Awesome: Super-Liberal "Republican" Dede Scozzaflava Calls Cops on Weekly Standard Reporter for... Asking Questions

John McCormack is a respectable, professional sort of guy. Not like all those fashionably-dressed Town Hall Terrorists the media is always so very, very worried about. The scariest thing about him is the nagging sense he might have gone to a better school than you.

He asked her three questions. This "startled" her, according to the cop who then interviewed McCormack.

I spotted Scozzafava later as she was walking to the parking lot, and asked her: " Assemblywoman, do you believe that the health-care bill should exclude coverage for abortion?" She didn't reply. I asked her twice more. Silence.
After she got into her car, I went to my car and fired up my laptop to report the evening's events.
Minutes later a police car drove into the parking lot with its lights flashing. Officer Grolman informed me that she was called because "there was a little bit of an uncomfortable situation" and then took down my name, date of birth, and address.
"Maybe we do things a little differently here, but you know, persistence in that area, you scared the candidate a little bit," Officer Grolman told me.
"[Scozzafava] got startled, that's all," Officer Grolman added. "It's not like you're in any trouble."
That was good to hear.

Ah, well. Good to know that despite being liberal, at least she's also "scared" by reporters in suits.

In case you've missed this (I missed it, but you probably didn't) Scozzafava is a ludicrously liberal candidate the Brain Trust at the RNCC decided was just the perfect candidate for NY's 23rd district (a vacancy was caused by the retirement of a Republican, who left the seat to become Army secratary).

She supported Obama's spendulus, is supportive of higher income taxes, supports card check, supports gay marriage, and is very pro-abortion.

I know, I know: You're wondering, "How did we luck out into this super-awesome candidate? It's like I've died and gone to Heaven and I finally get to cast a vote for George Washington!"

She was picked by 11 county Republican chairman who thought she "could win."

The next month, the district's 11 Republican county chairmen gathered at a pizzeria in Potsdam to pick a nominee. They were looking for someone with name recognition who could prevail in a shortened campaign when the economy was voters' top concern. Ms. Scozzafava, a former small-town mayor who has served for a decade in the state legislature, seemed the right choice.
Ms. Scozzafava spent 20 years as a stockbroker. Her family has owned the same auto-parts store in Gouverneur, N.Y., for decades. In March 2008, upset at the sex scandals surrounding former Gov. Eliot Spitzer and his successor, David Paterson, Ms. Scozzafava sent a letter to her colleagues blasting an Albany social life "that is somewhere between 'Girls & Boys Gone Wild' and a sorority-fraternity style mixer."
She appealed to the Republican chairmen. "We asked, is it possible to put in place a Republican candidate that uniformly stands for all the conservative values of the far right, but is unelectable?" says William Farber, the Hamilton County chairman. "I would much rather have a candidate like Dede Scozzafava that I don't agree with 100% of the time, but always has been honest and forthright."

As Allah points out, the previous Republican won with 60% of the vote in this district. Now, if this were a case of attempting to play on the Democrats' field, attempting to steal a seat from them, I might be tepidly supportive of this candidate. (Tepidly.) Even if she'd be an awful Republican, at least the Democrats would have to spend money to oppose her and take the seat back.

But this does not seem to be a liberal district. For example, the man she would replace, John McHugh, seems strongly pro-life, which is to say, he's a more or less conventional conservative on this issue.

So what, exactly, is the thinking here? If McHugh could manage 60% wins on a strong pro-life platform, why is it that we need a strongly pro-abortion candidate to woo the district?

On issue after issue, she's not merely moderate or squishy. She's outright liberal. Card-check is unpopular with any but the most liberal representatives in the safest liberal districts. But to win this seat, we, the Republican Party, need to embrace the end of the secret ballot in union balloting?

Um... why?

Fortunately a conservative has entered the race -- Doug Hoffman, who appeals for help on Michelle Malkin's blog.

There is a small problem with supporting Doug Hoffman, but it's not really a problem at all. By splitting the party, we've allowed the little-regarded Democratic candidate to pull into a small lead.

But so what? Scozzaflava would be no better than any Democrat -- in fact, she may even be more liberal that the Democrat running.

Furthermore, all of the candidates are now in the 20s and 30s, so Hoffman has a fairly good chance of winning -- especially after Scozzaflava's supporters, who mostly support her on Rep. Peter King's theory that we need to be "united" as a party, realize that she's actually doomed to lose and switch support to the much-better candidate Hoffman.

And lastly -- this is actually great for us, because it allows us to repudiate this style of sell-out thinking before the actual big election in 2010. By demonstrating to the party now we're supportive of conservative candidates, and in fact would rather lose a race than have a liberal inflicted on us, we can teach them a lesson about candidate recruitment in the upcoming elections.

A lot of elections you'd kinda hate to lose. This loss would be nothing but win. We can afford this loss, if it gets us more conservative candidates for 2010.

And besides -- I still think Hoffman has a good chance of winning.

His donation page is here.

Again, I have to repeat: I'm not really against tactical nominations. If this were a swing district, I wouldn't oppose a moderate candidate. If this were a Democratic district, I wouldn't oppose a fairly liberal candidate. Based on the demographics, those would be cases where "the most conservative candidate possible" might not be a very conservative candidate at all.

But here, we have a decade's worth of elections proving that conservative candidates not only win NY23, but win by comfortable margins.

So why the supposedly "tactical" choice of a liberal here?

The Club for Growth, by the way, is buying ads in favor of Hoffman.

Honestly, there's no downside for us here in supporting Hoffman. If he wins -- which he just might; Scozzaflava's supporters apparently animated by the notion that she "can win" will abandon her when it's clear she can't -- awesome.

And even if he doesn't win, and the Democrat wins -- still good. Still sends a message about the candidates we're willing to support and the ones we'd rather actively work against. It's the right message to send, win or lose.

Another Point: Although I don't need to be sold on the idea that supporting Hoffman is win-win, Mallamutt adds:

Since its a special election, why not support Hoffman? 1) its not like this district holds the balance of power for the House 2) the winner will only have 13 months in office and 3) even if Hoffman loses, he builds up name recognition for the 2nd shot, has an organization in place to survive the primary (which will occur in what, 7 months?).

That too.

Posted by: Ace at 08:49 AM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 Yep, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is on this one.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 20, 2009 08:55 AM (WvXvd)

2 Coward.

Posted by: ace at October 20, 2009 08:56 AM (2lEFM)

3 Scozzafava is a conservative?

I guess that word doesn't mean what I thought it did.

Posted by: Che Pizza at October 20, 2009 08:56 AM (4iIhs)

4 What the hell is she going to do when CNN stalks her at the Capitol - oh, sorry, they only do that to conservatives like John Ensign.

Posted by: Mallamutt at October 20, 2009 08:57 AM (V9SYy)

5 The next month, the district's 11 Republican county chairmen gathered at a pizzeria an opium den in Potsdam to pick a nominee.

Modified in order to make the first paragraph of the quote make more sense.

Posted by: Che Pizza at October 20, 2009 09:00 AM (4iIhs)

6 "supported Obama's spendulus, is supportive of higher income taxes, supports card check, supports gay marriage, and is very pro-abortion."

How does a Moderate make a distinction between these platforms and far left Obama while still pretending they are Moderate?

Although, I'll note Obama does not support same-sex union between opposite sex.

What IS a Moderate, anyway?

Posted by: syn at October 20, 2009 09:00 AM (Qs00S)

7 This post is 8.3% less outraged than optimal. Please add two strong adjectives and an exclamation point.

Posted by: Outrage Calibrator at October 20, 2009 09:00 AM (yK/Nm)

8 >> Coward

Fuckin A.We yellow-stripers use ourfilthy lucreto manipulate the strings of powerand oppress the downtrodden. There's no way I'm like, gonna actually vote for the guy.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 20, 2009 09:00 AM (WvXvd)

9 Ace DiT - Aren't you kind of contradicting yourselves here, to wit, your "Ideological Purity? Or Purity of Emotion?" and "Why Defend Rush?" posts?

Posted by: butch at October 20, 2009 09:02 AM (8X9tr)

10 Since its a special election, why not support Hoffman? 1) its not like this district holds the balance of power for the House 2) the winner will only have 13 months in office and 3) even if Hoffman loses, he builds up name recognition for the 2nd shot, has an organization in place to survive the primary (which will occur in what, 7 months?).
No real down side. However, if Scozzaflava wins - you got a liberal entrenched for years.
Sending cash in 5, 4, 3, 2,

Posted by: Mallamutt at October 20, 2009 09:03 AM (V9SYy)

11 Pardon my lack of sophistication here in flyover country, but how is electing a RINO superior to electing a conservative Democrat?

If I do what my "betters" tell me to do, will Peggy Noonan and George Will add me to their Christmas card, oops, "Holiday greetings" list? Do I get to watch McCain play golf with Lindsay Graham (not actually play with them, of course...since I can't afford a membership at their country club....but letting me be on the grounds for an hour on the annual "Peasants Day" might not be out of the question, yes?)

If someone could explain the delicate nuances to me, I'd sure appreciate it.

Posted by: bigpinkfluffybunny at October 20, 2009 09:03 AM (KWhJd)

12 Only an angry, arrogant asshole would write something like this.
Good thing I agree.

"I would much rather have a candidate like Dede Scozzafava that I don't
agree with 100% of the time, but always has been honest and forthright."

Next up? Why not back Barney Franks for Senate? He meets that criteria.
Idiots.

Posted by: Rocks at October 20, 2009 09:04 AM (f7EXG)

13 I think everyone is missing the importance of this thread. Ace posted something before noon.
Sure sign of the End of Times.

Posted by: Mallamutt at October 20, 2009 09:05 AM (V9SYy)

14 I just contributed to Hoffman on the strength of this post, but honestly---if there were only this bitch and a Democrat running, I'd contribute to the Dem.

Posted by: Meriadoc Brandybuck at October 20, 2009 09:05 AM (FoYPf)

15 I am so proud of my State.

Posted by: ParisParamus at October 20, 2009 09:06 AM (+twAg)

16 I think everyone is missing the importance of this thread. Ace posted something before noon.
Sure sign of the End of Times.

Posted by: Mallamutt at October 20, 2009 09:05 AM (V9SYy)

I know. I thought I was hallucinating till I realized I was on my second cup of coffee.

Posted by: Rocks at October 20, 2009 09:06 AM (f7EXG)

17 Ace?
Wow, simply wow, Ace is posting BEFORE 9 am?
WTF's with that, out of valu rite last night?
No MNF?
Anyway, good work. I think we need to "ditch this bitch"
ASAP.
Kemp

Posted by: Kempermanx at October 20, 2009 09:07 AM (2+9Yx)

18 You people are just trying to force all the moderates out of the party. If you people get your wish, you will be left with Rush Limberger and 20 far right creationisits. Have fun in the permanent minority.

Posted by: LGF Fan at October 20, 2009 09:07 AM (SqAkN)

19 9
Ace DiT - Aren't you kind of contradicting yourselves here, to
wit, your "Ideological Purity? Or Purity of Emotion?" and "Why Defend
Rush?" posts?

Posted by: butch at October 20, 2009 09:02 AM (8X9tr)

There's a difference between demanding a rigid ideological lockstep worthy of the Roman Catholic church in the 15th century, or Islam today, and supporting someone who opposes your political party's platform right down the line because she "Might be electable."Are you trolling, or haven't you had enough coffee yet.

Posted by: Josef K. at October 20, 2009 09:07 AM (7+pP9)

20 >>>Ace & DiT - Aren't you kind of contradicting yourselves here, to wit, your "Ideological Purity? Or Purity of Emotion?" and "Why Defend Rush?" posts?

That contradiction only exists in the minds of people for whom the only interesting game to ever play is "Whose Conservative Dick is Bigger?"

Those of you who keep insisting that the bloggers on this site aren't really conservative are, what's the word, insane.

Guys like you aren't going to vote anyway. You're here to bitch on blogs. So this is pointless.

Posted by: ace at October 20, 2009 09:08 AM (2lEFM)

21 >>>WTF's with that, out of valu rite last night?

I'm still kind of sick and passed out last night a 9pm.

Posted by: ace at October 20, 2009 09:08 AM (2lEFM)

22 this was a Potsdam Declaration with a twist: preemptivesurrender by the probable victor or else. The irony is thicker than a Rino's skull.

Posted by: mark c at October 20, 2009 09:09 AM (SBIko)

23 but how is electing a RINO superior to electing a conservative Democrat?

Because a conservative democrat usually votes with the democrats, while a rino usually votes with the democrats.....
nevermind.

Posted by: the real joe at October 20, 2009 09:10 AM (l+x6R)

24 Just think what Oba-Mao would do if he was asked real questions.

Posted by: bill-tb at October 20, 2009 09:10 AM (iiiMw)

25 Butch, yes, by golly you're right. It's an absolute contradiction to my stated position that I will work to elect the most conservative Republican in any primary, but faced with the lesser of two evils in the generali.e. McCain or Obama, I'd vote McCain. (although faced with this Scozzaflava douche vs.Owens I think Owens is actually the lesser of two evils).
That's why a jerk from Texas just donated 50 bucks to Hoffman.
You got me man. You got me.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 20, 2009 09:11 AM (WvXvd)

26
You people are just trying to force all the moderates out of the party.
If you people get your wish, you will be left with Rush Limberger and
20 far right creationisits. Have fun in the permanent minority.

Posted by: LGF Fan at October 20, 2009 09:07 AM (SqAkN)
It's okay. We're all waiting for the second coming so we won't be bored.

Posted by: Rocks at October 20, 2009 09:11 AM (f7EXG)

27 I sure wish the RINOs would stop forcing good folks to vote Dem. It makes one feel dirty.

Posted by: Reactionary at October 20, 2009 09:11 AM (P+HSn)

28 Oh, Well get well!A good night's sleep will cure a lot of shit.

Posted by: Kempermanx at October 20, 2009 09:11 AM (2+9Yx)

29 The RNCC is supporting this POS? Fuck them. I hope Palin starts a third party. I am fed up with R's in general.

Posted by: TC at October 20, 2009 09:11 AM (DYJjQ)

30 I really wouldn't be annoyed if this were a liberal district.

But it's, um, *NOT*.

Posted by: ace at October 20, 2009 09:11 AM (2lEFM)

31 "Again, I have to repeat: I'm not really against tactical nominations.
If this were a swing district, I wouldn't oppose a moderate candidate.
If this were a Democratic district, I wouldn't oppose a fairly liberal candidate."

Now that is a great piece of political thinking. I'm so tired of the clueless ideologues who really believe that half-a-loaf is not only NOT better than no loaf at all, but actually is somehow worse. I would have thought that 9 months of Obama would have shaken some sense into most people. But based upon comments(not yours) here and elsewhere --- Evidently Not.

That this candidate supposedly supports 'card check' is enough for me. She is therefore per se intolerable. That alone is enough of a deal breaker to warrant non-support.

Posted by: Dougf at October 20, 2009 09:12 AM (16GPT)

32 She is what passes as a republican in the People's Republic of NY.
FML.

Posted by: the real joe at October 20, 2009 09:12 AM (l+x6R)

33 Butch you need to take the blinders off. The far right wing is destroying your party. Donate to Dede Scozzaflava, a true moderate that will be able to win. There is no contradiction to voting for her and supporting Republicans. So what she might disagree with you on some key issues, at least she will be able to bring your party back to relevance.

Posted by: LGF Fan at October 20, 2009 09:12 AM (SqAkN)

34 Just think what Oba-Mao would do if he was asked real questions.
Let me be clear.........Let me be clear.............Let me be clear - fatal system error.

Posted by: TOTUS at October 20, 2009 09:13 AM (V9SYy)

35 You betcha! Run a damned RINO as a tactical choice. Whats the damn difference, RNC idiots, between having a Demorat in the seat, and a RINO who votes against everything the party stands for 90% of the time? No wonder we are in the minority. The RNC is devoid of balls as well as brains. Shove your Big tepee up your sloppy loose asses.

Posted by: maddogg at October 20, 2009 09:13 AM (OlN4e)

36 Does anyone know about how politcal parties at the county level work?

I'm reading this article about how we've pretty much abandoned these critically important county-level organizations, and I'm wondering how many live bodies it would take to basically take them over.

Posted by: ace at October 20, 2009 09:13 AM (2lEFM)

37 I'm still kind of sick and passed out last night a 9pm.

Posted by: ace at October 20, 2009 09:08 AM (2lEFM)

The plastic cup with the Nyquil is not a shot glass you know?For everyone except DiT of course.

Posted by: Rocks at October 20, 2009 09:13 AM (f7EXG)

38 Thanks for posting on this, Ace. The RNC should get an earful from their members on this absurdity.

Posted by: Amused Observer at October 20, 2009 09:17 AM (xGXz7)

39
Butch you need to take the blinders off. The far right wing is
destroying your party. Donate to Dede Scozzaflava, a true moderate that
will be able to win. There is no contradiction to voting for her and
supporting Republicans. So what she might disagree with you on some key
issues, at least she will be able to bring your party back to
relevance.

Posted by: LGF Fan at October 20, 2009 09:12 AM (SqAkN)

Listen, if we hadn't donated to Hoffman the money would have gone to the Creationist Museum so you should be happy.

Posted by: Rocks at October 20, 2009 09:17 AM (f7EXG)

40 What IS a Moderate, anyway?

Oh! I DO know this one!

Anyone who is not conservative.

Do I get a cookie?

Posted by: Charles Gibson at October 20, 2009 09:19 AM (4iIhs)

41 There's no way I'm like, gonna actually vote for the guy.

Now you're just not trying.

Officer Grolman informed me that she was called because "there was a
little bit of an uncomfortable situation" and then took down my name,
date of birth, and address.

What. The. Fuck. If there was no law broken, then why the fuck did the cop need that information? Seriously. Last I knew, we didn't have to present our papers here in the United States. I would demand to know if a police report was prepared regarding this and what information, if any, was entered into a police database considering this event. Because for all he knows, he's now been flagged as being a potential stalker. I'm not even kidding.

On a personal level, as a chick, nut up or shut up Scozzaflava. Seriously. Did the big scary man scare you? Awwwwwwwwwwwwwww. Way to make women look strong and capable.

