than a Republican. People always like to throw out the "I'd rather have a Republican voting 60% with me than a Democrat who votes only 10%". Yeah, well, if those 4 out of 10 issues on which the Republican votes with the Democrats are on fiscal matters, Amnesty, Cap and Tax and Obamacare, then explain to me how having that person a Republican does any damn good whatsoever.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 01:34 PM (ObTcs)

207 How many times are we going to have this discussion while talking right past each other?

Vote for the rightmost viable candidate, donate to the rightmost candidate and burn the media to the ground.

Posted by: toby928 at October 31, 2009 01:35 PM (PD1tk)

208 >>>But the Kossack revolt really damaged the Democrats, didn't it? Well, bear in mind, 2006 and 2008 were won on the strength of fairly conservative Democrats, like Heath Schuler, Bob Tester, etc. You are imagining that the party ran all these hard-left candidates. Only for the White House, man. (Well, in traditionally liberal areas too, same as ever.) To the extent Kos revolted, Kos failed. Rahm Emmauel succeeded by offering "safe" less ideological democrats and capturing lots of red and purple territory.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 01:36 PM (WXvWz)

209

Feds should be like a good security guard -- in front keeping the house safe from burglars and otherwise staying quiet.
    I agree. keep the boarder safe (my front porch), but stay the hell out of  my house and office. Now if I (my industry) screw people over, financialy  or environmentaly, kick my door open and spank my ass silly.*

*Except charandi sulijohnson. 'Cus they like that shit. 

 

Posted by: hutch1200 at October 31, 2009 01:36 PM (qhiTN)

210

Well I contributed to Hoffman's campaign,

but it was a cowardly contribution.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 31, 2009 01:36 PM (Wh0W+)

211 The solution seems pretty straight forward to me...  Get involved in the primaries!  Find a conservative you like WITHIN THE GOP, get that person the nomination!  Then, this 3rd party stuff becomes a much less important factor.

Posted by: GregInSeattle at October 31, 2009 01:36 PM (B5cM9)

212

Have fun losing indefinitely then.

I have played their GD “winning” game now for 40 freakin years and have been losing for that long. There is only one GD person in Washington that I voted for. So yeah, I have been voting for the “lesser” of the fu**ng evils and still losing.

 

In fact, it looks like that stupid GD strategy has caused us to lose the country. We will be full communist here in a few years thanks to the steady shift to the left.

 

So yeah, have fun living in your gulag indefinitely.

Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2009 01:37 PM (CDUiN)

213 No one respects a whore.

Posted by: TexasJew at October 31, 2009 01:38 PM (0Br+6)

214 Vote for the rightmost viable candidate, donate to the rightmost candidate and burn the media to the ground.

Posted by: toby928 at October 31, 2009 06:35 PM (PD1tk)

Works for me..

Posted by: TexasJew at October 31, 2009 01:39 PM (0Br+6)

215 Ace, the "moderate" Republicans, RINO's, Dem-Hags, whatever you want to call them lose anyway. They can be as 'moderate' as they like, 'reach out' with both hands and open mouth, and when the election comes they will still be branded and shunned as racists and warmongers because of the GOP label. If they could and would do that to John McCain, the Dem-Hag's Dem-Hag, who else has a shot with that strategy.

True dat.

McCain demonstrated that better than anyone else: when an Obama Party member runs against a Republican who supports and endorses the Obama Party position 60% of the time, the Obama Party member wins.

Why waste the money? Send the seat to the Obama Party for a year, save the cash, then launch an all-out assault when the lies the Obama Party idiot had to tell to win it become blatantly obvious. If Heath Shuler, to name one, isn't pounded into the ground with pictures of Kevin Jennings bragging about teaching gay sex in schools and telling boys who are being raped by adults in bus-station restrooms to wear a condom, then we will know the RNC has officially passed the point of useless.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 01:40 PM (DTOF+)

216 210

Well I contributed to Hoffman's campaign,

but it was a cowardly contribution.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 31, 2009 06:36 PM (Wh0W+)

A chickenhawk voter!

Posted by: TexasJew at October 31, 2009 01:41 PM (0Br+6)

217 People always like to throw out the "I'd rather have a Republican voting 60% with me than a Democrat who votes only 10%". Yeah, well, if those 4 out of 10 issues on which the Republican votes with the Democrats are on fiscal matters, Amnesty, Cap and Tax and Obamacare, then explain to me how having that person a Republican does any damn good whatsoever.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 06:34 PM (ObTcs)

Exactly.  Too many like to count votes as if they are all equally weighted and of similar importance.  The whole "80% with us" is meaningless without detailing what the 20% against us is comprised of.  When did the idea of deal-breakers disappear?  It's sort of a natural thing ... until lately.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 31, 2009 01:41 PM (A46hP)

218

The problem with the argument that conservatives aren't popular because they can't win primaries can be summed up in two words: Open Primaries.  What happened in several of the GOP presidential primaries was you had liberals voting for the republican they least hated (ie, the most liberal one) and this skewed the results towards liberalism.  I don't argue that there aren't a range of views among republicans, I don't accept the idea that they're as liberal as the results of the GOP primaries would suggest. 

As a side note, speaking as someone that listens to Beck on the radio, but not on TV, I would suggest people keep in mind that what they hear about Beck and quotes they hear from Beck are biased, out of context, and in some cases just made up.  Similar to those racist quotes Limbaugh didn't make.  Most of the claims being made here about Beck's views don't represent the views I hear on his radio show.

Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic at October 31, 2009 01:41 PM (pZEar)

219 McCain/Dole 2012!

Posted by: TexasJew at October 31, 2009 01:42 PM (0Br+6)

220 Struggling with finances? The Washington DC RNC gave them 900 large from what I hear. You can't get it done with that? In upstate New York?

Posted by: rawmuse at October 31, 2009 01:42 PM (V/ZfA)

221

Time-out from the infighting for 30 seconds:

http://tiny.cc/Ayovm

Back to your regularly scheduled bitch-slapping

Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2009 01:43 PM (Wkb8U)

222 212 Well buddy if you've been dissatisfied with both parties for 40 years, I'd say you're in the same classification as Ron Paul: nutjob. Have fun with your fantasies of gulags and whatever other nonsense you dream up to justify your being way outside the mainstream.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 01:43 PM (mFUln)

223 McCain/Dole 2012!

I laughed out loud.  Tanned, rested and ready.

Posted by: toby928 at October 31, 2009 01:43 PM (PD1tk)

224 >>>Ace, the "moderate" Republicans, RINO's, Dem-Hags, whatever you want to call them lose anyway. They can be as 'moderate' as they like, 'reach out' with both hands and open mouth, and when the election comes they will still be branded and shunned as racists and warmongers because of the GOP label. This just isn't true. Chris Dodd had his seat forever, until he was wiped out in 2006 (or was it 200 ? Our Northeastern RINOs were able to keep seats until the really, really bad turn against the GOP in 2005. Some of these bluish-purple seats could be won back. But I doubt very much a true conservative could win there. This seems to upset people but New Jersey and Connecticut and NY and NE are pretty addicted to abortion, pretty much. Maybe there is a district or two in NJ were a strong pro-lifer could win. Otherwise, NJ has the same basic beliefs about abortion that New York City does. Well, almost. When we speak of "Good RINOs" -- those of us on the pro Good RINO side -- we are speaking of these areas. Here, you have a choice: Do you want a Democrat who is pro-choice, or a Republican who is pro-choice? Either way, you are getting someone who reflects the 65% consensus in these areas that abortion is a right and without it we'd have, I don't know, sexual anarchy. We on the "Pro Good RINO" side are saying, and only say, that in such areas, if you get a *fiscal* conservative like Chris Dodd, that's to the good. Because your choice there is either a pro-choice fiscal liberal or pro-choice fiscal conservative (or moderate, anyway). There is no math, no hope, of a "True Conservative" winning here. None. Zero. These parts of the country are the parts of the country that produce tv shows that call pro-lifers crazy. And they believe this. They believe this in their bones: Pro-lifers are *insane.* Now, what the hell do you propose we do with Chris Dodd's old seat? Just proselytize that abortion is a moral wrong? For how long? You think they haven't heard that already? They heard it, they disagreed, they are NOT changing their minds.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 01:44 PM (WXvWz)

225 IMO, the "scorched earth" 20 years of pain scenario simply isn't going to be necessary.  The democrats are so shockingly and persistently tone deaf that they're supplying plenty of pain to change people's minds today.

The real danger is the republicans regain control of both houses in 2012, and get the presidency.  The temptation to lapse back into their former free spending mode of operation may simply be too hard to resist in that scenario.

We need to have divided government.  Without that, you can't get to the promised land of legislative gridlock stasis where only truly necessary shit gets through.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 31, 2009 01:44 PM (8H64O)

226 One thing that may or may not have been mentioned here, so I apologize in advance, but how many votes will Dede's Departure go to Hoffman? How many will stay home, vote Owens, vote Hoffman, or vote Dede out of spite? I know Allah is being a defeatist, but is he truly correct that a Dede departure would do more for Owens than Hoffman?

Posted by: eddiebear at October 31, 2009 01:44 PM (dtnLU)

227 I can't WAIT to see Rush on Fox tomorrow because you know this will be discussed, and you know the third-party issue is going to come up.

Posted by: tdpwells at October 31, 2009 01:45 PM (Ei3oZ)

228 ace: do you mean "Chris Shays" and not Dodd?

Posted by: eddiebear at October 31, 2009 01:45 PM (dtnLU)

229

People always like to throw out the "I'd rather have a Republican voting 60% with me than a Democrat who votes only 10%". Yeah, well, if those 4 out of 10 issues on which the Republican votes with the Democrats are on fiscal matters, Amnesty, Cap and Tax and Obamacare, then explain to me how having that person a Republican does any damn good whatsoever.

Further, if they only vote with Republicans only when they don't have a deciding vote, what are they really worth?  I'm still extremely irritated with Hutchinson's wait and see attitude with the Shamnesty vote.  If that crap could have passed with her vote, she would have gone with it.  She only voted against it because it was going to fail anyway.  And that happens a great deal on both sides of the aisle.

Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic at October 31, 2009 01:45 PM (pZEar)

230 Lionel Tiger (that's Rocco Landesman's favorite author he's clearly never read...) says "private optimism is a public resource. Public optimism is a private facility. Both can and have and will become disasters when there is too little fit between the vision and the facts of heat, cold, up, down, fast, slow, rich, poor, old, young, living, dying. It is dangerous to offer entrée to charlatans expert in illusion and big or little demagogues practiced in worthless promise …"

Appropriate, no?

Posted by: LikeATimeBomb at October 31, 2009 01:46 PM (dwwPD)

231 People always like to throw out the "I'd rather have a Republican voting 60% with me than a Democrat who votes only 10%". Yeah, well, if those 4 out of 10 issues on which the Republican votes with the Democrats are on fiscal matters, Amnesty, Cap and Tax and Obamacare, then explain to me how having that person a Republican does any damn good whatsoever.

Willful blindness? Didn't DrewM. write about this an hour ago? Quoting:

"98 What is the difference between a D and a Liberal R?
Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 05:56 PM (ZzgoC)

Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Speaker John Boehner

Majority Leader Harry Reid or Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

Big enough difference?"

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at October 31, 2009 01:46 PM (Mi2wf)

232 Come on guys, you've got to run liberal Republicans in liberal areas.  Just look at everything that the Governator has done to help promote the GOP in California. 

Posted by: newt at October 31, 2009 01:46 PM (Jg5C9)

233 Allah's job is to be defeatist. Seriously, I have a secret copy of his contract with MM. Don't be too rough on him, he's supposed to be the gadfly.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 01:46 PM (mFUln)

234

His cat tells Allah how to vote.

RINOS must smell like tuna.

Posted by: TexasJew at October 31, 2009 01:46 PM (0Br+6)

235 What happened in the NY 23rd was a function of ending up with two liberals competing in a district contestable by a conservative. No conservative was nominated by either party. If this had happened in a race in Bezerkeley, CA it would have been no big deal. All this fuss about a zealous "purification" of the party is a tempest in a tea pot. We can have a big tent, but let's not put the main polls into quicksand.

Posted by: DaMav at October 31, 2009 01:47 PM (W2KIY)

236 Allah's supposed to piss the base off and make them say "I'll show him!" and then go out and show him.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 01:47 PM (mFUln)

237 There is no math, no hope, of a "True Conservative" winning here. None. Zero. These parts of the country are the parts of the country that produce tv shows that call pro-lifers crazy. And they believe this. They believe this in their bones: Pro-lifers are *insane.*

The return question to that is, "So you're willing to accept someone who wants to hike your taxes 20%, take over your health care, and run your company out of business, all so you can have abortions whenever you want?"

THAT would be insanity. And seriously, why then should the GOP be chasing the votes of the insane? The only thing that could do would be to put us in hock to people who are complete and total idiots.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 01:47 PM (DTOF+)

238

This will not be a popular sentiment, but people need to leave their wants/desires/idealism at home when they go to vote.

 

You’re right about one thing. Yes that is the stupidest thing I have read today. Did you vote for Obama?

 

If not, why not, it was obvious McCain was going to lose.

Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2009 01:47 PM (CDUiN)

239 But you cannot ignore the fact that now, unless she rehabilitates her image, she is unelectable. 29% say she's qualified. 29%. You can yell at me all you like but yelling does not change that figure. Posted by: ace So, changing her image could make her electable? I agree. How does that change in image occur? Does she change something about herself to make her more palatable to the 71% who right now would reject her, or does she change nothing about herself and promote what she is, what she believes, and why she won't back down, and in doing so changes how people think about her and about many other things? Political reality is much more plastic than you think, Ace. Bend it to your will. Sarah Palin is showing you how to do that. She did it this summer. She did it last week.

Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 01:47 PM (ZzgoC)

240 Ace, just an aside here;

Allah has a very annoying habit of beating on a hornets nest and then whining about swarms of pissed off hornets. Like everyone else on this thread, I detect anger that your own argument isn't the big point to rally around. If you want peace and harmony, post cute pics of teh kittehs.

I'm old enough to realize that little old me isn't going to change the world or lead the charge against Longshanks, I'm not even going to get the morons here to appreciate my own unique genius. About the best I or others can do is to make the most of what we have now, and work for what you believe in when the time comes. Don't be that moonbat woman who woke up angry every morning because Bush was the President.

In my perfect world, the Yankees and Phillies would be viewing the World Series from their living rooms, every team in the NFC East would have a losing record, and Megan Fox would be knocking at my door offering to use her mouth in better ways than spouting moonbat nastiness.


Posted by: kbdabear at October 31, 2009 01:47 PM (sYxEE)

241 Goodness knows Beck is a better American than Obama & Company, and he serves a useful function. The thing is, he's also more than a little bit of a conspiracy nut. His obsession with "the Progressives" leads him to forget that today it's nothing more than a euphemism for Liberals. I just can't equate Progressive Teddy Roosevelte - the man that led the Rough Riders, spoke of Speaking Softly but Carrying a Big Stick, snd sent the American fleet to sail around the world to announce the USA was a world power - with the liberal trash we currently hsve sullying the White House and Capitol.

Posted by: CoolCzech at October 31, 2009 01:48 PM (QECjC)

242 >>> I know Allah is being a defeatist, but is he truly correct that a Dede departure would do more for Owens than Hoffman? Ed had some poll info yesterday or today to indicate Dede's withdraw would help Hoffman. It was like -- Hoffman is getting 50% of republicans, but Owens is getting 2/3rds of democrats. So the idea is that Dede is drawing 1/3 dem, 50% republicans, and with her gone, Hoffman gets more. Assuming that a large number of those Republicans are not liberals or Dede-loyalists who will join Owens. Which... may be the case. So: I don't know. Should have just said that and saved you all this reading, eh?

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 01:48 PM (WXvWz)

243 This leftist should never have been endorsed to begin with.It makes no sense in a supposedly conservative district to run a candidate with her record. A Margaret Sanger award and working with ACORN for crying out loud! Something stinks and it resembles George Soros.Fie on the republican sellout machine!

Posted by: vagabond trader at October 31, 2009 01:48 PM (LaK4z)

244

"98 What is the difference between a D and a Liberal R?
Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 05:56 PM (ZzgoC)

Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Speaker John Boehner

Majority Leader Harry Reid or Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

Big enough difference?"

Two words: Jim Jeffords

Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic at October 31, 2009 01:49 PM (pZEar)

245 party purity or purge

Posted by: John ryan at October 31, 2009 01:49 PM (m0Q2u)

246 238

This will not be a popular sentiment, but people need to leave their wants/desires/idealism at home when they go to vote.

 

Thank you, Mr. Kim Jong Il.

Posted by: TexasJew at October 31, 2009 01:50 PM (0Br+6)

247 >>>The return question to that is, "So you're willing to accept someone who wants to hike your taxes 20%, take over your health care, and run your company out of business, all so you can have abortions whenever you want?" Scoreboard, dude. They HAVE answered that question, for years and years, and the answer is "YES." Yes, they will automatically vote Democratic over a pro-lifer. (Or a strong pro-lifer -- they could vote for a moderate-ish sort of abortion restrictionist, but not someone charging to vote it all the way down and gone.)

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 01:50 PM (WXvWz)

248 vagabond from what everyone is saying it wasn't the Republican machine, it was a small clique in the local party whose members were personally friends with Dede that gave her the nomination.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 01:50 PM (mFUln)

249 Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Speaker John Boehner

Majority Leader Harry Reid or Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

Big enough difference?

No.

Because there is very little to show me that Dede would vote for either Boehner or McConnell, given how their stances are so "divisive".

This theory again depends on someone who runs as a liberal in their own district suddenly becoming conservative when they come to Washington.

Personally, if the Souter theory didn't work on the Supreme Court, I fail to see where it's going to work elsewhere.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 01:50 PM (DTOF+)

250 We need to have divided government.  Without that, you can't get to the promised land of legislative gridlock stasis where only truly necessary shit gets through.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 31, 2009 06:44 PM (8H64O)

While I am all for divided government, the real control is supposed to be the Constitutional limits. The fact that people are laughed at for even proposing that things such as the federal government being Constitutionally restricted from taking an active role in health care (a state issue, without any question, at all) or that the federal government is barred from just investing in private companies (outside of maintaining our monetary system, which Congress is charged with the responsibility for) if it deems it necessary (even if those companies BEG for federal money) is what is destroying this nation.

Hell, we even have tons of people on the "right" who will argue until they are blue in the face that individual citizens have no right to be insured that the most minor and well-detailed Constitutional restrictions are being followed ... and that is the problem. 

In the end, this nation will likely not survive The Precedent and the Washington junta, intact.  Secession is on the horizon.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 31, 2009 01:51 PM (A46hP)

251 The USA electorate, right now in 2009, is very poisoned with not mere Liberals (I consider myself a "classic Liberal") but with highly motivated, born to be Red, Leftists and neo Communists. They are completely incompatible with the entire Democratic process, which they constantly, and I might say with notable recent success, seek to nullify, and over ride. Their man in the high office right now. He is using our taxes to buy all the votes they need in 2012, and I dare say, it could succeed.

Posted by: rawmuse at October 31, 2009 01:51 PM (V/ZfA)

252 What is the difference between a D and a Liberal R? Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 05:56 PM (ZzgoC) Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Speaker John Boehner Majority Leader Harry Reid or Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Big enough difference?" Posted by: Gabriel Malor No. The result is still what we have now or more Socialism, just advancing more slowly.

Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 01:52 PM (ZzgoC)

253 ace: you would have saved me from having to read HA.

I keed.

But, I agree that who knows? is the best answer at this point.

I may or may not have said it earlier, but I understand that MO is different than New England. Kit Bond and Roy Blunt could not win in New England. And I would be willing to concede that a "good RINO" is better than a Democrat.

I just wish that the RINOs would work with us on taxes and the like instead of siding with the Dems at damn near every turn.

Posted by: eddiebear at October 31, 2009 01:52 PM (dtnLU)

254 "boy ,that Allah dude sure is smart, he can write two blogs at once, cheers." Perfect. Agree 100%. That's why I come here, and then we get this crap. I come here to get away from the "Alla squish".

Posted by: LtE113 (Mike in Chicago) at October 31, 2009 01:53 PM (/vZzI)

255 Agreed, DrewM, but the argument here is in how best to win those moderate to liberal states. In my opinion, it doesn't come from simply agreeing with moderate or liberal issues. It comes from demonstrating to them the cost of those issues, then making it clear that, if they want to pay for them, as they will, they can vote accordingly -- or they can follow the conservative pathway in government and choose to spend their own money moderately or liberally. Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 06:04 PM Exactly. But, apparently, that's "fantasy land" thinking. And, there's no persuading people. Afterall, people today hold the exact same opinions on issues that they held in the 1950s.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 01:53 PM (ObTcs)

256 Idealism isn't an issue when there's only one name on the ballot.  Fidel Castro taught me that.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 31, 2009 01:53 PM (8H64O)

257

>>Now: If it encourages a spate of Spoiler Conservatives, is it a good thing?

Why is this the only choice?

What if conservatives learn they can support their candidates across States and races, and do so, finding their candidates in Republicans, a few Dems, etc.?

Like some of the posters here who keep plugging for random candidates. "Check this guy out..." etc?

Posted by: good midnight fluffy bunny what fluffs at midnight at October 31, 2009 01:54 PM (LYTPf)

258 >>>Allah has a very annoying habit of beating on a hornets nest and then whining about swarms of pissed off hornets. As someone said, he's the only troll with his own blog. >>> Like everyone else on this thread, I detect anger that your own argument isn't the big point to rally around. Everyone else? What do you mean? Look, I suppose it doesn't really matter, but if people want to tell me about the social mores of the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut area, where I have lived all my life, and they want to instruct me that there is a pro-life majority just waiting to be tapped, I will tell them they are wrong, and they should come up here for a while and try telling people at bars they are pro-life and watch the reaction.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 01:54 PM (WXvWz)

259

Jeez, guys, it's Halloween...

Doesn't anyone have anything better to do (besides herr Morgenholz)?

Posted by: Mouse at October 31, 2009 01:55 PM (GF971)

260 Scoreboard, dude. They HAVE answered that question, for years and years, and the answer is "YES."

Yes, they will automatically vote Democratic over a pro-lifer.

Same answer as I gave before, then.

THAT would be insanity. And seriously, why then should the GOP be chasing the votes of the insane? The only thing that could do would be to put us in hock to people who are complete and total idiots.

And they should be called out on it. "Really? You'd rather an incompetent government raise your taxes, drive your company out of business, and regulate your job out of existence, rather than deal with having to actually pay attention when you have sex?"

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 01:55 PM (DTOF+)

261 >>>No. The result is still what we have now or more Socialism, just advancing more slowly. So if I understand you: You are also indifferent about the pace socialism advances? Quickly is equal to slowly to you, too?

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 01:56 PM (WXvWz)

262 258:

in defense of Allah, I believe he is doing that whole "Pro Rassler Egging on the Rubes In The Audience" bit.


Posted by: eddiebear at October 31, 2009 01:56 PM (dtnLU)

263 Is pro life a defining qualification for conservative?

Maybe its me, but I always thought that the fiscal stuff was more important and the social stuff was more flexible.

Posted by: jcp at October 31, 2009 01:57 PM (DHNp4)

264 I'm a bit of a pessimist on government spending.

The public will vote themselves freebies and subsidies in the belief that somehow, someone, somewhere will keep the cash flow coming in, that America is too strong to fail.

The majority of the public will continue to vote themselves money from the treasury, will insist that their subsidies are sacred cows, and will do so until the cash flow reaches critical mass.

It's human nature, most of us don't really believe the worst will happen until it finally does. Warnings are only abstractions in the human psyche, it doesn't register until the shit truly hits the fan.

After the parasite kills the host, it'll blame everyone but himself for doing so.

Posted by: kbdabear at October 31, 2009 01:57 PM (sYxEE)

265

186 -- I think the checks and balances system of a two party system helped the Constitution stand and vice versa -- if anything the Constitution could survive an assualt made upon it IF a true two party system with neither ideology holding complete sway was in place (probably because neither ideology would agree on how the Constitution should be interpreted in toto and would debate, and since neither ideally would ever have complete control of all branches of the government and/ot complete control for any long amount of time that also reduced the risks).  Also, it was important that each party stayed essentially loyal to the republic, the country, and that Constitution. 

That safety net has, over the course of the years, been eroded away and here we are -- that is why I, a self described classical liberal and political independent am speaking with you on this board -- I will support whoever and whichever that supports the republic and its Constitution, and provides for the general welfare of the American people (or at least believes in that); what I will not support and will actively try and topple is anyone or thing which I believe do not  abide by those tenants.  I take the oath I took over 2 decades ago very seriuosly and haven't forgotten it.

Posted by: unknown jane at October 31, 2009 01:57 PM (5/yRG)

266 Does anyone here really think a politician is going to make their life better? The great thing about Reagan was that he was able to stop progress in government. I am afraid we have reached saturation level with government. My faith is not in government.

Posted by: td at October 31, 2009 01:57 PM (Fxz8g)

267 Parties don't ever learn.

If you want to change the Republican Party, you need to join it and work within it with the intention of driving out every last RINO with horsewhips.

And expect them to fight back. They have control of the party, and won't give it up until you have a boot on their necks and start crushing.

Posted by: Kristopher at October 31, 2009 01:57 PM (Jjzb5)

268 in defense of Allah, I believe he is doing that whole "Pro Rassler Egging on the Rubes In The Audience" bit.


Posted by: eddiebear at October 31, 2009 06:56 PM (dtnLU)

That would be believable, except that allah gets tons of things flat wrong that have nothing to do with his "alleged trolling".  Allah just doesn't get it.  His predictions are running about 2 for 198,876.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 31, 2009 01:58 PM (A46hP)

269

...telling people at bars they are pro-life and watch the reaction.
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 06:54 PM (WXvWz)

Well, come down here and tell people that you approve of late term abortions, and you won't have any eyeballs to see the reaction.

Posted by: TexasJew at October 31, 2009 01:58 PM (0Br+6)

270

I just can't equate Progressive Teddy Roosevelte - the man that led the Rough Riders, spoke of Speaking Softly but Carrying a Big Stick, snd sent the American fleet to sail around the world to announce the USA was a world power - with the liberal trash we currently hsve sullying the White House and Capitol.

 

Beck is correct, Teddy was a progressive. You have to look at all the things he advocated for. His push for “trust busting” is what got us started down the massive regulatory road. You might say he was the first of the Scoop Jackson Democrats. Big on military, and big on government as well.

 

For other who keep pushing this a RINO who is with you 80% of the time is better than a Dem who is with you 10% of the time i have this to say.

 

If these RINOs like Snowe were with us 80% of the time, particularly on the big important bills I don’t think any of us would have a problem with them. The problem is that they are typically running records less than 50%, or in McCain’s case 65% with being against us on the big stuff nearly always.

 

Those are the RINOs that are destroying us and the country.

Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2009 01:59 PM (CDUiN)

271
Big enough difference?"
Posted by: Gabriel Malor

No. The result is still what we have now or more Socialism, just advancing more slowly.

Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 06:52 PM (ZzgoC)

So lemme get this straight, if you think those are our only two choices. You would rather have Socialism advancing quickly than Socialism advancing slowly?

Dude, I know you can't possibly mean that. If we have an opportunity to put Republicans in charge of Congress again, we need to FUCKING pull that trigger. It's a hella lot better for our country than what we've got right now.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at October 31, 2009 01:59 PM (Mi2wf)

272 "Well, come down here and tell people that you approve of late term abortions, and you won't have any eyeballs to see the reaction." How many candidates do the Democrats run in Texas who advocate late term abortion?

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 01:59 PM (mFUln)

273 Further, he's already promoting it now. Yes, I know it's *now*, not when it counts. But he's promoting it. So I don't get why you think this.

Beck may be "promoting" the idea of a third party, but talking about a third-party option and putting his name as founder and chairman on company letterhead is something else.

I think one item that has been little-discussed is the damage that a 435-member House of Representitives is causing to our political process.  We are rapidly closing in on 900,000 citizens per congresscritter,  when the number should be closer to 50,000 per.  A suit has already been filed in federal court (Missouri, IIRC) that addresses this problem.

Posted by: mrp at October 31, 2009 01:59 PM (HjPtV)

274 ACE: JOE LIEBERMAN BEAT LAMONT IN CT DURING THE WORST PART OF THE WAR.

THEREFORE: CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATES CAN DO WELL ANYWHERE.

WE NEE THEM ON THE BALLOT - EITHER AS GOP OR AS THRID PARTY CANDIDATES OR BOTH.

BUT R E A L CONSERVATIVES.

NOT GOP ESTABLISHMENT TYPES.

WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF THEM.

Posted by: reliapundit at October 31, 2009 02:01 PM (NY6+Q)

275 Bravo 266! If I were President I would not allow Congress to enact new laws until they repealed two for every one they pass. I want government to stay out of the way, to do only those things which can not be done by the private sectors, keep the roads maintained, keep the bridges up, provide police, fire, etc. The rest is all social engineering. We have presently engineered ourselves in to bondage.

Posted by: rawmuse at October 31, 2009 02:01 PM (V/ZfA)

276 If we have an opportunity to put Republicans in charge of Congress again, we need to FUCKING pull that trigger. It's a hella lot better for our country than what we've got right now.

True, Gabe, but Dede Scozzofava is not that opportunity. She isn't even close. She wasn't even winning against the Obama Party member she was trying to me-too.

The NRCC tried the Souter/McCain theory on this one, and lost. You cannot run an Obama Party member as a Republican and expect them to win, and your doing so is a slap in the face to the rather large and considerable conservative portion of the Republican Party.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 02:02 PM (DTOF+)

277 261, Ace, perhaps I have been unclear. I want the pace to be zero and then reversed. I object to being satisfied with a slower pace with no plan to reverse it. That is what I see as the true menace of compromise. Someone above mentioned they wished RINOs would not do so many Democrat things. When you elect RINOs you are forced to wish that they will not do what comes natural to them.

Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 02:03 PM (ZzgoC)

278 >>>THAT would be insanity. And seriously, why then should the GOP be chasing the votes of the insane? Um, so we can have a majority? You just don't want to accept that there are large parts of this country that are not merely pro-choice, they are very nearly pro-abortion. And when you are told that, you just respond, "Well, we don't want the votes of LUNATICS." Um, yes we do. Got news for you: To get a pro-life Justice on the Supreme Court, you're going to need 60, SIXTY, votes in the Senate to stop a filibuster. Where do you think those votes are going to come from? At our high point, we had, what, 58 votes, and many of those votes were RINOS from the Northeast. Now, RINOs may vote for pro-life justices, not because they themselves are pro-life, but because they "respect the president's right to nominate the qualified justices of his choice" and other proceduralist dodges. But you're sitting here just insisting over and over again that you are going to pick up these *possible* senate votes for a pro-life justice in the northeast with Senate candidates who are strongly pro-life. What is that rule in physics? If it happens, it must happen; if it doesn't happen, it can't happen. A basic rule for figuring out what the universe's rules dictate and forbid. If you don't see a phenomenon, ever, the rules of physics must be that it can't happen. So point out to me all these strong pro-life senators from the Northeast. Tell me their names. Either that, or concede that it is not going to happen, and for all your criticism of me, *I* am actually the one advancing the plan to get a pro-life justice on the supreme court, because I, unlike you, am willing to court the votes of "the insane" in order to get senators in who might vote for such a justice, rather than senators who definitely will filibuster.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 02:03 PM (WXvWz)

279

261 >>>No. The result is still what we have now or more Socialism, just advancing more slowly.

So if I understand you: You are also indifferent about the pace socialism advances? Quickly is equal to slowly to you, too?

For me, there are times when having socialism advance quickly has a distinct advantage.  The only real difference between Obama and McCain is speed.  Folks wake up when they see the country going hell bent for leather towards a cliff.  The leisurely stroll from Bush, Clinton (after '94), and Bush covered a lot of ground over time, and you were crazy to say we were becoming more socialist.

Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic at October 31, 2009 02:03 PM (pZEar)

280 Look, here's the path to victory:

1) Regain blue-dog districts with solidly conservative candidates.  Doable. Realistic.

2) Run libertarian type candidates (solid fiscal cons, social libs) in purple-Dem leaning districts.

This accomplishes two things at once:

1) Advertises fiscal responsibility as the new focus of the Republican party.

2) Gives moderates an opportunity to "vote their worry" (fiscal issues) without freaking them out on social issues.

The essence of 2010 has to be fiscal responsibility.  Everywhere Republicans run.  Fiscal responsibility can be utilized to achieve all kinds of social policy objectives, because without the money the cultural Marxism virus can't spread.

Posted by: JB at October 31, 2009 02:04 PM (1OoPr)

281 >>>ACE: JOE LIEBERMAN BEAT LAMONT IN CT DURING THE WORST PART OF THE WAR. >>>THEREFORE: CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATES CAN DO WELL ANYWHERE. Well, Joe Lieberman isn't even a RINO, dude. He's an independent who caususes with the Dems. Yes, you are right, Joe Lieberman is the type of conservative who can win statewide in connecticut. Meaning... not even a RINO. He aspires one day to be a RINO.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 02:04 PM (WXvWz)

282 True, Gabe, but Dede Scozzofava is not that opportunity. She isn't even close. She wasn't even winning against the Obama Party member she was trying to me-too.

Oh, man, I'm so glad you pointed that out. I never would have realized that. /sarcasm

I suppose I blocked out all those times I advocated supporting Scazzowhatever.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at October 31, 2009 02:04 PM (Mi2wf)

283 Last post of the day. 
Can we all stop beating our chests for a minute, and agree that if we are on this site, our goals are largely the same?  The argument is about simple competence on the part of the people we entrust to look after the best interests of our beliefs. 

The reason this race provoked so much anger was that it was seen as a stupid concession by foolish or corrupt people; one that didn't need to be made.  From that POV, the controversy was, as the libs like to say, a teachable moment, and I believe the lesson was well and truly learned.  We'll find out in '10.  In the meantime, I suggest that the circular firing squad redeploy.  Remember, this was a good day. 


Posted by: pep at October 31, 2009 02:05 PM (DZyVK)

284

Nowadays, speaking the truth is a revolutionary act.

 

The Republicans have not truly represented conservatives for decades with their continual foreign wars & big spending.  I'm ready for a third party just to remind them it's...'we the people....not you the party'

 

If you want a great read, which is not often these days, I'm encouraging to read that new book where a small town in America gets tired of federal tyranny & ends up starting the 2nd American Revolution.  It's insightful & has today's issues that confront conservatives.  It's a great read for anyone tired of both parties & want the power given back to the people.  Just read it!!

www.booksbyoliver.com

Posted by: Independent at October 31, 2009 02:05 PM (chHOa)

285 275: I love Liebermann, but he is not conservative. He is pro war, pro Israel, and will block the public option. But he is not a conservative, and will never cross the aisle.

Posted by: eddiebear at October 31, 2009 02:05 PM (dtnLU)

286

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 06:59 PM (mFUln)

Just about zero. Hillary knew that and cleared out of Arkansas for good. We love our kids down here. Even here on the purplish border, all ethnic groups oppose that violently.

The Northeast has been bleeding people, businesses and influence for decades. Union-blighted New York has fewer people than it did forty years ago, while both Texas and the South have more than doubled.

Posted by: TexasJew at October 31, 2009 02:06 PM (0Br+6)

287 Sorry to bash you, eman, but some of us are speaking about the world as it is, and you and others are speaking of the world as you *hope it might be.* When that world comes around, I will gladly support your candidates. But it's premature to pretend that world exists now. Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 06:04 PM No, we are speaking of the world we WANT to be. And we are going out to do what needs to be done to see that it becomes that world. Meanwhile, you and DrewM keep saying "stop living in fantasy-land", "you can't persuade people" so don't even bother trying. Other than to make money, ace, why do you bother with this blog? Is it just to see your words on a website? Or do you really hope that you can eventually persuade people with your opinion? Seriously, why, other than money, do you bother to blog about politics? And if you believe people cannot be persuaded, then why bother replying in the comments here? If we're not going to be persuaded to your opinion, why bother? In JAN 2009, many of us "hoped he failed" and did not back down from that statement. In the face of being called racists, bigots, hatemongers, un-American, etc, we stood tall and continued to point out day after day after day that Obama was an America-hating radical hell-bent on destroying this nation from within through his policies. At the time, the nation was not in the mood to hear that. 60-70% of the nation was truly 'in love' with Obama. But that did not stop us. We did not say "well, this is the world as it is, better not bother trying to persuade people otherwise". No, instead, we saw America as we wanted it to be and went out there to do what we could to see that that America came to be. 9 months later, here we are. Had we just bent over and accepted America as it was, an America which would just accept everything that Obama wanted to do, we'd be stuck with Obamacare by now. But we're not. Because instead of accepting the world as it is, we did something to change the world to what we wanted it to be. You can go ahead and sit back and do nothing and accept everything as it is. That's fine. But if you're going to also make fun of those of us who are not accepting and are working to get America back to how it should be, you should expect some harsh blowback for that.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 02:06 PM (ObTcs)

288 shit! Ace beat me to it.

Oh well. Time to tell Daughter that her fever isn't down enough for her to trick or treat.

Wish me luck

Posted by: eddiebear at October 31, 2009 02:07 PM (dtnLU)

289 I think Lieberman's threatening to join a filibuster of the public option more because this is where he takes his revenge for how the Democratic Party has treated him than because he's really opposed to the public option.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 02:07 PM (mFUln)

290 "Just about zero. Hillary knew that and cleared out of Arkansas for good. We love our kids down here. Even here on the purplish border, all ethnic groups oppose that violently." Well, then, why would it be a good idea to run loudly pro-life candidates in very deeply pro-choice areas?

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 02:08 PM (mFUln)

291 I'd like to see the people to whom the Powers That Be must listen whether or not they want to focus on this.

There are some people out here (how many?  Good damned question) to whom the PTB do not have to listen (which is how we all got here in this situation) who have dcided:  No More.

If we are going to have leftists install more and bigger and more expensive government--interrupting campaigns to go work on an emergency expansion not seen since a few microseconds after the Big Bang we want the to be called Democrats.

We are tired of the"You had lots of Republicans, why didn't they do what you said?" litany.

No more.  Not going to vote for Nota S. Badas anymore.

If we are going to have people in office eroding our freedoms, I want them to sign their names with a "(D-"..

Let me see if I say that more clearly.  If I am again offered an (R- that has a demonstrated record of eroding freedoms like McCain and Scozzafava, I'll go vote for the (D- if I go vote at all.

The republican party is not faced with a rash of three-part races where the "Republican vote" is "spLIt" by the third party effort.

It is faced with a rash of races where the Republian vote is "spILt" by its refusal to select, present, and support acceptable canditates.


Posted by: Larry Sheldon at October 31, 2009 02:08 PM (OmeRL)

292 I mean if Democrats are smart enough to not run pro-choice candidates in places like Texas I hope the GOP is smart enough to not run pro-life candidates in places like New Jersey.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 02:08 PM (mFUln)

293 278 261,

Ace, perhaps I have been unclear. I want the pace to be zero and then reversed.

I object to being satisfied with a slower pace with no plan to reverse it.

That is what I see as the true menace of compromise.

Someone above mentioned they wished RINOs would not do so many Democrat things.

When you elect RINOs you are forced to wish that they will not do what comes natural to them.

Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 07:03 PM (ZzgoC)

But what if a majority of voters in a district actually *want* quasi-socialist policies? Maybe the American people there just aren't up to your conservative standards.

A lot of people like to believe that RINOs are some sort of aberration that party elites have imposed on voters. But in fact the RINO candidate may very well reflect the policies preferred by a majority of the voters in that area.

So yeah sometimes democracy is messy and unsatisfying.

Posted by: Mætenloch at October 31, 2009 02:09 PM (z843g)

294 >>> Like everyone else on this thread, I detect anger that your own argument isn't the big point to rally around.

Everyone else? What do you mean?

Mea culpa on my wording, my meaning is that everyone is a bit pissed that their own particular point of view isn't causing everyone else to say "that boy makes sense, never thought of it that way. Onward to glory!"

Your point about the mores of the NYC area are spot on. I grew up there and moved to Los Angeles, and I doubt that until Southern California becomes a supermajority of Hispanic Catholics that a pro-life candidate will get more than a sliver of the voting percentile.

My preferred candidate two years ago was Rudy Giuliani. Hardly a candidate who would get the enthusiastic approval of Pat Robertson, but he's a fiscal conservative, a defense hawk, along with a proven law and order attitude of a society.

Perfect? Absolutely not, but he's proven himself, and he had a backbone of steel when it came to the vicious fire from the far left media of NYC

Posted by: kbdabear at October 31, 2009 02:09 PM (sYxEE)

295 Other than to make money, ace, why do you bother with this blog?

Because it's his blog and he likes it, as do large numbers of us.  Why do you read it?

Posted by: pep at October 31, 2009 02:09 PM (DZyVK)

296 >>>Well, come down here and tell people that you approve of late term abortions, and you won't have any eyeballs to see the reaction. I get that, but New Jersey is not Texas. Someone can get elected in NJ agitating to ban late-term abortions and other restrictions. But I'm telling you, believe it or don't -- and maybe check out the voting records of NE congressmen on abortion issues -- you are not going to get someone up here who agitates for the repeal of Roe v. Wade or a consituitional amendment to do the same. Not going to happen.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 02:09 PM (WXvWz)

297 I tend towards strongly disliking the RINOs but I don't see anything wrong with the argument being offered here.  The most conservative candidate with a shot at being elected.  At the end of the day, Congressional rules are so strongly geared towards the majority.  So, a squish might vote against you... they never get a chance to vote that way because it won't make it to the floor.

Unfortunately... I just don't think the GOP agrees with it!  Dede representing the GOP in a more conservative district is obvious proof of that.  If the GOP would follow this advice and take it to heart there would be a sharp drop in anti-RINO sentiment with the base.

Posted by: basic, before visual at October 31, 2009 02:09 PM (SL3qo)

298 "Let me see if I say that more clearly. If I am again offered an (R- that has a demonstrated record of eroding freedoms like McCain and Scozzafava, I'll go vote for the (D- if I go vote at all." Then you're childish stupid. "I find the Republican candidate distasteful and I'm going to throw a temper tantrum and either vote for the Democratic candidate who is far more distasteful or not vote at all and hope the Republican loses. So, in the end, the candidate far more distasteful to me will hopefully win, and I think this shows I have political integrity or something." K. Have fun losing.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 02:10 PM (mFUln)

299

G'night till later, beloved morons!

I'm off to take the chiquita halloweening along with about half of Juarez.

As a little blue-eyed blond bilingual Jewish girl, she kind of sticks out.. but candy transcends all boundaries! 

Posted by: TexasJew at October 31, 2009 02:11 PM (0Br+6)

300 So yeah sometimes democracy is messy and unsatisfying.
Posted by: MĂŠtenloch at October 31, 2009 07:09 PM

I'm not going to warn you again. Stop peaking in our bedroom window at night

Posted by: Ace's Wife at October 31, 2009 02:11 PM (sYxEE)

301 I am all for party loyalty when it counts, but in this case it did not.  On the other hand, there is an underlying current of discontent with EVERYONE.  The GOP could be in Whig territory if they do not listen to the conservative base.

Think about this:  the Whigs competed with Democrats (and Democrat Republicans) for several decades.  They often straddled the big issue of the day - Slavery.  When the GOP was founded in 1856, most of the big stars of the Whigs defected (including Lincoln) due to the fact that there was finally a party that had a definitive abolition of slavery in its platform.

By the end of the decade the Whigs were gone. 

There were many voices who argued Whig party viability over principled stands.  Pragmatism has its place, but there has been 15 years of the GOP walking away from the Reagan principles of limited government, lower taxes, less regulation and private sector solutions. 

There may come a time when a Conservative Party challenges the GOP as an alternative, then that party may go the way of the Whigs.

Posted by: JCELEPHANT at October 31, 2009 02:11 PM (XuYn0)

302 And I am almost as tired of hearing from or about Newt Gingerich as I am a growing list of other people.

We presented him with a gift that can never be given again, and he pissed it all away.

Posted by: Larry Sheldon at October 31, 2009 02:11 PM (OmeRL)

303 According to this week's Siena poll, Obama polled a 59% favorable rating in NY-23.  59% - this week.  In 2008, Obama won the district with 52% of the vote.  Yet Hoffman routed Scozzafava handily.  What's the message in that?

Posted by: mrp at October 31, 2009 02:11 PM (HjPtV)

304 I gotta lean Beck on this. As some have stated above, what's the point in "winning" an election if "winning" means that we get another worthless POS in Congress that votes liberal? If we concede and say, "well, we got an R voted in in Westchester CO. NY" and they still vote like a libtard... it's like winning the Special Olympics- they're still retarded.

I also agree with the idea that going Beck means the country going completely down the shitter (of we're not already there). Going Beck= lose.

So therein lies the rub. This is a lose, lose scenario. 40% of our country is too unbelievably stupid to deserve the rights and privileges that we have decreasingly enjoyed for the past 200 years. They won't "wake up" because you can't fix stupid.

Now the really bad news: It will only get worse. As we all know, our education systems from K-Doctorate are bent around socialism and the media is even worse. So even if there were people within that 40+% that are capable of any critical thought, they are overwhelmed by the media/ educational minority with their overwhelming megaphones.

I only see 3 possible outcomes:
1. total meltdown of civilization. Mad Max, here we come.
2. Media rebellion. If the media fails exponentially faster than civilization, there is a possibility of turning things around. Education would follow. Screw electing RINOs. This is were we can have an impact. I say turn all efforts to making the media crumble.
3. Go Galt

Posted by: Damiano at October 31, 2009 02:12 PM (gxP6r)

305 Either that, or concede that it is not going to happen, and for all your criticism of me, *I* am actually the one advancing the plan to get a pro-life justice on the supreme court, because I, unlike you, am willing to court the votes of "the insane" in order to get senators in who might vote for such a justice, rather than senators who definitely will filibuster.

In short, Ace, what you are telling me is that, in order to get someone who will vote for a pro-life justice onto the Supreme Court, I must promote someone whose very election depends on him telling a large and vociferous group of people that he or she supports exactly the opposite.

Um, no. Seen what's happened to the Obama Party with that one, and the end result is that, fortunately for Republicans, the self-preservation instinct of the Congresscritter kicks in over adherence to party ideology.


Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 02:13 PM (DTOF+)

306 "According to this week's Siena poll, Obama polled a 59% favorable rating in NY-23. 59% - this week. In 2008, Obama won the district with 52% of the vote. Yet Hoffman routed Scozzafava handily. What's the message in that?" Favorable rating isn't the same as job approval or support for policies. Obama the man still has about 55-60% approval whereas Obama the politician is in a holding pattern at 48-52%.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 02:13 PM (mFUln)

307

I can't believe that Ace simply doesnt "get" what is happening inside the GOP. This is not about the loyalty of conservative Republicans. This is about the LACK of loyalty by LIBERAL Republicans.

The left wing of the GOP got their shot in the past 2 elections. They promised that by moving left, the party would win elections (remember the AMNESTY stunts?). They were wrong.

Now, it is the conservatives turn. But instead of admitting the error and rallying with the rest of the party, the left wing of the GOP has decided to pull a collective Arlen Spectre and endorse Obama's socialist agenda.

Calls for unity from the GOP left are laughable when they won't honor such calls themselves.

If the John McCains and Olympia Snowes of the GOP don't hold up their end of the unity deal and get on board to stop Obama, they will be purged. And it will be their own fault.

Posted by: the cluebat at October 31, 2009 02:14 PM (tA0wU)

308 >>>A lot of people like to believe that RINOs are some sort of aberration that party elites have imposed on voters. But in fact the RINO candidate may very well reflect the policies preferred by a majority of the voters in that area. Spot on, I wanted to address this: A lot of the agitation here seems to come from people who believe that this stuff happens because "the fix is in" or the party establishment is foisting these pro-choicers on a pro-life public. That is what happened in NY23, which is why I was all for the Hoffman candidacy. But that is NOT what happens generally. The reason NE congressmen are pro-choice? Because everyone they know and 65% of the voters are not just pro-choice but almost pro-abortion. They do not view it as murder. They view it as unpleasant emergency contraception. And you can disagree with that view, but the fact is, that is the view they have, and you can't disagree with that. A RINO like Chris Dodd votes in favor of banning late-term abortions or parental consent. That sort of thing. That is what passes as "the pro-life position" in most of the northeast. It is not really pro-life; it is pro-choice with restrictions. But that is the "conservative" side in the NE.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 02:14 PM (WXvWz)

309 If we "play it safe" we lose, because the GOP as it is now is more leftist than JFK's administration.  So you're asking us to "pragmatically" vote leftist because it's the only way we can "win."  I'm not that pragmatic.  I'll take my lumps and work towards (re)creating the real Republican/conservative party.

Posted by: Flubber at October 31, 2009 02:14 PM (xfWxd)

310 But what if a majority of voters in a district actually *want* quasi-socialist policies? Maybe the American people there just aren't up to your conservative standards.

Posted by: MĂŠtenloch at October 31, 2009 07:09 PM (z843g)

Then they have their state governments (you know, the governments that are actually charged with dealing with individuals and social issues) to give them their socialism.  The federal government does not have those powers and is not used for that purpose.  Of course, there is no such distinction, as this, to the left, since they hate federalism and are pushing for a destruction of any Constitutional limits and the formation of a national superstate (with the state governments doing nothign more than carrying out national policy).  If the GOP cannot adhere to this fundamental aspect fo the Constitutional serparations of governmental powers, then you can just kiss this all good-bye.  And, as I noted in my responses to you, above, the US cannot turn into a stagnant European type nation and have our monetary system survive.  That's the situation.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 31, 2009 02:14 PM (A46hP)

311

Meaning... not even a RINO. He aspires one day to be a RINO.

 

God I hope not. His current lifetime rating is 17%.  He is exactly the kind of person we don’t want in the Republican Party. The Kossites were not against him because he wasn’t communist enough. They were against him because he wasn’t anti-war and anti-Israel enough.

Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2009 02:14 PM (CDUiN)

312

The calculus is, and always has been to support the most conservative candiate WHO COULD WIN.  There was no reason to run a Scozzofava in that district when a Hoffman could win it.  Similarly, there's no reason to vote for a liberal R when the conservative I coul dwin.

 

The party leaders mucked this up bad.

Posted by: JohnTant at October 31, 2009 02:16 PM (MuHF0)

313 The essence of 2010 has to be fiscal responsibility.  Everywhere Republicans run.  Fiscal responsibility can be utilized to achieve all kinds of social policy objectives, because without the money the cultural Marxism virus can't spread.

Yessir.

And to be quite honest, fiscal responsibility strikes a deep and powerful chord with social conservatives as well, so it's a winner with everyone -- except the 20% Obama deadenders who want the government to suckle them.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 02:16 PM (DTOF+)

314 Chris Dodd is not a Republican. Really. Go look it up.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 02:16 PM (mFUln)

315 "The party leaders mucked this up bad." The national leaders did mess up bad by just blindly accepting her nomination as delivered by the local party leaders instead of finding out what was really going on.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 02:19 PM (mFUln)

316 But what if a majority of voters in a district actually *want* quasi-socialist policies? Maybe the American people there just aren't up to your conservative standards.

Good for them. We don't need every single district in every single state to be conservative. Just enough of them to start to move the nation back where its supposed to be. The point is not to win totally in every single election, but to win enough to get where we need to be.

President Obama won despite being a radical leftist; he appealed to people. Ronald Reagan won by being a conservative that appealed to people, he won them over and was convincing, he was optimistic and had presence. You don't need everyone to sign on, just a majority. And while only a small number of people are truly conservative, the others can be persuaded with the right candidate and the right arguments and policies. It might take a while, because the mood might be against it, then the mood might shift faster than we think.

What doesn't help is to pack congress with bozos and socialists who pretend to be conservative or are identified with conservatism because they have an R by their name. Better to lose to a Democrat so people can see the difference and take the long term view to win later. We don't have to win tomorrow. We have to win eventually, bit by bit, race by race.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 31, 2009 02:19 PM (PQY7w)

317

It's not "squish" to say you don't want to bust the party for the sake of principles.

I won't speak for Ace or the few others here that have reservations about the 3rd party/conservative split, but I don't walk into to voting booth saying, "I reaaaally like that RINO". I say, "sadly this is my best best to get some control over a horrific situation".

That doesnt' make me squishy as that person most likely won't represent 100% of my view. But for the billuith time, what candidate will there be that will ever satisfy your litmus test of 100%? Few if any.

When I go to to vote it's not about my wants and needs but what has the best chance to bring us back from the brink.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2009 02:19 PM (Wkb8U)

318 As someone mentioned up thread, Ace probably means Chris Shays.

Posted by: basic, before visual at October 31, 2009 02:19 PM (SL3qo)

319 >>>In short, Ace, what you are telling me is that, in order to get someone who will vote for a pro-life justice onto the Supreme Court, I must promote someone whose very election depends on him telling a large and vociferous group of people that he or she supports exactly the opposite。 Correct. Go check out the NARAL ratings for every congressman in the Northeast. A Republican in the Northeast would NOT vote for a pro-life justice because he was in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. If he were in favor of that, he wouldn't have been elected in the first place. He MIGHT, however, vote for such a justice, or at least vote for Cloture to stop a filibuster, on proceduralist grounds, on grounds of fair treatment, on grounds that the president gets his pick. This is absurd. You not only want a "principled" vote but you want that vote to be for the right reasons besides. Apparently you don't want the vote of a pro-choice Senator willing to vote for a pro-life justice if he does so on strictly proceduralist grounds -- as was done an awful lot in the 80s and 90s as guys like Scalia were confirmed by lots of people who were themselves pro-choice. But we are now so far ahead in Congress that we can be choosy about not just who we allow in, but what grounds they have for voting with us. Unless they're with us on the substance, rather than proceduralist and party-loyalty concerns, we don't want their vote? I didn't know we could afford to be this choosy.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 02:20 PM (WXvWz)

320 Holy shit.  Maet, Sunday may end up being a great night for flamer.  Though, Dede get's all the credit.

Anyway, don't have enough patience to read all your rants, but here are my 2-cents, not that any of you morons care.

More conservative candidates are required.  The Republican party hasn't been losing elections because Democrats have been winning.  They've been losing because there are 2-types of people running the Republican part:  Losers & saboteurs.  Because of this, the idealistic wing of the party stay home in much larger numbers believing they have no-one to vote for.

I submit to you that Republicans are not losing because people have turned center-left, but because they cannot motivate their idealistic base.  If your positions (or lack thereof) cannot motivate your idealist base or if you cannot (or choose not to, as in the case of McLame) use your opponent's weaknesses to motivate your idealistic base to show up you will lose.  The Repbulican "leadership" is very experienced in this.

The percentage of the conservative, idealistic base of the Republican party that stays home on election night continues to grow every election.  It started in 1992 and has continued to grow ever since. 

Posted by: Editor at October 31, 2009 02:20 PM (YX6i/)

321 304 - "According to this week's Siena poll, Obama polled a 59% favorable rating in NY-23. 59% - this week. In 2008, Obama won the district with 52% of the vote. Yet Hoffman routed Scozzafava handily. What's the message in that?" As a resident I would interpret this apparent dissonance as this: This mostly conservative district has had a bellyful of RINO's, Bush angered them and McCain proved that the party let them down. It was a rebellion of sorts against RINO's. In other words "what do we have to lose by voting for hope and change when our faith in the R party has been shattered." That is why Hoffman will be elected. He is the sort of candidate that appeals to the majority of Republican voters here. Dems will of course oppose, but had Scozzy stayed in the race the R party would have lost the loyalty of the voters for many election cycles.

Posted by: CT at October 31, 2009 02:20 PM (J50Du)

322 Ace, I'm late to the discussion (great truck race at Talladega), but I would absolutely support 'third party' Conservative runs against squishes who win open primaries, if the Conservative showed reasonably well, and especially if the squish has received support from the RNC or similar organizations. 

I think you overestimate the liberal population in this country, and we're just going to have to disagree about that.  But even if that were true, why exactly do you think the middle is going to punish us for being right-headed all the time and the Leftists never?  And wouldn't the country be better off in the part of our political cycles when the middle is sick of the Left's bullshit agenda, if there was actually a corrective rather than mushy centrist option available to them?

In a three way race with a genuine Conservative, a genuine Leftist, and a centrist, the centrist, based on your over-assumption of liberal street strength, should lose every time and us split roughly evenly with the Dems.

I wouldn't feel nearly so bad about losing elections some of the time if winning them meant we actually got to accomplish something.

Posted by: Methos at October 31, 2009 02:21 PM (IoxPW)

323 >>>But what if a majority of voters in a district actually *want* quasi-socialist policies? Maybe the American people there just aren't up to your conservative standards. vs. >>>Then they have their state governments (you know, the governments that are actually charged with dealing with individuals and social issues) to give them their socialism. The federal government does not have those powers and is not used for that purpose. Another post highlighting between one guy talking about the way the world actually is and the other guy responding 'But it shouldn't be that way." But it is. It is. What has "should" got to do with it? Not a goddamned thing.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 02:22 PM (WXvWz)

324 They do not view it as murder. They view it as unpleasant emergency contraception.

And their attitude to that extent is what permits these sort of things to happen.

http://tinyurl.com/mjlkqj

Hence the point that needs to be hammered home. If they're fine with that, then vote accordingly. But otherwise, what they support allows, encourages, and in fact directly funds that sort of behavior -- and considering that they are already calling it "unpleasant", that should demonstrate that they're looking for a good reason to limit it.

A view that abortion be strictly limited to emergency situations, i.e. rape and incest, is going to be fine with about 75% of the population as a whole. Which works perfectly well. If not, go with the Federalism argument, which is simply that states should be free to set their own abortion policy, and let New York continue to have its abortions-as-hangover-remedy attitude.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 02:22 PM (DTOF+)

325 I don't have a problem with people voting for whom they want, I have a problem with thinking we can never change what they want, never change what they think. If the Republican Party thinks it must adjust its beliefs to the local environment, then it is simply a label. The real secret is to lean the curve back to the Right, not back to the Republican, unless Republican means Right.. A Congress dominated by Conservatives and strongly conservative Moderates is the best outcome. You will never get there by offering RINOs as an alternative to Democrats.

Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 02:23 PM (ZzgoC)

326 So we run the risk of a democrat run government if we try to run off the rinos and diablos.

So what.  We already have a democrat run government.

Unless the GOP worms and generally unfucks itself - why would we want to give the reins of power back to them?

There has to be a fundamental shift in the right.  There has to be some bloodletting and rank thinning.

The self centered criminals who stood back and were silent during Foley, Vitters and Craig have to either be removed or minimized.

And lets say the GOP hears the gunfire if Hoffman wins - again, so what.  After the 94 take over, how long did it take them to revert back to fuck America business as usual?

There has to be a serious change.

Posted by: george at October 31, 2009 02:26 PM (y0VOX)

327 Another post highlighting between one guy talking about the way the world actually is and the other guy responding 'But it shouldn't be that way."

But it is.

It is.

What has "should" got to do with it? Not a goddamned thing.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 07:22 PM (WXvWz)

I like that.  You write "should" and then you quote "should" as if I wrote it.  That's neat.

Look ace, if you have already declared defeat on this very basic issue (of the essential split of power in federalism as defined in the Constitution) then I don't know what you are even arguing for.  It's over.  The US is finished and just waiting to be flushed.  In that case, I don't care who gets in, because a national superstate always heads in one direction, and one direction only - and it ain't a pretty direction.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 31, 2009 02:27 PM (A46hP)

328 Ace feels sorry for her...

Wasn't 900,000.00 dollars enough love for ya Ace...You and AP are working everyone's last nerve.

If Hoffman loses, so be it.....conservatives, crazies, tea partiers, whatever you and AP call us will not have to feel that again we voted and contributed to another SPECTER.

How stupid did all the GOP look...well that hopefully is over.  Manipulations by our own establishment can really sour a person.

Posted by: non_dhimmie at October 31, 2009 02:28 PM (cFwGO)

329 What ultimately happens is that the Republican brand no longer means anything. The only ideology is WIN elections. This is what the incumbents already worship. I for one am sick of that shit and will no longer vote based on who I think will WIN. I think the rest of the conservatives in the U.S. are also heartily sick of this shit as well. This is what got the tea party movement started. I guess you missed Rasmussen on TV this morning. He gave a strong warning to the Republican Party. Its wakeup time. Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2009 06:28 PM +100 Exactly. 100% agreed.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 02:28 PM (ObTcs)

330 Chris Shays! My god, I've been writing Chris Dodd every five minutes! Oh my god you must REALLY think I'm a liberal sell-out if you think I'm pushing CHRIS DODD as the sort of candidate we need to aspire to! Oh my. Yes, I meant Chris Shays. Good Lord. Chris Dodd. Sorry. To be clear, I am no fan of Chris Dodd's. I'm also not a huge fan of Chris Shays, but I did mean Chris Shays. Wow. Wow, Ace. Wow. Way to sabotage your own position.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 02:29 PM (WXvWz)

331 If Doug Hoffman had been the local trunks' back-room pick to run against Owens, he'd have likely lost.  New York-23 in 2009 is a fluke:  1)  NY election law apparently ruled out a primary for a special elelction.;  2) NY election laws allow a candidate to consolidate votes if he/she is nominated by two different parties.  Perhaps more states should allow multi-party vote consolidation.

Posted by: mrp at October 31, 2009 02:30 PM (HjPtV)

332 We were just trying to get you to notice your typo :p

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 02:30 PM (mFUln)

333 This is absurd. You not only want a "principled" vote but you want that vote to be for the right reasons besides. Apparently you don't want the vote of a pro-choice Senator willing to vote for a pro-life justice if he does so on strictly proceduralist grounds -- as was done an awful lot in the 80s and 90s as guys like Scalia were confirmed by lots of people who were themselves pro-choice.

I'd be happy to have the vote, Ace, but I'd be much happier to have the Senator there for much longer periods of time than for that single vote.

Parties self-destruct when they put electability over principles. We saw that with the Republicans and now we're seeing it with the Obama Party. You cannot lie to voters and expect to be repeatedly returned to office, unless your constituency is made up entirely of brainwashed nincompoops -- and most non-minority members of Congress do not have that luxury.

Getting back into power is nice. Getting back into power and staying there is nicer. It will take a long, sustained effort to reverse the stupidity that has been visited on the country since 2006, and a feel-good "just get 'em elected, don't worry about the future results" strategy will not do it. We will have paralysis or masses of turned-out legislators by the next election.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 02:31 PM (DTOF+)

334 I love you too, Ace.  I love you, too.

Posted by: Chris Dodd at October 31, 2009 02:31 PM (YX6i/)

335 Oh my god you must REALLY think I'm a liberal sell-out if you think I'm pushing CHRIS DODD as the sort of candidate we need to aspire to!

We didn't think you were a liberal sell-out, we thought you were stupid. We knew who you meant.

Posted by: Dr. Spank at October 31, 2009 02:32 PM (muUqs)

336 >>>Look ace, if you have already declared defeat on this very basic issue (of the essential split of power in federalism as defined in the Constitution) then I don't know what you are even arguing for. I have not already conceded defeat. I agree, basically, with you, though I have a feeling you're more extreme. I am telling you that the "rule" you are claiming binds Congressmen does not in fact bind them. They do not accept your belief in federalism, and you are just insisting louder that they OUGHT TO. Well, as long as they have consituents who want stuff from the federal government, they will continue not caring much about your conception of federalism. I am arguing here what is; you are arguing what should be. I don't disagree with you on what "should be," but you sure seem to disagree with me on "what is."

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 02:32 PM (WXvWz)

337 I heard Ace had sex with Chris Dodd back in 1990.

Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 02:32 PM (ZzgoC)

338 "We will have paralysis or masses of turned-out legislators by the next election." Government paralysis? Large amounts of turnover every election? Where and how do I sign up for this paradise?

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 02:33 PM (mFUln)

339 I think I have had enough for today. Good Night Morons and Happy Halloween.

Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2009 02:33 PM (CDUiN)

340 I think you overestimate the liberal population in this country, and we're just going to have to disagree about that.

I think living in NYC gives him that impression, similar to the famous Pauline Kael quote "I don't know how Nixon won, nobody I know voted for him.". If you lived in North Texas, you'd believe that most people lean conservative and are regular churchgoers.

Posted by: kbdabear at October 31, 2009 02:33 PM (sYxEE)

341 Hands off Ace, Dodd.  He's MINE!!

Posted by: Barney Frank at October 31, 2009 02:33 PM (YX6i/)

342

Note to Allah and Ace.

The world ain't New York.

Better to work to get the Dim Senators and congressmen out of conservative Red Republican states like North Dakota than to get an additional  army of Maine Sisters screwing everything up and stabbing the party in the back.

Posted by: TexasJew at October 31, 2009 02:34 PM (0Br+6)

343

I for one am sick of that shit and will no longer vote based on who I think will WIN.

Good for you, but I'm sick of being miserable. If I wanted to be miserable I'd be hanging out with the Kos kids.

 

Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2009 02:34 PM (Wkb8U)

344 Posted by: Ken Hahn at October 31, 2009 06:31 PM Amen to everything you stated. Well said.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 02:34 PM (ObTcs)

345 Ace and Dodd sitting in a tree....

Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 02:35 PM (ZzgoC)

346 >>>A view that abortion be strictly limited to emergency situations, i.e. rape and incest, is going to be fine with about 75% of the population as a whole. Uhhhh-huh. I see. 75% of which population? Kansas? AMERICA, you meant? Um, no. Good Lord, you think we have 75% support on this issue and yet IT HAS NOT PASSED? No wonder you seem to think the game is rigged. You believe that you have 75% support on your issue and yet still it doesn't pass. That must be bewildering, how something could be so overwhelmingly popular and never get passed.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 02:35 PM (WXvWz)

347 "I am arguing here what is; you are arguing what should be." Arguing "what is" isn't arguing, it's making observations. If all you're going to say is what you think IS, you're only doing half your job.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 02:35 PM (mFUln)

348
Oh, man, I'm so glad you pointed that out. I never would have realized that. /sarcasm

I suppose I blocked out all those times I advocated supporting Scazzowhatever.

C'mon, Gabe. I never said anything of the sort. If I want to accuse you, I'll say it directly.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 02:36 PM (DTOF+)

349

THANK YOU ACE...pro-life Pubs are NOT going to win in NH ...not any time soon.  The abortion litmus test is over up here, and many , many good candidates were pillared because of their anti-abortion stance.  We lost almost everyone of our Pub rep, and congresspeople, and they were GREAT people.

We NEED a pro- choice person who talks preventing the NEED for abortion through sex ed, and persona;l responsibility.  It is the only way that the Pubs have a chance.

The voters , and non-voters are getting killed...taxes are up, more lost money, poor services, and a slide toward Mass hole politics..

all due to the fact that NH voters will not embrace a pro-life candidate. Ace is right...you have to drive the conservative VALUES, which feature personal responsibility...with an area for thew voter to "fudge it" a little to get their vote...

 

Ace has it right for the Northeast, and there are MANY Republicans that would swear on his opinion.  I am registered Independent...the Pubs have kept me off their reservation with their male domination policies, and their wrong direction on abortion. I am a fiscal conservative, but lean very liberal in social choices people make,

 

I am pro- gay marriage too...let them figure out why they don't want to be married on their own ...like the rest of us did.

Posted by: ford at October 31, 2009 02:36 PM (Ki7fm)

350 "I suppose I blocked out all those times I advocated supporting Scazzowhatever." Scozzafava! Whatever else she is, she's a woman in possession of a wonderful Eye-talian name.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 02:37 PM (mFUln)

351 You know what we call bills with 75% support? We call them "laws."

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 02:37 PM (WXvWz)

352 I think a lot of people are against abortion in theory. In theory.

Posted by: Dr. Spank at October 31, 2009 02:37 PM (muUqs)

353 Did anyone notice that George W. Bush tried the "compassionate conservative" thing with less than zero results? I don't think Dem Lite is working since McCain didn't win last year.

Posted by: trentk269 at October 31, 2009 02:37 PM (xyEsR)

354 Love your work Ace, but this is total bullshit.  Nobody is asking for party purity.  People are merely asking that alleged Republican candidates adhere to a few things.  Fiscal responsibility being the main one.  And all these bullshit RINOs who cry like little bitches about party purity have completely disregarded fiscal responsibility.  Bush spent like a drunken sailor, and now we're supposed to embrace a few more idiots who want to do the same.

All the crybabies about purging the party can kiss my ass.  Believe in two or three of the main Republican values and you'll get people's support.  Otherwise, please go away forever.

Posted by: Jack Burton at October 31, 2009 02:38 PM (YxJoH)

355 "the Pubs have kept me off their reservation with their male domination policies" Huh? Male-domination policies?

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 02:38 PM (mFUln)

356 So, the GOP goes the way of the Whigs and whoever the new kid on the block is does to the Democrats what the GOP did to the Democrats in the 1860s?  I do not have a problem with this.

Posted by: The Dread Pirate Neck Beard at October 31, 2009 02:38 PM (uIKHf)

357 Oops. I meant to type "Ronald Reagan" but it came out "Bob Michel"

Posted by: TexasJew at October 31, 2009 02:39 PM (0Br+6)

358 We can haz World Series thread?

Posted by: Peaches at October 31, 2009 02:39 PM (9Wv2j)

359 Why so upset that a woman  may need an abortion?  What ever happened to someone in the privacy of their own life, that you think you should quarterback their life???

Posted by: ford at October 31, 2009 02:40 PM (Ki7fm)

360

Judas Priest, Ace.  How drunk are you?  I still can't figure out what in the hell you were even talking about and why you kept referencing Chris Dodd.

I guess it'd be one thing if Dede was a fiscal conservative but a social liberal - I can deal with a Northeastern Giuliani type. 

It's another to have to stomach a "Republican" who's somewhere between Obama and Karl Marx on economic issues. 

Why even vote if your choices are:

kills babies and wants all of your money OR kills babies and wants most all of your money?

 

 

Posted by: stickety at October 31, 2009 02:40 PM (Jg5C9)

361

RULE # 1

Get the votes out of the Democrats hands. 

NY 23 was the perfect setting to send a shot across the bow of Republican moderates.  We want candidates that are decidedly right of center.

Now, let's get David Harmer some help in CA's 10th special election.  Harmerforcongress.com

The NY 23 should be an example, not a threat, to the party.

Posted by: mghorning at October 31, 2009 02:41 PM (UPjva)

362 Arguing "what is" isn't arguing, it's making observations. If all you're going to say is what you think IS, you're only doing half your job.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 07:35 PM (mFUln)

Well it's hard to develop a viable plan to get where you'd like to be when you can't agree on where you're at. And it does have to be a viable plan based on some kind of empirical evidence. Hope is not a strategy.

Posted by: Mætenloch at October 31, 2009 02:41 PM (z843g)

363

Now Ace, don't go all Chrlse Johtson-y on us here.

We Red staters just hate fucking RINOs.

Posted by: TexasJew at October 31, 2009 02:41 PM (0Br+6)

364 "Does this prompt a spate of third-party conservative challengers who wind up drawing just enough support from GOP candidates to give the House to the Democrats?"

Perhaps I missed it if someone mentioned this up-thread, but don't they already have the House? 

Really, it seems to me that instead of this being about the fight between the ideological purists in the party and the pragmatists, this whole thing is really highlighting the disconnect between the local GOP organizations (who chose Scuzzywuzzy) and the RNCThat's the problem that needs to be tackled before the GOP has a hope of shifting the balance of power back to the center or the right. 

I have seen no compelling arguments for why a liberal "Republican" had to be run in this race and it's my understanding that the RNC didn't pick Dede, so that suggests to me that the local party hacks who promoted this gal did so for reasons of patronage or connections or "electability."  Someone at the national level should have been in consultation with the local party officials to prevent this pick from happening in the first place.  They should have provided the resources and expertise to get someone more in line with the Party's platform

Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2009 02:41 PM (sey23)

365 My own personal distaste for Congress has less to do with idealogical purity than their elitism, their disdain for the people they were put there to serve, and the whole attitude that we exist as ATMs for their privilege and power.

As one wise writer put it, the big divide in America right now isn't so much the Right vs the Left, it's the Elite vs the Masses

Posted by: kbdabear at October 31, 2009 02:41 PM (sYxEE)

366 "So, the GOP goes the way of the Whigs and whoever the new kid on the block is does to the Democrats what the GOP did to the Democrats in the 1860s? I do not have a problem with this." Yeah sadly that isn't how it would happen, and I also doubt that a repeat of the years 1860 - 1920 is something that would be good for the country either. Unless you're just ignorant about how the government massively expanded during that time, particularly after 1900.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 02:41 PM (mFUln)

367

Right to privacy = right to exterminate the pesky little human who somehow ended up in my uterus

Sounds about right. 

Posted by: stickety at October 31, 2009 02:42 PM (Jg5C9)

368

Why even vote if your choices are:

kills babies and wants all of your money OR kills babies and wants most all of your money?

Posted by: stickety at October 31, 2009 07:40 PM (Jg5C9)

And my point is made.  Idealists are staying home.  Nice going, Republican leadership.

Posted by: Editor at October 31, 2009 02:42 PM (YX6i/)

369 353 You know what we call bills with 75% support?

We call them "laws."

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 07:37 PM (WXvWz)

That's what they said about the ERA. Go find that law...

Posted by: TexasJew at October 31, 2009 02:43 PM (0Br+6)

370 You know what we call bills with 75% support? We call them "laws."

That's why we have strong border enforcement.  Wait, what?

Posted by: toby928 at October 31, 2009 02:43 PM (PD1tk)

371

356 Love your work Ace, but this is total bullshit.  Nobody is asking for party purity.  People are merely asking that alleged Republican candidates adhere to a few things. 

With all due respect, your point is kinda bullshit.

We can't define what  a RINO is. If I had a choice of a candidate that believes in strong fiscal conservatism and is pro-life but supports gay marriage, that would be just fine in my eyes. And for many other conservatives. But many other conservatives would have a field-day with that person and call him/her a RINO based on that one stance.

So how do you reconcile it when you can't even define it?

Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2009 02:43 PM (Wkb8U)

372

My belief here was shaped by 1964. For years, the liberal Republican establishment had demanded that conservatives support them in the name of party unity. When Goldwater won the nomination, the Rockefellers, the Keatings, the Cases and the like refused to help in any way. Liberal Republicans have no loyalty to the GOP and when they're caught in a backroom deal that promotes the Democratic agenda they piously claim "principle".

 

That's probably the best argument on this board. I will almost always vote republican, but I too am getting sick of being told I have to support RINO's but they don't owe anything to Conservatives. Without question Conservatives of one sort or another make up the majority of the party, yet we wield a disproportionatly small amount of influence within the party. Why is it the most outspoken and well known republicans are the left leaning republicans like McCain, Graham, etc? Why do we have to accept all of their principles come election time, but our principles are mocked by them all the time? 

Part of the problem in mind mind is that the "elites" in the Republican party wield too much power. People who would be just as happy in the democratic party if they were given the same amount of power. Politicians on the level of Senatorial Roman Families, not republicans, conservatives or people of principle.

Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2009 02:43 PM (bftbi)

373 "Why so upset that a woman may need an abortion? What ever happened to someone in the privacy of their own life, that you think you should quarterback their life???" Well see that's the problem, to pro-life people like myself "the privacy of your life" doesn't extend to killing fetuses and saying that doesn't constitute "quarterbacking" your life. You were a fetus once, I was a fetus, everyone here was a fetus, somehow that doesn't ever seem to matter to "pro-choice" people. We're the lucky ones. There's 40-50 million people who weren't so lucky and never had the chance to take a side in the debate.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 02:44 PM (mFUln)

374

Yes, the Republicans have not been kind to the ladies...some of the shit that hit Palin (who I worked for and supported) came from Republicans...the central casting usually runs men.

 

I was able to overlook her view on abortion, because so much of the rest of her platform was great...yet she was killed up here for abortion,people could not get past it.

Male dominated...PUB's  yes...not many women make it to the top, and the religious values drive independents and moderate women away.BTW..the D's are not much better.

 

Whoever wins the ladies , wins the WH...

Posted by: ford at October 31, 2009 02:44 PM (Ki7fm)

375 What ever happened to someone in the privacy of their own life, that you think you should quarterback their life???

I know it's hard for you to believe, but there's another human being besides the woman involved, and that would be the innocent baby who doesn't deserve to be slaughtered just because he/she is an inconvenience to their mother.

Posted by: koopy at October 31, 2009 02:45 PM (OiqCK)

376 Good arguments all around but you have to ask yourselves one thing
What does this do for Michelle's children?
Hmmm?
Just what.
Beuller? Beuller? Anyone?

Posted by: Ol' Blew Ayes at October 31, 2009 02:45 PM (F1b/5)

377 RINOs need to be the conservatives' bitches. After all, they're riding in our limo.

Posted by: TexasJew at October 31, 2009 02:45 PM (0Br+6)

378

Now Ace, don't go all Chrlse Johtson-y on us here.

 

whoa whoa whoa Texasjew, lets not be saying things we can't take back. You sure you want to break out the , he who shall not be named insult this early

Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2009 02:46 PM (bftbi)

379 Good Lord, you think we have 75% support on this issue and yet IT HAS NOT PASSED?

It's all in the phrasing, Ace. Watch.

http://tinyurl.com/yf9buek

If you look at the Pew survey, less than 20% of Americans think abortion should be legal in all circumstances.

And:

http://tinyurl.com/yhccl7u

However, 57 percent oppose abortion solely to end an unwanted pregnancy — "if the mother is unmarried and does not want the baby." And opposition soars to about seven in 10 or more for so-called "partial-birth abortions" or abortions conducted in the sixth month of pregnancy or later.


Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 02:46 PM (DTOF+)

380

Now Ace, don't go all Chrlse Johtson-y on us here.

We Red staters just hate fucking RINOs.

Honestly, TexasJew, you really think that Ace is a RINO or Chuckish?  That's just silly.

People disagree on method, it's a perfectly reasonable thing to disagree on, as it shows that people sincerely want to figure out the best way to achieve a mutually desired outcome.

Posted by: basic, before visual at October 31, 2009 02:46 PM (SL3qo)

381

"If you agree with me 70 percent of the time, you should vote for me. If you agree with me 100 percent of the time, you should see a psychiatrist" - Ed Koch

I'm pretty much in agreement with Ace on this today. I'm agreeing with ace... on Halloween.... the Nexus has arrived, prepare to step through the portal and watch the destruction of the fabric of time.