Posted by: alexthechick at October 20, 2009 09:21 AM (SHHaV)

42 A moderate is someone willing to put aside partisan differences and concernsto do what is best for this country, all the while bringing us all together. That is except the right wing which is marching ever so fast toward irrelevance. They are best left behind.

Posted by: LGF Fan at October 20, 2009 09:21 AM (SqAkN)

43 This post is 8.3% less outraged than optimal. Please add two strong adjectives and an exclamation point.

Fucking Goddamn!

Do I get to punch someone in the face now?

Posted by: Rahm Emanuel at October 20, 2009 09:22 AM (4iIhs)

44 Does anyone know about how politcal parties at the county level work?
Generally, and there are variances from state to state, it works along this line
Each county is divided up into precients. Each precient gets a preceing captain or representative. Then, all the preceint captains gather and generally vote for the County Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Executive Board, ect. ect.
Usually, the voting is weighted. You take the total Republican Vote for the County and for example, if your preceint contributed 3.5% of that vote, your vote is worth 3.5. Thus, the preceint captain from a heavy Republican precient hasa vote worth more than someone from a heavy Democratic area.
For something like this, since Congressional Districts overlap various counties, the County Chairperson gather (usually some place nicer than a pizzeria - but what the hell) and vote. Again, the vote is weighted. So, the County Chairperson from the heavy Republican county vote is worht more than the Chairperson of the Republican Party from, say, Cook County.
The upside to this system - it is strictly merit based. Want to have more say, get off your ass, get elected as a precient committee person and turn out the vote.
Just want something on the resume to help schmooze the country club types - hey, don't complain when everyone in the room basically ignores you.

Posted by: Mallamutt at October 20, 2009 09:22 AM (V9SYy)

45 BTW don't listen to DiT when he says chasing a shot of Nyquil with a Redbull is just the same as taking Dayquil.

Posted by: Rocks at October 20, 2009 09:23 AM (f7EXG)

46 Ace,

this exact race is why I don't agree with your previous posts for pragmatism and against ideological purity. When you allow liberal Republicans to get in office in positions of power they do just that, assume power. Then they do what comes naturally to them, find like-minded people to work with and promote to positions of power. This is how we've allowed liberalism to dominate the agenda the past few years; by accepting liberal candidates under the Republican banner instead of promoting conservative values. Dede would've never gotten the opportunity to run for a safe seat if it wasn't for other liberal Republicans that used their positions of power we gave them to foist her upon us. Think about that.

Once we get a strong majority, it's acceptable to put a few moderates under our banner, and even then we must keep them under a tight leash. We accept human nature as people looking out for their own self interest and their family's self interest first. These liberal Republicans do the same.

Posted by: NJRob at October 20, 2009 09:23 AM (y/IxH)

47 43 A moderate is someone willing to put aside partisan differences and concernsto do what is best for this country, all the while bringing us all together. That is except the right wing which is marching ever so fast toward irrelevance. They are best left behind.
And I suppose it's asswipes like you who know whats best for the country? Go fuck your weepy self.

Posted by: maddogg at October 20, 2009 09:24 AM (OlN4e)

48 Mallamutt--

Okay, but specifically? Like, how many people would have to sign up and join the party and start doing this?

BTW I just posted a post on this subject alone, perhaps answer there, above?

Posted by: ace at October 20, 2009 09:25 AM (2lEFM)

49 Guys like you aren't going to vote anyway. You're here to bitch on blogs. So this is pointless.

In other words, the answer to Butch's question is 'yes'.

Posted by: Heywood Jablome at October 20, 2009 09:26 AM (SHKl9)

50 put aside partisan differences and concernsto do what is bestPosted by: LGF Fan at October 20, 2009 09:21 AM (SqAkN)

Says the fan of the guy who bans people for down dinging his comments.

Posted by: Rocks at October 20, 2009 09:26 AM (f7EXG)

51 I think everyone is missing the importance of this thread. Ace posted something before noon.

Sure sign of the End of Times.

More likely he's in the UK where bars can stay open for 24 hours.

Posted by: Che Pizza at October 20, 2009 09:26 AM (4iIhs)

52 You racist sexism assholes!

Posted by: Rev Wright at October 20, 2009 09:28 AM (2+9Yx)

53 Josef K.: Are you trolling, or haven't you had enough coffee yet.

OK, I skipped the flame war thread, so maybe I'm not up on all the "issues", but his comment seemed polite and on point. Have a cup joe yourself and sin no more.

Just so we're clear. I'm glad to see Ace and DiT on this. Ace sometimes gets too accommodating for my tastes (e.g. TARP, moderate Repubs), but I understand his stance and good men can disagree. That does not make me a troll either.

Posted by: oLD gUY at October 20, 2009 09:29 AM (P/D33)

54 Heywood,

This is a perfect example of you, the Perpetually Aggrieved, unable to take "yes" for an answer.

Another post doing what you would suggest we should do, and all you can do is bitch, because, somehow, we "moderates" caused this.

I'm done with the pissing contests with the assholes who don't actually want to DO anything except pontificate about who's more conservative than thou.

Posted by: ace at October 20, 2009 09:30 AM (2lEFM)

55 Is it physically possible for a woman RINO to piss out of the big tent?

Posted by: andycanuck at October 20, 2009 09:30 AM (2qU2d)

56 Can someone explain to me how not supporting Dede is some kind of attempt to rid the Republican party of moderates?

If you believe in the big tent concept, which is a must to fit Megan McCain's fat ass under it, but that's besides the point. What I mean is, a big tent as long as folks embrace a few key concepts:

Forget gay marriage, that's a loser.

Strong national defense, limited role of government, fiscal responsibility and emphasis on opportunity for the individual over government intervention. I don't like abortion, but I just don't think that is a party issue. The best bet is to try and make it a state decision and go from there.

So there you have a few key items, only one of which Dede could even potentially believe in - national defense. So exactly how is it that a person who shares absolutely no Republican values could be considered a Republican?

Face it, she isn't a moderate Republican, she's a democrat, and a liberal one at that. So please stop trying to shovel the NRCC's worthless talking points down our throat because that garbage doesn't fly.

Posted by: Jack Burton at October 20, 2009 09:30 AM (YxJoH)

57 She might have thought he was dangerous and alsomight not have reacted that way if he'd identified himslef as a reporter.Women get attacked all the time. Don't know much about the race and don't care in this case. This really should be a non-issue.

Posted by: JEA at October 20, 2009 09:31 AM (XZu3c)

58 >> Now you're just not trying.
HAHAHAHA. You're right. Surely I can buy some votes.
I'llsack up. Thankstoots.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 20, 2009 09:33 AM (WvXvd)

59 "She might have thought he was dangerous and alsomight not have reacted
that way if he'd identified himslef as a reporter.Women get attacked
all the time. Don't know much about the race and don't care in this
case. This really should be a non-issue."

Is it common for rapists to ask their potential victims about stimulus funding?

Posted by: Jack Burton at October 20, 2009 09:34 AM (YxJoH)

60 This is a perfect example of you, the Perpetually Aggrieved, unable to take "yes" for an answer.

Actually, it's a perfect example of you, unable to actually address Butch's point, and launching off into the weeds. As usual.

Profanity is not a substitute for reason.

Posted by: Heywood Jablome at October 20, 2009 09:35 AM (SHKl9)

61 JEA
Are all those out of state gun dealers still hawking illegal firearms to your neighbors under your window?

Posted by: maddogg at October 20, 2009 09:36 AM (OlN4e)

62 Ace: Those of you who keep insisting that the bloggers on this site aren't really conservative are, what's the word, insane.

I think that flame war must still be smarting, I'm glad I opted out. As you yell at people for complaining that you are not marching in lockstep with them, you are getting upset that they are not in lockstep with you. As I said, I don't always agree with you and sometimes you accommodate too much for my taste, but I think the commentors (word?) and posters agree far more than disagree, that's why we come here. Common ground, but enough difference for rousing debate.

My preference (for what its worth) is that we should all chill and forgive and forget.

Posted by: oLD gUY at October 20, 2009 09:36 AM (P/D33)

63 The GOP once again proves how retarded they are.
Oh, and it looks as though Newt is helping the RINO. Bra-Fucking-Vo

Posted by: eddiebear at October 20, 2009 09:39 AM (wnU1W)

64 "A moderate is someone willing to put aside partisan differences and concernsto do what is best for this country, all the while bringing us all together."
Ahh. Only republicans can be moderate. Got it. Because democrats haven't "put aside partisan differences" ever.

Will noone rid me of this meddlesome post-er?

Posted by: thethinmanreturns at October 20, 2009 09:40 AM (W3XUk)

65 besides, this is a chance to get some good types in office, as it looks as though 2010 might be a good year for us.

Posted by: eddiebear at October 20, 2009 09:41 AM (wnU1W)

66 Heywood,

You're an idiot. "The most conservative candidate possible" means something different in a liberal district than in a conservative one.

Furthermore, my post wasn't even about that. It was about dour puritans like yourself for whom every single post is a new invitation to yell that other people aren't conservative enough for your liking.

Where do you live and have you ever visited anywhere else? You are aware, I trust, that a candidate in a suburb of Boston has to be a bit more moderate on some issues to have any chance of winning right?

You... do understand that, right? Or do you imagine that everyone in the country is as rightwing as you are?

Posted by: ace at October 20, 2009 09:41 AM (2lEFM)

67 66: Moderate Republicansare more apt to spit in their own party's eye to help them snag a plce in history. At least that was Snowe's defense for her vote.

So, fuck them

Posted by: eddiebear at October 20, 2009 09:42 AM (wnU1W)

68 Heywood,
Butch asked me if I was contradicting myself.
I said no and explained why.
So how did I not address his point, which really isn't a point since his comment is based on a lazy reading (if one at all) of what I said in the previous posts?
See it's this "yammering", not thinking, not comprehending, or just incessant contrarianism that makes me think you're just not serious.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 20, 2009 09:43 AM (WvXvd)

69 62: hey, I like profanity. What's wrong with it?

Posted by: eddiebear at October 20, 2009 09:44 AM (wnU1W)

70 >>>> As you yell at people for complaining that you are not marching in lockstep with them, you are getting upset that they are not in lockstep with you.

Um, no. Nice try though.

I don't care if idiots like Heywood and Butch want to yell all day. I just don't want them yelling at me. I don't yell at them; I would like the courtesy extended back.

Again, I think a lot of these yellers aren't even engaged in real-world politics at all, but instead do their "voting" through unpleasant comments, so they're kind of irrelevant.

Posted by: ace at October 20, 2009 09:44 AM (2lEFM)

71 You're an idiot.

Q.E.D.

Posted by: Heywood Jablome at October 20, 2009 09:45 AM (SHKl9)

72 ^^/*!*(!())!!((!**!

!#$%^^!*(+)*(

There, see how smart I am?

Posted by: Typical Internet Loudmouth at October 20, 2009 09:45 AM (wnU1W)

73 You people are just trying to force all the moderates out of the party. If you people get your wish, you will be left with Rush Limberger and 20 far right creationisits. Have fun in the permanent minority.
Posted by: LGF Fan at October 20, 2009 09:07 AM (SqAkN)

Whaddaya know! THAT'S what WE keep telling everyone!

And that's why we are a REAL news organization...

Posted by: CNN at October 20, 2009 09:46 AM (4iIhs)

74 Um, there was more to it than that, idiot.

Why don't you go post somewhere where there aren't so many "moderates">

Please -- go away. I don't like you, I don't want to see your fucked-up stupid shit comments anymore, just go away.

Posted by: ace at October 20, 2009 09:46 AM (2lEFM)

75 That contradiction only exists in the minds of people for whom the only interesting game to ever play is "Whose Conservative Dick is Bigger?"

Hello? Was someone talking about me?

Posted by: Dick Warcock Cheney at October 20, 2009 09:48 AM (4iIhs)

76 Okay, but specifically? Like, how many people would have to sign up and join the party and start doing this? BTW I just posted a post on this subject alone, perhaps answer there, above?
Generally, here is how the process would work. And mind you, this is based off the generic model. So add all the caveats about local rules being different, somewhere along the lines of "your mileage may vary".
At the County Level:
Step 1: Find out if your preceint has a committee person. If you have a good one, and you vote, you will probably know this right away because at some point before an election, this person shows up and reminds you to vote. If this has not occurred, its generally a sign that A) you don't have one or B) if you do, they suck. If you don't have one, or he sucks, or he is a lib dressed as an R, then you need to find out when these elections occur (generally, they are done in off elections, like the primary, ect.) Get a petition, get the list of registered Republicans (I am assuming no one here is actually going to be a Democrat, but if you are, same steps) because, for the most part, only a registered member of the party can sign the petition, get your name on the ballot, work the precient and get elected. The good thing is these are generally cheap elections - a huge time committment, but no real cost.
Step 2. Get the list of all precient committee persons. In most counties, there will always be 2 or 3 (or perhaps more) precients where there is not a committee person. Find a friend, ect who lives in that precient and recruit them. They will have to follow step 1.
Step 3: Once elected, then comes the real work. You have to increase your share of the Republican vote. Go to every meeting. Also, read the local county rules. If the county operates under weighted voting, figure out what race determines the weight. Increase your Republican vote on that race.
In Illinois, most counties have about 102 -110 preceints (excluding the City of Chicago, where it is wards and an entirely different animal.). So, with weighted voting, you need somewhere around 40-45 committee persons to actually gain control.
Then, pick the next office up the chain. This is usually state representative. Most of these district overlap counties. Find out the preceint committee persons in those district. Look for the vacancies (vacancies are always the easiest ones to pick up - especially if you have some organization you belong to that crosses county lines, like church group, ect. - Hell, why do you think unions have such a strong influence. We need someone in preceint 7, hey, doesn't Joe live there)
Then repeat steps 1, 2 and 3.
As you can tell, it is work. In the old days, the organizations had patronage to motivate people. Today, not so much.
Hope this helps.

Posted by: Mallamutt at October 20, 2009 09:50 AM (V9SYy)

77 Ace: I don't yell at them; I would like the courtesy extended back.

Well so far, you and DiT have called them insane, idiots (Ace) and lazy (DiT). I haven't seen any return fire from them, at least on this thread.

Dang, we all agree on this special election. Celebrate and move on.

Posted by: oLD gUY at October 20, 2009 09:52 AM (P/D33)

78 So why the supposedly "tactical" choice of a liberal here?

Fear. They seem to think that a liberal Republican always stands a better chance and that the reason a Republican doesn't win is always that he/she is seen as being too conservative.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 20, 2009 09:53 AM (T0NGe)

79 This Republican party does not deserve my vote.

Not that I have any...

Posted by: LegalImmigrant at October 20, 2009 09:54 AM (rkJR8)

80 Cool, an early post.

Posted by: brak at October 20, 2009 09:57 AM (1Y3Fy)

81 What percentage of the party platform does a candidate have to support to be considered a Republican?

It must not be much.

Posted by: toby928 at October 20, 2009 09:58 AM (PD1tk)

82 I live in this district and watch a lot of TV. I've noticed that Hoffmann's ads have all been negative, and all against Scozzafava.
(Oh, and the guys from Operation Repo are going to be on Rehab: Party at the Hard Rock tonight.)

Posted by: FireHorse at October 20, 2009 09:58 AM (Vl5GH)

83 Old Guy,

You seem to forget the context. This particular I'm More Conservative and Angry Than You pissing context began Sunday, when "TMK" called DiT a "coward," bizarrely for DiT's post defending Limbaugh. Apparently it wasn't strident enough for his liking, or he just decided DiT was a "moderate" and it was time to call him a "coward" even if it was utterly irrelevant and had nothing to do with DiT's post.

And since then I've had a stream of Impotent Yellers like Heywod defending that, and getting in a snit, I guess, because they feel called out too, even though they weren't.

But seriously? Yeah, they are called out, by implication. I don't need douchebags. If some people just want to be douchebags out of the blue, I don't need them.

Posted by: ace at October 20, 2009 09:59 AM (2lEFM)

84 old guy, stop nagging me. I'm responding ..see #9

Is it ok if I do that? If someone accuses me of something in a thread, I can respond, right? Defend it, is that fuckin ok with you?
Jesus.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 20, 2009 09:59 AM (WvXvd)

85 I'm now really excited about this special election. If Hoffman wins, it slaps the R Party something fierce and sends a very strong message. It also gets a conservative third party in office. If he loses to either other candidate, its one seat in an already large majority.

Large profit vs. small loss. Go for it.

Posted by: oLD gUY at October 20, 2009 10:02 AM (P/D33)

86 "What percentage of the party platform does a candidate have to support to be considered a Republican?

It must not be much."

More specifically, can anyone point out one thing that Dede agrees with Republicans on?

Posted by: Jack Burton at October 20, 2009 10:05 AM (YxJoH)

87 2 days in a row. Must be "that time of the month", or smoking cessation, both?

Posted by: Pelvis at October 20, 2009 10:06 AM (LlaBi)

88 Run a moderate in a moderate district. Whatever. Depends on what you mean by "moderate".
But I gotta disagree with you wanting to run liberals in liberal districts. Screw the liberal districts. We don't need to have any liberal districts to hold a majority.
Ever dollar you throw to an outrageously liberal socialist RINO to be 'competitive' in a district you have no business winning in and republicans don't represent is a dollar you don't throw into a truly conservative district where a real conservative could take on supposed 'blue dogs'.
This strategery sucks so bad I have 15 criticisms of it and don't know where to start.

Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 10:07 AM (IsLT6)

89 Each county is divided up into precients. Each precient gets a preceing captain or representative.
In PA, it then is broken down at municipal level, with another set of GOP committees. In situations like that, it'smuch easier for new blood to make an impact.
I'm running for school board this year and spoke to a room of about 20 people to win the endorsement.
* In all cases, 75% of the people in the room are age 50 and older. A few younger members can havea real impact. There is a big opening.

Posted by: CJ at October 20, 2009 10:10 AM (9KqcB)

90 P R E C I N C T

It's not hard.

Posted by: t-bird at October 20, 2009 10:10 AM (FcR7P)

91 Ace: Thank you for the update. As I said, I didn't play in that game. I still think you're overreacting, but I can see where you are coming from. Try not to let it get to you. We don't always agree, but you and your cobloggers are the best at what you do.

DiT: Do not throw profanity at me. Politely suggesting people to calm down is not the same as insulting your sister.

Posted by: oLD gUY at October 20, 2009 10:11 AM (P/D33)

92 Yes, Pelvis, 2 days in a row, because I have "butch" and "heywood" still whining.

Actually, it's going to be EVERY DAY in a row, because I'm sick of the fucking unpleasant douchebags.

And if you fall into that category, please feel free to remove yourself from the blog and move on to somewhere that more caters to the unpleasant douchebag demographic.

Posted by: ace at October 20, 2009 10:11 AM (2lEFM)

93 P R E C I N C T It's not hard.
Sorry, Miss Pennypacker. That was a quote from the post.

Posted by: CJ at October 20, 2009 10:13 AM (9KqcB)

94 Maybe 1/3rd of the districts are "liberal". 2/3rd of the seats in either house is an epic pwnage and enough to do whatever the hell you want with. You don't need those seats. They're the hardest for you to get, the ones that require the most compromise of your own brand identity for no real reason, the ones that offer the least return on investment with squishy allies that are usually on the other side, and the ones you've got the least legitimate claim to holding.
It's like Hitler obsessing over Stalingrad just because he was ego tripping on the name or something. We just have to take San Francisco district with a "republican" who thinks Lenin wasn't communist enough just so we can rub it in their faces that we won SF.
Fuck SF. Let them compete with the green party and independant socialists. Don't even run no one, to make it friendlier for wackjob 3rd party types.

Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 10:13 AM (IsLT6)

95 entropy,

Honestly I'm talking about a social moderate in a liberal district.

Liberals tend to be driven by social issues. And they're also selfish, so maybe they wouldn't mind tax cuts or keeping spending down. But in the socially-liberal Northeast, a social con is just not getting elected.

Now, would it be worth it to have a candidate that at least represents two legs of the conservative stool? I think it would be.

Posted by: ace at October 20, 2009 10:14 AM (2lEFM)

96 Surprisingly, I'm not here for your lectures. You can save them.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 20, 2009 10:14 AM (WvXvd)

97 That was for old guy, don't curse at him.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 20, 2009 10:15 AM (WvXvd)

98 Each county is divided up into precients. Each precient gets a preceing captain or representative.
You mean precincts, right?
I'm really not sure because you spelled it different every single time you wrote it, and you wrote it like 8 times, and none of them were really even very close to precinct...

Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 10:16 AM (IsLT6)

99 Mallamutt,

Pardon me if this sounds ungrateful after all your helpful work, but...precinct, precinct, PRECINCT, dammit!

Posted by: Philip at October 20, 2009 10:16 AM (rNx9A)

100 Guys like you aren't going to vote anyway. You're here to bitch on blogs. So this is pointless.
Speaking strictly for my downtrodden self, I'm only looking to be oppressed byyellow-stripers -- provided, of course, that they put theirfilthy lucre to full use.

Posted by: FireHorse at October 20, 2009 10:17 AM (Vl5GH)

101 "Honestly I'm talking about a social moderate in a liberal district.

Liberals tend to be driven by social issues. And they're also selfish,
so maybe they wouldn't mind tax cuts or keeping spending down. But in
the socially-liberal Northeast, a social con is just not getting
elected.

Now, would it be worth it to have a candidate that at least represents two legs of the conservative stool? I think it would be."

Ace, what are your specific thoughts on Dede? She's a social moderate, but she's fiscally liberal, and supports union thuggery. Can you honestly think of one thing about her that gives her any Republican credibility? No questioning you, but this person would be to the left of Bill Clinton, and about the same as Harry Reid.

Posted by: Jack Burton at October 20, 2009 10:17 AM (YxJoH)

102 Does anyone read this blog?

Um, isn't the whole post about how awful she is?

Posted by: ace at October 20, 2009 10:18 AM (2lEFM)

103 Hey Mallamutt...I'd work with a Cub fan, only if he's a Republican. Nyuk, nyuk.

Posted by: LtE113(Mike in Chicago) at October 20, 2009 10:18 AM (3NFq/)

104 she' a social liberal, by the way, not a social moderate.

She is liberal on everything.

Posted by: ace at October 20, 2009 10:19 AM (2lEFM)

105 I live in this district and watch a lot of TV. I've noticed that
Hoffmann's ads have all been negative, and all against Scozzafava.

In Syracuse, the Scozzafava TV ads have all been about Nancy Pelosi, who doesn't appear to be on the ballot.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at October 20, 2009 10:19 AM (NtiET)

106 That wasn't directed at you, CJ. See Entropy @ 101

Posted by: t-bird at October 20, 2009 10:20 AM (FcR7P)

107 "Is it common for rapists to ask their potential victims about stimulus funding?"
A) He might've just been a crazy.
B) It's standard practice for serious journalists to identify themselves. I think even Fox News holds to that standard.

Posted by: JEA at October 20, 2009 10:22 AM (XZu3c)

108 DiT:I'm not here for your lectures. You can save them.

Actually, you are. Blogs exist for both posters (who deserve all of the credit) and commentors to "lecture" each other. That's why we come to play in this sandbox. Which is great so long as it doesn't get out of hand, c.f LGF. You, of course, are no where near that. But at some earlier point, neither was Charles.

Posted by: oLD gUY at October 20, 2009 10:25 AM (P/D33)

109 Now, would it be worth it to have a candidate that at least represents two legs of the conservative stool? I think it would be.
Like I said. Moderates in moderate districts. Depends on what you mean by "moderate".
We'd probably disagree in practice, is my guess... but not in the principle of it.
But outright "liberals" for outright "liberal districts" is just a bridge too far.
Rhetorically.
In practice it all depends on what you mean by "liberal"/"moderate".
Especially, especially, when we have a bunch of liberal democrat poseurs holding seats in rural Montana where McCain won. #1 agenda item for all resources, for conservatives,should be wacking these dudes off with real conservatives.
Guys like JD Hayworth lost their seats in places like AZ in half because the local democrats ran to the right of them, claimed they were tougher on illegal immigration and tarred Hayworth with the McCain/Bush association on immigration saying the republicans didn't want to close the border like he did, and the whole Abrahamoff scandal which Hayworth had nothing to do with but McCain or his staffers might have intentionally fragged him on over the immigration thing.

Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 10:27 AM (IsLT6)

110 Electing Liberal and Moderate Republicans is a form of retreat and surrender.

You must go all or nothing. Let the voters in their localities see a clear difference between parties and candidates and a party that is willing to lose a seat to keep its honor and creed.

All this zigging and zagging does is dilute our strength and keep our foes alive. Liberalism keeps spreading because we allow it and help it to do so.

When you open your eyes and see the unending march of leftist ideology and practice, you see that a RINO is a Democrat and a Moderate is a Liberal.

Posted by: eman at October 20, 2009 10:29 AM (7mCKK)

111 Um, Old Guy, what Dave and I are saying is that we are tired of the Purity Trolls of the right the same as we are tired of the trolls of the left.

These people are trolls. They come in with provocations looking to play Whack-a-Liberal -- only they've chosen as their "liberals' people like me.

I'm tired of the trolls. Including the unpleasantness of the Purity Trolls.

You will notice Entropy disagreed with me and I disagreed back WITHOUT ANY FUCKING INCIVILITY.

Disagreement is fine. What I'm going to be putting an end to -- and I am putting an end to it, the moment comment registration is implemented -- are the Internet Nasties who come primarily to attack other people. And that includes the trolls of the splenetic right.

Posted by: ace at October 20, 2009 10:30 AM (2lEFM)

112 Anyway, I've said what I wanted on the "play nice" topic. The great thing about the internet is that you are free to completely ignore me.

It would be really interesting to see how the R party reacts to a Hoffman win. "We are really excited about this guy. We were rooting for him the whole time!" For the next two years, he would sit in their midst, a constant reminder of the price of selling out your principles for very small gain.

Posted by: oLD gUY at October 20, 2009 10:30 AM (P/D33)

113 Entropy,

I really didn't say "LIBERALS" in liberal districts. You are seizing on a poor choice of words, and it's especially inappropriate, because I didn't even write that poor choice of words at all.

Posted by: ace at October 20, 2009 10:31 AM (2lEFM)

114 "Does anyone read this blog?

Um, isn't the whole post about how awful she is?"

Little grumpy there chief?

Posted by: Jack Burton at October 20, 2009 10:31 AM (YxJoH)

115 Scozzafava is supported by Markos Moulitas over the democratic candidate. And E.J. Dionne calls her a moderate. The republican party isn't that bright.

Posted by: Dr. Spank at October 20, 2009 10:32 AM (muUqs)

116 "Is it common for rapists to ask their potential victims about stimulus funding?" It's standard practice for serious journalists to identify themselves.

She was too stupid to expect that someone at a party dinner in the district she wants to represent might want to ask questions? Doesn't matter if he was a journalist or a constituent, calling the cops for asking about the "heath care" legislation is just wrong.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at October 20, 2009 10:32 AM (NtiET)

117 You get endorsed by Kos as a Republican and you have some serious soul searching to do.

Posted by: Jack Burton at October 20, 2009 10:33 AM (YxJoH)

118 It's funny how a year ago that strategy was bad, now it's good.
So is it no longer my fault that McCain lost?

Posted by: Veeshir at October 20, 2009 10:38 AM (ThMnZ)

119 >> Actually, you are.
Nope.I'm not. If you aren't going to pay attention, then I'm not going to listen to your corrections, suggestions, or skery warnings that I'm slipping down the CJ path.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 20, 2009 10:39 AM (WvXvd)

120 Ace: What I'm going to be putting an end to -- and I am putting an end to
it, the moment comment registration is implemented -- are the Internet
Nasties who come primarily to attack other people.

You're right. What this place needs is a really strong ban hammer. Something to weed this stuff out. What could go wrong?

OK, now I'm done. Really, honestly, truly done. For real.

Posted by: oLD gUY at October 20, 2009 10:42 AM (P/D33)

121 114,

Ace, I understand what you mean here, but I urge you to tread carefully.

You can twist yourself into Ace Johnson without knowing it, and then it will be too late.

Posted by: eman at October 20, 2009 10:42 AM (7mCKK)

122 Mallamutt,Pardon me if this sounds ungrateful after all your helpful work, but...precinct, precinct, PRECINCT, dammit!
Ok, Ok., I will write it out 100 times and turn it in before class tomorrow.
Sorry about that. In my defense, Mrs. Mallamutt decided it be a really good idea to install 3 rooms of carpeting all at the same time. She also decided it would be cheaper for us to move our own furniture and remove the old carpet ourselves. She also decided that since we were getting new carpet, to repaint all three rooms.
Guess who is doing all of that.
I also have a client who spells his name close to what I typed a couple of times and, well, I am transposing a little bit here.
Plus, I suck at spelling. Why do you think I went to law school. No math, no spelling. Actually, no real valuable skills required at all.
I promise to try and do better. Sorry.

Posted by: Mallamutt at October 20, 2009 10:43 AM (V9SYy)

123 I gotta give LGF fan props for being the bestchain yankerto stroll through a thread here in a while - even got the mods worked up.
From the nic to the posts, c'mon, if the goal is to create maximum chaos and garner maximum attention with minimal effort - this threadis a Work of Art.
I wish I wouldve met youNow its a little lateWhat you couldve taught meI couldve saved some faceThey think that your early endingWas all wrongFor the most part theyre rightBut look how they all got strongThats why I say hey man nice shotWhat a good shot manThats why I say hey man nice, nice shotWhat a good shot man

Posted by: wws at October 20, 2009 10:43 AM (T1boi)

124 I don't mind Ace having a ban hammer. Though I think he might use it on me. Just don't start with the stupid "up dings" , "down dings" crap, please.

Posted by: maddogg at October 20, 2009 10:45 AM (OlN4e)

125 precinct, precinct, precinct, precinct, precinct, precinct, precinct, precinct..........

Posted by: Homework doing Mallamutt at October 20, 2009 10:45 AM (V9SYy)

126 Doesn't matter if he was a journalist or a constituent, calling the cops for asking about the "heath care" legislation is just wrong.
Well, on the one side, "Assemblywoman, Do you think healthcare should fund abortions?", Duh, kinda f'in obvious. He's totally hitting on you, obviously. Not a reporter at all.
Either that, or maybe a credit card cloning scam.
On the other hand, being both a chick, and a wacked out kooky liberal, she probably heard 'abortion' spoken without the proper reverance in his voice and immediately imaged him going ALALALALALALALALLALALALALALA BABYKILLER *BOOM* and taking the whole parking lot out.
So I can see how he freaked her out.

Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 10:47 AM (IsLT6)

127 Ace and Dave,

I am not trying to pick a fight with either of you and I doubt most of your readers and commenters are either. A lot of this anger should be directly at the Republican establishment that only considers our views relatively important on Election Day every year. They don't support the majority of our views, and they actively try to destroy many candidates that think like us.

As for the northeast not being able to elect a socially conservative candidate, I beg to differ. Bret Schundler would have been elected instead of Jim "Turnpike" McGreevey in 2002 if it wasn't for the active betrayal of the NJ Republican establishment when he upset DiFrancesco in the primaries. DiFrancesco was their handpicked socially liberal replacement to the socially liberal Christine Todd Whitman and us Republican votes said no. They in turn gave us a big F U that the party is still trying to recover from. Look at what has happened to NJ in the past 8 years with corruption, taxes and inept government and you will see what happens when people allow the parties to dictate what beliefs a candidate must have. In other words, party selected candidates have no beliefs and they just sell out to the highest bidder.

Last year, I tried to get in touch with the Woodbridge Republican leadership to volunteer my time, but the office was always closed, no one answered calls and my calls were never returned. That's leadership liberal Republican style.

Posted by: NJRob at October 20, 2009 10:48 AM (y/IxH)

128 DiT: I'm not going to listen to your corrections, suggestions, or skery warnings that I'm slipping down the CJ path.

Well fine! You're not my BFF anymore either! I hate you, I hate you, I hate you!!

*oLD gUY runs from the room, slamming the door. Sobs are heard echoing down the hallway*

OK, I'm done NOW. The other times I said that didn't really count.

Posted by: oLD gUY at October 20, 2009 10:48 AM (P/D33)

129 "You will notice Entropy disagreed with me and I disagreed back WITHOUT ANY FUCKING INCIVILITY."
That's gotta be the Thread Winner, no contest!!! Deserves to be in the Ace Hall of Fame! (Or Flame!)

Posted by: wws at October 20, 2009 10:51 AM (T1boi)

130 eman,

Look, here's what happens. You get these insulting people coming in, pissing me off, and then I start treating everyone on "their side" as if they've been insulting, which they HAVE NOT been. And then I have to apologize and say, again, "Sorry, I felt attacked and imputed the insults to everyone disagreeing with me."

I have never suggested someone would be banned for disagreement. BUt I am tired of the trolls -- and just because you're on the right doesn't mean you can't be a troll on a rightwing site. Frankly half these people have been kicked out of other rightwing sites (not LGF) for constant trollish behavior, too, and are here primarily because commenting is open and there is no effective ban. So it's a forum of last resort for those who like to troll and have been asked to leave elsewhere.

Disagreement is never bannable. Calling people "cowards" OUT OF THE BLUE is unacceptable.

A lot of these guys seem to have massive chips on their shoulders and they react very defensively, and angrily, to anything that contradicts their beliefs, and think that that gives the go-code for insults. It doesn't.

I avoid a lot of contentious topics here because I feel it's in the best interest of a community to not have big flamewars every week. I could post on evoultion once a week just to goose traffic, because i know people will be at each other's throats commenting on it, boosting hits.

I don't. Because i prefer an amiable, friendly place. A fun place, basically, where people consider each other fake pretend internet friends.

if some people don't like that -- well, tough. That's what I'm aiming for. That's what i think is best.

And, personally, I don't wish to be insulted by the same 20 jackasses every week who think because i've disagreed with them that it's time to start throwing insults around.

These people have chips on their shoulders. You tell them "I disagree with you" and they read "I disagree with you you stupid lunatic." And so they insult, because they can't help but reading insults that aren't there. THe insults happen in their own heads.

I can't stop that, and I can't keep pointing out for the bazillionth time that my disagreement with them does not consitute an insult. So, if they can't learn that, they're gone.

Posted by: ace at October 20, 2009 10:54 AM (2lEFM)

131 Awesome: Super-Liberal "Republican" DedeDUDE Scozzaflava
ACE, on quick glance I thought it said dude.

Posted by: madamex at October 20, 2009 10:56 AM (SXrS5)

132 I see a clique forming.

I see Hot Air 2 hatching.

Posted by: eman at October 20, 2009 10:56 AM (7mCKK)

133 maddog: Just don't start with the stupid "up dings" , "down dings" crap, please.

Well fudge! I like those things. "Let the people decide" and all that. Then you would at least have some kind of "objective" measure to justify a banning.

The fact that you would even disparage such a super, awesome idea indicates a shifty inclination to moral turpitude. I bet you do terrible things to teapot cozies and other knitting products there all alone in your darkness.

Posted by: oLD gUY at October 20, 2009 10:57 AM (P/D33)

134 Charles johnson says he's banning for incivility, but that's not true; he's banning for contradicting him, which he takes to be "incivil."

I don't roll that way.

But as far as genuine unprovoked insults? No thanks. No, I don't just need to grow a thicker skin. I don't want to show up for work to be insulted by some asshole the same as none of you want to show up to work to be insulted by some asshole.

In a normal job, you might have to put up with that, or take the big step of filing some kind of beef with management, or even kicking the guy's ass out in the parking lot.

In this kind of job, I have an easier way to deal with it.

No one wants to be insulted all the time, and it doesn't escape my notice that it's the same 20 trolls doing it.

So -- 20 guys gone, does that really constitute a purge?

Posted by: ace at October 20, 2009 10:59 AM (2lEFM)

135 she' a social liberal, by the way, not a social moderate.
I am not seeking ideological purity, simply attempting to understand 'what is what' based on the observation that Moderates rarely exhibit those fine qualities known as clarity and honesty.