Posted by: kbdabear at October 31, 2009 02:47 PM (sYxEE)

382 "Yes, the Republicans have not been kind to the ladies...some of the shit that hit Palin (who I worked for and supported) came from Republicans...the central casting usually runs men." You must be deliberately closing your eyes because the divide on the shit that hit Palin was around 10% Republicans (most of whom were McLame supporters and strategists) and 90% Democrats.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 02:47 PM (mFUln)

383
But what if Crist wins? Should Rubio run as an independent or conservative in a three-man field?

If Rubio cannot even win a majority or plurality of the Republican vote, how the heck is he going to win in the general election?

Yes to both, and I'll tell you why. McCain proved (yet again) a GOP candidate running as Democrat-lite cannot win, or, s/he's at least very unlikely to win against, say, a slick Democrat such as Obama or a seemingly hawkish Democrat such as Hillary Clinton.

So, I ask you, what did we have to lose by running a third-party conservative candidate against Obama and McCain? If Crist runs as a McCain-type moderate, he'll probably lose. So let's support a conservative and just keep hammering home the message to the Republican party that cannot take their base for granted anymore. Again, we have nothing to lose as long as the Republican party keeps running losers as candidates. You dig?

Posted by: Tweet says stuff in the little gray box at October 31, 2009 02:48 PM (JY1gZ)

384

Ace,

Haven't read all the  post, so if this has been said sorry.

You are too young to remember SF and the Rockefeller Goldwater fight. 

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!"

We lost, because LBJ was a lying cocksucker.  Reagan gave "The Speech".  16 years later we took everything over.  Purges happen in each party, the Dem have now a Commie, we need to respond with a real alternative, before we lose the country to a dictatorship. See Venezuela

Ace, This is fucking war, what about that don't you understand?

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!"

Barry Goldwater was right in 1964, and right now!

To the trenches boys!

 

 

Posted by: Kemp at October 31, 2009 02:48 PM (2+9Yx)

385 "Yeah sadly that isn't how it would happen, and I also doubt that a repeat of the years 1860 - 1920 is something that would be good for the country either. Unless you're just ignorant about how the government massively expanded during that time, particularly after 1900."

See, I just nail fish to the wall and hope that makes as much sense as some OTHER massive string of non-sequiters.  I suppose you'd also argue that since the GOP ousted the Whigs, Hitler took power, so we better not do like that again!

I am arguing strenuously for the destruction of a party of traitors: the party of Newt, Bush, Dole, & Scozzafava.  Everything that comes after that is the responsibility of those who run things, not a necessary consequence of some giant straw man who eats hats from outer space.

Posted by: The Dread Pirate Neck Beard at October 31, 2009 02:48 PM (uIKHf)

386 >>>ove your work Ace, but this is total bullshit. Nobody is asking for party purity. People are merely asking that alleged Republican candidates adhere to a few things. Fiscal responsibility being the main one. And all these bullshit RINOs who cry like little bitches about party purity have completely disregarded fiscal responsibility. I agree with that. So what is bullshit? I never said I disagreed with that. I am always being charged with advocating crap I don't advocate. I want RINOs challenged, where possible, by more-conservative challengers in the primaries. I would like those challengers to be as conservative as the voting climate in that district or state permits. All this post is about -- all it's about -- is about the undesirability of third-party candidates, who cannot win, playing spoiler to GOP candidates, who, while imperfect, can win, because the more closely reflect a majority view in their state or district than the challenger, who only appeals to 5%. But that 5% can be a killer. That's all I said. Do you agree or not? I asked earlier: If Mario Rubio loses to Crist, should Rubio jump into the general as a third-party challenger? Now, if Rubio can't even win half the Republican vote, what exactly are his chances in the general? I want Rubio to win the primary. But what if he doesn't? Just run again to keep admitted RINO Crist out? If so, how far do you take this? There are a lot of purple states, dude, where a deep-red conservative almost certainly cannot win.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 02:48 PM (WXvWz)

387

whoa whoa whoa Texasjew, lets not be saying things we can't take back. You sure you want to break out the , he who shall not be named insult this early

Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2009 07:46 PM (bftbi)

You're right! I meant to type in "Allah" but it came out "Ace".

Posted by: TexasJew at October 31, 2009 02:48 PM (0Br+6)

388 and let New York continue to have its abortions-as-hangover-remedy attitude.

There was a time, decades ago when abortions were illegal in NY State.  The media of the day played a large part in forming the attitudes prevelant there now constantly running stories about how "back alley" abortionists operated using coat hangers and such and how many young women were dying as a result of botched jobs, yada, yada, yada. 

It was a powerful argument for legalization of some sort (and still is), since preventing the pregnancies in the first place is strictly in the realm of fantasy.  Young girls will be boinking their boyfriends, be abortion legal or illegal, and in the foolishness of youth, they'll frequently fail to use any protection and wind up knocked up.  Fact of life.

If its illegal, that isn't going to somehow instantly impart these young women with wisdom and prudence.  They'll be the same idiots that youth have always been.  This too is a fact of life




Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 31, 2009 02:49 PM (8H64O)

389 Right now no matter where you go in this Country you can not escape Roe v. Wade. A true "pro-choice" position would be to offer choice to the States. That way people who like or tolerate abortion could vote with their feet and live where it is legal. And those who hate or dislike abortion could live where it is not legal. States that offer some middle ground would also be present. The American People are never presented with that option. They only hear about "safe, legal, and rare" and "back-alley abortionists". People could be reminded that abortion is elective surgery that is funded by the taxpayers. Issues that go nowhere for Conservatives are not necessarily like that because the Conservative is wrong. Sometimes propaganda from the Left has too strong a grip. Rephrase anti-abortion as a new kind of choice and we might make some headway.

Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 02:50 PM (ZzgoC)

390

I have not already conceded defeat. I agree, basically, with you, though I have a feeling you're more extreme.

That would be a pretty safe bet

I am telling you that the "rule" you are claiming binds Congressmen does not in fact bind them. They do not accept your belief in federalism, and you are just insisting louder that they OUGHT TO.

Yes, but I am arguing for what I think the candidate should stand for (this is a different sort of "should" than you are speaking of - just to be clear).  I do not see the purpose of any national affiliation that doesn't recognize the federal government as being federal.  If a certain district wants a national superstate instead of a federal government, then that is a serious issue that needs to be addressed by the candidate at that level.

This has been the weak point of conservative candidates for federal positions.  Conservatives have different attitudes about governing from the federal level than from the state/local level, as we assign different responsibilities to those governments.  The liberals have no such problem, as for them, there really is only one government - the national government - and they run on all the same issues whether for federal office or local office.  Being conservative is a more complex position than being liberal.  This is why, while I have great disdain for RomneyCare, I never saw anything wrong with it, as it fell within the powers of the state government.  It is when one proposes the same for the federal government that I have huge problems - but not because it is socialized health care so much as because it doesn't belong at the federal level.  I have seen very, very few on the right making this argument, as most seem to have given up the argument what is Constitutionally appropriate at what level.

Well, as long as they have consituents who want stuff from the federal government, they will continue not caring much about your conception of federalism.

My point is that there still must be candidates who talk about federalism and try to teach them about it, even if they reject it.  Such a population is not worth getting an R in who violates every basic tenet of Constitutional limits and responsibilities.  Those districts are gone (if they are for a national superstate) and I still see no reason to pander to their perverted view of America, for any reason.  If they are that bad, they are lost.  Don't chase them into the abyss, but offer them a ladder to climb out.  If they don't take it, they don't take it.

I am arguing here what is; you are arguing what should be.

I don't disagree with you on what "should be," but you sure seem to disagree with me on "what is."

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 07:32 PM (WXvWz)

I'm not really arguing "should" in that way.  What I am arguing is that we are late in the game and a stand MUST be taken.  Otherwise, the loss will certainly occur.  Of course, my feeling is that overreach and encroachment of the federal government will push us to secession (Arizona Prop 101 only lost by .4% in 2008 - before any of this real insanity started!), which may well be the only that the American creed can survive.  I am very extreme in that view (though I see it happneing either through that federal expansion, as is going on, or monetary collapse, as almost surely wil happen if present policies continue).

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 31, 2009 02:50 PM (A46hP)

391 It's pretty sad though that the GOP has been fighting tooth and nail on the big issues all this year but it's still not doing enough. Taking the One down to 50% in less than a year and turning Congress into Vietnam isn't good enough? Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 06:34 PM The GOP hasn't done jack shit. Those who were pounding away at Obama from Day one were Rush, Beck and Palin and then the Tea Parties. Coincidentally, all of those earned the wrath of the White House goons. The GOP, not at all. Michael Steele? Nope. Any GOP leader? Nope. We have Rush, Beck, Palin and the Tea Parties to thank for fighting back. And the Tea Parties happened BECAUSE the GOP refused to fight back. The Tea Parties were a result of people realizing that we don't have representation in the GOP to fight for us. No, the GOP deserves no f'ing thanks for anything. Michael Steele... worthless. GOP leadership... gives us Scozzo. Newt... tells conservatives to back Scozzo. Yeah, some GOP.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 02:51 PM (ObTcs)

392 How's about some representatives with one clear objective....
Not letting the bureaucrats seize control and kill all our rights.
We can work the other stuff out like neighbors.

Posted by: Beto at October 31, 2009 02:51 PM (F1b/5)

393

RULE #2

A moderate Republican and a moderate Democrat are the same thing.  When you need them most, they are all Democrats.

Posted by: mghorning at October 31, 2009 02:51 PM (UPjva)

394 >>>That's why we have strong border enforcement. Wait, what? Touche. But I don't think we have 75% agreement of that. Your point is well taken, but the abortion issue is very divisive. You have 40% of the public which is strongly pro-choice, 40% which is strongly pro-life, and 20% which is... well, I'd say in the middle, but what they really are is pro-choice favoring some cosmetic hard-case restrictions so they don't have to feel so bad about it.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 02:51 PM (WXvWz)

395

Chaos...I understand that you personally oppose abortion, I get it.  When voters go into the voting booth, they like to know that if their daughter needs an abortion,  they would be able to get one...,

it is that personal, women cannot imagine having that  choice taken away.

Posted by: ford at October 31, 2009 02:51 PM (Ki7fm)

396

Polonius: "To thy own self be true and it shall follow as the night the day, thou canst then never be false to any man."

Larry Craig had that tattooed on his buttcheek.

 

Posted by: TexasJew at October 31, 2009 02:52 PM (0Br+6)

397

Look ace not all of us are into the bestialitiy you are always advocationg.

 

you have been advocating bestiality , right?

 

and no, rubio shouldn't run if he loses the primaries. He even said he wouldn't on Morning Joe on MSNBC. 

Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2009 02:53 PM (bftbi)

398 Okay Lacey,

So now fiscal responsibility is not a required Republican value?  Well fuck it, let's just throw everyone to the wind.  I mean, I'm supposed to support gay marriage and abortion rights because you demand a big tent.  Fine, I can live with that.  But now I can't even ask for Republicans to not spend money like it's someone else's, which is a liberal way of thinking?  So what do I believe in, in that case?

Total bullshit, and if that's the way the big tent people really feel, they can all kiss my ass.  I don't demand everything out of Republicans, but I do demand a few things and not spending like pussy liberals is the one of the main two.  The other is support of our armed forced and a strong national defense.  What, should I start bashing the troops while I'm at it like moveon.org?

If that's the case, I'd prefer to go to bed each nice with my principals intact. 

Posted by: Jack Burton at October 31, 2009 02:53 PM (YxJoH)

399 Certs is a candy mint, Certs is a breath mint.

Posted by: TexasJew at October 31, 2009 02:53 PM (0Br+6)

400

Pragmattism is what gave us John McCain as a candidate.

How's that working out for you?

Posted by: Patton's Great-Niece at October 31, 2009 02:53 PM (GkYyh)

401 A true "pro-choice" position would be to offer choice to the States.

My position has always been that the real constitutional fuck up in Roe v Wade wasn't the decision per se, rather the prior decision to grant it Cert.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 31, 2009 02:53 PM (8H64O)

402

OK morons, got an half an hour?  Need to know where the conservative Republican party started?

Watch this! It's 45 years old and it will still fire your ass up!

THE SPEECH!

http://tinyurl.com/yhv5s5d

GO Ronnie GO!


 

Posted by: Kemp at October 31, 2009 02:54 PM (2+9Yx)

403
Some people are indeed looking for a pristine pedigree in their GOP candidates. Our own commenter Vic, for instance. I consider myself a staunch and unforgiving conservative, but I can't even hold a candle next to Vic's white-hot conservative litmus test for conservative candidates. Vic is far more stringent than me, and I think the desire for purity taken that degree can really hurt us.



Posted by: Tweet says stuff in the little gray box at October 31, 2009 02:54 PM (JY1gZ)

404
I am always being charged with advocating crap I don't advocate.

Your mission Ace, should you decide to accept it;

Look at the calendar and the time of day.

Saturday, late afternoon to early evening

Remember the effects of free time and alcohol.

Should you be caught or killed on this mission, the blogosphere will deny any knowledge of your existence

This message will self destruct in 5 seconds. Good luck, Ace

Posted by: Impossible Mission Force at October 31, 2009 02:55 PM (sYxEE)

405

Beck could provide his slate of protest candidates with enough free media to get money and then get 20% of the vote... which would be doomsday for conservatism, at least before this 20 year project comes to fruition.

Lynn Swann for governor in 2006!!!!111!!!!1!!!1!!1!111!!!!

How did than that Newt-think work?

Posted by: Tinian at October 31, 2009 02:55 PM (7+pP9)

406

Posted by: ford at October 31, 2009 07:51 PM (Ki7fm)

great analysis & frankly truth. conservatives can win on some moderate abortion stances though such as parental notification w/ minors and an ultrasound procedure before the abortion, polls show most Americans support Republicans on those issues

Posted by: YRM at October 31, 2009 02:55 PM (T/Ad3)

407

it is that personal, women cannot imagine having that  choice taken away.

Posted by: ford at October 31, 2009 07:51 PM (Ki7fm)

Please stop speaking for all women. 

Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2009 02:55 PM (sey23)

408 Limbaugh's now the good foil.

Uh-huh.

Posted by: MlR at October 31, 2009 02:56 PM (NYlAp)

409 That Lindsay Graham, he's a smart guy...

Posted by: Bill O'Reilly at October 31, 2009 02:56 PM (0Br+6)

410 I asked earlier: If Mario Rubio loses to Crist, should Rubio jump into the general as a third-party challenger?

No. Absolutely not.

That being said, on the flip side, if Crist loses, he should be held to the Eleventh Commandment -- and if he decides to pull a Steve Schmidt, he should be bitch-slapped so hard that it takes him two weeks to find what's left of his eyebrows.

Also, if people choose to stay home rather than vote for Crist, it is their prerogative -- and vice versa.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 02:56 PM (DTOF+)

411

The pro life thing is so hard, because people react so strongly to it one way or another.

I think the best way to go is to not talk about it on the campaign trail. Why talk about it at all, especially because you want the votes of people who might not agree with you.

when you win and get into power then you can appoint all the pro life judges you want, but you need to get there and you won't without tacit support from the inbetweeners and some pro choicers

Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2009 02:56 PM (bftbi)

412 Let me give you a fer instance: Barack Obama: I am pro-choice. Bill Clinton: I am pro choice, but I believe abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. Bush: I am pro-life, but the country isn't ready to be pro-life yet. We have to change the hearts and minds of the country to embrace a culture of life. Let me submit to you that Democrats are more able to discuss abortion in terms of tangible, what I will do I Day One terms, and Republicans need to talk vaguely of some future in which Roe is overturned. Why? Think about it. They guy with 55% on the issue can afford to be a bit more forward-leaning about it than the guy at around 40-45%.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 02:56 PM (WXvWz)

413 People: If you aren't happy with the party, HIJACK IT BACK! The precinct committeeman chose Dede as the candidate. While she should have face the primary, she was chosen because enough conservatives weren't PCs, which determines such things as endorsements for GOP candidates. Half of the precinct committeeman slots in the GOP across the country are unfilled. What will you do to change the GOP, or will you just whine about candidates? Website (not mine): http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com/

Posted by: Xasteius at October 31, 2009 02:57 PM (tb9ej)

414 Similar to those racist quotes Limbaugh didn't make. Most of the claims being made here about Beck's views don't represent the views I hear on his radio show. Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic at October 31, 2009 06:41 PM Which is why I don't take ace or DrewM or AllahPundit or Ed Morrissey or any other blogger seriously when they talk about Beck or Rush. If they don't listen to their shows, they shouldn't be pontificating about "what they stand for". It's the equivalent of me going to LGF to find out what ace or DrewM stand for. When ace or DrewM or AllahPundit, etc start listening to Rush and Beck on a regular basis, then I'll take what they have to say seriously. But otherwise, their opinions mean nothing to me, just as LGF's opinion about ace means nothing to me.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 02:58 PM (ObTcs)

415

Lynn Swann for governor in 2006!!!!111!!!!1!!!1!!1!111!!!!

i did some work for that campaign. lynn was a good guy, much better than rednell

Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2009 02:58 PM (bftbi)

416

Pragmattism is what gave us John McCain as a candidate.

How's that working out for you?


Sorry, but not quite the reason

Fuckabee drew away the social conservatives from Mitt Romney, giving him the margin with actual Republican voters

The idiotic open primaries in many states, allowing Democrats a say in who would be the most likely to lose to Obama

The lack of fire in the gut from Teh FRED and Rudy Giulani

Posted by: kbdabear at October 31, 2009 02:59 PM (sYxEE)

417

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 07:56 PM (WXvWz)

great analysis, polls show while a majority now consider themselves personally pro-life, pro-choice is what most Americans consider themselves as when it comes to politics/policies though they themselves might personally be pro-life

Posted by: YRM at October 31, 2009 03:00 PM (T/Ad3)

418 I live in a mountain state.  I would welcome the cessation of farm subsidies. Here are some reasons why:  http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies


Posted by: CBDenver at October 31, 2009 03:00 PM (DnEYv)

419 If that's the case, I'd prefer to go to bed each nice with my principals intact.

Posted by: Jack Burton at October 31, 2009 07:53 PM (YxJoH)

Because the rest of us with the temerity to disagree with you on the best strategy are weaselly, unprincipled bastards.

O-kay. I guess you're just better than us.

Posted by: Mætenloch at October 31, 2009 03:00 PM (z843g)

420 It was a powerful argument for legalization of some sort (and still is), since preventing the pregnancies in the first place is strictly in the realm of fantasy.  Young girls will be boinking their boyfriends, be abortion legal or illegal, and in the foolishness of youth, they'll frequently fail to use any protection and wind up knocked up.  Fact of life.

So have the baby. Deal with it, put the kid up for adoption. It's not lik

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 03:00 PM (DTOF+)

421

Umm, Jack, you probably should go bck and re-read what I wrote.

Someone said,  People are merely asking that alleged Republican candidates adhere to a few things. 

How do you define what those *few things* are? What's the litmust test? I'm not advocating for a "big tent". I'm pointing out that no one can define what a RINO is. It's a subjective phrase. What is a RINO to you will be quite different from it is to me.

So when people here are saying f*ck the RINOs, I don't even know who we're talking about.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2009 03:00 PM (Wkb8U)

422 It was a powerful argument for legalization of some sort (and still is), since preventing the pregnancies in the first place is strictly in the realm of fantasy.  Young girls will be boinking their boyfriends, be abortion legal or illegal, and in the foolishness of youth, they'll frequently fail to use any protection and wind up knocked up.  Fact of life.

So have the baby. Deal with it, put the kid up for adoption. It's not like there isn't a waiting list of couples -- and personally having two cousins that were adopted from "undesirable" situations like this, that's not fantasy.

It does not surprise me in the least that, in the heterosexual community, those most likely to have an abortion (black women) are the same group most likely to die from HIV infection. Remove the consequences, the behavior accelerates -- and finds something even worse.


Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 03:00 PM (DTOF+)

423
Now, if Rubio can't even win half the Republican vote, what exactly are his chances in the general?

Hold on there, ahhh, lil' goyl. Some say there's, ah, shennanigans going on in our primaries on account of them being open to anyone in some states. So maybe it's not quite accurate to say, for example, Crist, got the plurality of (R) votes in the primary, if that should happen.

Posted by: Tweet Bunker at October 31, 2009 03:00 PM (JY1gZ)

424 >>>Pragmattism is what gave us John McCain as a candidate. Don't blame that on pragmatism. The pragmatic choice was Romney, at the end. But too many would not vote for him because of his liberal history or his Mormonism. John McCain was not a "pragmatic" choice at all. John McCain was a strange thing that happened to us because different sectors of the caucus found different candidates to be unacceptable. And John McCain, while unacceptable to most of the party, was LESS unacceptable than, say, Huckabee was to fiscal conservatives and Romney was to social cons. He was the guy no one liked but got nominated because half the party hated Romney's guts and the other half hated Huckabee's guts. I really think this is an erroneous meme.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 03:01 PM (WXvWz)

425 Why is it that a lot of the stridently pro-choice people are the same one stridently against the death penalty? 

I could never figure that out, since its a position with no logical consistency.  The DP is simply society saying: "this one was a bad mistake, and we're going to fix it now", which is really no different than the logic of a woman who gets an abortion..

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 31, 2009 03:01 PM (8H64O)

426

Is this just a clever Allah-like ruse to kick up the comments and the clicks?

No one can honestly tell Southern conservatives to back shitty little Northeast RINOs. We use them down here for substitute bunghole plugs.

I get it now! You magnificent bastard!

Posted by: Bill O'Reilly at October 31, 2009 03:02 PM (0Br+6)

427 Ace,

If a conservative candidate who believes in fiscal conservatism can't win in a pussy blue state, I would prefer to lose the seat.  The Republican party doesn't need more assholes like Specter who keep getting coddled because people are afraid he'll jump ship, only to have that asshole do it anyway.  How many years did he milk the Republican party, and get pussies like Bush and Newt endorse him, only to have him do what we all knew he would do in the end.  Bullshit, total bullshit. If you can't count on a candidate staying true to the Republican party, no matter what happens, then yes, I would prefer to lose the seat. 

So if that means purity, yes, I believe in purity.  I don't care about gay rights, and while I abhor abortion, that isn't a make or break issue for me.  But fiscal responsibility is and if someone can't make and keep that promise, they can go fuck themselves. 

Posted by: Jack Burton at October 31, 2009 03:02 PM (YxJoH)

428

Pragmattism is what gave us John McCain as a candidate.

How's that working out for you?

As much as we dislike John McCain, In my opinion McCain lost because he was to frigging old and he still got 48% of the vote. I stongly believe at least 5% of Obama voters voted against McCain because he was just too old for the job.


Posted by: robtr at October 31, 2009 03:03 PM (fwSHf)

429 I wonder if facebook and twitter postings will affect the 2012 outcome more than the MSM. Look at what Palin has done so far.

Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 03:03 PM (ZzgoC)

430 Lacey,

I just told you what a RINO is.  I'll say it again.  A RINO is a bitch who runs under the Republican banner who spends like a liberal.  Get it?

Posted by: Jack Burton at October 31, 2009 03:03 PM (YxJoH)

431 Either way, you are getting someone who reflects the 65% consensus in these areas that abortion is a right and without it we'd have, I don't know, sexual anarchy. We on the "Pro Good RINO" side are saying, and only say, that in such areas, if you get a *fiscal* conservative like Chris Dodd, that's to the good. Because your choice there is either a pro-choice fiscal liberal or pro-choice fiscal conservative (or moderate, anyway). Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 06:44 PM Again, you're assuming things are static. I just don't understand this mentality whatsoever. I had someone admit to me that before she became a mother, she was 100% pro-choice. Afterwards, she analyzed the whole issue and now is pro-life. Also, it seems that a lot of people who believe abortion is a right, also believe that health care is a right. Therefore, you end up with a "pro-choice Republican" who votes for Obamacare. So you end up thinking you voted for a "fiscal conservative", when, in the end, social liberalism trumps fiscal conservatism. Wonderful. Again, I say, if a socialist is going to vote for socialist policies, let it be a Democrat doing it.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 03:03 PM (ObTcs)

432

Lynn Swann for governor in 2006!!!!111!!!!1!!!1!!1!111!!!!

i did some work for that campaign. lynn was a good guy, much better than rednell

Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2009 07:58 PM (bftbi)

There's no doubt he was better than Rendell.

But he was a moderate Republican selected by the GOP hierarchy . And he was a loser straight out of the box. WTF was the GOP even thinking?

Posted by: Tinian at October 31, 2009 03:04 PM (7+pP9)

433 I'll say this about abortion and that's it

I personally think it's taking a life

However, giving the government the power to prevent abortions can also give them the power to mandate abortions.

I don't want to go there, nor do most of us

Posted by: kbdabear at October 31, 2009 03:05 PM (sYxEE)

434 So have the baby. Deal with it, put the kid up for adoption.

That's just more fantasy.  The fact of life is that a lot of them won't do that.  If they weren't doing it 50 years ago, when social pressures were much stronger to actually go that route, what leads you to believe they'll do it today in a laxer society? 

You're dreaming.  It simply won't happen that way, it never has.  Ignoring fundamental human nature makes for poor unenforceable policy routinely ignored by the populace.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 31, 2009 03:06 PM (8H64O)

435 387 Unlike you I actually know the history of this country, and the Democratic/progressive dominance aside from Grant's presidency was the result of Solid Southerners allowing Northern Democrats to do whatever the hell they wanted as long as they didn't interfere with Jim Crow. You can thank your style of stubborn intransigence for the Democratic coalition that dominated this country until Nixon broke it up. 393 You're full of shit, sorry. The Democrats don't give a fuck about the Tea Parties. They do give a fuck about the GOP in Congress. Tea Parties don't stop Democrats from passing whatever the hell they want. Tea Parties don't get national press conferences. Keep on deluding yourself all you want and imagine that it was the Tea Parties that did it all.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 03:08 PM (mFUln)

436

As much as we dislike John McCain, In my opinion McCain lost because he was to frigging old and he still got 48% of the vote. I stongly believe at least 5% of Obama voters voted against McCain because he was just too old for the job.

Posted by: robtr at October 31, 2009 08:03 PM (fwSHf)

Uh, no.  John McCain lost because John McCain didn't want to win.  And yes, I wholeheartedly believe that.  He made it very, very clear with his actions.

He loved winning the primary and saying, "Nah, nah, nah, nahnah" to the base that hates him. 

Posted by: Editor at October 31, 2009 03:08 PM (YX6i/)

437 427 Why is it that a lot of the stridently pro-choice people are the same one stridently against the death penalty? 

Did you mean for the death penalty? 

Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2009 03:09 PM (sey23)

438 Willful blindness? Didn't DrewM. write about this an hour ago? Quoting: "98 What is the difference between a D and a Liberal R? Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 05:56 PM (ZzgoC) Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Speaker John Boehner Majority Leader Harry Reid or Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Big enough difference?" Posted by: Gabriel Malor at October 31, 2009 06:46 PM Yeah, and didn't someone also address the response to that ealier? Providing the example of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid having their leadership positions, but not able to get jack shit done, because they have a majority in name only? They got their majority with "Blue Dogs", and now they are the ones keeping them from pushing through their socialist agenda. The same exact thing happens the other way. Who gives a shit if the GOP has the majority if 1/3 is Conservative, 1/3 is 50-50 vote for Democrats and 1/3 are the equivalent of "Blue Dogs"? You end up with conservative leadership who can't get shit done, because the "RINOs" vote with Democrats. So again, explain the difference between having a Democrat in office and having a liberal Republican who will vote against the conservative GOP leadership.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 03:10 PM (ObTcs)

439 Why is it that a lot of the stridently pro-choice people are the same one stridently against the death penalty? 

I could never figure that out, since its a position with no logical consistency.  The DP is simply society saying: "this one was a bad mistake, and we're going to fix it now", which is really no different than the logic of a woman who gets an abortion..

Actually, it's worse than that, Purple Avenger; supporting abortion and opposing the death penalty means that you favor an individual killing someone who is completely incapable of committing a crime while opposing the state killing someone who has after proving it conclusively.

My favorite was abortion queen Ashley Judd screaming about Sarah Palin supporting aerial wolf-culling -- or bluntly put, she thinks a vicious predator has more right to exist than a helpless human infant.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 03:10 PM (DTOF+)

440 "Uh, no. John McCain lost because John McCain didn't want to win. And yes, I wholeheartedly believe that. He made it very, very clear with his actions." Spot on. Whenever McCain very publicly said he wasn't going to go after Obama re: Jeremiah Wright, anyone with a brain knew that he wasn't serious about winning.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 03:10 PM (mFUln)

441

Ace, This is fucking war, what about that don't you understand?

I thought that needed repeating!

Posted by: mghorning at October 31, 2009 03:10 PM (UPjva)

442 436, Correct, Abortion will always be with us. But, we can at least make it possible for all people to live under laws they find most acceptable. Now that is not so.

Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 03:11 PM (ZzgoC)

443 "So again, explain the difference between having a Democrat in office and having a liberal Republican who will vote against the conservative GOP leadership." Please, provide some examples of this happening when Republicans were a majority in Congress. Please. Because if you can't, you're just bullshitting, which we all know you are anyway.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 03:11 PM (mFUln)

444

John McCain was not a "pragmatic" choice at all. John McCain was a strange thing that happened to us because different sectors of the caucus found different candidates to be unacceptable.

And John McCain, while unacceptable to most of the party, was LESS unacceptable than, say, Huckabee was to fiscal conservatives and Romney was to social cons.

He was the guy no one liked but got nominated because half the party hated Romney's guts and the other half hated Huckabee's guts.

I really think this is an erroneous meme.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 08:01 PM (WXvWz)

I call bullshit on your evaluation, Ace.

We got McCain because of early open primaries.

Wake up and smell the diaper pail.

Posted by: Tinian at October 31, 2009 03:12 PM (7+pP9)

445
"We have nothing to fear from Barack Obama."

From that moment on, we all knew McCain was toast. That short statement was not only a passive-aggressive bitch slap to McCain's own supporters, it was practically an endorsement of his opponent, Barack Hussein Obama, mmmmm mmmmm mmmmmm.

Posted by: Tweet Bunker at October 31, 2009 03:12 PM (JY1gZ)

446

I just told you what a RINO is.  I'll say it again.  A RINO is a bitch who runs under the Republican banner who spends like a liberal.  Get it?

Not at all condescending but I digress...

Glad that's what *you* think it is. But what about the conservative that defines RINO as one that  doesn't spend like but advocates for gay marriage? Or a conservative that doesn't spend like a liberal but believes in stricter gun control laws. Some would probably declare those candidates  to be a RINO? Got it?

 

Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2009 03:12 PM (Wkb8U)

447
It was worse than the late great Jack Kemp's verbal piss he took on us, his staunch supporters, in 1996.

Posted by: Tweet Bunker at October 31, 2009 03:13 PM (JY1gZ)

448 Again, you're assuming things are static. I just don't understand this mentality whatsoever.

I had someone admit to me that before she became a mother, she was 100% pro-choice. Afterwards, she analyzed the whole issue and now is pro-life.

Take a look at this chart of abortion support over the last 30 years. There's no clear trend and basically support levels are within 3-4 points of where they were back in 1973.

So in this case the situation has remained essentially static. So if you claim that things are are going to break the pro-life way, the onus is on you to come up with some actual statistical evidence.

Posted by: Mætenloch at October 31, 2009 03:13 PM (z843g)

449 Ace, I understand your main posts points.  I am of the opinion that we are at a point of no return.  Time for moderate attempts to heal the patient has past.  The time has come for radical treatment because we're coding as a nation.  Going "pure" may not work, I get that.  But, the trajectory we're on is fast-tracking us to socialism, statism, fascism, or some kind of ism that I'm not prepared to live under.   There isn't time for a gradual approach. 

We can argue and debate how we got here and why, but the point is 10-15 more years of B to the O, Nancy, Harry, et al with no true conservaive counterbalance will be game over. 

Posted by: The Hammer at October 31, 2009 03:14 PM (YBTwf)

450 John McCain lost because John McCain didn't want to win.

McCain didn't "lose" per se.  Obama won. 

Obama won because he wasn't Bush and the Democrats successfully painted McCain as a 3rd Bush term.  That's it in a nutshell.  That's probably 10-20% of the Obama vote right there.

McCain couldn't possibly have beaten the power of the media's ability to project perception onto the public.  He was going to lose before he was even nominated.

The situation this next time around will be somewhat different.  The media has shot its wad and is losing credibility fast, and public perception of this recession is being shaped more by what they see on their own street, than by whatever bullshit the media is spouting. 

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 31, 2009 03:16 PM (8H64O)

451

#404

A thirty minute speech, no teleprompter and just a fews note, damn Reagan was good.

In your heart, you know he's right!

Moron's, Goldwater's slogan!

Since most of weren't born, I thought I mention this.

Posted by: Kemp at October 31, 2009 03:17 PM (2+9Yx)

452 I had someone admit to me that before she became a mother, she was 100% pro-choice. Afterwards, she analyzed the whole issue and now is pro-life.

I've heard that before, and its not the only issue.  Basically, liberal/progressive are children.  They want to do what they want to do and demand, in the face of all logic and precedent, that there be no consequences for their actions.

Getting married, having children, paying bills and getting anchored to the future makes more conservatives than all the politics in the world.

Posted by: toby928 at October 31, 2009 03:17 PM (PD1tk)

453

Uh, no.  John McCain lost because John McCain didn't want to win.  And yes, I wholeheartedly believe that.  He made it very, very clear with his actions.

Yeah McCain ran a crappy campaign, but you still couldn't turn on the Television or pick up a newspaper without being reminded he was ancient. His age cost him votes, alot of them in my opinion.

Most people that are 73 are either dead or retired.

 

Posted by: robtr at October 31, 2009 03:17 PM (fwSHf)

454

Becks position is sadly, the right one.  Republican presidents and republican control of congress didn't make the slightest dent in government spending or size, both increased as though the Dems controlled Washington.  If this is the kind of "victory" we get for having a majority then we are doomed.  A party that continues with business as usual is nothing but democrat-lite, no matter how tough their talk.  Without genuine reformers who will actually slash government in real terms, winning is simply deck-chairs-on-the-Titanic stuff.

Posted by: Mr Black at October 31, 2009 03:19 PM (JtOFX)

455 McCain didn't "lose" per se.  Obama won. 

Obama won because he wasn't Bush and the Democrats successfully painted McCain as a 3rd Bush term.

Bullshit!  Bullshit!  Bullshit!

If that was the case, McCain would never have taken the lead in polls during September.

McCain lost and I hold him personally responsible for the position we find ourselves.

Posted by: Editor at October 31, 2009 03:19 PM (YX6i/)

456 That's just more fantasy.  The fact of life is that a lot of them won't do that.  If they weren't doing it 50 years ago, when social pressures were much stronger to actually go that route, what leads you to believe they'll do it today in a laxer society?

The issue with that logic is that they WERE doing it, in rather large numbers. If your argument is that the relatively small number of abortions that happened during that time indicate that the law was bad policy and should be repealed, then by logic, the relatively small number of murders that take place should be grounds for the repeal of murder laws.

You're dreaming.  It simply won't happen that way, it never has.  Ignoring fundamental human nature makes for poor unenforceable policy routinely ignored by the populace.

Sorry, Purple Avenger, but I do not believe that it is "fundamental human nature" to be a complete idiot when it comes to sex. I believe that, having been taught since day one that sex produces babies, when modern educated children are presented with the choice of either being responsible or having to deal with the consequences of producing a baby, the bulk of them will choose the former.

The question of the day is what best fits the government's principles. Inherent in the Constitution is the protection of the defenseless, and honestly, there are fewer things that are more defenseless than a baby in utero. If pregnancy were a spontaneous action, it would be easier to argue for abortion, but it is not; it is, in the vast majority of cases, a situation that results from the conscious decision of two individuals. Allowing them to kill because they do not want to take responsibility for that decision does not make any sense to me whatsoever.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 03:20 PM (DTOF+)

457

WE THE PEOPLE

Are staring communism straight in the face.

The Republican response to abortion should be we will deal with that later.

Posted by: mghorning at October 31, 2009 03:24 PM (UPjva)

458 So lemme get this straight, if you think those are our only two choices. You would rather have Socialism advancing quickly than Socialism advancing slowly? Dude, I know you can't possibly mean that. Posted by: Gabriel Malor at October 31, 2009 06:59 PM Yep. Think of the frog in the boiling pot example. Socialism expanding slowly... we sit in the pot until we die. Socialism expanding quickly... America wakes the f'ck up and we jump out of that pot.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 03:27 PM (ObTcs)

459 If that was the case, McCain would never have taken the lead in polls during September.

That "lead" was never worth even a warm bucket of spit.  You had a lot of PUMAS saying they'd back McCain, but they never showed or just couldn't break their reflexive pull of the "D" lever when it came to crunch time (I rather suspect the later rather than the former)

The anti-Bush sentiment was high, the pro-McCain sentiment was weak.  Had it been McCain versus Hillary, I would have stayed home, or maybe voted for Hillary as a protest vote to send a message to the Republicans.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 31, 2009 03:27 PM (8H64O)

460

Honestly guys, the abortion issues is a red-herring.  Without massive cuts to government size and spending, ALL policies are void.  So-cons need to get their priorities straight.  Fix the national finances and return the country to solvency, THEN worry about the society that is going to remain to enjoy that properity.  What use is an abortion free nation if it sinks into ruin and chaos when government spending bankrupts everyone and the US becomes no different from any South American basket case country?  If there really are people who'd prefer the "disaster with no abortions" scenario then they are as dangerous, if not more so than the most socialist democrats you could dig up.  First, long term national survival.  Then the rest.

Posted by: Mr Black at October 31, 2009 03:28 PM (JtOFX)

461 "Yep. Think of the frog in the boiling pot example. Socialism expanding slowly... we sit in the pot until we die. Socialism expanding quickly... America wakes the f'ck up and we jump out of that pot." Yeah because that's sure what happened in the 1930s wasn't it? Oh wait.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 03:28 PM (mFUln)

462 This is the longest thread in AoSHQ history to not mention shoes or boobies.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at October 31, 2009 03:30 PM (CZI81)

463
Don't you understand? The Leftists used the social issues to gain political clout. They hijacked or created social wedge issues as their "in" to the government.

We ceded so much political ground to the Left because of silliness in the name of diversity and under threat of political correctness that they were able to infiltrate the government and chip away at what Americans hold near and dear to their hearts.


Posted by: Tweet Bunker at October 31, 2009 03:30 PM (JY1gZ)

464

I daresay we’ve discovered a flaw in this phrase from the RNC:

 

“This is the Republican candidate, conservatives.  Here you are, choke on it…oh, and if you complain, you’re just a pack of unrealistic Puritans.  What are you gonna do about it, not vote?”

 

Well, I hope the party is finally figuring out what we’re going to do about it.

 

Screw Dede, screw Gingrich, screw the RNC, and screw the whiny weenies who want to consider themselves so very reasonable because they “compromise” when others won’t.

 

So, the RNC isn’t going to win without the moderates.  Laugh Out Loud.  I’d be worried far more about how the RNC is going to win without their base.

 

There’s just so much energy wasted constantly fretting over the purists who just won’t move Left “for the common good.”  Dear dear, if only a portion of that energy was spent moving the moderates over to the Right…

Posted by: barbelle at October 31, 2009 03:30 PM (qF8q3)

465 451...

We can argue and debate how we got here and why, but the point is 10-15 more years of B to the O, Nancy, Harry, Snowe, Collins, Luger, et al with no true conservaive counterbalance will be game over.

fifmyself

Posted by: The Hammer at October 31, 2009 03:30 PM (YBTwf)

466 Socialism expanding slowly... we sit in the pot until we die. Socialism expanding quickly... America wakes the f'ck up and we jump out of that pot.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 08:27 PM (ObTcs)

That's crazy talk, for one thing you lose the courts for at least 25 years, for another the country changes in ways you can't cure by jumping out of a pot. Like the upcoming $20 Trillion in debt, another huge entitlement you can't take away and repression of freedoms you can't even fathom.

Posted by: robtr at October 31, 2009 03:31 PM (fwSHf)

467 I believe that, having been taught since day one that sex produces babies, when modern educated children are presented with the choice of either being responsible or having to deal with the consequences of producing a baby, the bulk of them will choose the former.

Square that position with sky high teen pregnancy rates then.  I'm egar to hear your explanation since I have none other than: "youth is enthusiastic and stupid" (which has been more or less a constant for the whole of recorded human history)

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 31, 2009 03:32 PM (8H64O)

468

#426

Ace,

You are dead on!  Huck is an idiot, Romney is a liberal, some one step up!  De Mint?

Posted by: Kemp at October 31, 2009 03:34 PM (2+9Yx)

469

Honestly guys, the abortion issues is a red-herring.  Without massive cuts to government size and spending, ALL policies are void.  So-cons need to get their priorities straight.  Fix the national finances and return the country to solvency, THEN worry about the society that is going to remain to enjoy that properity.  What use is an abortion free nation if it sinks into ruin and chaos when government spending bankrupts everyone and the US becomes no different from any South American basket case country?  If there really are people who'd prefer the "disaster with no abortions" scenario then they are as dangerous, if not more so than the most socialist democrats you could dig up.  First, long term national survival.  Then the rest.

 

i agree.  As the great political philospoher Tony Montana said, " First the money, then the power, then the women"

Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2009 03:35 PM (bftbi)

470 If there really are people who'd prefer the "disaster with no abortions" scenario then they are as dangerous, if not more so than the most socialist democrats you could dig up.  First, long term national survival.  Then the rest.

I would agree with you on that, Mr. Black.

The problem is, the social conservatives are being confronted with the people who would rather have disaster than to give up unlimited abortion and being told that they have to change to accomodate those people.

Why are those people not dangerous? Better yet, why are those people allowed to let their beliefs on abortion dictate Republican policy, but not others?


Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 03:35 PM (DTOF+)

471 "We can argue and debate how we got here and why, but the point is 10-15 more years of B to the O, Nancy, Harry, Snowe, Collins, Luger, et al with no true conservaive counterbalance will be game over. " I think we sometimes forget that there are 300 million people in this country, the truly vast majority of whom are merely trying to provide for themselves and their families as best they can. That's a foundation that can't be shattered. The elites can destroy themselves. They can't destroy everything.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 03:35 PM (mFUln)

472 PA, you're just talking nonsense, now. 

The lead and then the demise of McCain can be well documented with his actions.

So, you're saying PUMAs gave McCain the lead in the polls, but not at the booth.  I think what you're mixing up polls vs. what we thought.  Some of us thought PUMAs had large substantial numbers to change the outcome.  That was false.

The polls were not false.

Posted by: Editor at October 31, 2009 03:36 PM (YX6i/)

473

The big lie = offing a human being, or even, for the sake of argument, a POTENTIAL human being, is just a choice to be made.

This lie is sickening and offensive to anyone who believes that "all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...among these life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

 

 

Posted by: stickety at October 31, 2009 03:36 PM (Jg5C9)

474

<i>That's crazy talk, for one thing you lose the courts for at least 25 years, for another the country changes in ways you can't cure by jumping out of a pot. Like the upcoming $20 Trillion in debt, another huge entitlement you can't take away and repression of freedoms you can't even fathom.</i>

But what has republican control of Washington given us for Bush's term?  More socialist spending, larger government and more laws and regulations.  Even Reagan could not slow government growth.  Losing the courts and losing on social issues is a side-show.  Without fiscal solvency, everyone is going to be brought to ruin.  If this is "winning", voting GOP is a meaningless exercise.

Posted by: Mr Black at October 31, 2009 03:36 PM (JtOFX)

475 Let's please not make this an abortion thread.  It will just distract from our need to burn the media to the ground.

Posted by: toby928 at October 31, 2009 03:37 PM (PD1tk)

476 Excuse me, but WTF is this "Speaker Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner" thing going around? They are NOT from the same district! If Pelosi wasn't elected, the alternative would absolutely not be Boehner, not in SF, no way.

And that is the point a lot of people on this thread are trying to make, that simply building up Rs everywhere, including liberal districts will not do us any good, and never has done so.

Drew and Ace say, oh this is the real world stuff, well, you know what? This is how things HAVE been done and how did it turn out? Thank you very much.

Please, continue to ignore and belittle those you disagree with.

Posted by: KG at October 31, 2009 03:37 PM (7i6ke)

477 "If this is "winning", voting GOP is a meaningless exercise." You know it may hurt your craw to accept it, but there is a real difference between doubling the national debt in eight years and doubling it in eight months. There really is. The one is a party that lost its way. The other is a party behaving exactly as its principles say it should.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 03:38 PM (mFUln)

478 293 I mean if Democrats are smart enough to not run pro-choice candidates in places like Texas I hope the GOP is smart enough to not run pro-life candidates in places like New Jersey. Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 07:08 PM So then the GOP should also run big government racists in places like SE Michigan too then, right? Not the pro-life conservative in Thaddeus McCotter we have now? Seriously, why doesn't the GOP just give up ALL its principles to get a "majority"! Where people believe in global warming, run on global warming! Where people believe in taxing the rich to subsidize welfare, run on taxing the rich! Where people believe 9/11 was an inside job, let's run Alex Jones! See how easy it is to win a majority!

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 03:40 PM (ObTcs)

479 Square that position with sky high teen pregnancy rates then.  I'm egar to hear your explanation since I have none other than: "youth is enthusiastic and stupid" (which has been more or less a constant for the whole of recorded human history)

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 31, 2009 08:32 PM (8H64O)

The mainstreaming of pregnant teens and the intense push to remove the stigma from them is what has propelled teen pregnancy more than anything.  That stigma existed for a good reason and served a good purpose, but it was deemed "mean spirited".  Add the push for teens to have rampant sex (as giving rubbers and birth control to 12 year olds clearly tells them that they should be having sex) and the promotion of abortion as the "moral" fail-safe, and the move is complete.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 31, 2009 03:40 PM (A46hP)

480 We better get our shit together, and soon.  The DUer's are frothing at the mouth over us eating our own.  And, they are very good at dividing us.  It seems we take our direction from Sarah's next Facebook entry.  So be it.  I'm OK with that.   

Posted by: sybilll at October 31, 2009 03:40 PM (MEl/V)

481

>I hope that's not where we're heading.

 

Two words: Ross Perot

He galvanized disaffected conservatives, pulled votes from GHWBush's column, and Bill Clinton won a plurality.

Maybe the GOP could be hardcore on fiscal/defense/Constitutional issues, and libertarian on social issues

Posted by: Jack Torrance at October 31, 2009 03:40 PM (1cda8)

482 BTW, I sent more money to Hoffman after Scuzzyfuzz's decision.

Hoffman still needs to win.

Posted by: toby928 at October 31, 2009 03:40 PM (PD1tk)

483

Good gravy - McCain had ZERO chance as soon as the subprime mortgage crisis hit.  It's that damn simple. 

Romney was polling 30 fricking points behind Obama come nomination time - McCain was consistently 5-10 points behind.  That's the primary reason why McCain got nominated.

Here's a harsh reality that people better wake up to:  McCain ONLY lost by 6 points because McCain was a war hero and known as a MAVERICK.  Had he been a "typical Republican," he'd have lost by twenty.  The 2008 environment was absolutely toxic to the GOP. 

It's f**king stupid to pretend like Romney or anybody else would have had a chance against Obama.  Really f**king stupid.

Posted by: stickety at October 31, 2009 03:41 PM (Jg5C9)

484 "So then the GOP should also run big government racists in places like SE Michigan too then, right? Not the pro-life conservative in Thaddeus McCotter we have now?" No, I said that the GOP shouldn't run candidates whose position and passion on a single issue dooms them to defeat. Seriously, are you capable of disagreeing with someone without employing strawmen? A dumbass like you expressing scorn is really annoying. You're a child.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 03:42 PM (mFUln)

485 Non-random thoughts:

1) A politician or a pundit or a party can't create a conservative by fiat or by argument.  Only life creates conservatives -- one is raised to be a conservative, or one has experiences that cause the liberal scales to fall from one's eyes.

2) A politician or a party can create conservatives by providing leadership and a living example of why conservatism works best for the American people.

3) A politician or a party can inspire the latent conservatism of Americans -- and there's more of it than some imagine.  Of course, on the other side, Obama inspired the latent liberalism of many (even on the part of so-called conservatives like Peggy Noonan, with her "hey, let's give the Black guy a chance"), but at the same time he helped energize the conservative base with his "I wanna spread the wealth around" Leftism.

4) The RNC is not going to drive a conservative agenda unless and until conservatism becomes universal within the Republican Party.  The RNC, RNCC and RNSC are designed to promote the Party over any one of its ideological wings, and is far more likely to favor incumbents (as having the best odds of re-election) than insurgent primary challengers.

5) In a parliamentary democracy, party whips have more leverage to keep their members in line because a revolt by party members can trigger a new election (if the party is in power, a revolt can bring down the government and if the party is not in power, a revolt can prompt the ruling party to call a snap election).  In the USA, revolts can't cause snap elections, so dissenters can use their dissent as a source of power.

6) Insurgent primary challengers are a good thing in that they can help bring more voters into the GOP side of the debate to consider conservative (or at least anti-Progressive) ideas.

7) Lining up behind the GOP primary winner is generally a good thing, if the primary winner is within the broad boundaries that define the GOP.

Refusing to line up behind the GOP primary winner isn't necessarily the wrong thing to do.  A RINO member of the Republican caucus can be highly destructive to the GOP by giving "bipartisan" cover to Democrat stupidity.

Posted by: stuiec at October 31, 2009 03:43 PM (rBLs5)

486 The elites can destroy themselves. They can't destroy everything.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 08:35 PM (mFUln)

Unfortunately, they certainly can, and will. 

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 31, 2009 03:43 PM (A46hP)

487 459

WE THE PEOPLE

Are staring communism straight in the face.

The Republican response to abortion should be we will deal with that later.

AMEN BOTHER.  

They don't  have to worry about that shit in Venezuela or China, the man will do what he wants.

Let's get serious, this is a fucking war, worry about the little stuff  later, slaves don't get much say in shit.

So, just say no to slavery!

Get to fucking work my man!

Posted by: Kemp at October 31, 2009 03:43 PM (2+9Yx)

488 Square that position with sky high teen pregnancy rates then.  I'm egar to hear your explanation since I have none other than: "youth is enthusiastic and stupid" (which has been more or less a constant for the whole of recorded human history)

It's pretty straightforward, Purple Avenger; right now, they don't have to deal with the responsibility of having a baby. They simply kill it, with society's approval, and go skipping away.

Youth is indeed enthusiastic and stupid; however, it's amazing how much ardor can be chilled and how much wisdom can be gained when it is made clear that actions have real, tangible consequences. My brother had been taught his entire life to respect police officers, but for some reason, nothing drove the lesson home better than my parents' choice to allow him to spend the night in the town jail after he was caught throwing firecrackers under a cruiser.



Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 03:44 PM (DTOF+)

489

"I feel bad for her"

 

She is a hard leftie in Republican clothing!

 

Feel Bad? Forsooth!

 

 

Posted by: Jimmy Valentine at October 31, 2009 03:44 PM (KtQ06)

490

But what has republican control of Washington given us for Bush's term?  More socialist spending, larger government and more laws and regulations.  Even Reagan could not slow government growth.  Losing the courts and losing on social issues is a side-show.  Without fiscal solvency, everyone is going to be brought to ruin.  If this is "winning", voting GOP is a meaningless exercise.

Posted by: Mr Black at October 31, 2009 08:36 PM (JtOFX)

Cheif Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito, the biggest tax cut in history. Bush fucked up when he went to war with Iraq in my opinion. He gave away the farm after that to keep his support in congress for that war.

Let 9 liberal judges on the Supreme Court and then tell me how life is for you, how much you miss your guns and how much you like riding your bike to work because cars have been outlawed.

Posted by: robtr at October 31, 2009 03:45 PM (fwSHf)

491 "Unfortunately, they certainly can, and will." Unfortunately, that's nonsense. At the end of the day, there's still 300 million people who have been conditioned to believe that they are more or less entitled to not only having their basic needs fulfilled, but also to have a life meeting a certain minimum standard of prosperity. "Everything being destroyed" is simplistic and doesn't help. It's an appeal to a basic fear. We need more sophistication.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 03:46 PM (mFUln)

492

Good gravy - McCain had ZERO chance as soon as the subprime mortgage crisis hit.  It's that damn simple. 

Posted by: stickety at October 31, 2009 08:41 PM (Jg5C9)

That's simply untrue.  McCain had the winning side of that argument, as social engineering is what caused the crisis, but McCain threw that argument the same way he threw everything else.  The fact that the CRA was never repealed says everything everyone needs to know about it.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 31, 2009 03:46 PM (A46hP)

493
Senator Government wasn't unbeatable.

Does anyone remember why McCain took a lead in the polls in September? Because a) he mocked Obamas energy policy of inflating tires and thus exposed a little bit of Obama's fraudulence, b) the Republicans were making a lot of noise about domestic oil exploration and people responded very well to that.

McCain could've won if he was the Reagan foot-soldier he claimed to be. McCain pussed out, period.

Posted by: Tweet Bunker at October 31, 2009 03:47 PM (JY1gZ)

494

How about this:

It's none of the government's business what people- consenting adults having attained the legal age of majority- do with their bodies in the privacy of their own homes or the sanctity of their doctors' offices.

Posted by: Jones at October 31, 2009 03:47 PM (1cda8)

495 "Good gravy - McCain had ZERO chance as soon as the subprime mortgage crisis hit. It's that damn simple. " McCain had zero chance as soon as he completely flubbed his response to the subprime mortgage crisis. He looked like a flailing old man and Obama looked like cool and in control and that's why McCain plummeted.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 03:47 PM (mFUln)

496 493

"I feel bad for her"

I do to, she's a fat pig that is going to die of a heart attack in less than 10 years.

No I don't, the bitch thinks killing babies is OK, fuck her.

Posted by: Kemp at October 31, 2009 03:48 PM (2+9Yx)

497 293...Chaos...IMO decision making without principle guidance is a surer way to death politically than your recommendation.  A "pro-life" party that backs anti-life candidates isn't really pro-life, IMO.

When you make decisions based on political expediency, you eventually lose your ability to govern from a base of fundamental stances.  IOW, you get Snowe, Collins, Luger, and the fng mess we have now.

We may die trying to go pure, but I'd rather die with my boots on. 

Posted by: The Hammer at October 31, 2009 03:48 PM (YBTwf)

498

It's f**king stupid to pretend like Romney or anybody else would have had a chance against Obama.  Really f**king stupid.

Posted by: stickety at October 31, 2009 08:41 PM (Jg5C9)

Yes, yes - that's why McCain surged with his picking of Palin, why Obama's polling slipped shortly after his nomination speech @ the Dem Convention and why McCain took the lead after Republican convention.

Because nobody had a chance.

WRONG.  We all thought that was the case, but we found out it wasn't.  Then, McCain totally blew it.

Posted by: Editor at October 31, 2009 03:48 PM (YX6i/)

499 the london underground isn't a political movement

Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2009 03:49 PM (bftbi)

500 What doesn't help is to pack congress with bozos and socialists who pretend to be conservative or are identified with conservatism because they have an R by their name. Better to lose to a Democrat so people can see the difference and take the long term view to win later. We don't have to win tomorrow. We have to win eventually, bit by bit, race by race. Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 31, 2009 07:19 PM Exactly. Well said.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 03:49 PM (ObTcs)

501

I really don't know how to feel about this post, I don't agree with it in the least - the party purity bullshit.  Just because some people think there should be a distinction between the parties, some basic tenants held to by those who insist on claiming a party affilitation...  Of course I guess that is just the state of things now, or at least the way they are moving.  People can change their convictions with their underwear in the morning anymore.  Enjoy it.

Bullshit. 

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at October 31, 2009 03:49 PM (r1h5M)

502 Unfortunately, that's nonsense. At the end of the day, there's still 300 million people who have been conditioned to believe that they are more or less entitled to not only having their basic needs fulfilled, but also to have a life meeting a certain minimum standard of prosperity. "Everything being destroyed" is simplistic and doesn't help. It's an appeal to a basic fear. We need more sophistication.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 08:46 PM (mFUln)

When our monetary system goes, it's all over - and there is no escape from it.  NONE.  Ignore that simple fact all you want, but it's the hard truth.  The US cannot be bailed out.  We are not Iceland, Mexico, Zimbabwe, or any of the other nations that have had monetary disasters and were rescued by the existence of larger, stable monetary systems that could be substituted, pick up the slack, or bail them out.  The dollar is in a league all of its own, unparalleled in history, and its failure is not something that has any solution.  Sad and scary but true.

There are points of no return.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 31, 2009 03:50 PM (A46hP)

503

The problem is, the social conservatives are being confronted with the people who would rather have disaster than to give up unlimited abortion and being told that they have to change to accomodate those people.

Why are those people not dangerous? Better yet, why are those people allowed to let their beliefs on abortion dictate Republican policy, but not others?

Those people ARE dangerous, they are the enemy in every sense of the word.  Someone who is committed to both socialism and socially liberal policies is outside our ability to influence though.  So-cons are not, So-con are our side and we should be able to come to an agreement on priorities.  The ideal position is congressmen who are both socially and fiscally conservative, BUT, if one of those has to be traded away in the short term to get the other through then there can be no question that national sovency trumps abortion.  National solvency trumps everything.  If we can get that done, we have all the time in the world to work on the rest and if conservative fiscal policy produces results, as it will, it will be all the easier to enact conservative social policy.  Linking the two together is certain defeat, there are not enough votes to be had on both issues.  Seperately we can win the fiscal issue and hopefully then the social issue.  The outcome is what counts, not the fight. 

Posted by: Mr Black at October 31, 2009 03:51 PM (JtOFX)

504 501 That's why the GOP dominated American politics for 25 years despite doing all those terrible things you mentioned. It was only when the GOP started falling on the center-left side of the aisle in terms of its actions rather than on the center-right side that they lost both their base and power. Honestly it's not like the GOP magically turned into a RINO-dominated party when George W. Bush was elected. Those same people were in the party and in Congress in the 1990s, and many of them during the Reagan Administration as well. The left wing of the party took over during the Bush Administration. Why won't you guys give the right wing a chance to take power back? The struggle is going on right now. You're prepared to jump ship before you even know the outcome.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 03:52 PM (mFUln)

505 http://wethepeoplenc.wordpress.com/ I think there are groups like this popping up all around the country. I've been to a few meetings here in NC. At least 100 people show up each time. Conservatives are pissed and getting organized.

Posted by: TC at October 31, 2009 03:52 PM (QXKjZ)

506

I think it was unlikely that any republican would have beaten obama. The economic collapse in October would have sunk just about any republican. McCain lost by 10 million votes. It simply wasn't a republican year. Also only once since 1950 has one party had a two term president followed by the election of someone in their party. Bush Sr after reagan.

it was the democrats year.

Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2009 03:53 PM (bftbi)

507 Some of us thought PUMAs had large substantial numbers to change the outcome.  That was false.

The number of disaffected Hillary supporters was hardly "false" (Palm Beach county was certainly CHOCK FULL of them).  What was false was believing that massive numbers of them could break a life long habit just because they said they would.

I know many many people who were PUMA, but admitted they went with Obama at crunch time because well...they were democrats.  Almost to a person those Hillary supporters all regret that now and hate Obama with a passion.  What they understood intellectually, they had to feel physically as pain.  Now they've felt the pain.

Now that they've learned their lesson the hard way, those Hillary supporters won't be making the same mistake again in 2012 unless the Republicans nominate someone completely repellent to them.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 31, 2009 03:53 PM (8H64O)

508 Glenn Beck doesn't run anything.  He's just a rodeo clown.

Posted by: wHodat at October 31, 2009 03:53 PM (+sBB4)

509 @370
And my point is made.  Idealists are staying home.  Nice going, Republican leadership.

According to Karl Rove, about 4 million people who voted for Bush didn't show up last year.  According to the FEC turnout last year was 58% and Obama got only 52% of the vote, with urban turnout reported, at least here in Chicago, in the 95%+ (at least it was in my precinct, it was certainly in the high 90%s elsewhere). 

Where Ace and company, and separately the RNC, are wrong is the idea that veering left is advantageous.  The truth is that the squishiness of the Republican party has lost far more Conservative votes than it can ever hopw to gain in the middle and on the left.  Maybe, hypothetically, a Jim Demint or a Sarah Palin couldn't win every election nationwide, or even most of them.  I'm not going to believe that until I see it tried.  But in any case, I see no reason to believe that the Republicans are where they need to be to win and accomplish anything, and moving to the left, as the RNC is wont to do, makes both less likely.

Obama got all the votes the Democrats can get in this country and he barely managed a majority.  It's time someone represented the folks who had no good options last year.  I hope it's the Republicans as it'll be easier on everyone involved.  But the only way for that to happen is for their slide left to end.  We should be arguing over how far to push the Republicans to the right, not how much more squishiness we can find a way to live with.  It's time the RINOs made the compromises.

Posted by: Methos at October 31, 2009 03:53 PM (IoxPW)

510 "When our monetary system goes, it's all over - and there is no escape from it. NONE. Ignore that simple fact all you want, but it's the hard truth. The US cannot be bailed out. We are not Iceland, Mexico, Zimbabwe, or any of the other nations that have had monetary disasters and were rescued by the existence of larger, stable monetary systems that could be substituted, pick up the slack, or bail them out. The dollar is in a league all of its own, unparalleled in history, and its failure is not something that has any solution. Sad and scary but true. There are points of no return." Seriously where do you come up with this shit? Are all the people in the USA suddenly going to die? Disappear into thin air? You're missing my point. Regardless of all your disaster-mongering, human nature still applies.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 03:54 PM (mFUln)

511

Better to lose to a Democrat so people can see the difference and take the long term view to win later. We don't have to win tomorrow. We have to win eventually, bit by bit, race by race.

Really?? How can you even make that argument after seeing theh 111th Congress?

Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2009 03:54 PM (Wkb8U)

512

All this  yapping about who is and isn't a Republican or Conservative.

Conservatives are for limited government, lower taxes, we are anti-abortion, pro military, we are for business and industry, we are for drilling here and drilling now.  We are for merit and against hand outs. 

Liberals are for none of these things.

This is our common ground and this separates us from LIBTARDS.   These ideals are not negotiable.  Don't like them?  Vote  LIBTARD.

Posted by: gus at October 31, 2009 03:55 PM (MaqIC)

513 Look ace, if you have already declared defeat on this very basic issue (of the essential split of power in federalism as defined in the Constitution) then I don't know what you are even arguing for. It's over. The US is finished and just waiting to be flushed. In that case, I don't care who gets in, because a national superstate always heads in one direction, and one direction only - and it ain't a pretty direction. Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 31, 2009 07:27 PM Yep. Thus my question to him of why he bothers to blog on politics if he believes that everything is static and there is no changing of anyone's mind or persuading them about anything.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 03:56 PM (ObTcs)

514

You know it may hurt your craw to accept it, but there is a real difference between doubling the national debt in eight years and doubling it in eight months. There really is. The one is a party that lost its way. The other is a party behaving exactly as its principles say it should.

I know, and I'm not saying it isn't better to vote GOP.  My point is, the GOP's platform at the moment is effectively "socialism, but slower".  When they have power they increase the size of government like good little liberals.  Delaying eventual ruin a few decades is not a long term solution and not a platform I am going to get excited about.  I'll still vote GOP/conservative anyway, but I know that all I'm doing is buying time, not fixing anything. 

Posted by: Mr Black at October 31, 2009 03:58 PM (JtOFX)

515 "Yep. Thus my question to him of why he bothers to blog on politics if he believes that everything is static and there is no changing of anyone's mind or persuading them about anything." If people like you are the ones who are going to be trying to do the convincing, Ace is unfortunately correct. Of course he didn't mean that, you're just on your strawman gig.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 03:58 PM (mFUln)

516 "I know, and I'm not saying it isn't better to vote GOP. My point is, the GOP's platform at the moment is effectively "socialism, but slower". When they have power they increase the size of government like good little liberals. Delaying eventual ruin a few decades is not a long term solution and not a platform I am going to get excited about. I'll still vote GOP/conservative anyway, but I know that all I'm doing is buying time, not fixing anything. " And now that the GOP is out of power, that argument doesn't apply anymore. The reason they're out of power is that that argument DID apply. When they regain power, if they don't change their behavior from what it was during the Bush Administration, you'd be right once more - until the next time they were out of power. Parties can and do change. The GOP will be in charge again someday. If we give up on it now, we guarantee that it will continue its "slow socialism" behavior. Now is not the time to abandon the GOP. If it doesn't shape up after another chance, THEN it is time to seriously start thinking about doing unto them what they did unto the Whigs.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 04:00 PM (mFUln)

517

the best part about all this fighting is that none of us will be banned for it.

appreciate the little things.

Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2009 04:01 PM (bftbi)

518 They simply kill it, with society's approval, and go skipping away.

Well, they were doing that 50 years ago too even when it was supposedly illegal.  How many women were prosecuted and sent to prison for getting an "illegal abortion"?  I'd venture the number was pretty small.

How many are YOU willing to prosecute and send to prison if you manage to make it illegal again? 

Making shit illegal without enforcement is bullshit and simply invites the contempt of the populace for the system.  Before I'm willing to listen to any pro-life arguments about repeal of Roe v Wade I want to hear what the concrete enforcement plan is for those who get abortions anyway and get caught.  If there is no enforcement plan, then you don't have a complete implementable solution.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 31, 2009 04:01 PM (8H64O)

519

Seriously where do you come up with this shit?

An understanding of the glue that holds our nation together, at the most fundamental level, and a knowledge of history and our place in it, and where we fall outside of what has happened and what most people bank on.

Are all the people in the USA suddenly going to die? Disappear into thin air?

The United States, as an entity, will cease to exist.  Most of the people will be relegated to poverty.  Not dead, of course, but many wishing they were.  You seem to think that cities will keep the shelves full, no matter what happens, even though we are on just-in-time inventories and depend on all sorts of complex systems to continue to function for our society to operate.

You're missing my point. Regardless of all your disaster-mongering, human nature still applies.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 08:54 PM (mFUln)

Yeah, human nature still applies.  But you seem to misunderstand what runs the US and keeps our systems operating.  But, Sept/Oct 2008 was just a joke ... right?  It meant nothing and we're all past that now ... yep.  All finished. Uh huh.

And, aside from the monetary problem, if you don't think the elites can make effectively irreperable and irreversible changes to our nation, then I don't know what to say.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 31, 2009 04:03 PM (A46hP)

520

Cheif Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito, the biggest tax cut in history. Bush fucked up when he went to war with Iraq in my opinion. He gave away the farm after that to keep his support in congress for that war.

But spending didn't fall with those tax cuts so the difference simply went onto the national debt which will have to be paid for later, with interest, by huge tax rises.  The SCOTUS justices are good, no doubt about it but they fall into the same catagory as everything else.  Without national solvency, the rest is worthless.  Bush increased the size of government, increased social spending and increased the debt.  In that, he was no different from any liberal.  He simply spent that money on conservative priorities instead.  When we are facing bankrupcty, it won't matter what it was spent on.

Posted by: Mr Black at October 31, 2009 04:03 PM (JtOFX)

521

Meanwhile, look what Organizing For America supporters are passing out at Halloween:   http://tinyurl.com/yd7wcfk.  THAT is our enemy.  Don't lose sight of that, please.  This is at the direction of the frikkin WH.  We have to survive 3 more years.  Let's get our shit together, or we are doomed.  What WE did in NY-23 will go down in history as *pulling a Doug Hoffman*.   

 

Posted by: sybilll at October 31, 2009 04:04 PM (MEl/V)

522

Newt and Rush have it wrong, having viable conservative third party candidates is the best way to move everything to the right. nothing will ever happen in a good way for conservatives until there is a challenge. then and only then will the whole debate change and all parties will be trying to catch a wave and be the real conservative. suddenly you'll find republicans not wanting to end up like Dede and nominating real conservatives.

if your only concern is having every republican reelected then you fear third parties. if your true interest is in advancing the conservative movement then you are really cheering what happened in NY. we can't get locked into the playing the party politics game anymore.

Posted by: exceller at October 31, 2009 04:05 PM (Z7Znk)

523 progressoverpeace, you're like one of those oil crash cultists. I hope you're keeping that bunker well stocked, the canned-food industry needs that money to keep the shelves stocked.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 04:07 PM (mFUln)

524 PA -- To hell with the PUMAS. If they want to show up and vote with us,they're welcome. But courting someone who has already demonstrated they can't deliver is silly.

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at October 31, 2009 04:07 PM (8iZnv)

525 Why so upset that a woman may need an abortion? What ever happened to someone in the privacy of their own life, that you think you should quarterback their life??? Posted by: ford at October 31, 2009 07:40 PM You mean like what happened to a baby, in the privacy of its own developing life, is 'quarterbacked' by the mother's desire to kill it? Yeah, our country is going great when people are wondering 'what's the big deal with giving women the power to kill their children?'. I'm an evil bastard for not wanting to give the right to women to kill their babies, but the women who do so, they're great Americans. Geez...

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 04:07 PM (ObTcs)

526 ACE WROTE IN COMMENTS:

282 >>>ACE: JOE LIEBERMAN BEAT LAMONT IN CT DURING THE WORST PART OF THE WAR.

>>>THEREFORE: CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATES CAN DO WELL ANYWHERE.

Well, Joe Lieberman isn't even a RINO, dude. He's an independent who caususes with the Dems.

Yes, you are right, Joe Lieberman is the type of conservative who can win statewide in connecticut.

Meaning... not even a RINO. He aspires one day to be a RINO.

YOU FALL INTO YOUR OWN TRAP ACE BY REFERRING TO JOE'S PARTY (IND) AND THE FACT THAT HE CAUCUSES WITH THE DEMS - FOR THE TIME BEING.

IRRELEVANT TO THE HOFFMAN FACTOR.

THE BIGGER POINT IS THAT HOFFMAN PROVES WE CONSERVATIVES ARE ALWAYS BETTER OFF IF WE SUPPORT AND VOTE FOR THE MOST CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE ON THE BALLOT REGARDLESS OF PARTY AFFILIATION.

THAT'S WHAT'S BEST FOR THE NATION.

THREE WAY RACES DO NOT ALWAYS FAVOR THE DEMS OR LIBS.

ASK AL DAMATO - AND REMEMBER JAMES BUCKLEY - AND MANY OTHERS.

WE MUST ALWAYS SUPPORT THE CONSERVATIVE.

EFF THE GOP WHEN THEY DON'T NOMINATE ONE AND  VOTE IND OVER GOP WHEN THE RUN A GUY LIKE JOE LIEBERMAN VERSUS LIB SCUM LIKE LAMONT.

FORD LOST TO CARTER.

MCCAIN LOST TO OBAMA.

MODERATE GOP CANDIDATES DO NOT SPELL VICTORY.

AND THEY DON;T GOVERN CONSERVATIVELY, EITHER IF THEY DO WIN.

WE CONSERVATIVES ARE BETTER OFF IF WE VOTE OUR VALUES AND NOT IN A STRICTLY PARTISAN WAY.

GOD BLESS HOFFMAN!

GOD BLESS ACE!

Posted by: reliapundit at October 31, 2009 04:08 PM (NY6+Q)

527

"and the Glenn Beck camp, which seems to, at least rhetorically, call for near-complete purity, or else, the thinking goes"

i don't understand were you get this stuff, have you watched Beck's show?

the only "purity" he is talking about is the purity of the Constitution.

shouldn't every american do the same?

arrrrrrrrgh!

 

 

Posted by: shoey at October 31, 2009 04:08 PM (RxUMK)

528 "if your only concern is having every republican reelected then you fear third parties. if your true interest is in advancing the conservative movement then you are really cheering what happened in NY. we can't get locked into the playing the party politics game anymore." What's happening (hopefully) in NY-23 is that a conservative who will caucus with the GOP will be elected. So, what third party?

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 04:08 PM (mFUln)

529

Abortion as a litmus test or as a party platform is crazy IMO. If Roe V. Wade was overturned tomorrow abortion would still be legal in the majority of states.

Posted by: robtr at October 31, 2009 04:09 PM (fwSHf)

530 When we are facing bankrupcty, it won't matter what it was spent on.

Actually it does matter some.  If you spent it on touchy feely social nonsense, then it truly is gone. 

If you built a road or bridge with it, you CAN sell the toll rights to that to someone willing to operate toll booths. (Chicago has done this already)

If you bought even more Federal parkland with it, you COULD go back and put that land back on the market to generate some cash, or you COULD sell the mineral rights, etc.



Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 31, 2009 04:09 PM (8H64O)

531

Ace,

 

your thinking is off.  you give liberals 20%  plus (saying 40%)than gallup does yet you only give the 40% to conservatives.  You are saying that of all the moderates none lean conservative.  That is beyond stupid.  the GOP have been losing party members as it become more liberal under bush.  that says that alot of those independents left the GOP because of it becoming more liberal.

 Therefore a good chunk of the moderates are more conservative than the GOP elites.   election results tend to support this since most national elections have been close to 50/50.  The fact that Obama recived 10% of the conservative vote and a large chunk of the libertian vote and a large number of the base stayed home also tells you that conservatives outnumber the liberals and liberal leaning moderates. 

Your thinking is what caused the GOP to lose in 2006 and 2008.  It is what caused Bush 1 to lose in 1992 by enabling  Perot.  It is what gave us close races in 1998 and 2000.  It was not until 2002 and 2004 that Bush actually ran (as oppsed to governed) as a full bore conservative that gave him unprecendent gains in an off year election and a commading popular win in 2004. 

 

YOU ARE WRONG ACE AND IT IS TIME YOU AND ALLAH UNDERSTAND YOU ARE WRONG

Posted by: unseen at October 31, 2009 04:11 PM (aVGmX)

532 We're in the middle of a conservative resurgence, and hand-wringing has already commenced? This is idiotic. There is no schism to talk of. This fictitious Rush-Glenn Beck continuum that supposedly defines the two polar ends of some imaginary rift is bunk. NY23 shows conservatives CAN win. I don't give a shit about the RNC, because as has been pointed out, we are no worse off with a house full of Dems than we are w. a house full of RINOs. I'd rather have a vocal minority with conservative principles than a majority of unprincipled, fickle, untrustworthy Arlen Specters. This is not a drive for "purity", whatever the hell that means. IMO that is just another straw man trojan horse RINOs argue to rationalize compromising core principles. This is a drive, as has also been stated ad nauseam, to simply assert that we will NO LONGER TOLERATE politicians who do not adhere to core conservative principles. I couldn't give a gnat's ass hair whether the GOP flourishes or dies a painful death if the candidates selected by that party do not represent my principles and belief. It is not party over principle, it is principle, and country, first. I believe most conservatives feel this way. Finally, some commenters keep saying conservatives can't win everywhere. Well, so what? That's self-evident. Liberals can't win everywhere either. To have a winning coalition, conservatives don't need to win everywhere, they only need to elect representatives that reflect their values, regardless of party affiliation in proportion to their numbers and that will give them more than enough influence in the halls of power. Just know that the resurgence is real. Whichever party decides to embrace conservative principles, be it the Dems, the GOP or third party, will get my vote, and will get support from the millions of normal people who think the way I do.

Posted by: mjhlaw at October 31, 2009 04:12 PM (1R/wW)

533 Well it's hard to develop a viable plan to get where you'd like to be when you can't agree on where you're at. And it does have to be a viable plan based on some kind of empirical evidence. Hope is not a strategy. Posted by: MĂŠtenloch at October 31, 2009 07:41 PM Well, I don't know of anyone who is arguing with ace and DrewM over "what is". What most of us are arguing with them over is their "never gonna happen", everything is static, 'you live in fantasy land if you think you can persuade people' attitude. Ace and DrewM seem to look at things as they are, assume that's how they will always be and so decide it's pointless to do anything to get things where we want them to be, so just give the people what they want. I look at things as they are, want them to be different and then work to figure out what I must do, how I must do it, what I must say, how I must say it in order to persuade people to my point of view. I would say that ace and DrewM have the strategy of 'hope'. They 'hope' that by electing liberal Republicans and getting a Republican majority that these liberal Republicans will then suddenly do a 180 and vote with the conservative Republican leadership. I look at what is and what has happened in history to know that's living in 'fantasy land' thinking that's going to happen.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 04:12 PM (ObTcs)

534 494 comments in and no one has mentioned the unique reason why it's unlikely this will become the birth of a third-party movement that keeps the GOP forever sidelined. 

New York has fusion voting, which allows you to vote for one candidate from two different parties.  Fusion voting is pretty limited in the US, and as another commenter mentioned above, it's much more likely to lead to vicious primaries than a split party. 

That said, the Clown Shoes Party has demonstrated that it's pretty clearly forgotten about principles and individual liberty and achievement.  Some more getting our asses kicked may be necessary before the GOP is successfully co-opted by the Tea Party.

Posted by: Who is Good Will? at October 31, 2009 04:12 PM (Bs0qN)

535 But courting someone who has already demonstrated they can't deliver is silly.

IMO, the dynamic is different this time now that they've gotten a full taste of Obama.  The polls actually show this.  Were the election done over again today, Obama loses by a larger margin than he won by. 

Sounds to me like they've seen enough, that they'd deliver next time.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 31, 2009 04:13 PM (8H64O)

536

Got a good one going here.

I'm an independent conservative that's never identified myself with the GOP.  Having said that, I almost invariably vote GOP.  I went to the polls in 2008, but did not vote McCain (or Barry); I took care of local & state business.  I with held my Pres vote hoping to send a message - I wanted someone more conservative.  I could have held my nose and voted for Rudy, but McCain was a bridge too far.

I voted Perot the first time (only) - again hoping to send a message.  I'm not a purist, but I do expect better than McCain. 

Posted by: MDr at October 31, 2009 04:15 PM (t1bNr)

537 ace is being led by Democratic memes again.

Posted by: wHodat at October 31, 2009 04:17 PM (+sBB4)

538 whoever linked to that reagan speech, tyvm, im listening to the reagan-mondale foreign policy debate and its very good

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 04:17 PM (mFUln)

539 527 progressoverpeace, you're like one of those oil crash cultists.   Hardly.  You did happen to see what happened to Iceland, right?  That isn't just a figment of my imagination.  You do understand what "quantitative easing" is, right?  Do you have any sort of an idea of what that leads to?  Do you think that anti-growth policy at a time when our only solution is robust growth is just a bad move that we'll all get over, soon enough?    I hope you're keeping that bunker well stocked, the canned-food industry needs that money to keep the shelves stocked.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 09:07 PM (mFUln)

Okay, there.  Good reply.  I most certainly do keep myself stocked for emergencies (not as much as I should).  But that does not address the issue I made with just-in-time inventories and the systems that need to constantly function smoothly for the operation of the US to continue.  You can laugh it all off, but it's more like whistling past the graveyard if you don't even acknowledge the vulnerabilities of our complex system. 