What is the distinction made between a social liberal and a social moderate?

Social moderate position on, for example on 'same-sex union between opposite sex'- sort of supporting but not really?

Or how about the social moderate position on the fetus; it is a clump of cells until she decides it is not a clump of cells and needs tax-funded pre-natal care?

I am coming from a non-religious, scientific perspective and am fascination with legalese madcows;

How come the male gets sent to prison for murder when the female asked him to kick her in the abdomen, sending her to the emergency room where UNDEFINED fetus died, because she did not want to go to the local abortion clinic to get an abortion? So the male is in prison for murder because the female chose not exercise her right to an abortion?

And on this subject, how is it possible that the female gets to choose what is a fetus whenever the mood strikes her while ignoring science?

Again I ask the question; what is the social moderate position and how does it differ from social liberal?

I am eager to support Moderates positions if Moderates could please explain logically and reasonably what are these positions; at this moment , it is as unclear, muddied and illogical as are the social liberal positions.

Do people really think that 'same-sex union between opposite sex' is a logical and reasoned premise?

Posted by: syn at October 20, 2009 10:59 AM (Qs00S)

136 Damn, can we get back to the fat whore liberal who called the cops because someone dared ask her a question?

Posted by: Jack Burton at October 20, 2009 11:00 AM (YxJoH)

137 Reason is not a substitute for profanity.

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at October 20, 2009 11:02 AM (PB0gV)

138 Ace -
1 - I'm not a Purity troll. I do realize Rs in certain states, such as MA or CA, will tend to be a bit to my left. But there is no excuse for running Scozzaflava given how well her more conservativepredecessor did in that district. Do we need another Arlen Specter?
2 - Uh, you really didn't answer me about the inconsistency between this post (back the conservative over the RINO, risking a Dem victory) and the previously cited posts supporting pragmatism. Mallamutt @ 10 did a better job.
3 - Calling me a douche, an asshole, or an idiotis not disagreeing without incivility. At least wait until I suggest you take your Midol.

Posted by: butch at October 20, 2009 11:02 AM (8X9tr)

139 Because of CJ, some people are concerned about any banning policy.

Posted by: Dr. Spank at October 20, 2009 11:02 AM (muUqs)

140 Is this the evolution thread?

Posted by: VJay at October 20, 2009 11:03 AM (gQ+XA)

141 Ace,

It is unwise to let your anger at an insult to a friend get to you so much.

honest cloud under your formula would last longer than TMK.

It is ok for disagreements to sometimes get heated and even stupid. We are grups, we can handle it.

Posted by: eman at October 20, 2009 11:04 AM (7mCKK)

142 >> I am not trying to pick a fight with either of you and I doubt most of your readers and commenters are either.

Nor me. But when some member of the Perpetually Aggrieved Ultraconservatives with Awesome Twelve Inch Conservative Dicks calls me a hypocrite, I'm going to respond. If that's "picking a fight", so be it. And if assholes like old guy want to lecture me about incivility, I get to respond to that to.
As to where my anger is directed, I made a contribution this morning to Hoffman's campaign. That's where my anger started, at the 11 "Republican" chairmen who thought this asshole liberal would be a great choice for the 23rd, and the RNCC for sending money.
How's that for properly directed anger?

Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 20, 2009 11:06 AM (WvXvd)

143 Is this the evolution thread?

The way the law is written Evolution all depends upon Her choice.

Posted by: syn at October 20, 2009 11:06 AM (Qs00S)

144 Scozzafava is supported by Markos Moulitas over the democratic candidate. And E.J. Dionne calls her a moderate.

If you're political opposition likes your candidate MORE than its own, that should tell you something about your candidate. The fact that the GOP apparently doesn't recognize this or, more likely, just doesn't care, is the problem.

Hey Ace, you're gonna have us register for comments? You are? Really?

Oh shit, I just asked three question. Guess I'll wait for the paddy wagon.

Posted by: physics geek at October 20, 2009 11:08 AM (MT22W)

145 HA has a post up about the Wash Post poll Ace talked about yesterday. Yes, the sample and questions asked were skewed to help Obama. I know, shocking.

Posted by: Dr. Spank at October 20, 2009 11:08 AM (muUqs)

146 You know what I loathe? People telling me what to do. "Eat these foods. Read this book. You should march, or demonstrate, or drive a certain car, or bring a tote bag to the supermarket. You have to vote for this guy. Don't watch that channel. Boycott that product." And: "Get angry."
I'm a conservative, I guess, and I suppose it's because I'm weary with half the people in my world telling me how I ought to live my life. I can make my own decisions pertaining to my lot, and they'll always be less awful than the decisions anybody else can make for me. So I ignore, as politely as possible, anybody who tells me what I should think or feel or do, and I make simple, practical attempts to avoid their bile. And that, too, includes those of the splenetic right. (Yeah, I know: anatomically mixed metaphor.)

Posted by: FireHorse at October 20, 2009 11:08 AM (Vl5GH)

147 That contradiction only exists in the minds of people for whom the only interesting game to ever play is "Whose Conservative Dick is Bigger?"
I thougt we'd settled that. Dick Cheney's dick is biggest.

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 11:10 AM (EFI0J)

148 I really didn't say "LIBERALS" in liberal districts. You are seizing on a poor choice of words, and it's especially inappropriate, because I didn't even write that poor choice of words at all.
Alright. Like I said, rhetorically, at any rate. You're right. It's words.
And I maybe read more then you wrote. But you did write
If this were a swing district, I wouldn't oppose a moderate candidate. If this were a Democratic district, I wouldn't oppose a fairly liberal candidate.
The first part.. OK. I can swallow that, tepidly. The second part? Woh, too far.
I'm just making my point though - yes, not even at you but what I thought when I readyour post - on the political strategy front,we have conservative Republicandistricts to be winning and competing in that strategically, are much better place to fight then fairly liberal candidates in Democratic districts, I'm just not as hot as others may be to go chasing the blue ones.
The RNC doesn't need to be going all in on New England right now (or ever). If they could just retake the South they'd be back in a majority again, and that'd be much easier to do successfully, besides the fact it wouldn't require any squishy compromise on platform issues.
On a related, but slightly seperate and demarcated note that has nothing to do with you or anyone here:
These guys who nominated this Scozzaflava chick... and some of the folks on the national level, punditry, whomever, as well, who embrace this 'strategic neccesity for compromise', I think pursue this strategy not out of neccesity but out of a heartfelt desire to compromise in the first place.
IE I suspect honestly that the dudes who nominated this chick are all pro-choice pinkos and they're making the 'big tent' David Frum argument.
The Frumian 'neccessity' is a bad argument because it isn't really all that neccessary. It's a foil. It's just more reasonable sounding then "I really want you bitter clingers to evolve some more modern views so I can have a Progressive Republican party that's just like the democrats but without the minorities."

Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 11:11 AM (IsLT6)

149 >> I doubt most of your readers and commenters are either.
I agree with that as well. It's only 2.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 20, 2009 11:11 AM (WvXvd)

150 Is this the evolution thread?

The way the law is written Evolution all depends upon Her choice.
Posted by: syn

Pakicetus, m'kay.

Posted by: eman at October 20, 2009 11:11 AM (7mCKK)

151 can anyone point out one thing that Dede agrees with Republicans on?

Tofu and arugula are teh ghey.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 20, 2009 11:12 AM (I1LZ6)

152 eman: I see a clique forming.

I see Hot Air 2 hatching.

I see dead people.
One of the reasons I post here is because it is open. Registration is like inbreeding. You start registering and pretty soon you're thinking that your cousin would look real purty in a spandex french maid outfit.

You can't argue with me. Its science.

Of course in the end, I'll be a hypocrite and register. The heart wants what the heart wants.

Posted by: oLD gUY at October 20, 2009 11:12 AM (P/D33)

153 Hey Mallamutt...I'd work with a Cub fan, only if he's a Republican. Nyuk, nyuk.
What a day, first the Stool takes a shot at me (other thread) and now Mike has to remind me of the fate of my beloved Cubs.
I am gonna be hitting the Valu-Rite early today.

Posted by: Mallamutt at October 20, 2009 11:13 AM (V9SYy)

154 Registration is a deal breaker for me.

Oh well.

Posted by: eman at October 20, 2009 11:16 AM (7mCKK)

155 As for Scozzaflava...
No one disagrees.
The only person with any other take is the fake LFG trollpuppet.

Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 11:16 AM (IsLT6)

156 I just donated ten dollars to Hoffman.

I'm also begging everyone to donate to Marco Rubio over liberal Governor Charlie Crist in the Republican Primary for the open Senate seat in Florida.

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe just endorsed Rubio. South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint has endorsed Rubio. The National Review endorsed Rubio. And I'm endorsing Rubio.

Posted by: RJ at October 20, 2009 11:18 AM (vQdwt)

157 Let's not forget how successful we were in getting Harriet Meyers removed from being nominated to the Supreme Court and getting a judge with a clear philosophical belief system put in her place. We do have the ability to Win Friends & Influence People when we choose to use it.

I think many are arguing over the methodology. I, growing up in a liberal state (NY) and currently residing in another (NJ), have always had to make clear arguments with people explaining my belief system and still got the shocked look on their faces telling me that they couldn't belief I was a Conservative; I'm too honest and kind and considerate to be a Conservative. I know many on here are like me and get frustrated when people ignore the logic of our arguments and prefer to remain in their cozy beliefs just because it 'feels right.'

If we can't win over a people just because they are cocooned in their liberal beliefs, then there is no point fighting in that playing field at the moment. We first need to shore up our own defenses and take back our own turf before we decide to go after territory that's emotionally hostile to our beliefs. That's why we need to get Hoffman elected, take back red state seats and then worry about states such as the horrible one I live in.

P.S. Don't ignore the entire state, there are pockets of Conservatives that can elect legitimate candidates. We do need to demolish and rebuild the party leadership here though.

Posted by: NJRob at October 20, 2009 11:19 AM (y/IxH)

158 entropy, we used to have a lot of new england/mid-atlantic reps.

Especially going district by district... there are definitely somewhat conservative districts, out away from the cities.

To give up these areas completely is crazy.

Posted by: ace at October 20, 2009 11:19 AM (2lEFM)

159 Pretty soon you're thinking that your cousin would look real purty in a spandex french maid outfit
Yes, it is science and I won't disagree; if She continues choosing who evolves or not, all that will remain are inbreed cousins dressed in spandex french maid outfits.

Sorry to go off-topic with the creation of Pakicetus and whatnot.

Posted by: syn at October 20, 2009 11:20 AM (Qs00S)

160 >>>Registration is a deal breaker for me.

Why?

I'm not asking for your real name or anything. I just want to have a system where you need an account to post, you need a sign in, etc. And if you don't have that you can't comment.

That's the only way to stop trolls you know. "Bans" don't work, not without a LOT of tedious effort by the cobbloggers and the Trollbusters deleting or changing their every post.

Posted by: ace at October 20, 2009 11:25 AM (2lEFM)

161 Thanks ace. This was more the thinking that I had in mind in yesterday's thread rather than your focus.

Posted by: Methos at October 20, 2009 11:26 AM (mEJRc)

162 Entropy: The Frumian 'neccessity' is a bad argument because it isn't really all that neccessary.

Which is the central point of this thread. Where all the heat is coming from is in regards to those races where it is "necessary". Some, like Ace and DiT, see it as such. Others never do. As for me, I held my nose and agreed in the cases of Specter and McCain, then looked at the results. Empirical evidence suggests to me, that this is just not a winning strategy. What exactly did we get with Specter in exchange for holding our noses. Was the large loss in policy choices really worth the small gain in electoral advantage? No.

Posted by: oLD gUY at October 20, 2009 11:28 AM (P/D33)

163 157 Registration is a deal breaker for me. Oh well.
I think you assume too much. You assume it will be abused. Only time will tell.

Posted by: maddogg at October 20, 2009 11:29 AM (OlN4e)

164 Methos, you guys -- and I do mean the plural there; you seem to think alike -- are constantly denouncing sell-outs that never actually happen and always yelling that we're abandoning conservativism when we're not.

Basically we have one disagreement: You want to run a true blue conservative in Andover, Massachusetts, whereas I would run a social squish with somewhat stronger (but still tempered) views on limited government, because that guy could win and your guy could not.

Based on this, you continue growling about selling-out.

Posted by: ace at October 20, 2009 11:29 AM (2lEFM)

165 I don't think that Ace and DiT gave us McCain and Specter, Old guy.

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 11:30 AM (EFI0J)

166 Tofu and arugula are teh ghey.
I agree. And whoever said orange is the new pink is seriously disturbed.

Posted by: FireHorse at October 20, 2009 11:30 AM (Vl5GH)

167 "What percentage of the party platform does a candidate have to support to be considered a Republican?It must not be much.""More specifically, can anyone point out one thing that Dede agrees with Republicans on?"
She'd vote in favor of a Republican Speaker of the House (presumably). It's really the only vote party tacticians like Newt concern themselves with when they are trying to get back into power because the party lacks the internal discipline to publicly "punish" defectors on matters of policy even when it's in the majority. (Sometimes defectors do get called out in private...they see appropriation requests get tanked, for example.)
I back Hoffman in this race. It's likely that Gingrich and the RNC decided that the odds of DS winning and delivering a vote for Speaker were greater than the Dem doing so (zero) or of Hoffman winning on his own. And that even if they were wrong about the oddsit didn't matter because Hoffman would certainly do so if he won, and the Dem wouldn't. So they sink their hooks into DS so that she "owes" them that vote should she win, even if she betrays the GOP on every subsequent policy vote.

Posted by: Jack M. at October 20, 2009 11:35 AM (Ncr1R)

168 As for me, I held my nose and agreed in the cases of Specter and
McCain, then looked at the results. Empirical evidence suggests to me,
that this is just not a winning strategy.
Posted by: oLD gUY at October 20, 2009 11:28 AM (P/D33)

What in the world leads you to think anyone here, poster or commenter, wanted McCain or Specter?

I don't recall a single poster supporting McCain during the primaries. Do you? Do you really think anyone here should have voted for Obama over McCain or sat it out to teach 'them' a lesson?

Keep in mind, personally I was willing to vote for Hillary over McCain but Obama? Nope.

I don't know where the blog was in '04 on Specter/Toomy but I'm pretty sure everyone here was ready to go with Toomy this year.

So what real world choices are you railing at?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 11:37 AM (ur6Ar)

169 You want to run a true blue conservative in Andover, Massachusetts
I see this a lot. You and Dave and Drew seem to think that the other side, which I guess includes me, want to run Jim DeMint clones everywhere in the country.
For myself, it's not true. But the party would have to tack pretty far to the right before we start to have worrying about such a thing. At present we see more of the opposite problem - people like Scozzafava. So I don't see the utility in constantly warning against excessive ideological purityin todays GOP. It is like worrying about flooding while your house burns down around your ears. The GOP has a lot of problems. Excessive fidelity to conservative principle is certainly not one of them.

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 11:39 AM (EFI0J)

170 That contradiction only exists in the minds of people for whom the only interesting game to ever play is "Whose Conservative Dick is Bigger?"

Dave: I thought you wouldn't tell. You promised to keep a secret

Posted by: eddiebear at October 20, 2009 11:39 AM (wnU1W)

171 NJRob: Let's not forget how successful we were in getting Harriet Meyers
removed from being nominated to the Supreme Court and getting a judge
with a clear philosophical belief system put in her place. We do have
the ability to Win Friends Influence People when we choose to use
it.

Well said. Hear him, hear him!

As far as banning goes. Think back to the TARP wars. Everyone was on fire with anger, including Ace. A lot of people said things they shouldn't have. There is no feature to edit comments once they're posted. Would it have been hammer time? Its easy to say no now, not so easy when flames are singeing your private parts. I dare say DiT would be sorely tempted to ban my fanny for this thread. Regrettable, but understandable. All those otherwise excellent posters would be forever gone.

Banning is permanent. How would you undo it? Even if you regretted it, would you be able to swallow your pride and reinstate? That is asking a lot from any normal person.

Posted by: oLD gUY at October 20, 2009 11:41 AM (P/D33)

172 >> I dare say DiT would be sorely tempted to ban my fanny for this thread.

No.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 20, 2009 11:42 AM (WvXvd)

173 ...because that guy could win and your guy could not.

Indeed. Idealism and purity have no place in successful politics. Recognize what is within the realm of the physically possible in a district, then take the best deal within that realm.

The Operations Research mathematicians divide the world into two parts within a specified set of "constraints" - feasible solutions (shit that will work) and non feasible solutions (shit that don't work). The very first step to solving an OR problem is pick a feasible solution, any feasible solution, then iterate towards the optimal.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 20, 2009 11:44 AM (I1LZ6)

174 Also, I live in Texas. I didn't give you McCain.
He was given to me.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 20, 2009 11:45 AM (WvXvd)

175 Especially going district by district... there are definitely somewhat conservative districts, out away from the cities. To give up these areas completely is crazy.
I agree. There are conservative districts and we should keep them.
I'm not saying anybody should abandon conservative districts or forsake the whole NE on geographic grounds.
But I will say (as an example) if Snowe is the best we can do in Maine - fuck Maine. We don't need Maine then. I don't see why that's crazy.
Let's take every dollar we'd have given to her, nationally, and give them all to some dude challenging Ben Nelson and Harry Reid -places where we can elect real conservatives to make real majorities.

Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 11:45 AM (IsLT6)

176 well you could have fooled me. Because anytime it's suggested that we can't run Jim DeMint in New Jersey, we get yelled at.

Posted by: ace at October 20, 2009 11:46 AM (2lEFM)

177 Ace: always yelling that we're abandoning conservativism when we're not.

Did you argue in favor of voting for Arlen Spector? I ask because I really don't remember and I don't want to hit you over the head over something you didn't do.

But whether you did or not, that remains a central data point in the counter-argument.

Posted by: oLD gUY at October 20, 2009 11:48 AM (P/D33)

178 >> Did you argue in favor of voting for Arlen Spector?

Do you actually read this blog?

Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 20, 2009 11:49 AM (WvXvd)

179 Idealism and purity have no place in successful politics.
You don't really mean that. Maybe you mean that they should be tempered with caution and prudence. But idealism is the motive force drivingthe whole shebang.
pick a feasible solution
Part of politics, a big part, consistsof changing what is feasible, or trying to do so.It's nothing like physics or mathin that respect.

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 11:49 AM (EFI0J)

180 The Operations Research mathematicians divide the world into two parts within a specified set of "constraints" - feasible solutions (shit that will work) and non feasible solutions (shit that don't work). The very first step to solving an OR problem is pick a feasible solution, any feasible solution, then iterate towards the optimal.
And how do I violate that?
I'm applying realistic logic, just on a national level with a broad view rather then case-by-case reaction. While trying to achieve the end goal of the most conservatives in Congress.

Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 11:50 AM (IsLT6)

181 I don't see the utility of wasting national money on squishes either just so you can see a "R" by their name on some web page or in news articles. If some tool is going to betray you on every critical vote, let them win with their own local money.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 20, 2009 11:50 AM (I1LZ6)

182 You want to run a true blue conservative in Andover, Massachusetts, whereas I would run a social squish with somewhat stronger (but still tempered) views on limited government, because that guy could win and your guy could not.
And that squishy guy should win, because he's supposed to represent the people in his district, right? I mean, I know what kind of person I'd like to see in Congress, but I don't have a say when it comes to 532 of them.

Posted by: FireHorse at October 20, 2009 11:50 AM (Vl5GH)

183 And that squishy guy should win, because he's supposed to represent the people in his district, right?
No. Real politics is about changing what people think, including thepeople in those squishy districts. Reagan was able to carry those same squishy districts. Other conservatives have done the same, at different times and places.
Some of you want to play within the framework the left constructs.

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 11:55 AM (EFI0J)

184 Part of politics, a big part, consistsof changing what is feasible

Changing feasibility space shape is what happens when constraints change. As constraints change, the shape of the feasible solution space may changes as well. Sometimes seemingly insignificant constraint alterations can make a huge difference is what becomes an optimal solution.

The big thing is to recognize and accept what is physically possible during any given election cycle. Ignore that, and people are doomed to bet on losing horses.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 20, 2009 11:56 AM (I1LZ6)

185 Scaryflava

Posted by: Stevo at October 20, 2009 11:57 AM (0E9HC)

186 DrewM: What in the world leads you to think anyone here, poster or commenter, wanted McCain or Specter?I
don't recall a single poster supporting McCain during the primaries. Do
you? Do you really think anyone here should have voted for Obama over
McCain or sat it out to teach 'them' a lesson?

The discussion is not about what we want. I am sure we are in agreement. The discussion is over what you are willing to sell in order to get something else. I know that sounds uncomfortably close to a famous Churchill quote, but I am not implying that (but it would be funny). I too am willing to sell at some point. I think its just that my price for compromise is higher than yours.

Nobody here supported McCain or Spector, that is true. We were just urged to vote for him (and Spector? I can't remember). As I've said, the is some merit to that. But at some point the cost is too much and a lesson does indeed need to be taught.

Posted by: oLD gUY at October 20, 2009 11:58 AM (P/D33)

187 Changing attitudes takes some time. Squishes and liberals are psychologically institutionalized in a Shawshank kind of manner.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 20, 2009 12:00 PM (I1LZ6)

188 anytime it's suggested that we can't run Jim DeMint in New Jersey, we get yelled at.
Whoever we run in NJ is going to lose, barring some extreme circmstances.
The NJGOP has been running squishy moderates for decades with virtually no success. It's a fiction to think that we can win NJ or NY merely by getting away from the right.
That being the case, I'd run some real conservatives just to let the people of NJ actually hear conservative arguments for a change, rather than the leftist stereotype of them they normally get.

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 12:02 PM (EFI0J)

189 Real politics is about changing what people think, including thepeople in those squishy districts.
flenser

No, real politics is about winning elections. Simple as that.

There are other mechanisms for changing the way people think.

It's possible on the margins to change the way people think on the Presidential level but your average congressional and senatorial candidates reflect their constituents, not the other way around.

That, by the way, is a normal facet in a representative democracy. You know, the whole representing people thing.

Think of 1994 and the Contract with America. That wasn't something Gingrich and company thought up and then sold. They did extensive research on what resonated with people and then packaged it with words would react to. Yes, they gave it a conservative spin but it wasn't sold as conservative but common sense things people already wanted.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 12:03 PM (ur6Ar)

190 well you could have fooled me. Because anytime it's suggested that we can't run Jim DeMint in New Jersey, we get yelled at.
I'm not everyonecan't help you if they're yelling at you.
But like I said - I don't buy the argument of some of these types that says they're just being all pragmatic and doing what it takes to be viable.
They're doing way more. Why does the party put up guys like Graham in SC, and spend it's time defending Chaffee's and Spectors and Jeffords's as neccessity instead of attacking Reid's and Nelson's as pinko liberal?
So... y'know, it's not me being unreasonable extreme ideologueand demanding we run Dick Cheney for governor of California. It's not them just always being pragmatist and realistic and grown up (case in point - Scozzaflava). Don't lump me in with some stereotype. I don't buy the dichotomy.
I think a lot of people in the party really don't want too many conservatives, aren't conservative, and hide behind political analysis horseraces rather then say something honest about their preferance that would explode their fax machine.
I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about Party types and precinct chairs and sitting politicians.

Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 12:03 PM (IsLT6)

191 PurpleAvenger: Idealism and purity have no place in successful politics.

The alternative is politics as pure power and patronage. My side vs. your side. If ideals have no place in politics, then what is politics for? Is it a means or an end?

Posted by: oLD gUY at October 20, 2009 12:04 PM (P/D33)

192 And I think if they admitted it, well... look, they don't admit it. Path of least resistance. Appeal to neccessity and inevitability and all that and wring your hands.
But otherwise their fax machines would explode. They'd have no party left.

Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 12:05 PM (IsLT6)

193 The big thing is to recognize and accept what is physically possible during any given election cycle.

The GOP did not get thrashed in 2008 because it to failed to "accept what is physically possible" during that election cycle. What is physically possible in any election cycle is determined by what happens in the years before it.

Changing attitudes takes some time.
I never said otherwise. But it remains the root of effective politics.

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 12:06 PM (EFI0J)

194 No, real politics is about winning elections. Simple as that.
Ah, fuck off Drew.

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 12:07 PM (EFI0J)

195 We were just urged to vote for him (and Spector? I can't remember). As
I've said, the is some merit to that. But at some point the cost is
too much and a lesson does indeed need to be taught.
Posted by: oLD gUY at October 20, 2009 11:58 AM (P/D33)

This is the Fantasy League Politics stuff Ace was talking about.

Elections (for the most part) are binary choices.

Look, I didn't want to vote for McCain. I almost didn't. But the fact is when I was faced with an actual ballot I had two choices...McCain or Obama. My choices weren't "Some theoretically awesome guy v. Obama" or "McCain or Don't Worry No One Will Win".

Fight like hell in the primaries but in the general you have to go with the person who will advance the ball as far as you can. It's not always a Republican but it is always one of the two names on the ballot, even if it's hard to tell for sure.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 12:08 PM (ur6Ar)

196 DiT: Did you argue in favor of voting for Arlen Spector?

Do you actually read this blog?
As I said, I don't remember. I think I recall a hold the nose type of argument, but I'm not sure. I asked because I wanted to be fair. You replied because you wanted...what exactly? Because you certainly did not do me the courtesy of actually answering the question.

Posted by: oLD gUY at October 20, 2009 12:08 PM (P/D33)

197 flenser,

That's quite the argument you posit. I really should subscribe to your newsletter.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 12:09 PM (ur6Ar)

198 This is the crux of the biscuit here:

"She was picked by 11 county Republican chairman who thought she "could win.""

In matters of taste and popular appeal, only a very few, very dedicated experts are able to pick a thing or person they don't like that will appeal to others. You see this in pop music, fashion and here in politics. An expert on music cannot pick a hit song that he doesn't like, unless he also happens to be an expert on picking hit songs.

I'll bet any amount of money that among the 11 county chairmen not a one is any sort of expert in polling, or publicity. They're a bunch of otherwise decent guys in local politics who went "well Obama won and he's liberal so we better pick a liberal whether we like it or not." That ain't gonna work.

Posted by: Ronsonic at October 20, 2009 12:11 PM (+XKkH)

199 The alternative is politics as pure power and patronage. My side vs.
your side. If ideals have no place in politics, then what is politics
for? Is it a means or an end?

I don't necessarily buy the patronage aspect completely, but I will accept that politics is all about power if you want to accomplish something. Without the levers of power in your hands, any idealistic notions forever remain thought experiments.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 20, 2009 12:12 PM (I1LZ6)

200 That, by the way, is a normal facet in a representative democracy. You know, the whole representing people thing.
Have you ever read "The Abolition Of Man"? You really should.
Change who the people are, change what the people think, and you've won the political debate and made elections a formalty. Whichever "party" wins is immaterial.
The left understands this and uses it to their advantage. The right is still stuck on stupid.

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 12:13 PM (EFI0J)

201 oLD gUY,

Let me ask you a serious question ...

Suppose Arelen had stayed a Republican. All of us here did everything we could to help Toomy beat him but he came up short.

It's November of next year and Specter is facing, say Ed Rendell in the general.

What's the upside to supporting Rendell or sitting it out entirely and seeing Rendell win?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 12:13 PM (ur6Ar)

202 I'm with Ace and Drew on this one.
Also, the SoCon issues are pretty fardown on my list of priorities and are decided more in the courts than congress.

Posted by: Huckleberry at October 20, 2009 12:14 PM (s2bW4)

203 So ace, is this where I go to say I'm sorry that I took your comment @49 yesterday wrong because I thought you were questioning my courage. Hence my reply at #248. Of course, Drew could have just called me an idiot (as I frequently am) and told me to read your comment again and my reply would have probably been a well thought out and perfectly enunciated "oops - sorry ace." Gasoline got thrown on the fire instead. No matter. Just understand, I in NO WAY consider myself any kind of "absolut moral authority" nor is aught that has walked on two legs in my lifetime with the possible exception of Mother Theresa. Sure would hate not to be able to ask folks like Monty or Vic, etc. to elaborate on a previous comment.

Posted by: teej at October 20, 2009 12:14 PM (c459z)

204 The problem in Maine and the other New England states isn't just political, it's societal. The northeastern states are developinga culture that is adamantly opposed to anything that those living in the southern, western (but not west coast) and some midwestern states would favor. Democrats bridge that divide by almost exclusively aiming their southern party organizations at black and hispanic voters, so they've got it easy. (George Bush and Karl Rove recognized this problem, which iswhy theytried to design aHispanic outreach program that backfired into the immigration fiasco) I don't see any good way for the Republicans to bridge the huge divide until something breaks. Northern liberal Republicans like Scuzzyfella will *never* support any small government, non union ideologies and so even if they were elected it would just mean a constant civil war inside the party. Politically a unified party is more effective than one that can always be ripped open by its opponents, and eventually New England will have to get tired of one party rule and come up with *something* as an alternative.
It's got to come down to a real world consummation of events - are the Democrat's policies going to crash the economy and the country or not? If they are, then let themhave as big a majority as they wantand after the crash maybe more people will start to figure out those ideas were wrong. And if they're not going to crash the country, then we're wrong anyways and we might as well lose.
For one specific example: when the global warming hoax falls apart, which it will fairly soon, I want the democrats to OWN that completely. I can't support *any* republican who buys into that, for that reason. They will only serve to cushion the blame that should not be cushioned.

Posted by: wws at October 20, 2009 12:15 PM (T1boi)

205 Change who the people are, change what the people think, and you've
won the political debate and made elections a formalty. Whichever
"party" wins is immaterial.

The left understands this and uses it to their advantage. The right is still stuck on stupid.
flenser,
I could be wrong but last I checked
that's one of things that conservatives hate about the left. Aren't we
supposed to be the people who accept that humans are flawed and that
using political power in an attempt to change or perfect them is tyranny
and evil?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 12:17 PM (ur6Ar)

206 That's quite the argument you posit.
As opposed to "real politics is about winning elections. Simple as that."
I'm just emulatng your depth of thought.
Who actually cares if something called "the Republican Party" wins an election, as opposed to something called "the Democratic Party", if these things are not vechicles for ideas?

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 12:17 PM (EFI0J)

207 Right. I spend hours and posts on how fucking awful McCain is in the primaries, how he stabs conservatives in the back at every opportunity to elevate himself above the party or appeal to the media, I go apeshiton him (and Bush)over amnesty, I lament the mess that is the open primary system and lack of any friggin conservative candidate to oppose him in the primary (by the time it gets here), I give him credit for Palin...
But when faced with the choice of a communist for President or a lousy Republican whose flaws I've argued against for months, I pull the lever for McCain.. and of course, he's really who I secretly wanted all along.
I'm so busted on that.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 20, 2009 12:18 PM (WvXvd)

208 so if Snowe is the only Republican we can get in Maine, the fact that she adds to the total Republican count can be important.
You totally gloss over my point.
Nebraska is important. Get Nebraska... then tell me we need Maine (if we still do... and we probably won't).
Look : You can't have EVERYWHERE. You can't have a 1 party system. Liberals must have and will have some seats. Let them have the liberal seats and take away the conservative ones. Let them take squishy ass Maine, make em pay with Nevada.
1 seat is 1 seat for purposes of arithmetic. 1=1. But not all seats are equal.
They ARE all equal to a Republican. But they are not all equal to a conservative.
I don't know where the blog was in '04 on Specter/Toomy but I'm pretty sure everyone here was ready to go with Toomy this year.
Don't care. I'm not talking about this blog. I'm talking about the RNC, state parties, precinct captains. I want to be clear on that.
I know those dudes lined up behind Specter. This upcoming year too, right up until the last second he dropped the INO part and went dem.
Then some of them turned around and blaimed Toomey types for chasing this wonderful personout of our shrinkingincreasingly non-viabletent.

Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 12:18 PM (IsLT6)

209 "So -- 20 guys gone, does that really constitute a purge?" Only if you visualize them as turds getting enema'd out.
Seriously, registration would eliminate some of the funniest posts, where the name the poster chooses is the punline to the gag.
Seriously, "Dick Warcock Cheney" had me crapping my pants.
But also, once we register, then we become part of a database that Barak Hussain Obama-Chavez can subpoena for "cyber-bullying" the FatherLand. Or is that "PersonLand" to the PC?
Obama is a Chavez at heart, and he will send Holder after us conservative commenter.

Posted by: Smarty at October 20, 2009 12:20 PM (v/j2M)

210 Morons Moronettes,

Jack M. in 170 above nails it. We're all pissing into the wind so long as the current dynamic exists. The results that the nation gets politically are a market outcome: the self-interest of a significant number of voters and politicians, expressed through our legislative system, leads to expanding government. Each expansion increases that number and makes the next expansion even more likely. Whomever we elect faces the same dynamic.

Without going too far OT, the Lifelong Endowment is a proposal that reverses the dynamic, replaces policies that a majority of Americans view as failed, and engages the financial self-interest of a huge majority of voters. Here's the tag line: "The Lifelong Endowment empowers citizens at the expense of the State, and expands the private sector at the expense of government."

Posted by: Philip at October 20, 2009 12:22 PM (rNx9A)

211 ... 210 WWS:
Agreed. McCain and Grahamnesty's support of AGW / Cap'n'Trade is disgusting. When the whole crock'o'shite breaks I want the Dems to own it all - but they won't because of these pandering assholes.

Posted by: Huckleberry at October 20, 2009 12:24 PM (s2bW4)

212 Drew M. wrote:
"Let me ask you a serious question ... Suppose Arelen had stayed a Republican..."
There's a bit of a problem with that supposition which changes everything.
When Arlen changed parties, he proved that he was exactly as unprincipled as all of his critics on the right had always said he was. He proved everyone who said he could never be trusted correct, and confirmed all the worst suspicions about him.
So you question should be phrased, "Suppose you were wrong and Arlen Specter actually *did* have some principles and *could* be trusted - what would be the downside of supporting him?"
Well in that case, Specter would be someone different from who he really is, he would have been someone who would have stuck with the party through hard times and showed that he was *not* just out for his own personal profit and glory. In that case, he would indeed deserve to be supported.
But the *real* Arlen Specter - traitorous, unprincipled, self glorifying lying POS - should never be and should never have been supported for *anything*. He's the poster boy for *everything* that is wrong with our political system today.

Posted by: wws at October 20, 2009 12:24 PM (T1boi)

213 DrewM: Look, I didn't want to vote for McCain. I almost didn't. But the fact
is when I was faced with an actual ballot I had two choices...McCain or
Obama.

Same here. In that case the cost of defeat was simply too high, as following events have shown. But in this race its not. Here we have an opportunity to send a very clear message and we should do so. That is not Fantasy League Politics stuff. That is playing politics as it should be played.

Posted by: oLD gUY at October 20, 2009 12:24 PM (P/D33)

214 Don't care. I'm not talking about this blog. I'm talking about the RNC, state parties, precinct captains. I want to be clear on that.

Fair enough but activists are always going to think those in government or the party apparatus are impure sell outs.

Just look at the Democrats who think Obama isn't liberal enough.

It's the incongruous nature of the American system...the larger majority you get, the harder it can be to do something with it because you are drawing in people further from your base to run up those numbers.

America is largely a centrist country, conservative in some ways (culturally for the most part) but liberal in others (people love them some 'free' stuff from the government).

People who are actually trying to win elections simply can't give the activist base what it wants and still win elections in the real world or maintain governing coalitions. So, they give the base just enough to keep them on board, while not pissing off everyone else.