And I gather that you think that Sept/Oct 2008 was just a bad joke?  Iceland collapsed because of a joke (and don't even look at how they are, now, thanks to being bailed out, which the US will not have the luxury of)?  For you, evidently, the credit crisis was a one-off thing that no one has to worry about.  Okey doke.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 31, 2009 04:18 PM (A46hP)

540 This is about the nation shifting away from hope and change.

Keep your eye on the ball folks

Posted by: wHodat at October 31, 2009 04:18 PM (+sBB4)

541 I am not huge on abortion as a litmus test.  It should depend on what's realistic in a given state/locale.  (As it should have been without Roe.)  I would have been delighted if Rudy were the nominee.

Posted by: logprof at October 31, 2009 04:19 PM (I3Udb)

542

Actually it does matter some.  If you spent it on touchy feely social nonsense, then it truly is gone. 

If you built a road or bridge with it, you CAN sell the toll rights to that to someone willing to operate toll booths. (Chicago has done this already)

If you bought even more Federal parkland with it, you COULD go back and put that land back on the market to generate some cash, or you COULD sell the mineral rights, etc.

Spending the country into utter ruin on the theory we can sell back some assets later to meet the INTEREST bill, achieves nothing.  The only solution is to not spend ourselves into ruin in the first place.  Buying hard assets only delays the ruin, it doesn't avoid it.  Conservative fiscal policy can ONLY be balanced budgets and debt reduction.  Anything that says we can increase the national debt if it's done to support our priorities is liberalism dressed up in GOP clothes.  Debt spending is not a conservative position.

Posted by: Mr Black at October 31, 2009 04:19 PM (JtOFX)

543 "Hardly. You did happen to see what happened to Iceland, right? That isn't just a figment of my imagination. You do understand what "quantitative easing" is, right? Do you have any sort of an idea of what that leads to? Do you think that anti-growth policy at a time when our only solution is robust growth is just a bad move that we'll all get over, soon enough? " I didn't realize Icelandic society had disintegrated in the last year and it was Mad Max up there. You've just contradicted yourself rather grandly, you might want to patch that up. Way too easy.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 04:21 PM (mFUln)

544 Dont forget, this is also an anti-ACORN vote.

Posted by: wHodat at October 31, 2009 04:21 PM (+sBB4)

545 Interesting to watch. Here's the thing, though...

Between 2000 and about 2006, the Dems almost completely remade their party, throwing out their moderates and establishing what is, almost without exception, a socialist party.

And they won. Why?

It can probably be fairly stated that moderates dilute things. They are unreliable, and serve only to distort that which people can get behind. Disagree with the left we may, but their message is unmistakable. Perversely, their moderates are all that keep us from absolute socialization of medicine in this country.

As Rush puts it repeatedly, "Name me some great moderates in history."

This creates a circular argument. On one hand, I agree completely with Ace and Drew- if you continue to cede ground to the enemy in order to engulf them, you do eventually run out of real estate. That has damn near already happened in Congress, and it can be fairly stated that we really don't have more ground to cede there. That necessitates backing a few moderates.

On the other hand, one of the many reasons that the GOP lost is because of its moderates diluting things, and acting more to increase their own power rather than pursue liberty in its most basic form. Without real conservatives providing a simple, easy-to-understand identity for the party to have, you get this spineless, unidentifiable squish that currently comprises the GOP.

So, the question becomes- what is the proper mixture to paint the map red again? As always, Rush provides an important axiom- conservatism wins when put into practice. What we are seeing is the establishment- losers that they may be- seeing their position threatened. They are perfectly happy being squishy and having what power they may.

The argument, as before, is circular- so perhaps the proper way to view it is on a case-by-case basis. Tactically, race-to-race, and strategically on a regional and national basis. In a situation like NY-23, conservatives have made their voices heard- despite party machinations- and now we have a chance to elect something that resembles a real conservative. I suspect the same will apply with future races, but might I suggest that we concentrate on what we've got now instead of obsessing about what's coming in three years?

This week, we have the chance to knock over 2 governorships and 1 congressional seat. In a year, we will have a chance to knock over 5 Democrats in the Senate (some of their bigger guns, at that), and God knows how many congressional seats.

You want to dictate who we see running for president? Then back the proper guys in the next year, and let that prep the battlefield for the presidency. If a real conservative sees his or her opportunity, they'll take it.

Posted by: tmi3rd at October 31, 2009 04:21 PM (MLaAD)

546

I voted Perot the first time (only) - again hoping to send a message.  I'm not a purist, but I do expect better than McCain. 

Posted by: MDr at October 31, 2009 09:15 PM (t1bNr)

The only way I would vote 3rd party is if there was a decent chance they can win. If I want to send a message I will email someone. There are 130 million voters out there, we as you can see by this thread aren't going to agree on everything. Our best hope is going with the candidate that comes closest to our desires in government that can win.

Posted by: robtr at October 31, 2009 04:22 PM (fwSHf)

547 Maybe the biggest issue here is that the GOP continues to nominate liberals instead of conservatives. (McCain anyone?)

Posted by: wHodat at October 31, 2009 04:24 PM (+sBB4)

548 Well tmi that's not true. The Democrats ran Blue Dogs in conservative districts to win a majority so they could put their Lefist leadership in charge of Congress finally. They didn't kick out all the moderates and conservatives and create party of pure Leftists.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 04:24 PM (mFUln)

549

also, stop trying to split Glenn off from the others, there is no rift between Rush and Glenn or any of the others.

they may not like each other (not surprising they are all highly competitive individuals) but they don't rag on each other because each is smart enough to realize that one isn't taking anything from the other, they all add to all of us.

i will not pit them against one another.

Posted by: shoey at October 31, 2009 04:26 PM (RxUMK)

550 You must elect folks in your base, then govern more center right.

Obama's mistake is he's governing from the ultra left

Posted by: wHodat at October 31, 2009 04:26 PM (+sBB4)

551 There was a time, decades ago when abortions were illegal in NY State. The media of the day played a large part in forming the attitudes prevelant there now constantly running stories about how "back alley" abortionists operated using coat hangers and such and how many young women were dying as a result of botched jobs, yada, yada, yada. Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 31, 2009 07:49 PM Wait, you mean people were persuaded to change their minds on an issue? Things aren't static? The people of New York don't think the same way now as they did decades ago? Well imagine that...

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 04:26 PM (ObTcs)

552

Between 2000 and about 2006, the Dems almost completely remade their party, throwing out their moderates and establishing what is, almost without exception, a socialist party.

And they won. Why?
Posted by: tmi3rd at October 31, 2009 09:21 PM (MLaAD)

That's BS, they won running conservative democrats in concervative districts. There are 60  blue dogs now, the most in the history of the modern party.

Posted by: robtr at October 31, 2009 04:26 PM (fwSHf)

553

The Democrats ran Blue Dogs in conservative districts to win a majority so they could put their Lefist leadership in charge of Congress finally. They didn't kick out all the moderates and conservatives and create party of pure Leftists.

And look where they are now.  They can't get their own agenda passed because they are relying on people who don't share their principles.  Good for us, but from the liberal PoV they have shot themselves in the foot, just like the GOP does when it backs candidates who will not vote party lines on conservative issues.

Posted by: Mr Black at October 31, 2009 04:27 PM (JtOFX)

554 Seriously Ace? Seriously? You really think that going with RINOs is the way to go?
 WOW...... I think having core values that represent real American conservatism and sticking to them is what will win elections. You cannot do it the other way around...McCain ring any bells for you?
 The end does not justify the means.

Posted by: christmasghost at October 31, 2009 04:27 PM (aUut1)

555

 would say that if a more conservative candidate can't even win a GOP *primary,* then there is no chance whatsoever he can prevail in a general election.

Doesn't that make sense?
ACE

 

No it doesn't make sense because you forget the Reagan democrates.  You think that just because Blue dog dems vote with Peolsi that their voters are liberals.  that is not the case many of the blue dogs ran to the right of the GOP on fiscal matters, immigration matters 9among others) in 2006 and 2008.  esp in the south.   The dem party are not made up of 100% liberals  only its leaders are.  There are many many dems voters that are conservative.  The gop does not have a lock on conservative thought.  there are many dems that do not like the PC multiculture crowd yet think of the GOP as the bluebloods and tied to the CEO's  and vote dem on pocket book issues. 

 

There are also many GOP voters that are liberal on culture issues like abortion and gun control esp in major cities and will vote for the more socially liberal canidate over their pocket books (esp if they are well off finacially). 

 

your thinking is one dimensional.  You see the all dems as liberals and all gop as conservatives.  Thus if a conservative canidate can't win a primary you think they can't win the general.  This is wrong and you have 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994, 2000, 2002, and 2004 as evidence.  You also have 1992,1996, 1998, 2006 and 2008 as evidence that your view is wrong.  

In fact a person that can think outside the box and understand that a full 30-40% of dems are conservative will see a path to victory in a general election  by running a conservative.  It matters more of what kind of conservative.  A fiscal conservative that lives his live in a social conservative way yet (does not try to force people to adher to those some beliefs) and instead adhers to a mindset of freedom and liberty for individuals and   who believes in strong national security  can win landslides. 

That means leave the  culture wars to the churches and the states while setting a conservative example.  Give the churches and states the power to set social standards and get the federal government out of the bedroom.   That type of conservative can get the majority of the GOP votes and a large minority of the democratic votes (Reagan dems). 

 

Posted by: unseen at October 31, 2009 04:28 PM (aVGmX)

556 Allow me to modify, then, Chaos. You're correct- they did do the pyramid scheme you spoke of. That said, in the time that it took for them to get a good swing of coherency, they abandoned their moderates, and went after them in high-profile districts (i.e. Lieberman).

They did successfully rebrand themselves as the party of the pure Left- and it is how they are perceived now.

Posted by: tmi3rd at October 31, 2009 04:28 PM (MLaAD)

557

robrtr, 533,  We aren't talking about any litmus test, we are talking about the HORRID WRONGFULNESS of a mother choosing to kill her baby.

It's not a political test, its a moral test.

Posted by: gus at October 31, 2009 04:28 PM (MaqIC)

558 The threat of a third party candidacy is a very important lever throughout the nominating process - to ensure squishes are not allowed free reign.  What the conservative movement must have is someone who knows when to punt, and to throw their full support behind a candidate who can win in return for some skins in the game.  Is that a role Sarah can play?

Posted by: Jean at October 31, 2009 04:29 PM (xCBQ4)

559 I didn't realize Icelandic society had disintegrated in the last year and it was Mad Max up there.

You've just contradicted yourself rather grandly, you might want to patch that up.

Way too easy.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 09:21 PM (mFUln)

We are not Iceland.  How many times do I have to say this.  We are susceptible to the same problem but don't have access to the same solution.  Why is this so difficult for you to understand?  We cannot be bailed out, by anyone.  Iceland was bailed out.  The dollar is the world's trade and reserve currency, in addition to being too large to rescue for our personal use.  What do you think would happen with the disintegration of the dollar?  Think about it.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 31, 2009 04:29 PM (A46hP)

560 "What's happening (hopefully) in NY-23 is that a conservative who will caucus with the GOP will be elected. So, what third party?"

The only reason Hoffman is an option is because of a 3rd party.  If Dede had been elected, the Democrats would have an actual "Republican" to cuddle during press conferences while they pass their liberal bills.  Another Arlen or Snow if you will that the press can spin into bi-partisan.  That would far worse for national Republican unity against Obama than another Dem winning the seat.   This is a great result that happened only because a third party was in place. 

Each case should be specific to the district, of course, but I was one of those cheering my brains out in 1994 and what have I got now that would cause me to give the Republicans another chance to get it right this time?  2 Supreme court justices and a mountain of federal regulation and spending BEFORE the Dems took over.  They've not even demonstrated they know what they have wrong. 

And for those saying we live in a different country that when Reagan won a landslide, this is true.  But 1994 isn't that long ago.  Nationally united Republicans, running on conservative principles, faced with liberal over-reach can take back the Congress.  Why in heaven's name would we demand anything less??


Posted by: Lana at October 31, 2009 04:30 PM (MpHql)

561 And once again, I'm late to the party. 

Posted by: Lana at October 31, 2009 04:31 PM (MpHql)

562 "We are not Iceland. How many times do I have to say this. We are susceptible to the same problem but don't have access to the same solution. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? We cannot be bailed out, by anyone. Iceland was bailed out. The dollar is the world's trade and reserve currency, in addition to being too large to rescue for our personal use. What do you think would happen with the disintegration of the dollar? Think about it." Iceland is an island in the middle of the North Atlantic that is hugely dependent on imports. How is Iceland possibly in a better position than the United States? I have no patience with doom-mongers. The dollar is not going to disintegrate and if you think it will you're either hysterical, ignorant, or hysterically ignorant.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 04:33 PM (mFUln)

563
The Democrats didn't run conservatives in conservative districts. They ran liberals pretending to be conservative. The so-called blue dogs are biggest fraud perpetrated on the American people since Barack Obama.

Posted by: Tweet Bunker at October 31, 2009 04:34 PM (JY1gZ)

564
But the point is conservatism wins! Even the Democrats know this.


Posted by: Tweet Bunker at October 31, 2009 04:34 PM (JY1gZ)

565 Lana, the reason Hoffman didn't run on the GOP ticket is because Scozzafava's friends in the local party gave it to her. Not because the RNC wanted her to be the candidate. Not because Newt Gingrich was in some secret situation room somewhere and said "We must run Scozzafava in NY-23!"

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 04:35 PM (mFUln)

566 Rush and Glenn endeavor to entertain and educate.  Who would of thought that Glenn would wind up spending so much of his time in front of a blackboard?  People are dense and have to be walked through this stuff.  It is gradually having an effect as truth will.

It is going to take time to educate.  Many younger people are ignorant on basic civics, basic economics, and have been fed on a diet of entitlement.   They are going to need repeated mental enemas to get all of the skittles out.

On Friday, Glenn put out a request for millionaires and billionaires who want to get involved.  I hope it is on the education side and not a "third party."  He is more of a zealot than Rush and pretty much takes the line to support the best candidate, not to just take your football and go home.  Rush was more of an observer of the Tea Parties.  The RNC should take notice.  If things go well with Hoffman etc.  maybe they will, if only for self-interest.

Limbaugh has been mocked by some dems claiming that he can light up switchboards but not deliver results at the ballot box.  I believe much of this has been having candidates than no amount of fanfare could get folks excited about.  Obama sold a lot of people a bill of goods -people still waiting for him to come and pay their rent, others that thought they really could hopey/change America with misplaced idealism.  Many with itching ears have gone after him.

Glenn is an idealist, but it is waking people up.  One of the things he frequently asks for is that people pray for "more time"  He does seem more and more inclined to find little good to say about either party.  People like DeMint clear the bar, but I sense a real frustration on his part that the bulk of the party really gets it.


Posted by: AE at October 31, 2009 04:35 PM (kSfPT)

567

robrtr, 533,  We aren't talking about any litmus test, we are talking about the HORRID WRONGFULNESS of a mother choosing to kill her baby.

It's not a political test, its a moral test.

Posted by: gus at October 31, 2009 09:28 PM (MaqIC)

I didn't say I didn't think it was wrong Gus, I do. This is a political/smart military blog though. I don't now how to stop abortion, I am saying that overturning Roe V. Wade dosen't get you there.

IMO I think abortion is wrong and terrible. If we are going to change it with laws though I would prefer that women be the deciders on how it's changed and us men should stay out of it.

Posted by: robtr at October 31, 2009 04:36 PM (fwSHf)

568 The dollar is not going to disintegrate and if you think it will you're either hysterical, ignorant, or hysterically ignorant.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 09:33 PM (mFUln)

Okay, there.  Our monetary system is invulnerable.  The Full Faith and Credit of the US is unlimited.  Let me write that down. 

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 31, 2009 04:36 PM (A46hP)

569 559, yep well said

Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 04:37 PM (ZzgoC)

570 Ah. Hoffman is to the Republican party what a blade of obsidian is to a newborn infant's throat.

Cut, knuckleheads. Cut.

Posted by: Lucifer at October 31, 2009 04:39 PM (SUU19)

571 "Okay, there. Our monetary system is invulnerable. The Full Faith and Credit of the US is unlimited. Let me write that down. " More strawmen. Find me someone who isn't a raving lunatic like you who thinks the dollar is going to disintegrate. A real, serious economist who thinks that inflation is going to destroy public order and safety. If you can't keep up and all you're going to do is swing at strawmen, just shut up. There's something about the internet that turns people like you into 5 year olds. The instant someone doesn't accept your doom-mongering, you start whining that they're Pollyannas and start constructing strawmen to "prove" it.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 04:39 PM (mFUln)

572 ergy has apparently had a stroke.

Posted by: toby928 at October 31, 2009 04:40 PM (PD1tk)

573 "Ah. Hoffman is to the Republican party what a blade of obsidian is to a newborn infant's throat. Cut, knuckleheads. Cut." Yeah he's sure going to be killing the party when he caucuses with it (if he wins). Brilliant logic.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 04:40 PM (mFUln)

574 So when people here are saying f*ck the RINOs, I don't even know who we're talking about. Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2009 08:00 PM Well, supposedly, there is a Republican platform of where the GOP stands on issues. As a Political Party, the GOP is Pro-Life. Thus, if a Republican is "pro-choice/abortion", they are going against the Party platform. That's one vote in favor of "RINO". For some, that is a key issue. Not respecting the sanctity of human life, for some, is as big as supporting socialism. So, to them, going against the Party platform on abortion makes them a "RINO". And, technically, that is true. But, for others, a Republican must vote against the Party platform on numerous issues in order to be considered a "RINO". Then again, there are some single-issue voters (fiscal, national security, 2nd Amendment) who will call Republicans "RINOs" if they vote against their single issue. In all cases, "RINO" is technically true. If you are voting against the Party platform, you are not behaving like a Republican.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 04:41 PM (ObTcs)

575 "Lana, the reason Hoffman didn't run on the GOP ticket is because Scozzafava's friends in the local party gave it to her. Not because the RNC wanted her to be the candidate. Not because Newt Gingrich was in some secret situation room somewhere and said "We must run Scozzafava in NY-23!"

And speaking of strawmen, that right there is a beaut!  Nice not talkin' to ya Chaos. Carry on.

Posted by: Lana at October 31, 2009 04:42 PM (MpHql)

576

IMO I think abortion is wrong and terrible. If we are going to change it with laws though I would prefer that women be the deciders on how it's changed and us men should stay out of it.

Posted by: robtr at October 31, 2009 09:36 PM (fwSHf)

--I disagree.  As long as scores of scumbag men are out there, prodding women to get abortions, I have every right to try to stop it as well.

Posted by: logprof at October 31, 2009 04:43 PM (I3Udb)

577 Frankly, I think you're all dicks.

Posted by: strawman at October 31, 2009 04:44 PM (SL3qo)

578

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 05:36 PM #42:

"Also, Reagan won over 25 years ago. The demographics of this country have changed. A lot. Can you really imagine Reagan winning California at this point? Really?"

this may have been addressed elsewhere...

look 2 years ago i could not have imagined in my wildest dreams that barry (or anyone of his ilk) would one day end up as our president

ever

almost sounds as though you've already given up, no future President can have the same (or heaven forbid) even greater conservative leanings than Reagan? please clarify


 

Posted by: ugly kid joe at October 31, 2009 04:44 PM (qGR8d)

579

what the parties don't get is the Constitution, because they believe lawyers that tell them that Precedent is the Law.

why is the SCOTUS so completely and utterly weak and useless except as a tool to lead us even further from the Constitution?

they are all lawyers, of course and there is not a single lawyer in this land that hasn't had their brain folded, spindled and mutilated by the Progressive Machine.

Posted by: shoey at October 31, 2009 04:45 PM (RxUMK)

580 "And speaking of strawmen, that right there is a beaut! Nice not talkin' to ya Chaos. Carry on." I never said you said that, so nice not talkin to ya, bitch.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 04:45 PM (mFUln)

581 Aw strawman, jealous??? lol

Posted by: Lana at October 31, 2009 04:46 PM (MpHql)

582

--I disagree.  As long as scores of scumbag men are out there, prodding women to get abortions, I have every right to try to stop it as well.

Posted by: logprof at October 31, 2009 09:43 PM (I3Udb)

Well you do have that right, but makeing it illegal isn't going to stop scumbag men prodding young women into getting abortions.

Posted by: robtr at October 31, 2009 04:46 PM (fwSHf)

583 Allah is twisting himself in knots trying to spin NY-23 into some sort of "Palin is a phony" thing. God, that dude needs to get laid.

Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 04:46 PM (ZzgoC)

584 Hold on there, ahhh, lil' goyl. Some say there's, ah, shennanigans going on in our primaries on account of them being open to anyone in some states. So maybe it's not quite accurate to say, for example, Crist, got the plurality of (R) votes in the primary, if that should happen. Posted by: Tweet Bunker at October 31, 2009 08:00 PM Exactly. Think about it... The GOP leaderships WANTS open primaries. That way, they keep out conservatives by allowing liberals and Democrats to vote for their liberal candidates. Then they can huff and puff and say "see! there was a conservative option and the GOP-voters rejected it! So now you must vote for our communist Republican!" Which is bullshit. That is exactly what happened with McCain last year. The GOP leadership WANTED a squish like McCain and they know damn well they got him because of the open primaries. So those who keep saying "vote for the GOP candidate after the primary" are not dealing in reality. The reality is that the open primaries f'ck any conservative candidate. So there's no way to know if the conservative lost or not in an open primary. Close the primaries. Then, if a conservative loses, we'll know it was legit. But you know what? This is exactly the reason why the GOP leadership will NOT close the primaries. Thus, running the Conservative in the general as 3rd party is the way to go. Until they close the primaries.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 04:46 PM (ObTcs)

585 The message from the NY 23 is that going Obama-lite is no way to win back power.

Posted by: Pete-billy at October 31, 2009 04:47 PM (JC5VO)

586 "The message from the NY 23 is that going Obama-lite is no way to win back power." Dede wasn't Obama Lite, she was Obama 75%. At least.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 04:47 PM (mFUln)

587 I feel bad for her. Not a bad person, but the wrong person for the job.

Posted by: John McCain at October 31, 2009 04:48 PM (tm15w)

588 "I feel bad for her. Not a bad person, but the wrong person for the job." Now that's the classy kinda John McCain who was just perfect to lose a winnable election, the classy kinda John McCain 48% of us can get behind =)

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 04:48 PM (mFUln)

589

Well you do have that right, but makeing it illegal isn't going to stop scumbag men prodding young women into getting abortions.

Posted by: robtr at October 31, 2009 09:46 PM (fwSHf)

--Well, I'm not stupid enough to hope for a world where no abortions happen.  I would just like them to be harder to get.  Even Europe is way ahead of us on that score.

Posted by: logprof at October 31, 2009 04:49 PM (I3Udb)

590

More strawmen. Find me someone who isn't a raving lunatic like you who thinks the dollar is going to disintegrate. A real, serious economist who thinks that inflation is going to destroy public order and safety.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 09:39 PM (mFUln)

Just because you don't understand the risks we face, don't take it out on me.  I don't see where I've been nasty to you - except to pose you questions that you can't answer. But, since you are so confident that you understand our financial system, explain to me what happened during the credit crisis and why no one should have worried about what it portends.  After all, you seem to think that having to throw a few trillion, just to do a temporary fix, is no big deal - brilliant as you obviously are. 

And the risk is not just inflation, genius, but just taking that one threat, if you can find me anyone who doesn't think that hyper-inflation destroys societies, then I'd love to hear about it. 

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 31, 2009 04:49 PM (A46hP)

591 427 Why is it that a lot of the stridently pro-choice people are the same one stridently against the death penalty? I could never figure that out, since its a position with no logical consistency. The DP is simply society saying: "this one was a bad mistake, and we're going to fix it now", which is really no different than the logic of a woman who gets an abortion.. Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 31, 2009 08:01 PM Bryan Preston had a great post about this issue back when he was posting at HotAir. (Boy did things go downhill after he left). He said, something like, that he personally was pro-death penalty, but would gladly be consistent and be both anti-death penalty and pro-life. But he found it strange that those who were pro-abortion would not also be in favor of the death penalty.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 04:50 PM (ObTcs)

592 Oh nice, chaos.  Insults too?  Care to go for the liberal trifecta and play the victim card?  Geez, man.  Lighten up.

Posted by: Lana at October 31, 2009 04:52 PM (MpHql)

593

The Pork bill was created in a conference committee that did not allow a single REpublican in the room.

 

That fact tells me exactly who the Democrat party is.

Posted by: gus at October 31, 2009 04:52 PM (MaqIC)

594 As much as we dislike John McCain, In my opinion McCain lost because he was to frigging old and he still got 48% of the vote. I stongly believe at least 5% of Obama voters voted against McCain because he was just too old for the job. Posted by: robtr at October 31, 2009 08:03 PM John McCain was 2008's John Kerry. His votes came from being Anti-Obama votes, just as Kerry's came from being Anti-Bush votes. Neither candidate inspired anyone to vote for them, but their opponents inspired people to vote.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 04:53 PM (ObTcs)

595

>robrtr, 533,  We aren't talking about any litmus test, we are talking about the HORRID WRONGFULNESS of a mother choosing to kill her baby.

It's not a political test, its a moral test.

 

and the sad reality is, there are tens of millions of amoral people in this country that will have abortions. That genie is long out of the bottle, thanks to SCOTUS and Roe v Wade

unfortunately, a significant amount of amorality has now been codified into law thru activist courts. we're tilting at windmills here.

let's drop the Bible and run on the Constitution.

Posted by: Jones at October 31, 2009 04:54 PM (1cda8)

596

Obama's not Wilson or  FDR, neither really intended to seize huge tracts of the entire economy, remake our entire media system, effectively dismantle much of the US military and security establishment. Even supposedly solid GOPers like Lindsay Graham and Bob Inglis, who are enamored with carbon taxes, of one kind or another.

Posted by: ian cormac at October 31, 2009 04:55 PM (GkYyh)

597 After eman's comment about Allah, I just went over to HotAir to check it out. 

Yeah, he takes a decidedly different approach to this than Ace and his crew.  The viewpoint here seems to be that RINOs are useful pawns that are to be used to our advantage.  Allah seems to be a RINO pissed off that his kind are being treated like pawns.

Heh, as that one guy with a popular blog says.

Posted by: basic, before visual at October 31, 2009 04:59 PM (SL3qo)

598 525

Meanwhile, look what Organizing For America supporters are passing out at Halloween:   http://tinyurl.com/yd7wcfk.  THAT is our enemy.  Don't lose sight of that, please.  This is at the direction of the frikkin WH.

That just illustrates the abysmal self-important stupidity of Progressives.  A whole bunch of kids are going to grow up to hate and distrust Progressives because they went trick-or-treating and some Progressive idiot gave them an Obamacare flier and a bag of carrot sticks instead of a King-Size Milky Way, like the Republicans down the street were giving out.

Posted by: stuiec at October 31, 2009 05:01 PM (rBLs5)

599 now i gotta check out HA...

Posted by: shoey at October 31, 2009 05:01 PM (RxUMK)

600

Jones, I'm not holding a Bible, I'm holding values.  Abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the CONSTITUTION.

 

Posted by: gus at October 31, 2009 05:01 PM (MaqIC)

601

--Well, I'm not stupid enough to hope for a world where no abortions happen.  I would just like them to be harder to get.  Even Europe is way ahead of us on that score.

Posted by: logprof at October 31, 2009 09:49 PM (I3Udb)

I agree with you there, I think showing someone the new 3d sonograms would give them puase. If you are talking about just making them illegal it also makes them very dangerous. They still happen though, alot.

Posted by: robtr at October 31, 2009 05:02 PM (fwSHf)

602 @549 and 552
It may be more accurate to say that the liberals pretended they were moderate as a party and then benched the moderates in terms of their influence.  I would totally be happy allowing RINOs who understood they were there to be walked on most of the time.

I'm less happy about the prospect of lying, when Conservatism is obviously the best idea in the room, so we can't really do that.  Besides, it kind of helps if you have a mandate-that what you're trying to do is what you ran on during the election.

Posted by: Methos at October 31, 2009 05:02 PM (IoxPW)

603 Take a look at this chart of abortion support over the last 30 years. There's no clear trend and basically support levels are within 3-4 points of where they were back in 1973. So in this case the situation has remained essentially static. So if you claim that things are are going to break the pro-life way, the onus is on you to come up with some actual statistical evidence. Posted by: MĂŠtenloch at October 31, 2009 08:13 PM How long was slavery with us? We eliminated that. I just don't get why so many conservatives like the "never" mentality. I thought America was about the possible, was about the land of opportunity. From reading this blog the past year, it seems that conservatism is simply about the ideology of "it never has happened and it never will so don't bother trying". If that's the case, then I guess I'm going to stop calling myself a conservative.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 05:02 PM (ObTcs)

604 Old meme:

Some psychiatrists think that conservatism is a mental disease

New meme:

HOFFMANIA!

Posted by: mrp at October 31, 2009 05:03 PM (HjPtV)

605

Have any of you seen the Obama Halloween candy giveaway from today?

I shit you not, CHEWBACCA was standing next to Opie.

Actually there were 2.

Posted by: gus at October 31, 2009 05:04 PM (MaqIC)

606

Posted by: gus at October 31, 2009 10:04 PM (MaqIC)

2 of what?

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at October 31, 2009 05:06 PM (tm15w)

607 I've heard that before, and its not the only issue. Basically, liberal/progressive are children. They want to do what they want to do and demand, in the face of all logic and precedent, that there be no consequences for their actions. Getting married, having children, paying bills and getting anchored to the future makes more conservatives than all the politics in the world. Posted by: toby928 at October 31, 2009 08:17 PM So basically what you are saying is that the coasts are made up of children. heh Also, there's also a moronette here who admitted that a year ago she was a liberal... until she met her current man. He persuaded her of conservatism while they've been dating and now she's a conservative moronette. So I don't buy this BS that things are static, nothing is going to change, no one can be persuaded. That's only 'reality' if you don't even bother trying.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 05:06 PM (ObTcs)

608

I shit you not, CHEWBACCA was standing next to Opie.

Actually there were 2.

Posted by: gus at October 31, 2009 10:04 PM (MaqIC)

If Michelle had a sense of humor she would have dressed as Chewbacca tonight and made even us knuckle dragging hating racists gun clingers like her.

Posted by: robtr at October 31, 2009 05:07 PM (fwSHf)

609 If this is the kind of "victory" we get for having a majority then we are doomed. A party that continues with business as usual is nothing but democrat-lite, no matter how tough their talk. Without genuine reformers who will actually slash government in real terms, winning is simply deck-chairs-on-the-Titanic stuff. Posted by: Mr Black at October 31, 2009 08:19 PM Well said. 100% agreed.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 05:07 PM (ObTcs)

610

Michael in MI,

easy man,

guys like us are flooding blogs like this all over the interwebs, the Old Guard are kicking and fussing, but we outnumber them by a long shot.

don't get discouraged we are winning.

 

Posted by: shoey at October 31, 2009 05:08 PM (RxUMK)

611 Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 31, 2009 08:20 PM Well stated. That is my opinion on the issue of abortion as well.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 05:09 PM (ObTcs)

612

robtr.  2 thoughts.   Abortion is, in and of itself DANGEROUS.  A child dies.

But putting that aside, people who CHAMPION abortion, like Scozzaflava, are immoral.

It's very very simple. 

Posted by: gus at October 31, 2009 05:09 PM (MaqIC)

613 522

Making shit illegal without enforcement is bullshit and simply invites the contempt of the populace for the system.  Before I'm willing to listen to any pro-life arguments about repeal of Roe v Wade I want to hear what the concrete enforcement plan is for those who get abortions anyway and get caught.  If there is no enforcement plan, then you don't have a complete implementable solution.

What I want to know is why, when a complete enforcement solution is implemented, like the California law that lets women drop off newborn babies at hospitals and fire stations with no questions asked, we still have women dumping their live newborns in Dumpsters and farm fields to let them die.

Posted by: stuiec at October 31, 2009 05:11 PM (rBLs5)

614 @588

I hate to say it Michael but you are talking out your ass.  The GOP sued to close primaries in CA and WA because they didn't want Dems voting in them.  Bothe cases went all the way to the Supreme Court who upheld the parties rights to close primaries.  So if liberal Republicans are getting nominated anyway then it's because they were voted in by Republicans.

Posted by: Chad at October 31, 2009 05:11 PM (WNcvq)

615 There’s just so much energy wasted constantly fretting over the purists who just won’t move Left “for the common good.” Dear dear, if only a portion of that energy was spent moving the moderates over to the Right… Posted by: barbelle at October 31, 2009 08:30 PM Here, here!

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 05:12 PM (ObTcs)

616

So the path to Republican dominance is to shrink the party, and cast out the Scozzafava type voters?

Posted by: Reason60 at October 31, 2009 05:13 PM (ogXbt)

617 I don't know what the Republican strategy is, I'm a Conservative.

Posted by: gus at October 31, 2009 05:15 PM (MaqIC)

618 So the path to Republican dominance is to shrink the party, and cast out the Scozzafava type voters?

As long as we could torture them and then cover it up, sure.

Posted by: toby928 at October 31, 2009 05:16 PM (PD1tk)

619 The GOP sued to close primaries in CA and WA because they didn't want Dems voting in them.  Bothe cases went all the way to the Supreme Court who upheld the parties rights to close primaries.  So if liberal Republicans are getting nominated anyway then it's because they were voted in by Republicans.

Posted by: Chad at October 31, 2009 10:11 PM (WNcvq)

Chad, I live in Washington. We don't even register by party. I can vote in any primary I want to. We do have a psuedo primary cacaous system that is more of a beauty pagent than anything else but primaries are open.

Posted by: robtr at October 31, 2009 05:17 PM (fwSHf)

620 OT, anyone venturing over to Hotair may want to check their headlines.  According to the AP, the portion of the general public that actually wants to be on Obamacare is a whopping 2%

2%!

That's what the Democrat party is destroying itself over.

Posted by: Methos at October 31, 2009 05:19 PM (IoxPW)

621

"So the path to Republican dominance is to shrink the party, and cast out the Scozzafava type voters?"

you can't throw someone out of a boat they were never in.

Posted by: shoey at October 31, 2009 05:20 PM (RxUMK)

622 Here in WisLIBTARDson, we don't even need an i.d. to vote.

Posted by: gus at October 31, 2009 05:20 PM (MaqIC)

623

you guys were right, Allah has his panties bunched up so tight there ain't gonna be no getting that skidmark out.

Posted by: shoey at October 31, 2009 05:22 PM (RxUMK)

624 What lost the last election was "compassionate conservatism"  squishy conservatism.  When "party purity" existed, the Republican Party did pretty well.  We still had the Snowes and the Grahams and the McCains and they still sucked but the Republican Party had a pretty consistent platform that attracked a whole bunch of people who thought that a free America was preferrable to a socialist one.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at October 31, 2009 05:24 PM (r1h5M)

625 618, Too bad that wasn't so in New Hampshire.

Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 05:24 PM (ZzgoC)

626 You know it may hurt your craw to accept it, but there is a real difference between doubling the national debt in eight years and doubling it in eight months. There really is. The one is a party that lost its way. The other is a party behaving exactly as its principles say it should. Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 08:38 PM Yes, there is a difference. Doing is slowly, people don't pay attention and just allow it to happen. Were people out there protesting spending during the Bush years? Nope. They sure the f'ck are out there now, though, and they're not going to take it anymore. Maybe I should have said the *attempt* at socialism quickly is much better than the attempt at socialism slowly over a period of time. Obama and the Democrats' attempts at Cap and Tax, Health Care and running up the deficit to historical amounts have woken up the public. Had they just done it little by little over his 4 years of his 1st term... probably would have given him a 2nd term. But, since they've done it in 9 months, people have woken from their slumber and now we are looking as possible victories for the GOP in 2010 and possible good chance to vote him out of office in 2012. Back just 6-9 months ago, no one, absolutely NO ONE, would have imagined that. Quick woke people up. The little by little approach is what Norman Thomas said would succeed. "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 05:24 PM (ObTcs)

627 So the path to Republican dominance is to shrink the party, and cast out the Scozzafava type voters?

Yup.  As I posted way above (with numbers from the FEC and Karl Rove and everything), Republicans lose far more Conservative voters than they pick up moderates and liberals.  So yes to half of that, I guess.  Until the desire to represent moderates and liberals is beaten out of the RINO establishment, they're never going to pick up enough Conservative voters to be a viable national party.

Overstating?  Kind of.  Maybe.  But not really.


Posted by: Methos at October 31, 2009 05:25 PM (IoxPW)

628 Allah doesn't wear panties, Mohammad does.

Posted by: gus at October 31, 2009 05:25 PM (MaqIC)

629 620

So the path to Republican dominance is to shrink the party, and cast out the Scozzafava type voters?

No body is seeking to throw anyone out.  But people who don't belong, and they know they don't belong should leave of their own accord.  And conservatives shouldn't stick up for them just because they are using an (R) on their ballot just to get elected. 

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at October 31, 2009 05:29 PM (r1h5M)

630 566 "We are not Iceland. How many times do I have to say this. We are susceptible to the same problem but don't have access to the same solution. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? We cannot be bailed out, by anyone. Iceland was bailed out. The dollar is the world's trade and reserve currency, in addition to being too large to rescue for our personal use. What do you think would happen with the disintegration of the dollar? Think about it."

Iceland is an island in the middle of the North Atlantic that is hugely dependent on imports. How is Iceland possibly in a better position than the United States?

I have no patience with doom-mongers. The dollar is not going to disintegrate and if you think it will you're either hysterical, ignorant, or hysterically ignorant.

Iceland is small enough to rescue.  The USA is not: if the same collapse happened to the American economy, no outside force would be big enough to step in and set things right.  There would have to be a different solution, and it would probably look different from anything any of us have ever experienced.

Nassem Nicholas Taleb wrote a great book, The Black Swan, that makes the point that just because something has never happened, that doesn't prove that it can never happen.

Posted by: stuiec at October 31, 2009 05:30 PM (rBLs5)

631

"You know it may hurt your craw to accept it, but there is a real difference between doubling the national debt in eight years and doubling it in eight months. There really is. The one is a party that lost its way. The other is a party behaving exactly as its principles say it should."

the real problem with this statement is that, in the end, we're still growing the debt.

the goal is to shrink it

 

Posted by: shoey at October 31, 2009 05:32 PM (RxUMK)

632 I understand not wanting to drive away moderate or independent voters.  But why does the Republican Party not concern itself with driving away the base?   Why should they bother voting at all if the candidate is a doctrinaire leftist?

Posted by: Beagle at October 31, 2009 05:33 PM (sOtz/)

633 Heads up, USC v Oregon is looking like a possible upset.

Posted by: basic, before visual at October 31, 2009 05:35 PM (SL3qo)

634 595427 Why is it that a lot of the stridently pro-choice people are the same one stridently against the death penalty?

I could never figure that out, since its a position with no logical consistency. The DP is simply society saying: "this one was a bad mistake, and we're going to fix it now", which is really no different than the logic of a woman who gets an abortion..


Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 31, 2009 08:01 PM

Bryan Preston had a great post about this issue back when he was posting at HotAir. (Boy did things go downhill after he left).

He said, something like, that he personally was pro-death penalty, but would gladly be consistent and be both anti-death penalty and pro-life. But he found it strange that those who were pro-abortion would not also be in favor of the death penalty.