I think our job as activists is to to demand as much as we can but not so much we kill the people who are actually putting together the coalitions needed to enact things. Pull them too far and no one wins. It's not satisfying but it's the real world.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 12:26 PM (ur6Ar)

215 Teh Fred has been backing Hoffman.

Posted by: Cincinnatus at October 20, 2009 12:26 PM (f4sLg)

216 201: that, right there, is the crux of the matter. By the time the primaries came to MO last year, it was McCain vs Not McCain. I voted for Not McCain (IIRC, I voted Romney, just so Hugh Hewitt would give me a reach around. But I forget for sure). Anyway, I grudgingly voted Maverick in the General. And I probably will in the future. BUT, I refuse to accept squishes in situations where a conservative can win, and NY 23 is one such case.
And I would still vote in the general for a squish over an O-bot any day of the week and twice on Election Day, but this NY State Race is a unique case, and it does give us an opportunity to tell the squishes theyneed to be stopped cold. If this were a standard general election between Dede Typesand That Democrat Guy, I would support Dede. But, since it's a 3 way, I will support Hoffman types because I have f*cking had it with squishes, and to tell the GOP/RNC in DC that constantly yuitzing us up the squeaker and telling us it's ambrosia is not the way to do things. I'll o nly take the squeakhole treatment when I know that that is the only way to go.

Posted by: eddiebear at October 20, 2009 12:28 PM (wnU1W)

217 Mallamut is correct.
The trouble is at the local and national level. Nationally we are seen as f'ng monsters. The perception that We are the ones who want to deny g'ma healthcare, food etc...Palin is Teh Stupid, Nugent will shoot and eat your cat.
Locally, as we all know, Repubs are biz owners, contractors, even union members(closeted I know). Many people don't want to "nut up" and have anything besides writing a check and casting a vote to do. Remember the little old restaraunt lady in Cali. that got crushed by teh ghey after she donated $100 for a pro-prop 8 group? Do you want purple shirts outside your Laundramat? They've got the time and busses.
Donks have the "feel good" of emotion on their side. "We're here to help". Bullshit. They are finally being shown as power grabb___ pricks that they always have been.
I agree with the takeover of local parties. Lackawanna/Luzerne counties in Pa. have the Repub chairs endorsing Donks! WTF. Then they say..."we have no cash/talent to compete". Well sure, if you're gonna fuck me in the ass after I put myself out there, I'll sit it out. Most of these pricks are 3rd generation shot callers and handi-cappers, if not saboteurs.
The new "CREW" needs to start with bumperstickers, and grow to busloads. We do indeed need to be as pissed at the local as well as the candidates who are dicks.
Show the townhall anger at the local powerbrokers. They get your checks. You should a say in how they run their private orgies.

Posted by: hutch1200 at October 20, 2009 12:29 PM (1JvFk)

218

Is it common for rapists to ask their potential victims about stimulus funding?

Posted by: Jack Burton at October 20, 2009 09:34 AM (YxJoH)

I like to call that foreplay.

Posted by: Bill Clinton at October 20, 2009 12:29 PM (7BU4a)

219 "Socially liberal and fiscally conservative" is an oxymoron.
You can't be both. The social liberals will vote with the other cool kids, because that's the way they roll. That social liberalism has a cost, and will always override the fiscal conservatism.

Posted by: butch at October 20, 2009 12:30 PM (8NiWI)

220 I could be wrong but last I checked that's one of things that conservatives hate about the left. Aren't we supposed to be the people who accept that humans are flawed and that using political power in an attempt to change or perfect them is tyranny and evil?
No. I don't know where you get your ideas about conservatives but that just ain't so. Political ideas are not disembodied. They exist in and for a certain sort ofpeople. Conservatves support the nuclear family and the nuclear families n turn support conservatives. The left seeks to destroy conservatism and the nuclear family together as obstacles to their power. Get rid of the sort of people who support conservative policy and they win.
One reason the right is on the ropes is that theproportion of nuclear famlies in America is a lot less than in Reagans day.
If you want a conservative America, create and nurture a conservative American people. If you are cool with the Democrats creating a leftwing American people then why are you bothering to be involved in politics at all? That leftwing people will always result in leftwing policy, regardless of what party is in power.

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 12:31 PM (veaV2)

221 This election? This one in NY23, the one where we're all pointing out Scozzaflava is horrible and we should support Hoffman?
Is this the one you're talking about old guy, this opportunity?
HELLO CRAZY PERSON. WE ARE SAYING TO THE RNCC DUMP THIS RINO BITCH ANDSUPPORT HOFFMAN. SEND HIM MONEY. HE'S THE CONSERVATIVE. OK? PLEASE ACK.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 20, 2009 12:32 PM (WvXvd)

222 DrewM: oLD gUY,Let me ask you a serious question ...Suppose Arelen had stayed a Republican. All of us here did everything we could to help Toomy beat him but he came up short.It's November of next year and Specter is facing, say Ed Rendell in the general.What's the upside to supporting Rendell or sitting it out entirely and seeing Rendell win?

In all seriousness, I don't know and that's as honest as I can be. Certainly Specter proved he could be bought. But he never stayed bought. When is enough enough? I did the hold the nose thing for so long, but at some point we have to switch tactics because "the enemy" is sometimes the guys on your own team. Every race, in every district with rigid conservative qualifications?

No, but in this race, with these people and at this time absolutely.

If there was an easy answer, then this thread would never have happened.

Posted by: oLD gUY at October 20, 2009 12:33 PM (P/D33)

223 America is largely a centrist country,
conservative in some ways (culturally for the most part) but liberal in
others (people love them some 'free' stuff from the government).

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 12:26 PM (ur6Ar)
It is interesting to speculate what a real paygo system with a non-byzantine tax code would do to that attitude.
Oh, you want free health care? The will only cost you $5K in taxes a year. What, you don't want it now? But it is free!Of course there other issue is something like half the adult population pays no income taxes.

Posted by: 18-1 at October 20, 2009 12:33 PM (7BU4a)

224 wws,

Yes, you are right, some of us did know what an unprincipled hack Specter was and is.

The bigger issue is what do you expect from a politician?

I don't expect a leader of a movement or for them to be an activist. I look at politics as a deal, I provide my support (money, vote, willingness to advocate for them) in exchange for their support on as many issues as possible.

It's transactional to me. We got as much out of Specter as we could and I was willing to throw him overboard at the first opportunity. There was no loyalty either way.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 12:34 PM (ur6Ar)

225 I think our job as activists is to to demand as much as we can but not so much we kill the people who are actually putting together the coalitions needed to enact things. Pull them too far and no one wins.

You keep repeating this crap. Have you forgotten that the GOP ran John McCain last year? Where do you get this endless obsession with the notion that the party is being pulled "too far" to the right? I'd really like to know.

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 12:34 PM (veaV2)

226 Fair enough but activists are always going to think those in government or the party apparatus are impure sell outs.Just look at the Democrats who think Obama isn't liberal enough.
This merely ensures we will continue to argue.
The implication is that I'm equivalent to liberals saying BO isn't liberal enough with the reasonability of my displeasure.
And you do so without insult, by excusing it with 'ahh, that's activists'.
But it's BUNK.
I'm not nearly THAT unreasonable. Just because people always complain in a given situation does not mean that their complaints aren't neccessarily valid.
There's no comparison between saying BO isn't liberal enough, and Arlen Specter wasn't conservative enough.
And then you finish up that rhetorical sleight of hand by going back to the 'neccisity' argument. Making those 'real world compromises' that the 'activists' won't understand because they want us to run Dick Cheney in Vermont.
It's crap. I don't buy it.
the larger majority you get, the harder it can be to do something with it because you are drawing in people further from your base to run up those numbers.
My whole damn point is you maximize your numbers. Not just go for 'more, anywhere, anyhow'. The base will support 2 Jim Demints, not just 1 and 1 Graham.
I don't doubt your motives - but you don't talk specifics, except hyperbolic exagerations. You've bought the rhetorical line and you clearly believe it.
But I say, my position is any fair minded anylses of the actual on-the-ground circumstances shows this is not what is happening.

Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 12:36 PM (IsLT6)

227 Flenser, he didn't say "the party". He said "people who are actually putting together coalitions".

Not same.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 20, 2009 12:37 PM (WvXvd)

228 flenser,

I don't want the conservatives to use the government to create certain types of people any more than I want liberals to.

If you are talking about the battle of ideas, fine. I'm with you there.

If you are talking about using government power to create the 'right' kind of people, as opposed the 'left' doing it to further their particular ends, I'm out.

I'm not interested in trading the 'wrong' type of big government for the supposedly 'right' kind.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 12:39 PM (ur6Ar)

229 eventually New England will have to get tired of one party rule and come up with *something* as an alternative.
Posted by: wws at October 20, 2009 12:15 PM (T1boi)
One of the odd things about blue state politics is that they have no problem with the issues that one party rule comes with. It is getting harder and harder to differentiate between organized crime and the Democrat party in their bases in the northeast and big cities. For example. Democrat state leaders keeping getting busted for corruption, which generally gives an opening to the other party, but in this case they will send the scofflaw back or vote in his protege who will get nailed for the same think in a year or two.

Posted by: 18-1 at October 20, 2009 12:40 PM (7BU4a)

230 flenser,

Where do you get this endless obsession with the notion that I think the party is being pulled "too far" to the right?

It's clearly not from anything in I've written.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 12:40 PM (ur6Ar)

231 To the extent that flenser and DrewM. are in disagreement, I'm mostly with DrewM.:
I could be wrong but last I checked that's one of things that conservatives hate about the left. Aren't we supposed to be the people who accept that humans are flawed and that using political power in an attempt to change or perfect them is tyranny and evil?
I thought we were those people. But flenser is onto something:
Change who the people are, change what the people think, and you've won the political debate and made elections a formalty.
The progressives are changing what words we use and how we use them, which in turn significantly changes what and how we think. They control our language more than I thought possible. That's a powerful tool. (Seriously: What happenedwith the war?)

Posted by: FireHorse at October 20, 2009 12:43 PM (Vl5GH)

232 To entropy's point, why wouldn't we trade Snowe in exchange for picking up a more conservative senator from Nevada, replacing the odious Reid?
We rid ourselves of a notorious squish (Snowe) and get a reliable (assumption) conservative who would replace the contemptible Reid.
Of course, it would be great to keep Snowe and replace Reid, but let's assume the choice is one of where do we expend limited resources to elect candidates.
It's a thought. That's all. I'm not all emotional and shit about it.

Posted by: Fred at October 20, 2009 12:43 PM (gVdZN)

233 Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 10:07 AM

Seconded.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 20, 2009 12:44 PM (ObTcs)

234 Where do you get the idea that "people who are actually putting together coalitions" are being pulled "too far" to the right.
I'm starting to wonder if this is really a debate over strategy. I'd like a government of Jim DeMints, as an ideal to aim for at least. I'm starting to wonder how many of those who blog here would like that.
I'd be happy to be told I'm wrong, but some of you sound like you are as worried about the "far rght" as about the left.

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 12:44 PM (veaV2)

235 How about a few concrete actions we can advocate for?

-Close all primaries.

and

-Rework the primary schedule so that Iowa and NH don't go first anymore

What else?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 12:44 PM (ur6Ar)

236 Hey...I AM A MODERATE - my favorite philosophers are Mother Theresa and Lenin - not like those liberal Maoists in the White House.

Oh, and I told Obama I'd only support his reeducation camps if they use standardized testing.

Posted by: Dede Scozzaflava at October 20, 2009 12:46 PM (7BU4a)

237 Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 12:44
Second! Our party, our rules.

Posted by: hutch1200 at October 20, 2009 12:47 PM (1JvFk)

238 Open Primaries gave us Mcdick. The MSM fawned all over him 'til he had the nomination cinched. Then they shot him in the face. Literally w/in hours. See also NYT endorsement!

Posted by: hutch1200 at October 20, 2009 12:49 PM (1JvFk)

239 Where do you get this endless obsession with the notion that I think the party is being pulled "too far" to the right?
See, this sort of dishonesty is why I dislike you. The quotaton marks around "too far" indicate that you said those words. More generally, this whole argument is between those who seem obsessed with the idea that the GOP is losing electability by not movng left, and those saying "Are you fricking nuts?".

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 12:49 PM (veaV2)

240 What else?
Maybe do something about those precinct chairs that brought us the likes of whatshername in NY? How does those people get in position to make those decisions?
This probably devolves down to "we need more good people to get involved at the county level" which is so easy to type, and hard to do, since most conservatives have, you know, full-time jobs.

Posted by: Fred at October 20, 2009 12:49 PM (gVdZN)

241 I'm starting to wonder if this is really a debate over strategy. I'd
like a government of Jim DeMints, as an ideal to aim for at least. I'm
starting to wonder how many of those who blog here would like that.

I'd love it.

It's also NEVER going to happen.

This is my point about pulling the coalition too far to the right.

Not that it is happening but that's what a lot of ideological purists seem to be arguing for.

If we as conservatives are going to say...anyone to the left of Jim DeMint is unacceptable and therefore beyond our ability to support. We will have 12* Republican** Senators and about 35 House members

How's that going to work out for you and the things you care about?

*That's being generous because how many do we have now? 5 or 6 really good Senators? (DeMint, Sessions, Coburn and then it kind of falls off. Vitter, McConell and maybe Kyl?)

**This assumes the GOP is the vessel for conservative voters. Mostly because this point it is)

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 12:50 PM (ur6Ar)

242 flenser sez: "I'd like a government of Jim DeMints, as an ideal to aim for at least. I'm starting to wonder how many of those who blog here would like that."
And that is why ace and DiT and Drew are yelling at you, dude. Really dumb comment there. Read the blog.

Posted by: Fred at October 20, 2009 12:51 PM (gVdZN)

243 Open Primaries gave us Mcdick. The MSM fawned all
over him 'til he had the nomination cinched. Then they shot him in the
face. Literally w/in hours. See also NYT endorsement!

Posted by: hutch1200 at October 20, 2009 12:49 PM (1JvFk)
Actually, one of the few positive things coming out of the 2008 election was watching McCain go through the stages of grief after the MSM went all stabby on him.
I still don't understand how so many "moderate" republicans don't get the role of the MSM in elections - but they continue to be surprised...

Posted by: 18-1 at October 20, 2009 12:54 PM (7BU4a)

244 Fred, these people get the job for the invite to the prom. Then they do whatever they feel like. You think maybe they get a kickback to throw an election? I do.
We need to treat the local/county like a union. Bitch at your local steward. Refuse to protest somewhere on your day off. This is exactly how/why the big unions took out a full page ad agianst barry-care. They felt the heat from below, once the membership found out they were gonna get taxed for their Cadillac Plans!

Posted by: hutch1200 at October 20, 2009 12:55 PM (1JvFk)

245 flenser,

I never said the party moved to far left. In fact, I was willing to vote against McCain against Hillary precisely because if he won it would have cemented 'moderation' as the de facto GOP position for a decade.

I just don't want to hear from people saying no more moderates from moderate states or that it's better to lose with a conservative in a moderate state than win with a moderate.

Also, I'd be more interested in the critique of hard core "Conservative or Die" types if a place like Mississippi would stop sending the like of Thad Cohran and Trent Lott or SC and Lindsay Graham to the Senate.

Why don't we get those deep red states in order before saying the NE has to send a Jim DeMint type?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 12:56 PM (ur6Ar)

246 BTW- If anyone can show me the map of where these 51 Senate and 218 House Jim DeMints are coming from, I'd love to see it.

I'm open to the idea that I'm totally missing it. So please, show me the states and districts that are just dying to sen 100% conservatives to Congress but are being forced to accept squishy Republicans and out and out liberal Democrats instead.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 12:58 PM (ur6Ar)

247 This is the best comment thread since ever. Seriously. Hashing stuff like this out "in a agreeable manner" only really happens when everybody pretty much agrees in the first place; given the different philosophies here you're all doing a damn fine job of getting to a workable strategy.

Seriously, Ace, ever thought of writing one of those 'Seven Secrets' types of books? They make big coin, and most of them are about as profound as an Andy Rooney editorial.

"Getting from 'Hey, Douchbag' to 'Dear Friend'; The Ace O' Spades Moron Management Method."

Big bux! Especially in the Special Commemorative Edition with the Val-U-Rite bottle and Crock-Pot hobo recipes. Just let me honk the horn on the Bentley once in a while.

Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at October 20, 2009 12:58 PM (aC0uO)

248 This is my point about pulling the coalition too far to the right.
So you are on record as worrying about that. Good, then we can address the substance of your concern.
This is a tread about somebody named Scozzafava, whose views are described above. Please describe all those counter instances in which you believe that the coalition has been pulled "too far to the right" at any time in the last decade.
How can anyone not on LSD or a Democratthink that the GOP's problem is that it is being pulled too far to the right? Specifics, please.

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 12:59 PM (veaV2)

249 Drew:
Agreed, close the primaries and change the order.
How about letting the state primary order be set per:
- Highestelectoral votes and which went Republican in the last presidential election.
-Then whenit runs out of states which went Republican in the last presidential election, go in order of highest electoral votes.
This would let Republican majority states, as determined by the last presidential election,chose the nominee.

Posted by: Huckleberry at October 20, 2009 01:00 PM (s2bW4)

250 I know I'm late to the party here, but, I think youseare saying "Yes, pro-choice Rudy in NY, but John Wayne in Montana"? Meh, when in Rome?
Don't taze me bro!

Posted by: hutch1200 at October 20, 2009 01:00 PM (1JvFk)

251 Just keep Faaaaacccckkkin that Chicken, Mike Steele.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at October 20, 2009 01:01 PM (s2bW4)

252 If we as conservatives are going to say...anyone to the left of Jim DeMint is unacceptable and therefore beyond our ability to support. We will have 12* Republican** Senators and about 35 House members
I've addressed this nonsense before, but I guessI need to keep on doing so. In what bizarro universe is the GOP's problem that it refuses to support anyone who is not as conservative as DeMint? Ths is Frumworthy stuff you're coming out with.

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 01:02 PM (veaV2)

253 "Getting from 'Hey, Douchbag' to 'Dear Friend'; The Ace O' Spades Moron Management Method."Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at October 20, 2009 12:58 PM
Go phuck yourself!
What, somebody had to inject some comedy humor here.

Posted by: hutch1200 at October 20, 2009 01:03 PM (1JvFk)

254 If anyone can show me the map of where these 51 Senate and 218 House Jim DeMints are coming from, I'd love to see it.
You keep fuckng that strawman, Drew. We're all openminded around here.