It's a fascinating anomaly of modern America that it's un-Constitutional to execute a rapist for the crime of rape, but perfectly Constitutional to execute the rapist's unborn child, who's committed no crime at all.

Posted by: stuiec at October 31, 2009 05:37 PM (rBLs5)

635

Michael in MI.  Marxists/Libtards when given power, will do ANYTHING TO consolidate power. Whle America is high on HOPIUM and CHANGIUM, Obama, Axelrod, and Emanuel installed dozens of Marxists freaks in non-existant positions of CZAR authority. He installed freaks and tax cheats in legitimate positions.  And then the LIBTARDS RAPE America with a TRILLION PLUS dollar PORK bill.

This band of FREAKS KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

They are MARXISTS.

I saw all of this coming.

Posted by: gus at October 31, 2009 05:38 PM (MaqIC)

636 The matter of purity of the Republican party is not the best way to regard our discontent with the GOP. I am a movement Conservative and I prefer the Reagan wing of the party to the Rockefeller/Bush/McCain wing of the party. It's not that I think we should kick out either wing of the party, but that we should look to expand the party. The argument is how to grow the Republican party. Some claim this is done by seizing the center from the other party. But Reagan did not do this. Rather he assembled a ruling coalition of moneyed interests, the religious right, and small-government libertarians.

Both Republicans and Democrats have each adopted a message of bland vagueness, while sharply attacked anything un-bland they might spin from their adversaries' platform.

What I want is a positive advocacy of Conservative principles. I long for contemporary equivalents of Reagan's "Time For Choosing" speech, or Milton Friedman's take-down of Phil Donohue on the topic of Greed. Without this, we are doomed to follow the Bushian trajectory of creeping socialism. And socialism, creeping or galloping, does not work.

Posted by: Steve Poling at October 31, 2009 05:40 PM (nBrFn)

637 Haven't read all of the comments, so this may have been covered.  But beyond the question of whether or not a Republican party 'purified' via10 or 20 years of losses would even be electable is the fact that the damage that that another two decades of Democrat control would do would be nearly impossible to undo; tax increases, massive new entitlements, radical environmental legislation.  Now maybe Glen Beck is willing to live with that, but I  most definitely am not.  Conservatives need to take a step back, and think carefully about the consequences of a "zero tolerance" attitude as it pertains to elections and candidates. 

Posted by: Bob C at October 31, 2009 05:40 PM (Vqw9p)

638

This is why we need majorities in Congress.

Hillary Clinton today in Pakistan:  “The percentage of taxes on GDP (in Pakistan) is among the lowest in the world... We (the United States) tax everything that moves and doesn’t move, and that’s not what we see in Pakistan,” she said.

Posted by: robtr at October 31, 2009 05:40 PM (fwSHf)

639

Geez I hate reading Allah at HA and now he's being held up as some kind of authority here?  What's next, worshipping at the altar of Meghan McCain? 

 

Posted by: Deanna at October 31, 2009 05:42 PM (Dl+TH)

640 If people like you are the ones who are going to be trying to do the convincing, Ace is unfortunately correct. Of course he didn't mean that, you're just on your strawman gig. Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 08:58 PM Yeah, he's so correct. Which is why I convinced my office (granted, only 15 people) to vote McCain. Even had an Obama supporter change to being not just a McCain voter, but also shared with his wife and friends what I told him about Obama and McCain and was then trying to convince them to vote McCain. That was just one person (me) who influenced 15 people, who then went out and influenced who knows how many. So yeah, ace is dead on that persuading doesn't work. And yeah, I'm a bit of an asshole here sometimes. But I get a bit fucking pissed off when I keep reading "never", "fantasy land", "not gonna happen", "persuading doesn't work" and other such defeatist bullshit. I was not like that last year when I was persuading people who weren't defeatist douchebags. And I did this in Michigan. In Detroit. So don't fucking tell me that people can't be persuaded. They can. If people bother to fucking try.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 05:43 PM (ObTcs)

641 636 I understand not wanting to drive away moderate or independent voters.  But why does the Republican Party not concern itself with driving away the base?   Why should they bother voting at all if the candidate is a doctrinaire leftist?

My belief is that the Republican Party should advocate for an agreed set of platform principles and ask that anyone who wants the party's backing as a candidate both (a) to agree with a majority subset of those principles and (b) to tolerate -- in public, at least -- those principles with which they don't agree.

Posted by: stuiec at October 31, 2009 05:43 PM (rBLs5)

642

#636

because the GOP leadership hate the conservative base as much if not more than the Dems.

it's what the base wants that puts fear in their hearts, the base want to slash the size and power of the government at almost all levels.

all of the career pols are pulling their hair out trying to figure out how to tamp down this sentiment, to them it's a threat because all they care about is themselves.

Posted by: shoey at October 31, 2009 05:47 PM (RxUMK)

643

Conservatives have principles.

Democrats/Liberals {same thing] do not.

Republicans have to decide WHO they are.

I WAS a Democrat.  I Never was a liberal.

I am a Conservative.  I Never have been a Republican.

I may never be.

Posted by: gus at October 31, 2009 05:48 PM (MaqIC)

644 Oh, and for all of you who think that compromising to elect any candidate as long as he/she has an R after their name is okay , I have two words for you....Arlen Specter.

Posted by: Deanna at October 31, 2009 05:49 PM (Dl+TH)

645

Steve Poling.

Friednman's BITCH SLAPPING of Phil Douchebag was EPIC.

It was factual.

It should be shown as a requirement in High Schools.

It is an INCONVENIENT TRUTH.

Posted by: gus at October 31, 2009 05:52 PM (MaqIC)

646

no, we create a platform everyone can agree on, if newcomers don't agree, tough cookies, go have your own party.

once a platform has been agreed on, that's it.

the idea is to keep the platform simple, not load it up with a lot of pc gibberish or heavy-handed ultimatums.

keep it short, keep it sweet, everyone adheres to it, no exceptions

 

Posted by: shoey at October 31, 2009 05:52 PM (RxUMK)

647  Jones, I'm not holding a Bible, I'm holding values.  Abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the CONSTITUTION.

 

Posted by: gus at October 31, 2009 10:01 PM (MaqIC)

 

my point.

Posted by: Jones at October 31, 2009 05:52 PM (1cda8)

648 646, Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 05:53 PM (ZzgoC)

649

Jones.   Thanks.

Posted by: gus at October 31, 2009 05:56 PM (MaqIC)

650 when a complete enforcement solution is implemented, like the California law that lets women drop off newborn babies at hospitals and fire stations with no questions asked, we still have women dumping their live newborns in Dumpsters and farm fields to let them die.

I think the answer is multiple choice - a combination of ignorance that the "drop off" option even exists, fear of the government that its not really no questions asked (this would be a large factor among immigrants), some significant percentage of "just plain stupid", and a much smaller handful of malevolent shitheads that don't have the stones to simply kill the kid themselves who use the dump job as a way to cleanse their conscience of what usually result in a defacto murder.

Young, stupid, and scared is pretty powerful stuff.  We're talking about people solidly in the grip of a "fight or flight" type response mechanism.  Reason is no longer a factor, and they've had no training what so ever to help them deal with that emotional state in a less retarded manner.

We see similar (seemingly) irrational behavior among the central American immigrants here in south Florida.  When robbed, they don't call the police because they don't trust police (which is a perfectly rational position in many of their home countries).   When they get paid, they won't put their money in a bank (because the banks at home really aren't all that safe a place for money), so they often walk around with their whole life saving in their pocket (frequently several thousand dollars)...which tends to make them juicy targets for robberies since their style of dress and mannerisms make them easy to spot.

There have been all sorts of local "outreach" programs trying to convince these central American folks that American police and banks don't operate like the ones in Guatemala or Honduras, but they've largely been unsuccessful. 

If you took a woman who just squeezed out a kid she doesn't want and was raised in such a society where distrust of public services and authority is the rational response, and transplant them here, then you'll get what appears to us to be irrational responses.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 31, 2009 05:58 PM (IOC9o)

651 Well, we certainly know what leads to crushing electoral losses: paying lip-service to conservatives while compromising on everything and spending just a wee bit less than the Dems. So how about we don't go back down that road? These are the type of canddiates that Newt et al. are trying to get us to support. These types of candidates are going to lead to similar defeats once and if they are ever able to bring (or be carried along in a movement to bring) a gop government.

Posted by: gm at October 31, 2009 06:00 PM (ELiBu)

652 because the GOP leadership hate the conservative base as much if not more than the Dems.


I understand the sentiment, but the GOP leadership does not hate the conservative base as much as the Dems do.

Example:

Frank Rich's 10-31 column (in the New York Times) is headlined:

The G.O.P. Stalinists Invade Upstate New York

Posted by: mrp at October 31, 2009 06:04 PM (HjPtV)

653

Purple Avenger, the lowest common demoninator should NEVER be the basis for law or policy.  We continue to allow YOUNG and STUPID to be an excuse.  We continue to allow THOSE WHO CAME HERE recently TO BE immune from OUR laws,customs and values.  Thereby changing forever, OUR CUSTOMS AND VALUES.

Welcome to the UNITED STATES.  Obey our laws,  PLEASE.

Posted by: gus at October 31, 2009 06:06 PM (MaqIC)

654

"because the GOP leadership hate the conservative base as much if not   more than the Dems.


I understand the sentiment, but the GOP leadership does not hate the conservative base as much as the Dems do.

Example:

Frank Rich's 10-31 column (in the New York Times) is headlined:

The G.O.P. Stalinists Invade Upstate New York "

i stand corrected, lol

 

Posted by: shoey at October 31, 2009 06:09 PM (RxUMK)

655 Nassem Nicholas Taleb wrote a great book, The Black Swan, that makes the point that just because something has never happened, that doesn't prove that it can never happen. Posted by: stuiec at October 31, 2009 10:30 PM I doubt Ace or DrewM have read that. heh

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 06:14 PM (ObTcs)

656

Frank Rich like most LIBTARD MSM FOOLS, doesn't make sense.

THE GOP picked Scozzafava.

CONSERVATIVES sent her packing.

As long as THE LEFT (Frank Rich included) continues to attack the GOP.....it's all good.

The GOP on the other hand, needs to smell the coffee.  (or the TEA BAGS!!!)

Sarah Palin invokes CONSERVATIVES VALUES.

The days of  Graham, McCain, and Newtered Gingrich are over.

Posted by: gus at October 31, 2009 06:17 PM (MaqIC)

657 Works for me too.

Posted by: R. Aurum Tar at October 31, 2009 06:23 PM (AUcg4)

658 If you took a woman who just squeezed out a kid she doesn't want and was raised in such a society where distrust of public services and authority is the rational response, and transplant them here, then you'll get what appears to us to be irrational responses. Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 31, 2009 10:58 PM Good points in this entire comment. I would add that fostering a society in which our young grow up to not respect the sanctity of human life will have major consequences as well. Not to mention fostering a society in which young women are taught power and acceptability comes through having sex.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 06:24 PM (ObTcs)

659

631 So the path to Republican dominance is to shrink the party, and cast out the Scozzafava type voters?

Yup.  As I posted way above (with numbers from the FEC and Karl Rove and everything), Republicans lose far more Conservative voters than they pick up moderates and liberals.  So yes to half of that, I guess.  Until the desire to represent moderates and liberals is beaten out of the RINO establishment, they're never going to pick up enough Conservative voters to be a viable national party.

Overstating?  Kind of.  Maybe.  But not really.

So as the GOP gets smaller and more pure, and the moderate Republicans defect to the Dems, you achieve national victory how......???

Posted by: Reason60 at October 31, 2009 06:25 PM (ogXbt)

660

Reason.   I agree.  Republicans  should change their values to get LIBTARDS to vote for them.  Compromising your core values cannot be done by DEMOCRATS/LIBTARDS, AS THEY (you?) have none.

There is a reckoning.  Many many Republicans have compromised.  They thought that half was better than none. THEN THEY GOT NONE.  Some continued to compromise.  McCain did.  He was loved by the LIBTARD MEDIA, until they shit on him. He was nice and kind. he was polite and deferential.  He got shit on.  But he still has his CONGRESSIONAL COUNTRY CLUB MEMBERSHIP, and we have a FUCKING INCOMPETANT MARXIST.

Naturally McCain and his posse, dumped on Sarah Palin.

Posted by: gus at October 31, 2009 06:35 PM (MaqIC)

661 Listen to the Darkside of the Force, Ace. Feel your fear of Sarah and give in to it. Here, take my seatless bicycle, ponytail, and camera and use the Darkside of the Force to express your newfound gheyness. I will run naked before you screaming paranoid accusations to clear your path. Together, we will castrate ALL staunch conservatives and smother them in Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Muuuhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Posted by: Charles Johnson at October 31, 2009 06:38 PM (9UW4m)

662

16 boy ,that Allah dude sure is smart, he can write two blogs at once, cheers.

Heh.  Some kind of effed up echo in here.  The Newt, Frum, Allah, Ace, Noonan, Parker GOP train is now leaving the station.

Posted by: Jaibones at October 31, 2009 06:39 PM (8DbK4)

663 I dig it when little boys ring my bell and ask "trick or treat?"!!!

Posted by: Charles Johnson of LiberalGheyFuktards fame at October 31, 2009 06:45 PM (9UW4m)

664 The problem with the Beck approach is during those twenty years or whatever, you'll get more and more crap pushed on the country that will be impossible to remove (i.e. Social Security).

Posted by: Uncle Milty at October 31, 2009 06:52 PM (Jwx5s)

665

Jaibones, the CONSERVI-TRAIN  is indeed leaving the station.

I'm not sure if ACE is or isn't on board. BUT.  The passenger list has been...................MISUNDERESTIMATED.

We aren't

angry, we aren't tea baggers, we aren't intolerant, nor homophobes, racists, KKK, close minded, red necks, haters, mean,  WHITE, fear mongers, greedy, out of touch, nationalists,  xeonphobes or any other SLUR that the complicit  LIBTARDS MEDIA  calls us.

Smearing us, doesn't hurt

 

Posted by: gus at October 31, 2009 06:52 PM (MaqIC)

666

@666

Holy Shit!  I think it's really you.  The 666 was the final clencher.

Posted by: MDr at October 31, 2009 07:00 PM (ucq49)

667 You just can't argue with Squishes about the defects of being a Squish.

They take it personally and get all defensive.  Since they basically have no principles or sound arguments, they resort to straw man arguments and improbable hypotheticals.  Naturally, this only increases the disdain conservatives hold for them.

There are occasions when a Squish Rep or Senator must be courted to get something done, and a few particular districts - not many - where only a "moderate" Republican can be competitive.  In those FEW cases, we hold our nose and do what must be done.  Face it:  in most of the districts where a principled conservative would have no chance, they are going to elect the Democrat anyway. 

This is NOT the policy of the NRCC, RNC, or NRSC at the present time.  They are continually interfering in nominating contests to favor Squishes, and regularly waste millions of $$ supporting Squish incumbents in losing reelection battles against Democrats instead of using the money to help conservatives who might compete elsewhere with that level of support.

THAT is what really pisses conservatives off, and what must change.  If GOP control merely means heading for the fiscal stone wall at 75 mph instead of the Democrats' preferred 90m mph, and enriching a different subset of special interests and corrupt officials, I'm sorry:  it doesn't mean enough to me to volunteer, write checks, or vote for your precious Squishes. 

Got spine?  Got principles?  We can talk.  Got Squishiness?  Insert in your collective rectums, and rotate.


Posted by: Adjoran at October 31, 2009 07:04 PM (jmoP/)

668 The conservatives seeded education to the liberals, and the price is a stupid, left wing population more interested in being "fair" than prosperous. They would rather all boats be lowered and equal than raised but unleveled.

Posted by: Saint at October 31, 2009 07:07 PM (0qvAG)

669 Per #208 Ace, The Kossacks moved the Democratic center from the left to the far left. Tester and Schuler talk the talk but vote to empower Reid and Pelosi. They're not blue dogs, they're lapdogs. There are no conservative Democrats. There are no moderate Democrats. Democrats come in four flavors. 1. Liberal 2.Very liberal 3. Extremely liberal 4. Without any noticeable philosophy except getting reelected. Only the last group can be moved and they can only be moved by the threat of defeat. They don't care about anything else. Since the Democratic supermajority is supposedly built on "moderates", one would expect them to elect leaders who are open to compromise and negotiation. Instead we have a Democratic leadership that is very hard left and moving more that way every day. Anyone with a D after their name will vote for every socialist pipe dream that comes along unless they are convinced it will cost them their job. Kos and Sharpton have more influence on the Democratic leadership than all the Testers and Schulers and they always will. The Kossack revolt rebuilt the Democratic party in their image and they'll let the "moderates" come along if they don't make trouble.

Posted by: Ken Hahn at October 31, 2009 07:08 PM (RMuOp)

670

From main post:  But if Glenn Beck is serious and not merely engaging in bluffing rhetoric, he really does believe that the only way to get back to a "Constitutionalist Majority" is to have a series of punishing losses, and full Democratic control of the government, for 5, 10, 15, maybe 20 years or so, unless the GOP "learns its lesson."

Beck has never said any such thing.

 

Posted by: rae4palin at October 31, 2009 07:18 PM (AdTyg)

671 Come the 2012 presidential primary, please remember who endorsed Hoffmann early on, who hesitated and then endorsed, and who got on the bandwagon at the end.

Posted by: Zoltan at October 31, 2009 07:24 PM (0/azW)

672

Adjoran, the DIFFERENCE.....is....PRINCIPLES.

Any loser hack TAX and SPEND prix can be a LIBTARD..  And in being so, you MUST adhere to ABORTION, nonsensical "social justice" and "eco -nut-crap."  Plus the LIBTARD ENHANCER of "DIVERISTY a.k.a. RACIAL PAYBACK CRAPTARDSIM.

To a LIBTARD SPREADING THE WEALTH, means MARXISM.

Spreading YOUR income for THEIR, voting base.

There are NO PRO-LIFE LIBERALS.

WHY

Posted by: gus at October 31, 2009 07:27 PM (MaqIC)

673

@674

I'm curious, not looking to pick a fight.  I assume the "last" group would be the blue dogs.  That's 60?  How does one go about making them fearful of losing their jobs?  Is anyone tracking their positions & votes vs their constituents' positions?  If so, what are they doing with the info?  Anyone getting out the word to their constituents, ie the discontinuities?  If so, how?  If not, what do you propose?

Personally, I'm starting to gravitate toward getting off my ass, and trying to make a difference at the local level.

Posted by: MDr at October 31, 2009 07:30 PM (ucq49)

674

Zoltan, I agree. But the WHY is just as important. Gingrich supported the party apparatus in NY, WHO CHOSE SCOZZAFAVA.

Her merits COULD NOT have been weighed by Newtered Gingrich.

Newtered Gingrich trusted the PARTY.

I don't.  Nor have I ever.

Btrw, my ACL surgeon  is named Zoltan.

Posted by: gus at October 31, 2009 07:34 PM (MaqIC)

675 @623

I live in Washington also robtr and the GOP did sue to close the primaries.  They were closed until Aug 2008. What we now have is a top 2 system like Louisiana.  It doesn't change my point that if liberal Republicans are getting picked in primaries it is because liberal Republicans are voting for them.

In the Presidential race in WA the GOP awards half the delegates based on a closed primary and half based on a caucus.  The Dems award them all based on the caucus.

Saturday's caucuses will determine only a portion of the 40 Republican delegates who will go on to the Republican National Convention. Caucuses at various levels will determine 18 of those delegates; 19 will be based on the state primary election on Feb. 19. The three remaining positions are "automatic" delegates — the state party chairman and two national-committee members.

source

Posted by: Chad at October 31, 2009 07:50 PM (WNcvq)

676

That's pretty twisted to argue that being an idealist is "copping out."  I guess it depends on what the object of the cop-out is.  In my opinion, copping out on yourself (i.e., your principles) is the real cop-out.  Isn't that what individual liberty is all about?

All this worry and dread about splitting the vote and handing elections to Dems is stuck-in-the-past thinking.  The past, as in "when the GOP had a loyal following" past.  Question:  At what point would you abandon the GOP, Rush-thinkers?  When the only ones left are McCain and Grahamcracker?

It's time to drive a stake through the heart of the GOP.  Victory is at hand.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at October 31, 2009 07:56 PM (PGrdo)

677 "[Dede's] Not a bad person, but the wrong person for the job."

NEWSFLASH!! SHE IS A BAD PERSON!!!!

Dede is a damn abortaholic! That is the definition of a "bad person"!

Posted by: Jaqob Jackson at October 31, 2009 08:01 PM (4odcn)

678 How does one go about making them fearful of losing their jobs?

They already are.  That's why Pelosi is having so much trouble ramming shit through.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 31, 2009 08:11 PM (IOC9o)

679 Good article and good comments unfortunately I did not read them all. My only question is....Where do we draw the line in the sand? When do we say enough is enough and I will not take it anymore? I see the problems in splitting the vote, however we just had 8 years of RINO rule. We have had the TEA Parties (I was in DC), did they listen? No, they did not! They put Dede up and backed her. Who will they put up in 2010? I'm from NV and am doing all that I can to get rid of Reid but who will the party put up and back? The party needs to get the message that we don't want RINO's. We want a strong conservative candidate. Heck I don't have to agree with everything that they say but I do whan to agree with their basic principles.

Posted by: Navy Dad at October 31, 2009 08:15 PM (fZDxe)

680 At what point would you abandon the GOP

For me, it would have been if Hillary had been nominated.  Then I'd have sat it out or went with Hillary strictly as a protest vote. 

I knew that Obama was at his core a Marxist though and the thought of that was just too horrible to contemplate, so I held my nose and voted for McLame.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 31, 2009 08:17 PM (IOC9o)

681

"The problem with the Beck approach is during those twenty years or whatever, you'll get more and more crap pushed on the country that will be impossible to remove (i.e. Social Security)."

there is no "Beck Approach"

Ace conjuctures that is what Beck is thinking, that doesn't make it true.

 

Posted by: shoey at October 31, 2009 08:19 PM (RxUMK)

682

I am late to the party and if anyone has stated this previously I apologize for the repitition......

I watched Beck when he was at Cnn for awhile and stopped, because I didn't like (and was feared) what he was saying. However, almost everything he talked about then came true. So, when he moved to FOX I watched and listened.

I do not truly think that he is advocating a third party. Far from it. He simply wants to expose the truths about both parties. His goal is to waken all of us from our slumber and recognize the Constitution and what it means to us.

For myself, a candidate simply has to be about preserving our country and believing in what our Founding Fathers envisioned. Our constitution has survived this many years because it was built on conservative and Christian beliefs. The attempts of so many to belittle it is unacceptable.

And to our President:

How dare you sir leave them without the support they need. I pray every day for you to have the courage to lead. And I pray everyday for the men and women that have given you the opportunity to lead.

Posted by: redwhiteandblue at October 31, 2009 08:34 PM (8NRb7)

683

Dude!

Dede was never a viazble conservative candidate...

She was a RINO at best...

I'm happy about the comeuppajce; are you?!???

Posted by: Bob Reed at October 31, 2009 08:36 PM (cslgb)

684 Ace and DrewM seem to look at things as they are, assume that's how they will always be and so decide it's pointless to do anything to get things where we want them to be, so just give the people what they want.

Michael in MI....

Just for the record, writing something over and over again doesn't make it true.

Where have I ever said that it's impossible to change minds?

I've made 2 basic points...

1-When talking about congressional districts, they are not naturally occurring things. They are created to generate a specific partisan outcome 9 out of 10 times.

You can try and change those minds but you are assuming the majority of people hold transitory beliefs and aren't as committed to what they believe with the same fervor you do.

2-Changing minds takes time. In the meantime real elections will be held.

I offered a concrete example of the NY-19. It was represented by a pro-life RINO (who voted with the leadership most of the time) and is now represented by a liberal Democrat.

Explain to me how the remedy to that liberal Democrat is a staunch, pro-life conservative.

Have the voters of the district been mistaken in who they are voting for? Do they secretly long for an Eric Cantor type? Or, do the type of people who get sent to Congress accurately reflect the beliefs of  that district?

Either way, it seems changing their minds in any substantial numbers is pretty unlikely in the next year.

How long are you willing to write that district off and forestall a more friendly majority in the House in the name of sticking it to the RINOs and not giving an inch?

Or in short...The minority status will continue until the stupid voters realize they should agree with you more often.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 08:39 PM (ur6Ar)

685 The argument, as before, is circular- so perhaps the proper way to view it is on a case-by-case basis. Tactically, race-to-race, and strategically on a regional and national basis. In a situation like NY-23, conservatives have made their voices heard- despite party machinations- and now we have a chance to elect something that resembles a real conservative.

tmi3rd,

I agree entirely with that.

Scozzafava was a bad match for that district. She was picked by the machine who was more interested in what was in it for them then doing the right thing.

That was the problem in NY-20 with picking Tedisco over Faso.

That said, there are places in NY where I would run Dede or Tedicsco over Hoffman and Faso.

I want to win with the most conservative candidate I can, not lose with the most conservative candidate available.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 08:44 PM (ur6Ar)

686

Oh, and by the way I do NOT feel badly for her. Her cronies in the party got her the nomination and she accepted. She was not pressured into this, she thought she could get away with it until conservatives started asking questions. That the establishment RNC stayed behind her until yesterday is inexcsuable.

 

Posted by: redwhiteandblue at October 31, 2009 08:47 PM (8NRb7)

687 # 210 - Dave in Texas I believe your cowardice was said to stem from your general hand licking and feminine attitude toward the government. That is, you will bitch, boast, vote for the (R) regardless of his or her qualities, and then slink back to your hovel and do whatever your government masters command of you (so long as you can keep enough of your money to buy beer and watch football). Which is a pretty good life for a slave, when you compare slavery throughout history.

Posted by: Over 9000 Gigabytez at October 31, 2009 08:49 PM (J5JC4)

688 Great post Ace.
I have tried to persuade people who are compelled to thump their chests about being the biggest, bestest, most purest, awsomest conservative ever and are keen to demonstrate it by effectively helping elect communists that you don't get political power by losing elections and that it's inherently treasonous to sit out an election in the hope of electing people who will make a huge mess so you can say "I told you so". There is no conservative case to be made for trashing the country.
I have to confess; bankruptcy, lost wars, appeasement, getting our Soldiers and Marines killed through incompetency, loss of sovereignty, loss of power to strategic competitors all have shortened my interval between articulately presented argument and obscenity laced tirade. Much better for all concerned if I just link to this.

Posted by: Hidden Imam at October 31, 2009 08:51 PM (9fjyr)

689  was not like that last year when I was persuading people who weren't defeatist douchebags.

And I did this in Michigan. In Detroit. So don't fucking tell me that people can't be persuaded. They can. If people bother to fucking try.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 10:43 PM (ObTcs)

 

yeah but you see.....It is hard work  and the GOP elites would rather just take the base for granted and pander to the moderates to bribe them.  It is so much easier then to have to explain and defend your principles and  get people to understand them.  ace seems to think people are diffucult to presuad.  Both Iraq wars should have taught him differently.  People were presuaded to go to war a life and death decsion with the threats of oil prices high for the first one and WMD/911 for the second.  a majority of those same people were presuaded 2 years later to be against the war by the dems that took the time and money to explain to them why they thought the war was wrong. 

 

that is presuassion and it is easy to do  if you have the drive to do it.

ACe and ALLAh are wrong and have one-fucking dimensional thinking on this.

Posted by: unseen at October 31, 2009 08:55 PM (aVGmX)

690 Donald Carcieri.  Hard core conservative up and down the line.  Actually vocally against gay marriage.  Governor of freakin' RHODE ISLAND.  Won 55-45 in 2002, and was re-elected in 2006.  And, incidentially, in 2002 he was NOT the Republican-endorsed candidate during the Republican primary.

In RHODE ISLAND.  Which is politically about the same as Massachusetts or Vermont..

My observation has been that hard core conservatives *can and do* win where RINO's don't, even where you'd think the area is overwhelmingly liberal.  Why?  Perhaps because there's a crapload of people on the Right who won't come out to vote for a RINO, but who do come out for someone with principles.

Every one of these "nooo not the PURITAH!" arguments assumes that the whole country is to the left of our politicians, and those that stay home when offered only Far Left and Left are some slim minority.  BS.  Ace, you talk about "costs", and how -we- don't acknowledge them - but you don't acknowledge the cost that when you go with a RINO, you lose a significant chunk of people on the right.  You make the facile, media-endorsed assumption that when a politician moves left, he picks up more votes than he loses.  Bullshit.  And bullshit even in blue states. 

So why don't we see more conservatives like Carcieri being elected?  Simple.  Because the Republican Party has been largely infiltrated now, particularly in the northeast, where they exist primarily as placeholders to keep more conservative candidates from running.  Remember - Carcieri ran against a RINO endorsed by the Republicans in 2002.  And Carcieri won in a landslide.  Would the RINO have won?  I bet you a great deal that he wouldn't have.

Incidentally, I supposed by your logic that "if you can't win a primary, how the hell can you win the general" means that you are ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that McCain would've won if somehow, after losing the nomination, Hillary had become the nominee (say, Rezko or his credit card fraud or 1000 other reasons had actually buried Obama).  Cause, you know, Hillary lost the primary so she's utterly unelectable nationally and we could've put anyone up against her and won.  That's your logic..  I don't buy it.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at October 31, 2009 09:04 PM (SxA2Q)

691 Two words: Jim Jeffords
Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic at October 31, 2009 06:49 PM (pZEar)

And he flipped the balance of the Senate when he left.

Again, it's not like when he retired he was replaced by a Jim DeMint clone. He was replaced by Bernie Sanders, a socialist.

Am I supposed to be happy he left and then was replaced by Sanders?

Why?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 09:08 PM (ur6Ar)

692 In RHODE ISLAND.  Which is politically about the same as Massachusetts or Vermont..

Qwinn,
And RI send Linc Chaffe to the Senate until they booted him out, not for Stephen Laffey but for Sheldon Whitehouse.

Now, I think Chaffe was a douche and the White House was wrong to back him to the extent they did but how exactly are we better off with Whitehouse in the Senate?

I would have loved for Laffey to win but he didn't.

RINO Republicans held that seat for years but now we have to go find another Democratic seat to win just to get even for that one. How does that help again?


Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 09:14 PM (ur6Ar)

693

Can't read the 700 posts up there but surely some moron has made this point - we can't throw the House to the Democrats, because they already have it, by a LOT of votes.

As Hudson said, "Maybe you're not keeping up on current events, but we just got our asses kicked back there."

As I recall, Ace, you said we had to back TARP and its passage RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT now - and people who thought we might take a little time to mull it over, you had a name for us - I don't recall what it was - do you? 

So, anyway, let me know how NY 23 goes.  Then let me know if I need to be afraid of conservatives.

Posted by: blaster at October 31, 2009 09:19 PM (su3hy)

694 And Laffey supported civil unions and opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment.

You know how Chafee beat Laffey?  Because Laffey called for the city of Cranston to accept consular ID cards from Mexico and Gautemala.  Chafee's campaign called them "illegal immigration cards".  Chafee won the primary because he ran to Laffey's -right-.

Ironically, the Republican leadership was cool toward Laffey because he was considered "too conservative" for Rhode Island (despite pro-life, pro-marriage, anti-illegal-immgration Cariceri as the governor).

I'm glad you brought the Chafee/Laffey race up.  It completely confirms my point.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at October 31, 2009 09:21 PM (SxA2Q)

695 Qwinn

But he was enough of a fiscal conservative that the Club for Growth was his biggest supporter.

Again, RI didn't turn around and elect a social-con or even Linc Chaffe, they went for the very liberal Sheldon Whitehouse (who voted for Comprehensive Immigration Reform).

Again, if a guy like Laffey isn't conservative enough in a very liberal state, we've got some issues.

BTW-Take a look at the list of Senators from RI. Other than the Chafees, the Democrats controlled both seats since the 30's.

Have Rhode Islanders secretly been yearning for hard core conservatives but accidentally voting for liberal Democrats for going on 70 years?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 09:30 PM (ur6Ar)

696 "Again, RI didn't turn around and elect a social-con or even Linc Chaffe, they went for the very liberal Sheldon Whitehouse (who voted for Comprehensive Immigration Reform)."

You're again making the assumption that Lincoln Chafee would've been more electable than a real conservative.  I disagree.  And don't be dismissive, Carcieri's landslide election -and- reelection in the same state deserves more than that.

That assumption is critical to your thesis.  Take that assumption away, and your whole argument crumbles.

I am arguing that, yes, a hard core conservative can win in blue states where a RINO cannot.  It happens.  Those states are blue -because- the Republican leadership has been giving their backing to RINOs for years.  My thesis is hardly ever tested, but when a true conservative does manage to get through the Republican anti-purity wall, such as with Carcieri, they tend to go on and win in the general.

You know, come to think of it, RINO is a misnomer.  In these states, the liberal Republican IS the real "Republican".  The Republicans always oppose the actual conservatives.  I'll use the term CINO from now on.

I've lived in New Jersey most of my life.  I have never once had the opportunity to vote for a true conservative.  I bet a -lot- that if a real conservative made it to the general, they would win, because there's a crapload of real conservatives I know around me who won't bother voting for a CINO.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at October 31, 2009 09:37 PM (SxA2Q)

697 And, just to make the point - WHY don't actual conservatives make it out of the primaries in New Jersey?  Because the local GOP is, as I said, nothing but Democrat-installed placeholders set up to keep any real challenge away.  They consistently give their backing to the most liberal Republican running in the primary, -and they always go on to lose the general election-.  This is by design.

You'd think, after several -decades- of this losing strategy, they would just once throw their backing toward a good, solid, electable conservative candidate, just to see what happened.  But they -never- do that.  It's not because they're overly stubborn or overly stupid.  It's because the system is working exactly the way they want.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at October 31, 2009 09:41 PM (SxA2Q)

698 Qwinn,

Here's the problem...Carcieri might be the second coming of Tom Coburn for all I know but he didn't actually run for the Senate.

So in the real world the choices were Laffey v. Chaffe and then Chaffe vs. Whitehouse.

Of those 3 actual choices we wound up with the worst of all the possibilities.

All I'm saying is I'd rather have one of the other two in the Senate.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 09:45 PM (ur6Ar)

699 And if RI is such a hospitable ground for a conservative, why didn't Carcieri primary Chaffe or run against Reed?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 09:47 PM (ur6Ar)

700

You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you might find
You get what you need

I love a healthy debate, and that's just what I've seen on this thread.  Let's keep sorting it out.  Let's not emulate those on the Left, that eat their own.  Maybe that's why their survivors more resemble sheep, as opposed to the (difficult to herd, indepedant thinking) cats on the Right.  We'll fight tooth and claw, but at the end of the day, we respect each others opinion; unlike dissenters on the Left.

I applaud Ace's courage in bringing this issue up as soon as possible, even though he knew he'd receive more than his fair share of the slings and arrows.  However this schism works out, it's better to lay out it now, rather than a few months before Nov 2010.  Give all interested/concerned parties a chance to act/pursue their own conscience.

 

Posted by: MDr at October 31, 2009 09:53 PM (ucq49)

701 "And if RI is such a hospitable ground for a conservative, why didn't Carcieri primary Chaffe or run against Reed?"

Er, because he's -still- governor of Rhode Island.  He term limits out in 2010.

"Of those 3 actual choices we wound up with the worst of all the possibilities."

Yes, because when you run Left-Lite against Left, Left will always win.  That's my point.  And given Laffey's leftism on social issues and illegal immigration, left enough that -Chafee ran to his right and won the primary on that basis-, we got the expected result.

Look.  What I'm arguing against is the thesis that in a liberal state, a "moderate" Republican will always beat the conservative. 

This is bullshit.  Number one, because the term "moderate" is applied in an utterly ridiculous manner.  Take a pure conservative.  As an example, his position is that abortion should be banned after the 10th week of pregnancy, except in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother.  A LOT, perhaps even a majority of the population, would be comfortable with that.  Freakin' hell, FRANCE is okay with that.  Now change his stance on abortion to "I'm okay with abortion up until birth".  Now, through some incredibly bizarre media manipulation, changing a relatively mainstream position to undeniable fully formed baby killing makes him more "moderate" than he was.  That is completely ridiculous, but that's what we're expected to live with and vote for and acknowledge to be more "moderate" than our guy.  Screw that.  The pure conservative is -very often- less radicalized and more "moderate", if that term has any sane meaning, than the RINO's we're handed.  And while you guys might buy into the "moderate" meme, voters who vote on the issues aren't going to be impressed.

Face it - a "moderate" position = "the leftist position".  That's all it means.  It doesn't matter how extreme left it is, it's still "moderate" as long as the left would be comfortable with it.  Stop buying into that bullshit.

Same goes for other radical "moderate" positions like gay marriage and opening the borders.  -Those- are the extremist positions.  Calling supposed Republicans who buy into them "moderate" is media bullshit, and conservatives destroy themselves when they accept it.

I'll see if I'm going to get any argument on that point before moving on to the next.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at October 31, 2009 10:00 PM (SxA2Q)

702 Ace, you are wasting your energy. The right-wing doesn't care about realism or pragmatism. They think that really, truly in the heart of almost every American is a conservative. Therefore, all the GOP needs to do is to be true conservatives and they will win over the vast majority of Americans. They truly believe this. So, they'll back purity crusades and ride the party to defeat time and time again. Hoffman will probably win, and that will be the worst outcome for the GOP. The right-wingers will conclude that insurgent true conservatives must be backed over impure Republicans. It will split a divided party even more. How can a divided party win in 2012? It can't. It won't. And the wingnuts will be the cause of this failure.

Posted by: Sally Ann Cavanaugh at October 31, 2009 10:01 PM (FRErk)

703 Hold on, need to rework something.  I said:

"Look.  What I'm arguing against is the thesis that in a liberal state, a "moderate" Republican will always beat the conservative. "

That should've said:

"Look.  What I'm arguing against is the thesis that in a "blue state", if a "moderate" Republican lost the general, then a more conservative candidate would have lost even more badly."

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at October 31, 2009 10:02 PM (SxA2Q)

704 Drew, in the Rhode Island example, let me just put a straightforward question to you:

Laffey and Chafee both lost in a statewide election in Rhode Island in 2006.  Carcieri won reelection in Rhode Island in the same year.

Both governorship and senate races are statewide.

Among the exact same voter base, in the exact same election year, an actual conservative won the governorship, and two RINOs lost to a socialist.

The -same exact voters in the exact same year- decided those election outcomes.

How do your and Ace's thesis that RINO's are always more electable than true conservatives in blue states explain that reality?

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at October 31, 2009 10:12 PM (SxA2Q)

705

Good Morning Morons;

 

Back for another dose of punishment in the “purity thread”. Reviewing most of the comments after I left I find this one directed to me from Tweet:

 

Vic is far more stringent than me, and I think the desire for purity taken that degree can really hurt us

 

I guess you missed the post where I said that most of us wouldn’t have a problem with someone who voted with us 80% of the time and with us on the major issues.  My point is, and has been, that I will no longer vote for a RINO because they are the lesser of two evils.  It hasn’t got us anywhere. Even when we win we lose because the country drifts further and further to the left.  So the bottom line becomes what exactly is a RINO?

 

Yes, that seems to be the burning question and what most of the Morons on here are really arguing about. The term itself was coined by a conservative CA Republican and the acronym, I think, speaks for itself. Republican In Name Only – from the view point of the author a true Republican was a conservative in the Goldwater mold.

 

Some of the Morons have adopted the position that anyone who is pro-abortion is a RINO or anyone who is for “gay rights” as an agenda is a RINO.  I will only say that, in general, RINOness should not be determined by single issues.  That being said, there are a few that I think are of such importance that they do form single issues for me.

 

The biggest single is support for the Constitution as written and interpreted in plain English as it existed in 1789. (the English)

 

To me this is the most important issue there is.  Many of the things that all the Morons care about are encompassed by this. Take the great abortion divide for example. The decision in Roe v. Wade, and its enabling predecessor Griswold v. Connecticut, were both travesties of an activist court who based their decisions on nothing actually in the Constitution.

 

I think that we could really help ourselves greatly if the pro-life single issue people would forget about pro-life or anti-abortion and all of the rhetoric associated with it. Not because you should abandon your principles, but because it IS a sure loser. The well has truly been poisoned. Instead, you should adopt a strategy of the above issue.

 

Now true, this will not get you everything in the “social agenda” but it would restore abortion to the States and the voters where it rightfully belongs.

 

So if you can’t adhere to my first principle of following the Constitution then you must adhere to most of my other underlying principles:

 

1. Support for the second amendment, or abandon “incorporation”, one or the other.

2. Support a strong military and a big stick foreign policy

3. Support small government and are willing to make a huge effort to roll back Washington.  This includes opposition to all forms of socialism, fascism, and communism.

 

Occasional lapses on the above can be tolerated but if you drop below the 75% level of support for the above you become a RINO.  Also, on major bills that go against the above policies such as Cap and Trade, the Stimulus, and Medi-scam you must oppose them. Those bills are so far reaching and transformational that a vote for them overwhelms all else and guarantees your place in RINO-dom.

 

Now, I don’t think that is too extreme. And I will not support or vote for anyone who goes against those principles.

 

Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2009 10:17 PM (CDUiN)

706

I'm with you, Sally Ann. And don't forget to call the base "Nazis" too. (Some racial/ethinc "purity" analogies will push that meme too.)

Moby much?

Posted by: analpundit at October 31, 2009 10:22 PM (2qU2d)

707 "Look.  What I'm arguing against is the thesis that in a "blue state", if a "moderate" Republican lost the general, then a more conservative candidate would have lost even more badly."

Again, when voters went to replace Jim Jeffords, they didn't go to the right, they went even further left. Why should we assume that what Vermont was really saying, "Please GOP, nominate someone more conseravative than Jeffords"?

Look at the case in Fl. If Rubio pulls it out, great but if he doesn't, are we really supposed to draw the conclusion that the majority of Florida voters is more conservative than the GOP primary electorate? Of course not. 

In RI, my position is the most conservative candidate possible who could reasonably win. Obviously Carcieri is a proven vote getter so if he wants to run in '12 against Whitehouse, that would be great.

But there aren't a lot of states where you have such a proven vote getter who is so out of step with his state (sorry but you can't say that RI has a history of electing conservatives. Carcieriis is definitely an outlier.)

There are a lot of factors that go into deciding who makes the best candidate...Is it an open seat or a challenge? Who is the opponent? What's the overall environment? What's the make up of the district or state?

"Run the most hard core conservative you can find" is not the one size fits all answer to those questions.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 10:22 PM (ur6Ar)

708 Among the exact same voter base, in the exact same election year, an actual conservative won the governorship, and two RINOs lost to a socialist.

Your focusing on the two RINOs but explain this to me...how can the same electorate in RI elect a socialist and an actual conservative?

The short answer is, electorates can be funny things.

Look at Iowa. They send Charles Grassley and Tom Harkin to the Senate year after year.

Look at Louisiana, they have Mary Landru and David Vitter.

How about Tommy Thompson in WI? Before he was a goofy guy running for President, he was a star conservative Governor in a very liberal state that sent Russ Feingold and Herb Khol to the Senate at the same time.

As I said above, there are a lot of factors that go into a race.





Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 10:27 PM (ur6Ar)

709

Drew, this has probably been said over and over again but I will repeat it. The problem with electing liberals as republicans in liberal States is that it gains you nothing and it destroys your brand name.

 

It gains you nothing because number 1 liberal voters are not fooled by liberal lite, they want the whole banana and liberal lite usually loses, especially in a purple State.  Number 2, even if you win when it comes down to the big issues and the critical votes, the liberal Republican will stab you in the back and go with the opposition. The ME sisters are prime examples of that.

 

When you lose the party brand you start losing your base. When you start losing your base you start losing the non-liberal States, e.g. what has happened in VA and NC.    

Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2009 10:30 PM (CDUiN)

710 The problem with electing liberals as republicans in liberal States is that it gains you nothing and it destroys your brand name.
Posted by: Vic at November 01, 2009 03:30 AM (CDUiN)

This simply isn't true.

You can't say that having control of the agenda and the floor in the House and Senate is nothing.

RINOs are more dangerous in the minority than the majority. If the Republicans still had control of the Senate this year, Specter, Collins and Snowe would not have had the chance to vote for the stimulus because MAJORITY LEADER McConnell would have never written it, let along brought it to the floor.

Right now the Democrats have some of the largest majoities in decades in the both chambers yet their base is upset because they can't even get their #1 dream (single payer) in the discussion other than on Countdown.

American poltics is not played from the 20 yard line to the goal line on either side, it's played between the 40's.

We really need to stop pretending that there's a majority, slim or large in this country that are movement conservatives. There isn't and there never has been.

It's great to expand our reach but let's not forget the reality of the moment (and more or less all of American history) either.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 10:38 PM (ur6Ar)

711 I get it!  So when a RINO wins and a conservative loses, it's because of the RINO's more "moderate" positions.  But when a conservative wins and RINOs lose (in the same year to the same voters, no less) it's because of "other factors".  And thus, the assumption upon which you rest your entire thesis requires no further validation.

That's just pure unfiltered awesome.  If I didn't know better, I'd think you were defending global warmism.  When RINO's win, it's global warming!  When RINO's lose, it's just the weather!

"are we really supposed to draw the conclusion that the majority of Florida voters is more conservative than the GOP primary electorate? Of course not"

You were ready to assume that Chafee won the RI GOP primary because he ran to Laffey's left until I pointed out that he did the exact opposite.  I submit that most of your belief in your thesis is born of exactly those sort of assumptions.

That said, I don't know enough about the FL Rubio dynamic to comment intelligently.  If you'd take the time to explain the background behind your comments there, I'd be grateful and happy to address it.

(sorry but you can't say that RI has a history of electing conservatives. Carcieriis is definitely an outlier.)

Ugh, explaining it one more time, this is because the RNC doesn't support conservatives in Senate races.  The RNC always support what they view as the more liberal candidate.  The RNC is what makes conservatives lose Senate seats in primaries.

They have less influence, and spend less money, on state races.  Which is why your assumption about RI not having a history of electing conservatives is quite wrong.  With the exception of 1991-1995, Rhode Island has elected Republican governors since 1985.  That's 18 out of the last 24 years.  What's the difference between that and the Senate races?  It's the exact same voter base.  The difference is that the RNC pours money into the campaign coffers of the most liberal candidate, every time.

But that's not the only reason.  Let me give you MY thesis.

You know -why- a real conservative will win when a RINO will lose?  Because no one gets enthused about a RINO.  No one.  The left hates any RINO to the right of this NY-23 woman every bit as much as they hate Tom Coburn. -They- are the real purists (and we don't see anyone giving them shit for it, do we?  Seems to be working out pretty well for them, isn't it?  Except in the south, where they've accepted blue dogs, and look at how it's helping them now that they've "won".) 

The mushy middle that you think RINO's will attract don't give a shit about politics.  The RINO will still get slandered and reviled by every leftist they know, who still want the Democrat to win, and they don't hear any counterarguments from the Right because the conservative voters (and they are -everywhere-, yes, even in San Fran - hell, I live 10 miles from Princeton NJ, liberal utopia, and I know a lot of hard core conservatives, we're a minority, but we exist, and we all have friends in the mushy middle who outnumber both bases) don't like the RINO either.

That makes a -vast- difference.  If you're a mushy-middle, don't really care about politics but show up to vote based on your "feelings", well, if the only enthusiasm they ever see is in their leftist friends who hate the RINO and want the socialist to win, and their conservative friends can't muster up any enthusiasm to defend the guy they got saddled with, they'll vote for the only guy any of their friends (or the media) ever says anything good about.  But when the conservative base, the ones who actually give a shit, really like the candidate, they'll tell their friends.  And they'll donate.  And they'll campaign.  Now that mushy middle is hearing good things about both guys, and they'll have -some- basis upon which to vote for the conservative guy.  When it's a RINO, they have -no one- telling them, yeah, vote for the RINO, he's a great guy.  So they won't.

THAT is at least as good a thesis as yours.  And it doesn't depend on global warming logic.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at October 31, 2009 10:47 PM (SxA2Q)

712 Fun factoid...

Since the Senate went to 100 members in the 86th Congress (59-61) the most the Republicans have ever had was 55.

In that same time the Democrats have been as high as 64 and have met or exceeded the 55 seats over 10 times.

Also, in the last 80 years Democrats have controlled the House for 61 years.

Please explain to me how that means we have the luxury of writing off any seats?

Yes, Republicans have done well in the presidency (especially in the last 40 years but we've been talking about legislative races).

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 10:48 PM (ur6Ar)

713 If the Republicans still had control of the Senate this year, Specter, Collins and Snowe would not have had the chance to vote for the stimulus because MAJORITY LEADER McConnell would have never written it, let along brought it to the floor.

I would've said the same thing about the Medicare Prescription Health Care Plan.  And No Child Left Behind.  How did those make it on the floor, I wonder?

Only Nixon could've gone to China.  The same basis concept applies to a Republican majority infested with RINO's.  Bush got some massive socialization passed -because- he had a Republican Congress, and that Republican Congress defines the right side of the debate.  If the right side of the debate says "We can keep growing government", then you haven't stopped or fixed anything, you've just slowed it down.  Result:  You get blamed for the bad stuff, nothing gets fixed, and Democrats once again get elected in a landslide after each generation forgets why they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near power.

When the right side of the national debate isn't even secure enough to argue for smaller government, when there -is- no right side to the debate, there is no point at all in voting.  Seriously.  Hell, might as well let it go to shit faster and now so the people who caused it have to deal with it, instead of letting the problem get incrementally worse and force our kids and grandkids to bear the burden.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at October 31, 2009 10:51 PM (SxA2Q)

714 "Please explain to me how that means we have the luxury of writing off any seats?"

Who has advocated writing off any seats?  That's a serious straw man right there.  I'm arguing that supporting RINO's in blue states is a proven loser strategy.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at October 31, 2009 10:53 PM (SxA2Q)

715 Oops, math challenged at 3am, RI has elected Republican governors for the last 20 out of 24 years, not 18.

You referred to this as an "outlier", for the record.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at October 31, 2009 10:58 PM (SxA2Q)

716

You can't say that having control of the agenda and the floor in the House and Senate is nothing.

 

It may not be nothing but it isn’t very much when you have a slim majority that includes 5 to 10 major RINOs. That was amply proven during the 6 years of Bush with a Republican majority.  I truly think that Bush was actually less liberal than what he is perceived as but because the conservative things he tried to do were blocked at every turn by the RINOs allying with the Dems he looked more liberal.

 

So you could say the best you get out of ‘control” is gridlock.

 

MAJORITY LEADER McConnell would have never written it, let along brought it to the floor.

Not necessarily true, example “No Child”, Drug Benefits, et al.

 

Right now the Democrats have some of the largest majoities in decades in the both chambers yet their base is upset because they can't even get their #1 dream (single payer) in the discussion other than on Countdown.

 

The healthcare bill AND the crap and trade are dead, not because of the Dem version of RINOs (Blue Dogs voting with Rs) but because they have shot their wad with bailouts and the stimulus.  The public is rebelling against socialism and communism being pushed at too fast a pace. This worries the Dems who won with small margins in purple districts.

American poltics is not played from the 20 yard line to the goal line on either side, it's played between the 40's.  

 

This is a trite phrase coined by Washington insiders and we should stop repeating it. It isn’t true. Those uncommitted “independents” numbers are a lot smaller than the media and the insiders want you to believe.

 

The simple fact is that the Party who gets their normal supporters to the polls wins. In presidential races it always hinges on a few States.  Some of the earlier comments centered on the percentages that McLame lost by and what the outcome would have been if Romney had been the candidate (they said larger loss).

 

What the poster should have been focusing on is not the overall percentage of loss but the States that switched from the R column to the D column.

 

If you look at that in the last election you will find that the Rs did not make it to the polls. e.g. The base stayed at home in significant numbers in the States that shifted. They also stayed at home in other States, but the numbers were sufficient to keep them in the R column,

 

Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2009 10:58 PM (CDUiN)

717

Qeinn

I see while I was typiong you were making some of the same points.

Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2009 11:00 PM (CDUiN)

718 So when a RINO wins and a conservative loses, it's because of the RINO's more "moderate" positions.  But when a conservative wins and RINOs lose (in the same year to the same voters, no less) it's because of "other factors".  And thus, the assumption upon which you rest your entire thesis requires no further validation.

No, I said there were a lot of factors and electorates are strange. I offered no explanation but I'm glad that did stop you from claiming I was wrong.

In fact, I asked you how a conservative won the governorship and a socialist was elected to the Senate. You don't seem to have an answer for that either.


Ugh, explaining it one more time, this is because the RNC doesn't support conservatives in Senate races.  The RNC always support what they view as the more liberal candidate.  The RNC is what makes conservatives lose Senate seats in primaries.

You seem to think the RNC is all powerful here. I'd say the RI GOP has far more influence in these kind of things. As you can see in the case of NY 23, the RNC pretty much supports whomever the locals throw out there. The RNSCC does some candidate recruitment but really, it's a local party deal.

If the RNC is perpertrating some conspiracy to keep conservative out of the Senate, how do you explain away the inconvient fact that there are, um, some conservatives in the Senate?

As for RI, how come the state GOP nominates RINOs for the Senate and the most awesome conservatives for Governor?

You know -why- a real conservative will win when a RINO will lose?  Because no one gets enthused about a RINO.  No one.

Let me see if I have the rest of your theory straight...there are actually are huge numbers of untapped conservative voters out there. The problem is they are just not being properly motivated to show up?

That's simply magical thinking.

Conservatives do well in non-traditional areas when the conditions are ripe for it  and there are people ready to take advantag of it (Reagan in '80, the Gingrich Revolution in '94). The problem is, the pendulum swings back and you get the Pelosi wave of '06 and the Obama vicotry of '08.

There is no great unmotivated and untapped pool of voters, for the most part it's just the mushy middle swaying back and forth and throwing their support to 'the other guys' when the party in power is old, tired or just fucked up.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 11:02 PM (ur6Ar)

719 the Medicare Prescription Health Care Plan.  And No Child Left Behind

Blame Bush.

Seriously, those were two of his biggest agenda items. They had to keep the House vote open for like 3 hours to pass the Medicare drug bill.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 11:04 PM (ur6Ar)

720 "In fact, I asked you how a conservative won the governorship and a socialist was elected to the Senate. You don't seem to have an answer for that either. "

Are you KIDDING me?  Reread the last half of my post.  I gave you a very explicit answer.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at October 31, 2009 11:04 PM (SxA2Q)

721 "Let me see if I have the rest of your theory straight...there are actually are huge numbers of untapped conservative voters out there. The problem is they are just not being properly motivated to show up? "

No.  This is totally, completely wrong.  Again, please read the last half of my post again.  You completely missed the point.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at October 31, 2009 11:06 PM (SxA2Q)

722 Who has advocated writing off any seats?  That's a serious straw man right there.  I'm arguing that supporting RINO's in blue states is a proven loser strategy.

People who say we were better off without Jeffords and control of the Senate , people who say Congressmen like Chris Shays had to go (look up thread).

You'll note that comment was not addressed to you or anyone by name, just an observation, so it's not a strawman.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 11:06 PM (ur6Ar)

723 Are you KIDDING me?  Reread the last half of my post.  I gave you a very explicit answer.

And it made no sense.

It wasn't a matter of being excited by a RINO or not, there were already at the poll voting for the great conservative.

Are you saying they split their tickets just to prove a point?

If so, they are childish and fall into the category of people who apparently thought we do have seats to write off.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 11:08 PM (ur6Ar)

724

Blame Bush.

Seriously, those were two of his biggest agenda items. They had to keep the House vote open for like 3 hours to pass the Medicare drug bill.

 

Yes, for those two items I do blame Bush. That being said, if we had a congress controlled by true conservatives they would have never passed.

 

In addition, if the congress had been controlled by true conservatives there would have been no need for Bush’s veto pen which he lost until 2007.

 

Seriously, without a congressional record to look at totals it is hard to call Bush a RINO, but he did support a lot of liberal stuff, including some like amnesty that were ultimately defeated.

 

So we do have a pretty good case that he was, in fact, a RINO himself.

Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2009 11:09 PM (CDUiN)

725 RE #397 ford, I am personally opposed to abortion. There are probably very few people here that are more opposed than I am. But it should be a matter handled at the state level. I am willing for those of you in the north east to allow it ( if you want to decriminalize murder or rape also, that's up to you ). I live in a state where abortion is very popular ( California ) and I doubt any sensible control will occur in my lifetime. But if the people of Nebraska or Mississippi or any other state want to outlaw it, why should your prejudice stop them? Like slavery, abortion must be imposed on the whole society. And like Dred Scott, Roe v Wade has imposed it. The right to an abortion is like the right to own a slave, you can only make it a right by denying the humanity of the victim. All that being said, if I had the choice of a Republican who was right on most issues but was pro abortion ( and no I won't say prochoice, the only choice you want is that of abortion ), I would not encourage a third party or independent challenge to them. I'll settle for 60 or 75%. But abortion loving Republicans tend not to in that range. I can certainly live with a Chris Shays although I'd rather have a more conservative Congressman. Give me someone in favor of a strong national defense, lower taxes, a secure border, no amnesty, controlling spending and judges who won't legislate and I'll hold my nose and accept a weak stand on abortion. Give me a majority agreement with Republican principles and I can live with it. Don't tell me I have to accept a Republican who is to the left of the Democrat. No thanks.

Posted by: Ken Hahn at October 31, 2009 11:10 PM (RMuOp)

726 I see.  Okay, not a deliberate strawman, but I don't think they're saying what you think they're saying.  I don't agree that the seats should be written off, I think we should fight hard for them with true conservative candidates, but that doesn't mean I'm unhappy to see the RINO's go.  Ace keeps telling us we don't see the costs of what we're advocating, but I think it's the exact opposite, you guys refuse to see the damage the RINO's do in exchange for your "control of the House and Senate", in particular, "who gets the blame when everything goes to crap, which when your own side is stabbing you in the back, it absolutely will".  How much more screwed would we be in terms of getting the blame for the current recession, if we couldn't legitimately respond "The Democrats have been running things since 2006"?

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at October 31, 2009 11:10 PM (SxA2Q)

727 And it made no sense.  It wasn't a matter of being excited by a RINO or not, there were already at the poll voting for the great conservative.  Are you saying they split their tickets just to prove a point?  If so, they are childish and fall into the category of people who apparently thought we do have seats to write off.

No.  You are again completely misstating my argument.  Nowhere did I even -mention- "untapped conservative voters".  You made that up out of whole cloth. 

I said this:

"The mushy middle that you think RINO's will attract don't give a shit about politics.  The RINO will still get slandered and reviled by every leftist they know, who still want the Democrat to win, and they don't hear any counterarguments from the Right because the conservative voters (and they are -everywhere-, yes, even in San Fran - hell, I live 10 miles from Princeton NJ, liberal utopia, and I know a lot of hard core conservatives, we're a minority, but we exist, and we all have friends in the mushy middle who outnumber both bases) don't like the RINO either.

That makes a -vast- difference.  If you're a mushy-middle, don't really care about politics but show up to vote based on your "feelings", well, if the only enthusiasm they ever see is in their leftist friends who hate the RINO and want the socialist to win, and their conservative friends can't muster up any enthusiasm to defend the guy they got saddled with, they'll vote for the only guy any of their friends (or the media) ever says anything good about.  But when the conservative base, the ones who actually give a shit, really like the candidate, they'll tell their friends.  And they'll donate.  And they'll campaign.  Now that mushy middle is hearing good things about both guys, and they'll have -some- basis upon which to vote for the conservative guy.  When it's a RINO, they have -no one- telling them, yeah, vote for the RINO, he's a great guy.  So they won't."


I'm not saying they're some magical source of commited conservatives who've been sitting things out.  I'm saying that a shitload of these voters don't vote for anything having to do with politics or political positions at all.  They vote for who they see their friends get excited for.  Unless they're one of your magical "proven vote getters", no one ever gets excited for a RINO.  That is why they have been losing forever in the northeast.  But when you run a real strong conservative, then all those real conservatives in Rhode Island - get really excited about it, and they mention it in passing to all their mushy-middle, couldn't really care less about politics friends who still feel obligated to vote by all the stupid MTV drives. 

When a RINO is running, all that mushy middle ever hears is leftists screaming rage about the RINO, and the media's usual hit jobs.  When it's a conservative, that mushy middle at least hears -someone- saying good things about them, and ups the chances they might pull that lever about tenfold.  THAT is what makes the difference.

Note that what I have just re-explained here has absolutely NO relation whatsoever to what you described my argument to be.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at October 31, 2009 11:16 PM (SxA2Q)

728 In addition, if the congress had been controlled by true conservatives there would have been no need for Bush’s veto pen which he lost until 2007.

Vic,

Look at the numbers (or the link) I posted about the history of the Senate. How in the world does it make any sense to say that people have been voting Democrat in huge numbers for a very long time because the Republicans aren't tapping into some mythical pool of conservative voters?

I wish there were a majority in this country for lower taxes, less spending and federalism. The problem is, there's is zero empirical evidence that there is. While we should try to build one, we shouldn't pretend that it exists and we just aren't tapping into it.

Yes, polls say lots of people call themselves conservatives. It doesn't mean the same as what we mean. If it were true, Obama wouldn't have been elected, hell McCain wouldn't have been nominated.

You want to see that self-identified conservative number go in the tank? Put out a poll that says conservative means...slashing government programs, including SS and Medicare (it's the only way to actually cut spending), eliminating farm subsidies, federal highway programs, student loans and a whole host of other Great Society programs we'd all love to see go and that 60% or whatever Pew found recently would be cut in half if not more.

I'm off to bed. Even with the time change it's way too late.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 11:16 PM (ur6Ar)

729 no one ever gets excited for a RINO

Then how do explain the Chafee clan holding that seat for close to 30 years?

How do explain Chis Shays holding his seat for 22?

Arlen Specter (before switching) holding his for 28 years?

Olympia Snow for 15?

Susan Collins for 12?

Hamilton Fish for 26?

And on and on and on....

There are lots of RINOs who managed to hold their seats for a good long time, excitement or no.

But my question still is, why did the same voters who elected a great governor, elect a socialist Senator at the same time? Excitment really shouldn't have played a role right?

There were already at the poll, they were already committed to a Republican and yet....

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 11:23 PM (ur6Ar)

730 Heh.  Well, since you can't respond to my -actual- argument after misstating it, let's leave it at this (based on your last post there):  you are raging at us for writing off RINO candidates, and we're raging at you because you're writing off conservative ideas.

And if this doesn't mean that you think conservative ideas are a sure fire loser and we have to basically lie our asses off in order to win elections:

"You want to see that self-identified conservative number go in the tank? Put out a poll that says conservative means...slashing government programs, including SS and Medicare (it's the only way to actually cut spending), eliminating farm subsidies, federal highway programs, student loans and a whole host of other Great Society programs we'd all love to see go and that 60% or whatever Pew found recently would be cut in half if not more."

...then I don't know what it could possibly mean.

No wonder you're perfectly happy with writing off anyone who actually advocates them.  But don't yell at -us- about what we're going to "write off", mmkay?  Cause you're selling off principles for power, and that means you'll wind up with neither.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at October 31, 2009 11:27 PM (SxA2Q)

731 "There were already at the poll, they were already committed to a Republican and yet...."

Because they never heard any of their friends who actually -care- about politics say anything nice about Chafee or Laffey.  They had lots of conservative friends who care about politics say nice things about Carcieri.  What is it about this point that is so hard to understand?  I've repeated it three times now.

As for how did Specter hold his seat?  C'mon, man.  After seeing the Specter/Toomey primary, do you really have to ask that question?  I've already answered it several times as well.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at October 31, 2009 11:29 PM (SxA2Q)

732

Look at the numbers (or the link) I posted about the history of the Senate. How in the world does it make any sense to say that people have been voting Democrat in huge numbers for a very long time because the Republicans aren't tapping into some mythical pool of conservative voters?

 

You can’t just take the raw numbers throughout history for Dems and Republicans and draw a lot of conclusions about conservative v liberals from it.

 

If you look at Dems in 1850 they were “conservatives” vs the Republicans who were the big government liberals.

 

It wasn’t until Woodrow Wilson and William Jennings Bryant that the Dems started becoming liberals. Unfortunately, even though the Repubs still pretty much controlled things in Washington, they were still liberals as well.

 

No, Washington did not grow to the size it is now solely because of the Dems. It wasn’t until the 60s that the conservative voice started being heard to try to roll back the tide of creeping socialism and communism.

Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2009 11:38 PM (CDUiN)

733 Here, just so it won't get misinterpreted again:

The RNC, which has largely historically been funded by the conservative base precisely because so few of us realized that they've gone totally RINO themselves and always support the RINO (and thank God that myth is now dispelled) made up for the "no one ever says anything nice about them" by pouring money into the RINO's coffers for campaign ads.  Yay, the mushy middle now gets to hear something nice about the Republican candidate.

When the candidate is an -actual- conservative, the RNC funding isn't necessary.  The grass roots conservatives campaign, donate, and say nice things to all their friends about the candidate.  That's how Hoffman just got where he is, without RNC funding.

The game is changing right now though - or at least, the only way we're getting out of this rut is if it does in this way.  People need to (and I think are) realizing that the RNC only supports RINO's, and are no longer sending their money to the RNC and instead directly to the candidates they actually like.  This is a -good- thing, and you shouldn't be arguing against it.

The RNC's funding and power comes from the conservative base.  It always has.  The same is true of the DNC and their hard left base.  People who actually care about politics gravitate to one of those two camps.  People who don't care about politics don't - or people who don't decide to start ignoring politics, take your pick.  This is true everywhere, blue states and red.  There's reasons for the ideological polarization we can discuss, but I think it's delusional to believe it doesn't exist. 

When you support RINO's, you are supporting a set of political positions that has no base willing to campaign and fund for them.  This is political suicide.  You want candidates that the base will fund and root for?  Give them candidates they -can- fund and root for.  But don't delude yourself that there's some vast mushy vaguely red middle that absolutely loves those RINO positions and will fund and campaign and cheer them on to all their friends.  -That- is about the smallest minority you could find in this country - people who passionately care about an exceptionally inconsistent political ideology shared by, well, almost no one who actually gives a shit about politics.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at October 31, 2009 11:38 PM (SxA2Q)

734

I wish there were a majority in this country for lower taxes, less spending and federalism. The problem is, there's is zero empirical evidence that there is. While we should try to build one, we shouldn't pretend that it exists and we just aren't tapping into it.

 

There is a lot more evidence to that point than there is for a majority wanting higher taxes and spending.

 

In any case there is two elections worth of solid empirical evidence that running RINOs is a losing proposition.

Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2009 11:41 PM (CDUiN)

735 Let me add this point:

I think you guys think that there's some vast difference between a conservative in Kansas, and a conservative in New Jersey.  I'm not talking about just people who self-identify that way.  I'm talking about those who -give a shit-.  Who actually care about all this nonsense.

That was probably true even 20 years ago, but it's not true any longer.  I live in a pretty damn blue state, and the conservatives I know here -are real conservatives-.  I'd put 'em up -as individuals- on their conservative creds against anyone from Kansas.  There's less of us here than there are in Kansas, but I ain't got even a tinge of purple in me, and neither do my conservative friends.

The internet probably has a lot to do with this.  We're all reading the same blogs and the same political arguments.  We're all watching the same TV shows.  Our political values are largely becoming homogenized - and they are settling into two pretty distinct and definable camps.

If you can appeal to one camp or the other, you will win, but trying to appeal to the middle is a sure fire loser, cause the middle just doesn't care enough to elect anyone.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at October 31, 2009 11:53 PM (SxA2Q)

736

I think you guys think that there's some vast difference between a conservative in Kansas, and a conservative in New Jersey. 

 

I hope he wasn’t including me in that. I have lived all over the U.S. and one thing that struck me is that the stereotypes you see on TV simply do not exist.

I was surprised when I was in Saratoga Springs. I had always assumed it would be a hot bed of liberalism. Outside of Skidmore, it was like many places I had been in the South. (That was in the early 70s)

 

I think that we are noticing now with the detailed election maps that we are not a blue State Red State divide so much as a urban suburban divide. It has probably always been like that, but because we got all our news and brain programming via the TV, we just didn’t know it.

 

What we see now is States that have large urban centers, or a lot of urban centers go blue, those that don’t have that so much go red.

 

 

Posted by: Vic at November 01, 2009 12:02 AM (CDUiN)

737 Nope, Vic, wasn't addressing you on that.  I think that believing that way is a requirement for the "blue states need RINO candidates" logic, though.

And I agree with you that it is mostly an urban/suburban thing.  Which, actually, I believe is a way in which demographic trends are -favoring- conservatives right now.  Just thought I'd mention that since someone upthread (might've been Ace himself, actually) was basing an argument on demographic trends not being in our favor.  I think the urban/suburban demographic is a more important indicator than skin color demographics, personally.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 12:06 AM (SxA2Q)

738

I think the urban/suburban demographic is a more important indicator than skin color demographics, personally.

 

That very well could be. I think the problem we are going to have in reversing the trend is to kill the urban environment of socialism/communism  we must take the rein of political power.

 

We can’t do that until we take the urban environment. It is a vicious circle.

 

That’s why ultimately I think it is going to come down to another convention. If the delegates and marching orders come down from the State Houses and they reflect a more balanced environment, we would have a chance.

Posted by: Vic at November 01, 2009 12:15 AM (CDUiN)

739

Anyway, I am going to have to break for some breakfast and a nap. Back later this morning.

Posted by: Vic at November 01, 2009 12:16 AM (CDUiN)

740 #678 MDr, Most of the "blue dogs" are either in group 1 or 4. As to creating fear, if you live in the district get involved. Find a candidate or run yourself. Raise money, write letters to the Congressman and to the media. Do everything you can to persuade the dog that his or her votes are going to cost them votes. If you live elsewhere, keep up with the news. If a decent opponent can be found, contribute money and talent if you can. Write to the Congressman and let them know that you will help defeat him. Enough pressure and they'll see the light. We need to make voting for the hard left agenda impossible for Democrats in GOP districts. And follow up at the next election.

Posted by: Ken Hahn at November 01, 2009 12:36 AM (RMuOp)

741 A point I missed earlier:

"As for RI, how come the state GOP nominates RINOs for the Senate and the most awesome conservatives for Governor?"

You apparently also missed where I pointed out, repeatedly, when first bringing Carcieri up, that Carcieri was -not- supported by the GOP.  His primary opponent got their support.  He won -despite- them.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 01:14 AM (SxA2Q)

742 People just don't understand what a collapse of the dollar and a disintegration of our monetary system would actually do.  I'll give you a hint - nothing like it has ever happened before in history.  For us, there would be no escape.  You really have to come to grips with what that means, exactly, and we are headed straight into that monetary hell.  Every Dem policy is pointed towards it.  If it doesn't scare the living shit out of you, then you don't understand the implications and dangers.


No, no no;  what is most important to flaccid-pricks is sending their 'black brothers to rape Sarah Palin' if she steps one foot inside Manhattan!

For what it is worth, Allahrunt is a punk precisely because it does not want to look at it's own petard!


Posted by: syn at November 01, 2009 01:50 AM (PkSox)

743 thing that struck me is that the stereotypes you see on TV simply do not exist.


No matter how many times this point is made the really cool kidz are going to regurgitate the conformed slime streaming from Bill Maher's anal cavity.


Cool kidz, stop swallowing the marketed shit and your opinions will not be full of crap.


Posted by: syn at November 01, 2009 01:56 AM (PkSox)

744 "Why so upset that a woman may need an abortion? What ever happened to someone in the privacy of their own life, that you think you should quarterback their life???"


Here's the thing; it is NEVER the woman who is aborted. It is neither her privacy or her body which is being violated every time she goes to get an abortion.

Now if it was her brain being sucked out by the doctor then you'll have no argument from me.

When discussing abortion try to remember the SCIENTIFIC fact that we are discussing a uniquely distinct human being who has its own uniquely distinct human DNA.




Posted by: syn at November 01, 2009 02:06 AM (PkSox)

745 Quinn,  it's nice to see a Rhode Islander online who cares anything about politics.  I grew up in Warwick and moved to Massachusetts five years ago for my job.  I miss it terribly and wish I could go back but I'm one of those people who bought near the height of the market and now owe more on my mortgage than my house is worth. So it'll be years before I can try to move back home.  I hope I don't die here.

It's been interesting reading your take on things, but judging by my friends and family there the overriding problem with RI is simple apathy.  The feeling that you "can't fight City Hall" is so ingrained that most people just don't give a shit.  Most people I know just pull the big lever at the top.

And, like everywhere else, most people on average are just plain stupid.  Which explains Patrick and Linc.

I think the biggest problem with the Republican party and conservatives in general is that they can't decide what a RINO really is.  Too many of them care so much about abortion that that is enough to make them hate any Republican who isn't an activist pro-lifer.  On that subject they think much more like liberals.  They want someone who will go to Washington and try to overturn Roe v Wade.  Oh, they're all for small government and keeping the government out of our lives, but only once they get abortion outlawed again.

As far as abortion goes, it is wrong for anyone who calls themselves a conservative to claim that making an exception for rape or incest is a valid pro-life stance.  It's not.  I'm pro-abortion, meaning I think it's a private medical decision that is nobody else's business and should be legal, and whenever I agrue with pro-lifers about abortion I always try to get them to admit that an exception should be made for rape and incest.  Once I do that, and I almost always can get them to do it, I win my argument.  Once you bring choice into it, you are no longer pro-life but pro-choice.  The baby that is the product of rape or incest is still an innocent life and if you decide to allow abortion by taking into consideration the choice to get pregnant in the first place, then you can not call yourself pro-life. 

That said, most people I know who support legal abortion DO NOT WANT their tax dollars to pay for someone else's abortion.  Nobody I know, I know some pretty hardcore lefties, would argue that federal funding for abortions is right.  That should be enough for conservatives to elect someone like Rudy.  But, alas, it's not.  And that is why the Republican Party won't make much if a dent in such blue states as RI and Mass. 

A third party along the lines of what Glenn Beck wants won't do much better.  He's way too religious, and once more people realize just how religious he is, he won't get very far.  He's gonna scare a lot more people than he'll attract.  For good reason.


Posted by: Jaynie59 at November 01, 2009 02:08 AM (YjQWV)

746

I agree with Limbaugh that we CANNOT split the Republican party or we will be marginalized for our lifetimes.  BUT I agree with Beck that the Republicans need a wake-up call.  I write the RNC regularly (every email address on their home page) to wake up on this front & run more (small c) conservative candidates.  I write that message on every piece of money-begging mail I get & send it back.  I will be doing everything I can to wake the party up NOW.  Rush is right, as usual.

As to the moral issues-  we are incensed about them because government is too big and wants to manage every aspect of our lives including our morals.  IF GOVT WERE LIMITED, we would not have to worry about who's in control of the government, because we would have control of our own moral lives.  The conservative "values voters" just can't see the underlying, non-moral issue that is the real problem.  We will always lose on moral issues, because, rightly, morals should not be imposed by politics.

Susan Lee

Posted by: Susan Lee at November 01, 2009 02:32 AM (wJKNx)

747 I'm increasingly tired of how the GOP is treating blue states as if they are zombie-infested warrens that are 'lost' to civilization forever.  If you have that attitude, the map is going to slowly become blue until you are fielding Democrats in ever state except a few counties in Texas.

How about the GOP actually support conservative candidates in some of the states of the northeast?  Not squishes like Romney, but actual conservatives.  My entire lifetime I've had to hold my nose for every Republican I've voted for living in the Northeast.  I've received letters from Democrats for Republican candidates saying, "don't worry, he's pro-choice.  He's just running as a Republican to trick the rubes."

I would argue that when the choice is between someone who will dole out public funds for votes and someone else who will dole out less public funds for votes, the former is going to win.  I think candidates with a platform of low taxes and spending would resonate in these states, and I think they could do it without lying about the rest of their platform, which really and truly flows from the same logic. 

At any rate, it's better than treating these areas as 'lost' or supporting Democrats who fear their own primary and want to tap into disaffected conservative votes by putting an "R" next to their name.






Posted by: Zuggs at November 01, 2009 03:03 AM (h60Tu)

748 Jaynie59:

I'm not from Rhode Island.  I'm just aware of the political situation there.  I'm from New Jersey, though, so I know what it's like living in a northeastern blue state.

As for your arguments re: abortion, I'm sorry, but there's just SO much I gotta argue with you:

1)  Overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't outlaw one single abortion.  It would allow the -states- to decide.  -That- is the small-federal-government, constitutional position.  If you are really for smaller government, then the absurd "emanations and penumbras" arguments that vastly expanded the scope of the federal government should concern you, even if you liked the outcome.

2)  I actually agree that the rape and incest exceptions are inconsistent with the pro-life argument.  That's why I personally don't support such exceptions.  The only valid exception is a threat to the life of the mother - when it's a life versus a life.  No one argues against that exception, despite frequent pro-choicer strawmen.

3)  I've had to say this so many times it's become painful:  the abortion question is NOT a libertarian question.  It's a philosophical question (and no, it's not a religious question, I am not religious myself - more on this in a moment).  If you believe abortion is murder, then it is -of course- within the bounds of government intervention.  Are conservatives obligated to agitate against all homicide laws to keep their small government cred?  I believe abortion is homicide, therefore  I put it in the same category as all other laws against murder.  Laws against homicide wouldn't bother even the staunchest libertarian, that's outright anarchist. 

You pointed out the rape/incest inconsistency among conservatives who are scared of being labeled "extremist" for holding an ideologically consistent position.  Well, do you agitate against all homicide laws?

And to address Susan Lee's point:  the question of whether an infant qualifies as a human life can be argued on both secular and scientific terms.  In fact, on both secular and scientific terms, the pro-lifers are on far firmer footing than the Magical Vaginal Canal of Ensoulment pro-choicers.

Your pro-choice position is just as much "putting morals in politics" as the pro-life position.  You want to unilaterally declare that a fetus is NOT a human life (despite the fact that it is human and it is alive), and that everyone who believes it is must tolerate what they consider mass murder. 

Think for a moment about every other example in history where people have decided that some segment of the population doesn't qualify as human.  Such arguments do not have a very proud pedigree.  Look up the Lincoln-Douglas debate sometime, and replace every instance of the word "slavery" with "abortion".  It is actually stunning in how it mirrors the debates we're having today, arguing the exact same issues.

If someone decides blacks, or jews, aren't fully human, is it "big government" to extend them protection?  Why then is it fascist to want the exact same protections for the unborn?

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 03:05 AM (SxA2Q)

749 Incidentally, the main arguments and political pressure to outlaw slavery in the United States came explicitly from the churches.  Imagine if they had been shouted down due to "separation of church and state" argumentation.  The fact that they weren't is in fact overwhelming evidence that the claim that the US was ever -meant- to have a "separation of church and state" in the manner in which liberals insist is both factually incorrect, and not desirable anyway.  I'm not religious, but I'm really -really- glad the religious were allowed to fully participate in the politics surrounding slavery.  I don't think you'd like a country a couple of generations after religious arguments became barred from the public square, as liberals insist they must be.

Or as my brother frequently tells me is his favorite line from a friend who had just traveled abroad in Eastern Europe:  "I am atheist, but after what I just saw, I realize I have a very vested interest in everyone -else- not being atheist."

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 03:30 AM (SxA2Q)

750 The purity question is what decides the future of the Republican party.

I'm a Conservative.  But I don't think my views on abortion should disqualify me from being in the Republican party.  I don't think it is the government's business what a woman and her doctor decide to do about a pregnancy.  Where in the Constitution does it state the government has a right to make those kinds of decisions?

Everyone who thinks a couple hot button issues like abortion should be a litmus test for being a Conservative and, most especially, a Republican, deserves the party they will get.  If Republicans continue to insist on certain views on abortion and marriage, instead of getting back to basics of small government and fiscal responsibility, this party will continue to decline.

The Republican party needs to decide, and decide soon, if it wants to be some sort of moral compass for the nation, or it wants to be the party upholding the Constitution and the party of good governance.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 01, 2009 03:44 AM (tDm8K)

751

Good Morning Morons

 

Back from nap and breakfast.

 

Caught a little bit of F&F Weekend addition while eating. They had a small discussion on the NY-23 issue. I take back what I said yesterday about them being a little more conservative than the liberal weekday F&F.

 

In introducing the topic, Clayton Morris referred to Dede Scuzzy as a “moderate conservative”. Alisyn Camerato came back and corrected him and said she was a “moderate Republican”. He appeared a little put off with the correction but then he came back with his explanation of what had happened.

 

Dede had been attacked by more “conservative conservatives” from outside the district who were concerned with her stance on abortion, gay rights, and “a few fiscal issues”.

 

So he continues to play the BS myth that that Dede was a real Republican and it was the religious cons who did her in. At the same time he also promulgates equating Republican with conservative.

 

When the supposedly “conservative” Fox pushes this kind of shit it just tells me more and more conservatives have no voice in the news business on TV.  That makes it even more imperative that we Morons get our message straight and make sure that word gets out.

And for what a “conservative” and RINO is, look at my posts earlier last night.

 

Posted by: Vic at November 01, 2009 03:49 AM (CDUiN)

752 "I don't think it is the government's business what a woman and her doctor decide to do about a pregnancy.  Where in the Constitution does it state the government has a right to make those kinds of decisions?"

AGAIN:  IT IS NOT A LIBERTARIAN QUESTION, damnit.  If you believed a fetus was a human being, then of course you would the government should intervene, on the very same basis as all other laws against murder.  It has absolutely nothing to do with small governmentism.

It really is obnoxious to see this same argument trotted out again and again, and no matter how many times we point out the obvious fact that your entire premise that government has no right to get involved relies 100% on the assumption that your own "moral beliefs" are 100% indisputable fact.

That said - the federal government doesn't generally have jurisdiction over homicide law - the states do.   Yet another reason Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the matter returned to the states as the -Constitutional- position.

I ask -you-... on what Constitutional grounds does the federal government tell the states that they -cannot- legislate against abortion?

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 03:50 AM (SxA2Q)

753 Oh, and to the slew of "small government is inconsistent with abortion laws" posters that have posted recently:

I take it, then, that you are perfectly okay with partial birth abortion?  Abortions in the 9th month of pregnancy?  Abortions done on the basis of the child's gender, as is often done in China?  An absolutely fully formed infant, in fact, -more- fully formed than many preemies who are accorded full human rights as soon as they exit the uterus?  You are okay with the common forms of abortion which involve either half-delivering the child feet first, then sticking a spike in the back of the neck and into the skull and vacuuming the brains out until the skull implodes?  Or the other method, which basically involves using what amounts to garden shears to cut off every limb off of the torso of the thrashing child, and then removing the severed limbs one by one?

Be careful, now, you indefeatable champions of consistency.  Cause if you -are- okay with laws against ninth-month abortions, then your entire "the government has no basis for enacting such laws" arguments are completely and utterly destroyed.

And if you -are- okay with those very late term abortions, then -you- are the extremist.  I mean seriously seriously extremist.  The vast majority of Americans are repulsed by abortions that late in a pregnancy.  The partial birth abortion ban got massive support everywhere, even in blue states, and that's even with extremist liberals doing their best to lie about what the procedure entails.

And yet, if you're a "pure conservative", you're an extremist, but if you then switch to 9th-month baby killing as perfectly okay, you're suddenly a "moderate".  What a freakin' crock.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 04:03 AM (SxA2Q)

754

They just had Major Garret on F&F talking about NY-23. He finally put out the word on what it was all about. He said Obama lured the old Republican out of the district with the appointment to be war secretary. The feeling being that Obama had won the district and that they could possibly take that district which was a traditional Republican district.

 

With the appointment of Dede as the candidate they sensed a weak Republican with little support among the base so they poured in resources. When Hoffman entered the race and started getting outside support things started turning around for the Republicans. Dede has dropped out and it appears that the Republicans will win the seat and defeat the Dem plans.

 

Of course Clayton Morris had to chime in at the end about “conservative conservatives” once again.  I am going to have to try to watch all of the morning talk shows to see the spin. Especially the one with Rush.

Posted by: Vic at November 01, 2009 04:11 AM (CDUiN)

755 Well, it is morning. A lot of fantastic debate in this thread. I got a couple o' thoughts on the matter. Third party. Uh, no. Glenn Beck arguing purity. Nope. The man is a libertarian. Was his blackboard the other day right on the mark? You bet. We fought the Revolutionary War with far less provocation and usurpation of natural rights than we have now. Do we continue to put weak candidates out there because they have one leg on either side of the fence? Well, yes. But. We do as Team Messiah did. Get a team of psychologists (I know, where the hell do we find conservative psychologists?) to look over where it is needed to put a Squish in play and where we can put in a principled candidate. Remember the Greek Columns? I thought it the stupidest thing I ever saw in my lifetime. Turned out pretty damn brilliant. The sheep loved em. Over time, things would probably swing more conservative as we win more seats. Just some thought on a beautiful morning in Central Texas......

Posted by: Artruen at November 01, 2009 04:15 AM (L+dBi)

756 AGAIN:  IT IS NOT A LIBERTARIAN QUESTION, damnit.  If you believed a fetus was a human being, then of course you would the government should intervene, on the very same basis as all other laws against murder.  It has absolutely nothing to do with small governmentism.

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 08:50 AM (SxA2Q)

This argument is most succintly stated thusly:

The determination of the beginning of life belongs to the same exact governmental level where the determination of the end life has always resided - the state government.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at November 01, 2009 04:33 AM (A46hP)

757 What difference does it make if the political winner is only a Republican In Name Only (RINO)?  Look at the democrats, they have the White House and both houses and they can't pass health care.  If you have a bunch of RINO's, then they could vote with the democrats to raise taxes and turn this country into a socialist/communist country.  I used to consider myself a republican but now I'm a conservative.  It is time that conservatives abandon the party to start a third party.

Posted by: Iron Mike at November 01, 2009 04:45 AM (04IgZ)

758

On the abortion issue; my two cents and largely a repeat of a post I did last night. (Long but bear with me)

 

Abortion policy has split the country and the Republican Party. In my opinion it IS a religious issue, or in the case of the very few people who oppose it and who are not religious, a philosophical issue as Qwinn says.

 

For over 2000 years people were not considered people until they were born. Indeed, in some cultures they were not considered people until they reached a certain age after birth.  You can still see evidence of that in the way some countries count infant mortality.

 

All that being said, it IS a hot button issue for some people. A single issue that determines whether or not a person will vote for a candidate regardless of all other issues. The bad thing about that is that these single issue voters lie on both sides of the issue. There are femi-nazis, as Rush puts it, who will not vote for a candidate who does not fully support abortion at all stages for any reason. There are those on the other side who will not vote for a candidate who will allow abortion at any stage for any reason.

 

The actual facts are that there are very few people who fall in either of those categories. I generally do not trust polls but after seeing years of these polls I believe that in general the American public would prefer allowing early stage abortion to occur and later stages to occur in the event of the mother health. Note that I left out incest and rape there. Any pregnancy that occurs from rape or incest should be known at the early stages.

 

In any case, given the general acceptance of abortion by society, I think this is a loser of an issue for conservatives and Republicans, particularly in the more secular regions of the country.

 

Adoption of my single issue item from last night:

 

Candidates must support and defend the Constitution as written AND as interpreted in plain English of the 17th century.  And if not, then they support my core conservative principles > 75% of time and in all cases for major far sweeping legislation.

 

If we did that it would take the abortion club off the table for the Dems at the same time it would allow victory for conservative candidates who supported the Constitution as written. Get enough of them and a president to go with them and Roe will be rolled back. After that the abortion controversy will be back in the hands of the States where it belongs. Where the voters can decide for themselves what they want to do with this “philosophical” issue.

 

As I recall, before Roe, nobody felt too much about abortion, other than a few liberal network TV people who liked to do scary shows about “coat hanger” deaths.  These shows were all liberal BS lies but without an internet to refute them not everyone was in the know. The facts are that before Roe, most States allowed abortion in the first trimester and in the event of the mother’s health (and not mental health).

 

If we eliminated Roe things would likely go back to that, although I do not think as many States would go back to a total prohibition.

Posted by: Vic at November 01, 2009 04:46 AM (CDUiN)

759

Don’t forget that Rush will be on Chris Wallace’s FNS at 09:00 (most Fox stations) and you know they will be talking about NY-23.  And yes, I know Wallace is a liberal but it will be interesting to see how they handle this.

 

I will be dropping out to watch this in a few minutes.

Posted by: Vic at November 01, 2009 04:56 AM (CDUiN)

760 Being somewhere between conservative and libertarian, I don't see the point in having RINOs in office. I didn't vote for McCain, I didn't vote for W the second time. Looking at TARP, nation-building, gun laws, etc - I struggle to understand the advantage of voting for those guys over voting for Pelosi.

Posted by: agmike at November 01, 2009 05:13 AM (CCqrP)

761 #361...It's not about MY QB'ing her life....It's about HER QB'ing mine.

She wants to screw around and have the taxpayer pay for an abortion OR for the rearing of HER child. Screw that.

Posted by: torabora at November 01, 2009 05:14 AM (sx341)

762

I AM DEMLORD master of all , hello rethugs nice to see all is well in DEROBAMA'S domain... we will only allow certain approved people to represent his HIGHEST...do you remember when REICH LORD CLINTON approved of iran's "democracy"... that is what we give to you rebels... we pick and you will choose our choices...here in the NATIONAL SOCIALIST STATE OF NJ we have  a corrupt ,inept REICH LORD OF SACHS but he will win because the choice we gave you is fat... there is only one choice and it is ours!...CHOICE is our mantra as long as you choose what we decide!!   the national socialist remake is almost complete... when 20% unemployment settles in on the sheeple they will do what REICH-KING OBAMA tells them to do... put the sheeple to work building infrastructure- prison camps- and hire the chosen to guard them... what else is the midwest for...WAKE UP AND SMELL THE INCINERATORS...maybe we will give you a small reservation to die on but make no mistake we are the masters and you will always be servants...HEIL REICH-KING OBAMA

PS THIS IS ALL THE FAULT OF THAT WOMAN FROM ALASKA!!!

5

Posted by: demlord at November 01, 2009 05:15 AM (91IME)

763 Imagine all the people.....living life in peaaaaaceee....

Posted by: TMF at November 01, 2009 05:25 AM (ijo2L)

764

Well, they completed the segment on Rush. Nothing about NY-23. My guess is that it was taped before Dede dropped out. Maybe they will discuss it later.

Posted by: Vic at November 01, 2009 05:29 AM (CDUiN)

765 "I feel bad for her. Not a bad person..."
Excuse me, someone who is "not a bad person" doesn't lie about her beliefs in order to achieve a position of power and influence. If she were "not a bad person" she would honestly state her positions and then register and run as the liberal democrat she actually is.

The question here, which Allah keeps asking, is "Does this prompt a spate of third-party conservative challengers who wind up drawing just enough support from GOP candidates to give the House to the Democrats?"
No. I can't tell you how bone weary I am of all the nervous Nellies out there who instantly and endlessly bemoan the coming end of Republican party at the first sign that it might actually be returning to its conservative roots.

Anyone who wants a clear, unapologetic statement of conservative principles and policies need only read the first paragraph of this from Rush Limbaugh. It's as clear and concise a statement of such principles as I have ever read and it's the rallying cry of the Tea Party movement, the town hall movement, and the 9/12 movement and it should be the rallying cry of the Republican party as well if it wants to have any chance of regaining the respect and support of the true conservative majority (yes, I said conservative majority) in this country, whether its members call themselves Republican, Independent, Conservative or some other label.

Posted by: RayH at November 01, 2009 06:24 AM (vTWsG)

766 Scozzafava has encouraged her supporters to vote for Owens...

Posted by: Popcorn at November 01, 2009 06:24 AM (OOehk)

767 773 Scozzafava has encouraged her supporters to vote for Owens...

Posted by: Popcorn at November 01, 2009 11:24 AM (OOehk)

http://tinyurl.com/ycmlm3j

Posted by: progressoverpeace at November 01, 2009 06:32 AM (A46hP)

768 Ace and Alpha.......scuzzy gives support to Owen......Feel bad for her now?

Who are you Ace?

Posted by: non_dhimmie at November 01, 2009 06:34 AM (cFwGO)

769 Because they never heard any of their friends who actually -care- about politics say anything nice about Chafee or Laffey.  They had lots of conservative friends who care about politics say nice things about Carcieri.  What is it about this point that is so hard to understand?  I've repeated it three times now.
Qwinn,

I'm sorry but that's nonsensical.

You're saying these people are psyched to go voter for a great conservative governor on the Republican line but because they never heard anyone say anything exciting about Chaffee, these awesome conservative voters suddenly default to the more liberal Democrat (that you call a socialist)?

How does that make the slightest bit of sense?

Are you saying RI voters have zero common sense but rely mainly on who excites them? The have no ideological consistency? They are just adrenalin junkies?

Look, I'll buy excitement can impact turn out but it doesn't explain that type of ticket splitting when they are already at the polls.

And again, you vastly overestimate the role of the RNC in state elections. The RNC is a creature of the state parties.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 01, 2009 06:53 AM (ur6Ar)

770 I'd like to see a better source than the link PoP offered for Skozzafava's endorsement of Owens.  It doesn't give any direct quote to support that claim, and it is a full-press endorsement of Owens, so fawning that frankly I don't trust it at all.

If Skozzafava -did- in fact lend her support to Owens, then damn, that pretty much demolishes the whole "conservatives should just shut up and vote GOP" meme.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 06:55 AM (SxA2Q)

771 "You're saying these people are psyched to go voter for a great conservative governor on the Republican line but because they never heard anyone say anything exciting about Chaffee, these awesome conservative voters suddenly default to the more liberal Democrat (that you call a socialist)?"

DUDE, WHAT THE FREAKING HELL.

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THIS.  THEY ARE NOT "AWESOME CONSERVATIVE VOTERS".  They are completely disinterested mushy-middle non-political people who only vote for the people who they hear nice things about at the dinner table.  You keep trying to force this f'ing claim in my mouth that they are actually conservative ideologically when I haven't said -anything- like that and have in fact explained the exact opposite like 9 times now.  Enough with the freaking straw man arguments, FFS!

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 06:58 AM (SxA2Q)

772

There is a lot more evidence to that point than there is for a majority wanting higher taxes and spending.

 

In any case there is two elections worth of solid empirical evidence that running RINOs is a losing proposition.


Vic,
There is a ton of evidence that people are willing to vote for higher taxes (for others at least) and increased spending...it's called the 2006 and 2008 elections.


Now, I think those are secondary and indirect reason but Obama ran on raising taxes on the "rich" (he lied about the middle class but was up front on the $250, 000 level.


Congressional Democrats ran on raising taxes through letting the 'Bush tax cuts' expire.


And they all ran on increased spending, er 'investments'.

And look at the last time Republicans (conservatives included) tried to cut spending a tiny little bit...the government shutdown in the 90's. They got rolled.

Again, the majority of American voters simply do not hold the same views as movement conservatives. We should try to convince them but there's no evidence that we are there now or will ever be successful.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 01, 2009 07:01 AM (ur6Ar)

773 God, Drew, what the hell, man?  Why are you being so deliberately obtuse?  I'm saying nothing more complicated than "Real conservative candidates bring out real conservative grass roots campaigning, whereas RINO's do not".  And that grass root campaigning will reach a lot of non-ideological voters.  The sort of non-ideological voter who doesn't care enough to actually inform themselves on the issues but are willing to listen to those people close to them who -do-.

This is not f'ing complicated, but you are gonna -cram- the "all these mythical conservative ideologues" meme into my mouth no matter what it freaking takes, aren't you?

It's seriously getting infuriating.  How many f'ing more times are you going to play that shit?

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 07:02 AM (SxA2Q)

774 777 I'd like to see a better source than the link PoP offered for Skozzafava's endorsement of Owens.  It doesn't give any direct quote to support that claim, and it is a full-press endorsement of Owens, so fawning that frankly I don't trust it at all.

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 11:55 AM (SxA2Q)

Me too.  It was the only one I know of.  But I think that, if she doesn't refute that publicly, very quickly, that it must be taken as true.  I added the caveats in posting it on the Russ' thread - which I should have done above.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at November 01, 2009 07:03 AM (A46hP)

775 RINO really isn't the right word. Ronald Reagan was a RINO, the Republican Party actually stands for big government spending and the rich, they are the country club party. They're just slow Democrats. A Republican In Name Only is someone who is technically in the party, but is a conservative and thus rejects what the party stands for and does.

Its all well and good to have a reasonably conservative platform but what you actually do when in office is what matters.

Then again I'm registered independent so I guess I have no dog in this hunt. I just agree with the idea that the majority of voters believe in lower taxes, smaller and less intrusive government, less corruption, and more state sovereignty, at least in principle.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at November 01, 2009 07:04 AM (PQY7w)

776

 

So the path to Republican dominance is to shrink the party, and cast out the Scozzafava type voters?

Exactly.

A political party can be the home of people who are very much for the X issue, and the Y issue, and the Z issue. That's  the so-called big tent.
It cannot be the home of people who are both passionately for the X issue, and against it.

If you are a die-hard "keep abortion legal" sort, then you don't belong in the GOP. If you support bigger government, then you don't belong in the GOP. It's that simple

Posted by: flenser at November 01, 2009 07:07 AM (uXxQM)

777 To what flenser just said, I'll add this:  If you're the small government type who wants to keep abortion legal, don't expect the warm welcoming embrace of Democrats either.  You almost certainly think you're a libertarian because you've been utterly brainwashed into the whole "keeping abortion legal is a libertarian cause" meme.  That's BS, but whatever.  There -is- a libertarian party out there... sure, it doesn't amount to shit, but that's your party.  Make something of it, or take pride in your "independence", but don't come into ours and trash the hell out of it because you can't accept the fact that those who think abortion actually -is- homicide can possibly really believe what they're saying, so they must be power mad fascists. 

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 07:12 AM (SxA2Q)

778

National solvency trumps everything.  If we can get that done, we have all the time in the world to work on the rest and if conservative fiscal policy produces results, as it will, it will be all the easier to enact conservative social policy.  Linking the two together is certain defeat

The two are linked together. Social conservatism comes first, because a socially liberal people will never be fiscally conservative. If you want to to get to fiscal conservatism, you need to start by embracing social conservatism.

America is going bankrupt because it has adapted social liberalism. It won't become solvent untl it rejects it.

Posted by: flenser at November 01, 2009 07:13 AM (uXxQM)

779 Scozzafava has encouraged her supporters to vote for Owens...

I don't think so.

The only thing I can find that says that is a NY Daily News article that says but what they link to as proof is the Watertown paper that had endorsed her but now is endorsing Owens, not that she did.

Apparently her husband did endorse Owens though.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 01, 2009 07:16 AM (ur6Ar)

780 Actually, from the Watertown Times link...

During the day Saturday, she began to quietly and thoughtfully encourage her supporters to vote for Democrat William L. Owens.

Hmmm.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 01, 2009 07:18 AM (ur6Ar)

781 To be fair, the Watertown paper explicitly says "During the day Saturday, she began to quietly and thoughtfully encourage her supporters to vote for Democrat William L. Owens."

So it's not just that the paper switched its endorsement.  It is actively claiming that Scozzafava did too.  That doesn't mean the paper isn't full of shit.  It may very well be.  But the Daily News isn't misrepresenting the Waterford article.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 07:20 AM (SxA2Q)

782

Someone can get elected in NJ agitating to ban late-term abortions and other restrictions. But I'm telling you, believe it or don't -- and maybe check out the voting records of NE congressmen on abortion issues -- you are not going to get someone up here who agitates for the repeal of Roe v. Wade or a consituitional amendment to do the same.

 

That's true. But you're not going to get someone elected in NJ who agrees with any part of the GOP platform, barring once in a generation cases where the Dem's corruptions becomes too hard for even the NJ voters to take.

Posted by: flenser at November 01, 2009 07:21 AM (uXxQM)

783 Sorry Drew, wrote my post before noting that you spotted the quote in question.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 07:21 AM (SxA2Q)

784

So you think the local paper told a baldfaced lie that they would easily be caught out on?

How about contacting Dede's office and asking for a comment on the story and the paper's switching to the openly Dem candidate?

Posted by: andycanuck at November 01, 2009 07:22 AM (2qU2d)

785 "So you think the local paper told a baldfaced lie that they would easily be caught out on?"

Why not?  The national papers do it all the time.  And they'll deal with it the same way, in a correction on page B-22.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 07:24 AM (SxA2Q)

786 Every time you help to elect a RINO you help the Democrat party. If you don't have enough faith in what you believe to stick to it thick or thin, why should anyone else? Why are we lying down and exposing our throats?

Posted by: eman at November 01, 2009 07:27 AM (ZzgoC)

787 Qwinn,

I see what you are saying about moderates being excited, I was sloppily using 'conservative voters' when I meant 'voting for a great conservative'. I do apologize for that. I will try and learn my lesson and not have a debate at 4 in the morning (no matter what the clock says).

The bottom line is I still disagree with you that 'excitement' is a prime motivating factor. I think it's a reflection of the overall environment...usually a 'throw the bums out' moment like in '94 or a 'this isn't working anymore' like in 06 and 08.

I think 'excitement' when it plays a role it's a symptom of something bigger, not itself.

And again, I think you are vastly overestimating the role of the RNC here. You still havn't explained how if the RNC is dedicating to killing the chances of conservatives winning Senate seats, there are conservatives in the Senate.

It's simply beyond their perview to do more than support the choice of the state party or the RSCC.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 01, 2009 07:38 AM (ur6Ar)

788 "I see what you are saying about moderates being excited,"

What?

*cry*

I never said that either.

"The bottom line is I still disagree with you that 'excitement' is a prime motivating factor."

Or that.

It's the conservative ideologues who get excited about a solid conservative candidate.  Those conservative ideologues talk about how much they like that candidate at the dinner table, during after school events, at the PTA, etc.  The mushy headed "moderate" - i.e. totally disinterested in politics who only votes because he gets guilted into it - hears those good things and that creates a 10-20% chance they'll actually vote for him.

That mushy headed non-ideological voter is -never- going to vote for the Republican when all he hears the few times he turns on the news is "Republicans are racists" and his ideologue lefty friends frothing at the mouth like they always do, when his conservative friends just snort in disgust hearing the same name.  Mushy headed voter -never ever ever- hears a good word about the RINO, except, possibly, from campaign ads put out by the RNC, which may work to some degree and does have an impact in a primary, but isn't anywhere near as good as hearing his conservative friends defend and boost their guy every bit as passionately as the frothing leftists defend -their- guy.

I never ever said the moderate would be "excited" about the conservative guy.  They're not excited when they vote Democrat either.  They hate politics.  They only vote at all because of those stupid MTV GOTV efforts specifically aimed at exactly them, because Democrats understand this dynamic, they know they have the media, and they know the typical ignorant disinterested person will vote Democrat when the Republican is a RINO who excites no one.

Now do you understand?  *sobs in despair*

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 07:47 AM (SxA2Q)

789 "You still havn't explained how if the RNC is dedicating to killing the chances of conservatives winning Senate seats, there are conservatives in the Senate"

You brought up Rubio.  I did some reading about what's been going on with him since you mentioned him.  Can you really know what was done to him in the primary, with the state party trying to bar him from even getting on the primary ballot, and how the outrage of local conservatives kept him in, and still think that question needs answering?

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 07:49 AM (SxA2Q)

790 Qwinn,

So you're argument is if conservatives are excited they are the prime motivator for moving mushy middle types and if we don't excite conservatives they won't evangelize the mushes?


Posted by: DrewM. at November 01, 2009 08:02 AM (ur6Ar)

791 i will hold my nose and vote for the rino but if Peepee Scuzzalava had won and voted for obamacare causing hyperinflation i will say hahaha i told you so

Posted by: Newyorkconservative[There is such a creature as a new york conservative?] at November 01, 2009 08:03 AM (0wI8P)

792 and btw i think the head of the acu was busted in a scandal

Posted by: Newyorkconservative[There is such a creature as a new york conservative?] at November 01, 2009 08:05 AM (0wI8P)

793 Qwinn,

As far as I know the RNC hasn't taken a stand on Rubio.

The RSCC has but they are not the same thing.

Also, it's very unusual for the RSCC to get involved in open seat primaries. They will support sitting Senators who are getting primaired. And that's never going to change. Think of it this way, a sitting Republican Senator is essentially a member of the RSCC. What organization is going to support someone challenging one it's members?

Now, the RSCC has made a huge mistake in going with Crist but that's not part of a larger conspiracy to keep conservatives out of the Senate. Again, the RNC doesn't even enter into the picture.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 01, 2009 08:05 AM (ur6Ar)

794 I feel sorry for SoCons and FiscCons in Blue states. Shit sandwiches for breakfast, lunch and dinner. My best advice is to vote with your feet - move to a Red State and help to make it Redder. And if you want to stay in a Blue state, that's fine. Good luck.

But I'm done eating shit sandwiches - and I'm sure I can survive the coming leftwing shitstorm better than most. And the liberal shitstorm is coming.

Remember to brush after every meal, and see you on the other side.

Posted by: Captain Rock Hard at November 01, 2009 08:07 AM (UKP1H)

795 dude glenn beck says some idiotic things but i highly doubt he was serious about a 3rd party run and if he was he is stupid

Posted by: Newyorkconservative[There is such a creature as a new york conservative?] at November 01, 2009 08:15 AM (0wI8P)

796 anyways IMO abortion is a states right issue last i heard palin opposed abortions but hasn't jailed anyone for having one

Posted by: Newyorkconservative[There is such a creature as a new york conservative?] at November 01, 2009 08:17 AM (0wI8P)

797 "So you're argument is if conservatives are excited they are the prime motivator for moving mushy middle types and if we don't excite conservatives they won't evangelize the mushes?"

That is definitely the closest you've come to restating my argument accurately, yes.  But if you respond now with any argument that implies "those excited moderates won't blah blah blah", I'll have to kill you.

Ideologues are the only people who really care about politics enough to campaign and donate to candidates.  This is true from the left and the right.  When RINO's run for an office, you piss their support and funding away.  There are not nearly enough passionate people who share the bizarrely inconsistent political views of the typical RINO to make up for it.  As the Republican candidate goes left, the funding and grassroots campaign structure dries up.  This is something Ace and you have completely ignored in your thesis that RINO's are more electable than conservatives in blue states.

So, just to drive the point home:

Mushy muddle-headed politically ignorant Joe showed up to the Rhode Island polls in 2006.  He's looking down the list at a bunch of names he might have heard of 3 times in his life.

"Chafee?  Yeah, I think I heard of him.  Sally my hyper democrat girlfriend says he's the spawn of Satan, but she says that about anybody who has an "R" next to their name, so I kinda expect that.  But when Joe my Republican brother mentioned him, he looked like he was going to puke too.  Guy must be real scum.  Voting for the other guy."

"Carcieri?  Oh, I heard about him!  Sally says he's Satan-spawn too, but Joe -loves- him.  Okay, here's what I'll do to make everyone happy, I'll vote for the Democrat against that Chafee guy that no one likes, but I'll vote for this Republican Carcieri cause Joe really likes him.  So one of each!  Cause I'm like, independent, and stuff!  Rawr!  *flex*"

Get what I'm saying now?

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 08:20 AM (SxA2Q)

798 People without any grounding principles (like those silly, outdated, Conservative ones) think that saying and doing anything necessary to "win" is super-smart strategy. The idea is to win, THEN, after you're in, you get to govern the way you want! You do? You get to be a secret conservative in Liberal clothing, and when the dust clears, you take off the costume, and say, HA! I'm really a Conservative! I will NOW do the right thing! Oh, and, all that stuff I said to you dupes, you know, just to get elected? Jokes on you... I guess you could do that...But more to reality, you'd be stuck enacting all the stuff you knew was crap but said you'd do anyway. To, uh, "win" This is the true curse of the PC sh*t Liberals have brain washed most with. Liberals have said, for so long that it is now widely accepted by this new breed of "hard core conservative", that there is no use trying to foist your out dated "values" on the rest of us. To "win", you must become more like us... And they have...

Posted by: JS at November 01, 2009 09:08 AM (Yzk1j)

799 If this isn't the time to "hoist the black flag" etc., when will that be, exactly?  Fuck a Republican Party which would nominate candidates like Scozzafava and expect conservative to vote for them.

Posted by: Hucklebuck at November 01, 2009 09:33 AM (/jOCG)

800 Ace, long time lurker here. You sir, are grade-A pussy and a sell out. You did this exact same shit in 2006/08. You literally said "fuck you" to all of us that stayed home or whatever. Take that fucking skull of your blog and stop making motor head ref's - you're not worthy of either. How does it feel to be Newt Gingrich with an eye patch?

Posted by: Abe at November 01, 2009 09:43 AM (C0JqE)

801 Danger?  If you call local and like minded people exercising their constitutional right to run for elected office a danger, I hate to think what you call Andre Agassi who takes taxpayer money to fund "his school."  A hero?  Dissent is patriotic, no?

Someone not tossing their hat into the ring by bowing to any party choice, regardless of their positions, is akin to Pelosi telling me government run healthcare will give me more options.  The more the merrier, and debate soon and often.  Cream rises.  Results aren't the point.  Seriousness of purpose is, and looking in the mirror not only after advocacy but casting a vote.

Look what results driven education has yielded.  Those wraskly teacher unions just come up with more ways to scam the system.  Newt Gingrinch's only worry is getting enough "moderate" Republicans who will break their arm to get it across the isle as fast as the Dems say so Newt can continue his pay-to-play system he carefully built up while throwing that Contract with America under the bus.

Thump.  Do you remember it?  Thump.  We were living it.  Thump.  It never stops.  Thump.  Corruption stinks.  Thump.  The new politically active have no patience for it.  Thump.  Stop!  Hoffman running as an alternative to the Republican lite proves diversity.  This is the camels nose under the tent.  I, for one, hope there will be many more options for voters across the nation.  Let us not forecast rain for the parade but prove pc politics has no place in governing by not having acorns next to Republican candidates names in one race or 20.  Bring it.  Diversity of thought should never be sold as something to fear.

Posted by: FeFe at November 01, 2009 11:57 AM (7GTP7)

802 One last thought, now that this thread is effectively dead.

You might think Limbaugh's "Republican first" policy is better than Beck's "conservative first" one, but which is getting more done and having more of an impact? I like Rush, but his support Republicans at all costs gave us the corrupt and big government big spending GOP. Beck gave us ACORN's head on a platter and a commie cabinet member out on his red diapered ass.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at November 01, 2009 04:20 PM (PQY7w)

803 Hey Ace -

You basically pulled a Newt in your "Dede's Farewell" post.  Guess what, Ace?  You're not a tough guy, you're a moronic pussy.  This blog is off my bookmarks (except I may post this in a couple of other threads first).

Loyal Ex-Reader,
Dave

Yes, this is the thread that proves Ace is a Duece...er, Douche.

Posted by: Dave G. at November 01, 2009 04:42 PM (hNH5b)

804 Great. must be a New York City thing, Dee-Dee's gone again. Is CJ still available as a replacement? Signed, Joey R.

Posted by: winston smith at November 02, 2009 02:56 AM (H7r5N)

805 The answer is simple. After a while, folks would rather have an honest (read upfront about it) enemy than a treacherous friend. And when people start to believe that the 'treacherous friends' (read RINOs) will foul up their lives as badly as the known enemies, then they'd much rather have them to fight than try and figure out how to deal with the folks who are supposed to be your friends and are still knifing you in the back.

Posted by: Bubba Man at November 02, 2009 06:28 AM (Gquo3)

806 575 "Okay, there. Our monetary system is invulnerable. The Full Faith and Credit of the US is unlimited. Let me write that down. "

More strawmen. Find me someone who isn't a raving lunatic like you who thinks the dollar is going to disintegrate. A real, serious economist who thinks that inflation is going to destroy public order and safety.

If you can't keep up and all you're going to do is swing at strawmen, just shut up.

There's something about the internet that turns people like you into 5 year olds. The instant someone doesn't accept your doom-mongering, you start whining that they're Pollyannas and start constructing strawmen to "prove" it.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 09:39 PM (mFUln)

Chew on this, Could America go broke?, genius.  And Samuelson isn't even painting the true picture of what our likely moves are going to be and how the dollar will just disintegrate in the process ... but what do I know?

Posted by: progressoverpeace at November 02, 2009 11:25 AM (A46hP)

807

And, my genius chaos, if that wasn't enough to satisfy your apetite, you can feast on this, Mother of all carry trades faces an inevitable bust, too. 

So the combined effect of the Fed policy of a zero Fed funds rate, quantitative easing and massive purchase of long-term debt instruments is seemingly making the world safe – for now – for the mother of all carry trades and mother of all highly leveraged global asset bubbles.

Yeah .. biggest asset bubble ever ... nothing like the Sept/Oct 2008 crisis, without the money or credit to buy any temporary fixes, either, as we just did .. no, no way.  And, as I said above, neither of these guys is being honest about the political motivations that are going to make each of these problems orders of magnitude worse.  We will not default and we will not save our monetary system.  We will, instead, push it until it actually disintegrates.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at November 02, 2009 11:37 AM (A46hP)

808 This is what this site has come to? really? Voting for weasels who can win but still suck? You are...fighters? lol

Posted by: Mike at November 02, 2009 11:17 PM (M5YQU)

809 I enjoyed reading your post. You are very good at putting your thoughts into words. I will definitely keep following your blog.

Posted by: Chandeliers at June 29, 2010 11:09 AM (S8yuF)

810 http://www.r4cardsohot.com/ The <a href="http://www.r4cardsohot.com/"><strong>DS R4</strong></a> is the most popular version and the <a href="http://www.r4cardsohot.com/">R4 card,r4i card,m3i zero,nintendo ds r4 card,r4i dsi,r4 card for ds</a> has the capacity to store 2GB,4GB,8GB. This R4 card with amazing price and easy to use

Posted by: r4cardsohot at August 20, 2010 02:49 AM (3LpzQ)

811

en kalitelisi burası porno gel bak
kanlı canlı bir platform porno izle keyfine bak
sikiselim diyenler burası sikiƟ en gĂŒzeli
dedik ne bir bakınz vipdilber kaliteliyer

Posted by: hasta misin at February 05, 2011 03:33 PM (c/QGl)

812 It's all about matching tiffany co jewelry , and creating the best combination of colors for one's general dressing. It will help to buy what you need simpler, and you will be pleased that you just added some Tiffany diamond jewelry in your present rings selection.

Posted by: herman198 at March 10, 2011 01:16 AM (tnRWG)

813 Men and women when diamond, important stones, gold and platinum had been a common metals to discover the model of tiffany. They are funky, wise indeed secure in these imitation tiffany jewelry

Posted by: herman198 at March 14, 2011 09:24 PM (bUUy/)

814 I have learned so much from you, thank you for your good posts.

Posted by: how to transfer songs from ipod to itunes at April 14, 2011 12:40 AM (2JYnr)

815 The birkenstock outlet brand traces its roots to a German by the name of Johann Adam Birkenstock.birkenstock was registered in 1774 as a "subject and shoemaker" in local church archives.In 1897 it was Johann's grandson, birkenstock Sandals, who developed the first contoured insole to be used by shoemakers in the production of custom footwear.

Posted by: birkenstocks-outlet at April 28, 2011 02:24 AM (/9Bd+)

816 Good newsthanks

Posted by: Rahasia Bisnis Online at June 14, 2011 01:46 PM (eyu4L)

817 It's good to see this information in your post, i was looking the same but there was not any proper resource, thanx now i have the link which i was looking for my research. . . . . .


wooden bench

Posted by: Wooden Benches at June 29, 2011 07:27 AM (Dmi+A)

818

Software of laser cutting machines makes the process of laser cutting easy and safe. It also makes it simple to change jobs as you move from one production batch to the next. The operation of laser cutters is easy and production is likely to increase when moving away from mechanical systems.

Posted by: laser cutters at July 04, 2011 01:27 AM (OUkEH)

819 GOOD POST

Posted by: sublimation at July 14, 2011 10:18 PM (DDLpO)

820 mts converter is specially designed for users to convert mts files to other various formats. This flexible MTS Video Converter is not only convert multiple mts files to flv, mod, wmv, avi, mpeg, etc, but also convert mts files to iPad, iPod, iPhone, PSP and other devices. MTS Converter allows you to edit video files you want to convert. With this MTS Video Converter, you can trim video files you beloved and add watermark in the video files.



mts to avi converter can convert MTS to all the other popular video and audio formats including MKV, MP4, AVI, MPEG, WMV, FLV, SWF, , MOV, 3GP, VOB, TS, MP3, AAC, FLAC, MKA, etc. MTS to AVI helps you edit the video before converting, for example, trimming file length, cropping video size, adjusting video effect, etc.


mts to dvd converter can convert MTS to DVD disk and to other formats including FLV,3GP, VOB, DivX, XviD, MP3, MPEG, MP4, AVI, MOV,WMA, etc. With this MTS to DVD Converter, you can also trim video files you beloved, adjust output effect, choose dvd output formats and add watermark in the video files.

Posted by: Jasper at November 12, 2011 03:27 AM (50H2Y)

821

To meet increasing requirement of market, Company provide all kinds of products to choose: convenient and simple TV Remote Control X-ray System , high efficient of High Frequency Radiography Uniteasy operation of Portable x-ray unitt.

Posted by: medical-x-ray at December 12, 2011 02:53 AM (THa9j)

Posted by: Scarpe Hogan at March 30, 2012 03:41 AM (MrCa1)

823 http://www.hoganoutletitalian.org Hogan, Hogan Outlet, Hogan Sito Ufficiale, Scarpe Hogan, Collezione Hogan, Spaccio Hogan, 70% Discontohttp://www.hoganoutletitalian.org,

Posted by: Scarpe Hogan at March 30, 2012 03:42 AM (MrCa1)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
753kb generated in CPU 0.8, elapsed 2.0201 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.3885 seconds, 1059 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.