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 01:04 PM (veaV2)

255 Why don't we get those deep red states in order before saying the NE has to send a Jim DeMint type?
Because we (or they, or you, or me, or whatever you prefer) don't want them.
People in the GOP support Graham because they like Graham. They like squish, they like and want socialist lite. They like him BETTER then DeMint and prefer him.
But they don't say that. They say 'oh, you have to be reasonable, you can't run Ann Coulter for governor of California'.
No you can't. WTF does that have to do with Graham? Nothing. Look at the wookie. Why am I showing you a picture of a wookie?
The reality does not bare out their explanation that it's all compromise of neccessity in order to win, and therefor enact the most conservatism possible. The reality is they're not conservative and don't want conservatism.
The pragmatic, electability argument is rooted mostly in demagoguery to keep fax machines from exploding and donations rolling.
But hey I'm just some activist, my platonic ideals will never mesh with reality so I'm always mad. Look at the wookie.

Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 01:05 PM (IsLT6)

256 DiT: HELLO CRAZY PERSON. WE ARE SAYING TO THE RNCC DUMP THIS RINO BITCH
ANDSUPPORT HOFFMAN. SEND HIM MONEY. HE'S THE CONSERVATIVE. OK? PLEASE
ACK.

Ack. I was doing the "finding common ground" thing. I seem to have upset you and you are taking it personally, flaming my every comment. At what point does a poster become a troll? As I recall Ace's definition, you seem to fit the bill. All caps, screaming insults, not offering any serious discussion.

Posted by: oLD gUY at October 20, 2009 01:06 PM (P/D33)

257 Please describe all those counter instances in which you believe that
the coalition has been pulled "too far to the right" at any time in the
last decade.

flenser,

You are so good at selective editing you could work for MediaMatters.

The next line you didn't bother to quote said...

Not that it is happening but that's what a lot of ideological purists seem to be arguing for.

How exactly can I show you "all those counter instances" of something when I specifically said is not happening to begin with?

I'm simply saying that people who would only accept a Congress full of hard core conservatives and will not support any candidate to the left of someone like DeMint will kill any chances of enacting conservative policies as Democrats will control Congress for a good long while.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 01:08 PM (ur6Ar)

258 DrewM: How about a few concrete actions we can advocate for?-Close all primaries.and-Rework the primary schedule so that Iowa and NH don't go first anymoreWhat else?

I would agree with this. Add repeal McCain-Feingold for the trifeccta.

Posted by: oLD gUY at October 20, 2009 01:09 PM (P/D33)

259 You keep fuckng that strawman, Drew. We're all openminded around here.
Yup.
His argument neccissitates he keep acting like you want to run DeMint (or maybe RUSH LIMBAUGH) for Senate in Washington State.
If you actually look at realities all over the country, in Pennsylvania with Specter and Toomey, in S.C., in limited resources going to Maine instead of Nebraska,it doesn't hold water.

Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 01:09 PM (IsLT6)

260 People in the GOP support Graham because they like Graham. They like squish, they like and want socialist lite. They like him BETTER then DeMint and prefer him.
But they don't say that. They say 'oh, you have to be reasonable, you can't run Ann Coulter for governor of California'.

I'm starting to think that's what we're dealng with here on this thread. The terror of thespeculative 'far right" takeover of the GOP seems to be haunting some peoples dreams.

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 01:09 PM (veaV2)

261 His argument neccissitates he keep acting like you want to run DeMint
Entropy

You're right, I made that up. Oh wait, no I didn't.

I'd like a government of Jim DeMints, as an ideal to aim for at least.
Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 12:44 PM (veaV2)

That's a ridiculous aim because it isn't going to happen.

It's a Fantasy Politics League aim.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 01:13 PM (ur6Ar)

262 Let the state primary order be set per:
- Highestelectoral votes and which went Republican in the last presidential election.
-Then whenstates which went Republican in the last presidential election are done, go in order of highest electoral votes.
This would let Republican majority states, as determined by the last presidential election,chose the nominee.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at October 20, 2009 01:16 PM (s2bW4)

263 You know what might help my cause? Having a record of attacking a local GOP organization for picking a RINO over a real conservative.

If only I had such a record.

Oh wait, I do.

But let's be honest, I only wrote that to cover my David Frum, RINO loving ass.

Can't get anything passed you guys!

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 01:17 PM (ur6Ar)

264 I'm starting to wonder how many of those who blog here would like that.
As long as we can keep Palin down, whatever it takes.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 20, 2009 01:18 PM (eiOZw)

265 I'm simply saying that people who would only accept a Congress full of hard core conservatives and will not support any candidate to the left of someone like DeMint will kill any chances of enacting conservative policies as Democrats will control Congress for a good long while.

And I'm specifically asking you why this fanstasy of your is what you chose to drone on about in a GOP which tries to ram people like Scozzafava, Jeffords, Christ,Chafee, etc etc etc etc etc down our throats.
You're like a man in a burning house terrified of downing.
You are concerned about Democats controling Congress for a long while, and you think the obstacle to preventing this is ..... for Republicns not to be so darn right wing?
Ihave news for you, bub, The GOP lost power because it point blank refused to be even slightly right wing, because it borrowed much of its domestic agenda from Teddy Kennedy. Your prescription of "beware the far right extremists" is what will consign the party to permanent minority status.

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 01:21 PM (veaV2)

266 Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 20, 2009 01:18 PM (eiOZw)

ixNay ethay alinPay alktay.

They'll get suspicious.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 01:21 PM (ur6Ar)

267 So I guess what drew and ace aren't saying is that this isn't the place to offer up a sincere apology and clarification of a misunderstanding on one of yesterdays threads. 'kay

Posted by: teej at October 20, 2009 01:23 PM (c459z)

268 Let the state primary order be set per:

I would do it by lottery. No fighting over who deserves to go first, a different political map every cycle. Keep them guessing.

Posted by: oLD gUY at October 20, 2009 01:23 PM (P/D33)

269 But let's be honest, I only wrote that to cover my David Frum, RINO loving ass.
I've never said it applied to you. I don't assume any motives to you besides what you state.
But you're wrong. Look at Dede Scozzaflava. And their argument defending her? 'She's electable' which is another way of saying 'You can't run Jim Demint in New York', like that automatically equates to Scozzaflava when you're not being intellectually dishonest.
These precinct captains picked her for 1 of 2 reasons:
1) Because they agree with her and want to, and lie about it.
2) Because they've erroneously bought into the arguments of the demagogues above.
You, Drew, are in group #2.
But their argument does not adeqautely explain their actions and repeated tendencies.

Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 01:24 PM (IsLT6)

270 So I guess what drew and ace aren't saying is that this isn't the place
to offer up a sincere apology and clarification of a misunderstanding
on one of yesterdays threads. 'kay

I thought it was pretty classy of you, for what little that counts.

Posted by: oLD gUY at October 20, 2009 01:25 PM (P/D33)

271 Sorta OT. Why did the Liberatarians feel it neccessary to leave? Now they are known as simply the party that wants to legalize weed. I like their platform, but the MSM labeled them forever.
As far as primaries, if I have to watch 1 more asshole politician staring at a half frozen cow, wondering which end he should stick his dick in, I'll puke. I mean, I'd watch that,but still.

Posted by: hutch1200 at October 20, 2009 01:27 PM (1JvFk)

272 Tks old guy. I guess I can at least do half a snoopy dance while Schroeder plays one of my favorite themes.

Posted by: teej at October 20, 2009 01:29 PM (c459z)

273 The libertarians left because they're just the party that wants to legalize weed.
HTH.

Posted by: wws at October 20, 2009 01:30 PM (T1boi)

274 I would do it by lottery. No fighting over who deserves to go first, a different political map every cycle. Keep them guessing."
Uhm, that's what I meant. og just said it more better.

Posted by: hutch1200 at October 20, 2009 01:30 PM (1JvFk)

275 flenser,

So, ignoring the fact that I supported a conservative over a RINO in NY-20, that I support Toomy and Rubio, you think I want to move the party to the left?

My only point was and has been, I'd support a moderate to liberal GOP candidate over a Democrat if (and this is the important part so try and pay attention)...we can't get a more conservative nominee in a primary or the district/state is moderate/liberal and nominating a hardcore conservative is doomed to failure (no matter how good it might feel).

Look how the Dems got their majority. It wasn't by nominating the most liberal person they could find in places like Virgina or North Dakota. It was by nominating what passes for moderates in that party.

As for this particular race, I don't support Scozaflava and donated to Hoffman. What more would you like me to do?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 01:31 PM (ur6Ar)

276 HTH.???..clarification please.

Posted by: hutch1200 at October 20, 2009 01:32 PM (1JvFk)

277 I would do it by lottery. No fighting over who deserves to go first, a different political map every cycle. Keep them guessing."
States go in order of highest percentage of to vote Republican in the last general election .

Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 01:32 PM (IsLT6)

278 For the office in question.

Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 01:32 PM (IsLT6)

279 You have to kill a moose with your pumps.

Get with the program.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 20, 2009 01:32 PM (eiOZw)

280 You're right, I made that up. Oh wait, no I didn't.
Jesus, you're stupid. The thing you quoted shows that you did make it up.

That's a ridiculous aim because it isn't going to happen.
Not with people like you making the case for the right. If anyone had said in 2000 that the Dem will soon run a black man,a far left friend of communist terrorists, for POTUS and win, it would have seemed ridiculous.
I'll say this much for the left, they set goals and work hard to accomplish them. And in the course of time their "ridiculous aims" become reality.
In that respect they are more admirable than the passive and inert right.

I'd like to think that some day there might be an America in which most people would vote for a DeMint. You rubbish the very idea.

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 01:35 PM (h6QCC)

281 Posted by: teej at October 20, 2009 01:23 PM (c459z)

I didn't see your original post @209 (too busy keeping up with those fighting with me).

I appreciate you saying that. That was very kind of you.

As for Ace, I don't think he's around this thread anymore but I'll send it on to him. I don't think he always sees every email, so please don't take offense if you don't hear back.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 01:35 PM (ur6Ar)

282 274 / Oldguy:
Ok, random draw is worth discussing, but still think it needs to start withthe pool of states that voted R in the last Pres election.

Posted by: Huckleberry at October 20, 2009 01:36 PM (s2bW4)

283 Entropy at October 20, 2009 01:32 PM
Cannot these #'s be screwed with also? I don't want to see more pissing contests that make us look even more disorganized. State party leaders have that behind the scenes Napolean thing goin'. Not that I have the answer, mind you.

Posted by: hutch1200 at October 20, 2009 01:36 PM (1JvFk)

284 flenser,

Unless I missed it, you never clarified if you wanted to use government power to create the 'right' kind of people or simply fight that in the arena of ideas. I'd love to know.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 01:36 PM (ur6Ar)

285 As for this particular race, I don't support Scozaflava and donated to Hoffman. What more would you like me to do?
I would like you to stop alleging that a crucial obstacle facing the GOP is the existence of large numbers of people dedicated to conservative idelogical purity. I would lke you to stop alleging that that this (non existent) ideological purity is what is turning off moderate voters to the party. Both of these things are patently false, tobeverypolite about it.
Think you can can do that?

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 01:40 PM (h6QCC)

286 Entropy: States go in order of highest percentage of to vote Republican in the last general election .

Is the reason for that to pump up turnout? Maybe to insure that heavy Republican states get a larger say in who is to be the standard bearer? Hmm, maybe both. I can see that, ok you win.

Posted by: oLD gUY at October 20, 2009 01:41 PM (P/D33)

287 These precinct captains picked her for 1 of 2 reasons:
1) Because they agree with her and want to, and lie about it.
2) Because they've erroneously bought into the arguments of the demagogues above.
You, Drew, are in group #2.Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 01:24 PM (IsLT6)

Or #3...they know her and think they will deliver stuff to them. Never underestimate the personal factor or payback in politics.

BTW- Please explain how I'm in group #2 when you know, I don't support her?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 01:41 PM (ur6Ar)

288 Unless I missed it, you never clarified if you wanted to use government power to create the 'right' kind of people or simply fight that in the arena of ideas.
What do you think the difference is between the two?

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 01:43 PM (h6QCC)

289 I'm concur w/og. If local party bosses can use the threat of.."If you pricks don't show up, Kaliforinia gets to pick the guy..." I'm cool w/that.

Posted by: hutch1200 at October 20, 2009 01:44 PM (1JvFk)

290 Cannot these #'s be screwed with also?
I'm not sure what you mean.
I know only that time and again, look at the situation, the 'electibility' argument doesn't make sense in practice.
Oh sure, it makes sense as a principle, which is why it's employed vaguely. But not with specifics. They overreach.
Here a district that previously elected normal conservative republicans, now running someone to the left of the democrats.
Why?
Because they agree with her.
"Oh, she's electable"
So was the moderate conservative before her. So is Pat Toomey, who has won congressional races in blueish swing districts. So is Jim DeMint in S.C., yet we have Graham.
They talked Fitzpatrick out of running again and wound up giving the seat to Obama, yet rig the primaries to favor Graham, who has a lower approval rate among GOP voters then DeMint. Ask them why, and get 'You can't have 50 DeMint's".
I don't want 50 DeMint's, I asked for 2.
They don't like DeMint.

Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 01:45 PM (IsLT6)

291 flenser,

One is coersive and anathema to small government conservatism and the other is the proper role of free people to form their society and culture as they see fit based on freely selected competing ideals.

You can tell the difference between those two concepts, right?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 01:45 PM (ur6Ar)

292 Is the reason for that to pump up turnout? Maybe to insure that heavy Republican states get a larger say in who is to be the standard bearer? Hmm, maybe both.
Exactly.
Does both.

Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 01:46 PM (IsLT6)

293 "BTW- If anyone can show me the map of where these 51 Senate and 218 House Jim DeMints are coming from, I'd love to see it."

Not DeMints, necessarily, but, for example, there's no good reason that, with proper national party focus and funding, the Republicans shouldn't hold both seats in Nebraska, South and North Dakota (see those states' presidential voting records.)

That would be a net pick-up of 4 Senate seats. If that's at the cost of a Snowe and a Collins, well, we're still at +2 in the numbers, and at + a whole lot more than that in terms of moving the party to the right.

That was Entropy's point, and it's a good one.

The reason the Republican Party leadership won't focus resources that way is because they don't want to be seen as too regional. They'd rather sacrifice a Nebraska conservative for a squishy New Englander. It's better "branding," in their view.

Posted by: notropis at October 20, 2009 01:50 PM (gTwkE)

294 One is coersive and anathema to small government conservatism and the other is the proper role of free people to form their society and culture as they see fit based on freely selected competing ideals.

You know jack about small government conservatism, Drew. Maybe you think it's anathema to libertarianism, which likes to worry about "coercion" a lot.
Do people form society and culture, or does society and culture form people?

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 01:50 PM (h6QCC)

295 "Most of these pricks are 3rd generation shot callers and handi-cappers, if not saboteurs."
Posted by: hutch1200 at October 20, 2009 12:29 PM (1JvFk)
Never rule out personal gain. They'd throw a state rep job to the donks to get a zoning variance for their doghouse.
WE hold our people responsible for bullshit. Donks don't. Anybody here gonna support Sanford? Hell no. That's why we need to start with the precinct captains and work up.

Posted by: hutch1200 at October 20, 2009 01:51 PM (1JvFk)

296 flenser

I would like you to stop alleging that a crucial obstacle facing the
GOP is the existence of large numbers of people dedicated to
conservative idelogical purity.

It will be an obstacle if people who demand purity get their way. It hasn't happened yet (I didn't say it had, quite the opposite in fact).

I'm not sure how advocating for the most conservative candidate who can win a particular race and not the most conservative candidate imaginable is actually something we are arguing about.

I would lke you to stop alleging that
that this (non existent) ideological purity is what is turning off
moderate voters to the party.

First, show me where I said that.

What I did say is running highly conservative candidates in moderate/liberal leaning districts is a formula for defeat. Is that actually in question?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 01:51 PM (ur6Ar)

297 BTW- Please explain how I'm in group #2 when you know, I don't support her?
I know you don't support her in this case. I said this in reply to the bit about being Crypto-David Frum.
As it regards the argument in the whole, I'm not saying YOU have ulterior motives, I think you've bought into other people's.
In fact, I'm not sure I've yet to see an actual concrete case wherein you don't agree with me about who's electable and who to run.
Which is why your argument exists, as far as I can tell, entirely in generalities and in principle, not practice. In general broad terms, you say the need to win majorities explains our need forthe squishiness that I am complaining about and unhappy with.
But then examine them and in every individual case - you agree with me. The "electability argument" as applied, does not actually justify the level of squishiness we see in effect.
So then what is it?

Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 01:53 PM (IsLT6)

298 It will be an obstacle if people who demand purity get their way. It hasn't happened yet (I didn't say it had, quite the opposite in fact).
Then why do you go on and on about it?

How would you describe your politcal leanings, Drew? Your preoccupation with and fear of conservative "purity" suggests you are not a natual conservative yourself.

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 01:55 PM (h6QCC)

299 I'm not sure what you mean-Entropy
I just don't want in-fighting, in public, to screw us over before we get our horse to the track.

Posted by: hutch1200 at October 20, 2009 01:55 PM (1JvFk)

300 In general broad terms, you say the need to win majorities explains our need forthe squishiness that I am complaining about and unhappy with.
Yeah, and it ignores the fact that it was the sqiuishiness that got the GOP into trouble in the first place. If we'd lost power for excessive right-wingery it would be a no brainer to tack to the middle. But that's not what happened.

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 02:00 PM (h6QCC)

301 Anybody here gonna support Sanford?
GovernorSanford of Argentina Hottie fame? Is that him?
Hell yes.
No - seriously though, I defended him at length. A staunch conservative and a good governor. Let him consentually bang all the latinas he pleases.
And Kyl too, I'm willing to tolerate his banging his employees wife and his employee (which is despicable and much much worse then what Sanford did) because Mr. Supports Amnesty is conservative enough in my book that I don't want to ditch him for another Chaffee type likely to follow due to the squishes that run the party.
So it goes to show how unreasonable and unsatisfiable I am, the ever displeased activist demanding 99 Jim DeMints.

Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 02:01 PM (IsLT6)

302 Entropy,

I guess the example I have in mind (and it's not one that's been made but it represents the concept)...I supported John Faso over Tedisco to be the R nominee for the NY-20 race this spring.

I would not support Faso over say George Pataki in a Senate primary in NY

Yes, Faso would be my personal choice but he couldn't win statewide. Pataki, while a RINO, could

Look at CA. I don't doubt DeVore is more conservative than Fiorina. That said, I don't think DeVore can win. I doubt Fiorina can either but she's a better bet in that kind of state.

I'm willing to make those kinds of tactical trade offs.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 02:02 PM (ur6Ar)

303 How would you describe your politcal leanings, Drew?
flesner,

Very small government, free market and strong defense.

That's it, that's the list.

BTW- I'm not a convert. Been this way since I was about 4 years old and told my mom I thought Nixon was getting the shaft.

Remember Family Ties on TV? Alex Keaton? Yeah, that was me. I once got in a typical teenage type with my mom and in exacerbation she yelled at me "I didn't raise you to be a Republican".

For clarity, my mom, the Baby Boomer socialist, uses Republican as a general slur. I was a conservative, not a Republican.

Do I qualify for the club?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 02:09 PM (ur6Ar)

304 Jeez, polynkes, stop flogging that poor nag to death. You repeat it on every thread.
What, if anything, do YOU think "real conservatives" believe?

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 02:10 PM (h6QCC)

305 And Mike Steele, and his hip-hop website? I'm all for trying to get ANY vote. I'm OK w/inner city gang yute outreach and shit. But, wow. I don't think this guy could handle softball Q's from the MSM. Not that we'll ever see them.
Donks would never put up with this guy. I don't want Howie D's evil twin. But really. Who picked this guy? That's the proccess I'm gonna try to get a clue on. It's likely the coastal crew that foisted him up. It seems the MSM has done nothing but take us off message by calling him, basically, an Uncle Tom. But then again I'm a moron. We could pick a transgendered, multi-culture professer, former crackhead, minister, of any color, and still get these results.
Speakin' of crack...gotta go!

Posted by: hutch1200 at October 20, 2009 02:11 PM (1JvFk)

306 polynikes,

And we're off.......

Seriously though, if I haven't said it before, on that point I agree. Reagan was many things, one of which was a real world politician.

Ideologues simply don't get elected.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 02:12 PM (ur6Ar)

307 Or #3...they know her and think they will deliver stuff to them. Never underestimate the personal factor or payback in politics.

BTW- Please explain how I'm in group #2 when you know, I don't support her?
Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 01:4

How about in this way Drew? If it was just Dede vs. the Democrat running for this office, do you think we should spend resources supporting her?

Now this is a one time election... what about in 2010 when every seat is up for office. Say she won this election and proved to be as liberal as her record states. Should the party spend funds keeping her in office or would those funds be better spent in another close race where a Conservative candidate could benefit?

I think this is really the crux of the matter.

Posted by: NJRob at October 20, 2009 02:13 PM (y/IxH)

308 Very small government, free market and strong defense.
So why this ceaseless preoccupation with the evils of "conservative purity"? It's not like the GOP has seen any conservative purity in this century. Why does its verymention have you shaking in your boots?

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 02:14 PM (h6QCC)

309 Big tent is nothing but liberal speak for "cater to liberals". Kind of like how "minority outreach" is pandering to the baser instincts of people who vote for whomever gives them the most handouts.
Conservatives need to be conservative. There should be some things that just don't fly, and it seems like if you support socialism, you should expect RNC money to be against you in the primaries, not for you.
Honestly, every GOPer who voted for TARP (this was the camel's nose in the door, and gave Obama all the excuse he needed. I wonder if Bush did that on purpose) needs to be on a "not one dime" list, and we need to somehow target each and every one of them. They need to be stripped of any leadership positions they have, even if we cannot get them thrown out.

Posted by: Smarty at October 20, 2009 02:15 PM (v/j2M)

310 Ronald Reagan wouldhave been bashed by them if the intertubes were around inReagan's day

If Reagan was alive today we'd hear about how somebody so "ideologically pure" would alienate the poor "moderates" in the north-east.
Correctly, in part. This is not the country Reagan was President of, its much more left-wing.

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 02:18 PM (h6QCC)

311 flenser,

First, you imagine much more afraid than I am (not at all).

Second, I know I'm not in the political mainstream of this country. I'd cut farm subsidies, corporate welfare, student loans, eliminate the Department of Education on Day 1 of my rule.

Hell, my idea of health care reform is eliminate Medicaid.

Thing is, we don't live in that world. So I accept that I'll get my way on the margins and try and spread those margins out as much as possible, whenever possible.

In the meantime, to get some things I want, I have to convince a majority to do it or make a deal with those who want something I don't like but am willing to trade for something I value more.

Insist on running only people who agree with me and I'll get nothing.

I wish it weren't so but it is.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 02:20 PM (ur6Ar)

312 And as for the inability to elect staunch conservatives in moderate swing states...
How the hell did we pull Santorum out of the Land of Specter?
WTF is MICHIGAN doing with Thaddeus McCotter?
How did NYC and Massachusettsproduce 2 GOP forerunners?
Hell, in places like IL, they run squish after squish after squish (this is the State party fault) and they lose, and lose, and lose. (And I don't vote).
I actually thought Blago was marginally less corrupt then Topinka, and would have voted D anyway.
Try it, maybe you'll suprise yourself.
What I can tell you is in IL, NY, NJ, this moderate business? It don't work. Ain't really got nothing to lose anyway.
(Although the resources would still be better targeted elsewhere altogether).

Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 02:26 PM (IsLT6)

313 Insist on running only people who agree with me and I'll get nothing.

I'd ask you for the 124th time who is 'insisting" on any such thing, but I know from bitter experience that no answer will be forthcoming. So your obsessive fear of those "conservative purists" will remain a mystery.

you imagine much more afraid than I am (not at all).
Then its odd that you bang on about it in every other thread.

In the meantime, to get some things I want, I have to convince a majority to do it or make a deal with those who want something I don't like but am willing to trade for something I value more.
You sound like those who make a virtue out of compromise and reaching across the aisle.

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 02:27 PM (h6QCC)

314 Drew @287 - thanks Drew. And ace doesn't need to get back to me. And now; hit it Schroeder (and I don't mean a moron "I'd hit that") doo do do - do do do - dooo dooo - doo do do dooo dum de dum da da dum

Posted by: teej at October 20, 2009 02:28 PM (QdUKm)

315 you go ahead and repeat your same talking points about people not being real conservatives

Please elaborate on that "talking point", which I have never made.
I nottice that you skipped the question I posed. What, if anything, would you consider to be outsides the bounds of conservatism?

Why don't you repeat your statement that you would trade a loss in Afghanistan for the possibliltiy of a political atmosphere more to your liking in the future. douchebag.
Dishonesty is not a conservative trait, dickbreath.
Do you live on the East Coast?

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 02:31 PM (h6QCC)

316 Please enlighten me.
I love the faux politness. You mean "Please enlighten me, douchebag", right?
What's you hangup anyway? You've been acting like an obnoxiousdick as long as I've been posting here. Did I kicksand your face at some other blog where you went by a different name?

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 02:39 PM (h6QCC)

317 Trading a loss in a war for a political victory.

What about trading a loss in a battlefor a victory in the overall war?
But you don't actually care about this shit anyway, it's just your latest excuse to run around calling me names. SoI see nothing to be gained by pretending you're serious in your complaint.
Do you live on the East Coast?

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 02:44 PM (h6QCC)

318 320
And as for the inability to elect staunch conservatives in moderate swing states...

WTF is MICHIGAN doing with Thaddeus McCotter?

Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 02:26 PM

Please, Entropy, don't you know that conservatives like me don't exist in liberal States and liberal areas (Detroit area). Can't run a Thaddeus McCotter in the Detroit area and expect victory. "Never gonna happen".

Oh wait...

Amazing that when the GOP gives people a choice of conservatism -- explained and defended without apology -- people hear it and think "wow, that makes sense to me, I'm going to vote for this person".

Goes back to Flenser's point about changing people's minds, convincing them to open their minds to something different from what they have always thought to be right or true. Educate, inform and inspire and people's minds *can* be changed.

But, that's "never gonna happen", so we shouldn't bother. Thaddeus McCotter not being a prominent GOP Congressman is proof of that.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 20, 2009 02:49 PM (ObTcs)

319 By the way... Flenser and Entropy... I'm in 100% agreement with your comments on this thread. Keep up the good work, gentlemen.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 20, 2009 02:51 PM (ObTcs)

320
Entropy How the hell did we pull Santorum out of the Land of Specter?You might have noticed he wasn't reelected. That said, PA is an odd duck, with the rural areas mashed up with the urban centers of Philly and Pittsburgh. Remember the famous quote about PA being Alabama but with those two cities?

WTF is MICHIGAN doing with Thaddeus McCotter?
Two things..
1-A lot of states with multiple districts have a hodgepodge of reps. Texas sends Democrats to Congress.
2- Love the guy but you know he was pro-UAW Bailouts, right? Ideology only gets you so far.

How did NYC and Massachusettsproduce 2 GOP forerunners?

Surely you can't be referring to Mitt and Rudy? We spent the better part of year listening to the purists tell us how they were unacceptable RINOs. You can't seriously hold them up as ideal conservatives?

I don't know much about IL but what ever happened to Peter Fitzgerald? He served one term. Why not more?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 02:53 PM (ur6Ar)

321 We spent the better part of year listening to the purists tell us how they were unacceptable RINOs. You can't seriously hold them up as ideal conservatives?
Since I'm one of those people you like to denigrate as "purists" let me say that Romney was my guy in the primaries.

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 03:03 PM (h6QCC)

322 Houston, TX

I might be there in January. Do you guys ever do the meetup thing? People could watch us argue about Bush's record and whether or not he's a real conservative.

It'll be more fun for everyone when we are all drunk.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 03:06 PM (ur6Ar)

323 Drew, somewhere on this thread.
Where do you get this endless obsession with the notion that I think the party is being pulled "too far" to the right?It's clearly not from anything in I've written.
Drew, elsewhere on this thread.
This is my point about pulling the coalition too far to the right.
Make up your mind about what point it is you are arguing.

Posted by: flenser at October 20, 2009 03:16 PM (cL2x0)

324 flenser,

You're great with the cut and paste. Not so much with reality.

Pointing out something exists does not equal obsession.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 03:19 PM (ur6Ar)

325 Of course no one is perfect. You're 'fucking that strawman' again.
Point being Santorum still got elected in PA, a swing state...
And the guy in Michigan, a BLUE state, is more conservative then Specter was in our swing state, and possibly more conservative then Graham is in a RED state.
And Fitzgerald came out of Illinois too, land of Obama, replacing Carol Mosely Braun if I recall.
You can't say they won't ever win. They win more often then the squish attempts at pandering to liberals do.
Even if they can't win, we still compromise where we have no reason to all over the country.
I don't know much about IL but what ever happened to Peter Fitzgerald? He served one term. Why not more?
State partytossedhim out.
He didn't play nice, opposed pork, opposed bailouts, pushed for federal prosecutors who weren't in the bag (Patrick Fitzgerald) who actually threw the governor in jail (George Ryan).
There were discussions... it was made known no one wanted him to run again, he wouldn't get adequate financial or political support and would be hung out to dry against whatever the dems through at him. They made it clear they'd rather lose the seat to democrats then see more of him.
So he took the hint and stepped down.
The IL GOP does not fail to run conservatives because the tactical situation won't allow it in terms of electability.
The IL GOP fails to run conservatives because they aren't conservative and don't want conservatives. They want statist croneys to help slush funds around and barrel pork and help cover while theyembezzel shit and not rock the boat.

Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 03:19 PM (IsLT6)

326 Ahhhh, labels. My ignorance will show here but it seems to me that there are 3 or 4 things listed in the constitution that the fed. govt. is supposed to look after. That's it. That's conservatism. Then there is the type of person that Mr. Washington told us (I believe in his farewell address but I could be wrong there too) we damn well better make sure we elect if we want to hold onto the freedoms those brave souls fought and died to give us. We've kinda screwed that up too. George, Thomas, James, do the grave roll in 5..4..3...

Posted by: teej at October 20, 2009 03:25 PM (QdUKm)

327 The IL GOP fails to run conservatives because they aren't conservative
and don't want conservatives. They want statist croneys to help slush
funds around and barrel pork and help cover while theyembezzel shit
and not rock the boat.

Exactly. This is the reality that many of us live under in our own state, and increasingly among the RNC. It's why we rail as much against the RINOs as those who buy into their arguments. And it's why we love Sarah "I put Republicans in jail" Palin. I wish it wasn't necessary to step on the toes of those who are our likely allies, but if we don't keep pushing, the natural slide towards socialism and corruption will not be opposed.

Posted by: Methos at October 20, 2009 03:34 PM (mEJRc)

328 "The IL GOP fails to run conservatives because they aren't conservative and don't want conservatives. They want statist croneys to help slush funds around and barrel pork and help cover while theyembezzel shit and not rock the boat."
Hey, we ran Alan Keyes against Obama!

/crickets

Posted by: Illinois GOP at October 20, 2009 03:40 PM (Ncr1R)

329 They ran Alan Keyes alright, becausecorrupt moderates have left the party in such shambles as they were carted off to jail that it literally can't field candidates at all anymore.
Not conservatives, not statist croneys, not anyone. They're lucky if they can mount evn nominal opposition to whomever the dems coronate.
Alan Keyes, an intellectual with crazy eyes who's lost every race he's ever ran, doesn't even live here, was obviously and publically the 5th choice to run after everyone else said no, and first contemplated entering the race with like2 months left, assuring us he'd buy a house and move here if he actually won.

Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 03:47 PM (IsLT6)

330 The IL GOP does not fail to run conservatives because the tactical situation won't allow it in terms of electability.
The IL GOP fails to run conservatives because they aren't conservative and don't want conservatives. They want statist croneys to help slush funds around and barrel pork and help cover while theyembezzel shit and not rock the boat.
Being from Illinois, I would like to add a thing or 2 to this discussion.
Generally, the Illinois GOP is split into 2 camps, the conservative wing and the moderate wing. For about 10 years now, these wings have spent more time fighting each other than democrats. The moderate wing, which has the upper hand right now, is more of a get along go along crowd. They look for whatever scraps they can get out of Dems. and whine about taxes.
The conservative wing fights the moderate wing on everything else.
It is not a productive state for a party. The highlight of this division came when deciding whom to select to run against Obama for US Senate after his campaign knee capped Jack Ryan. The moderates kept yelling you need a moderate but offered no candidate. The conservatives kept sceaming about being tired of moderates.
We got Alan Freaking Keyes.
Want to see what the GOP future looks like if both sides can't figure out how to get along.
Its Alan Freaking Keyes.
And Senator Peter Fitzgeral was not exactly the poster boy for the conservatice movement. He was to the right of center. But, he had 2 things going for him when he ran for Senate 1) a ton of his own money and 2) Carol Mosely Braun.

Posted by: Mallamutt at October 20, 2009 03:49 PM (V9SYy)

331 They ran Alan Keyes alright, becausecorrupt moderates have left the party in such shambles as they were carted off to jail that it literally can't field candidates at all anymore.
How many races did Al Salvi run - and how many did he win.
Sorry, in Illinois, you can get a true conservative nominated. But if you can't figure out how to peacefully co-exist, he/she is not winning.

Posted by: Mallamutt at October 20, 2009 03:52 PM (V9SYy)

332 Peter Fitzgeral was not exactly the poster boy for the conservatice movement. He was to the right of center.

And in a lot of places that is probably the best we can do and in some places, we can't even do that well.

Again, why is acknowledging that tantamount to heresy?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 03:53 PM (ur6Ar)

333 Again, why is acknowledging that tantamount to heresy?
I agree, which was the point of my post. You take a state like Illinois. You have to figure out a way to win 20% of Chicago, pull 60% of the collar counties (Lake, Witt, DuPage, ect.) and then win downstate. Downstate is actually pretty conservative, except for a few D strongholds (East St. Louis, Gallant County, East side of Peoria). But, the collar counties aren't. Illinois used to elect Republicans. They were are nominally pro-choice, but were willing to set limits on abortion. All were fiscal conservatives (excluding George Ryan - who ws just a pimp). When it was relevant, most opposed passage of the ERA (this may surprise some, Illinois was one state that did not ratify the ERA).
Both sides have to learn to compromise a bit. That includes the less conservatives giving a little to the more conservative wing on something other than taxes. Otherwise, you get Alan Freaking Keyes.

Posted by: Mallamutt at October 20, 2009 04:01 PM (V9SYy)

334 Again, why is acknowledging that tantamount to heresy?
Because no one (significant) disputes that, where it's true.
The problem is that's used as an excuse rather then confess to the fact that in all manner of places where we CAN do better, we don't, because the squish goobers that run the parties just don't want to.
In the meantime, every dime we spend in states where we have a snowballs chance in hell even runnin an outright socialist is a dime we don't put in to competing with dems where we're actually competitive.
I will not donate to the campaign of Judy Bar Topinka or whomeve r the hell they toss around here. I'm forced togive enough of my money to criminals as it is. What do I care who's lackey's get do-nothing patronage jobs this year?
I'd rather send cash to Rubio in Florida or Toomey in PA.
If I had a summer home I'd rather vote there too.

Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 04:05 PM (IsLT6)

335 Okay, so help me out. There must be things about him I don't know because it seems I remember agreeing with most policy issues I've heard him talk about. What is so bad about Alan Freaking Keyes. Serious question. Not sarc.

Posted by: teej at October 20, 2009 04:06 PM (c459z)

336 Both sides have to learn to compromise a bit. That includes the less conservatives giving a little to the more conservative wing on something other than taxes.
How about 'not comitting felonies'?

Posted by: Entropy at October 20, 2009 04:08 PM (IsLT6)

337 I agree, which was the point of my post.
Mallamutt

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was pretty sure we agreed. I was using your point to talk to others.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 04:11 PM (ur6Ar)

338 Okay, so help me out. There must be things about him I don't know because it seems I remember agreeing with most policy issues I've heard him talk about. What is so bad about Alan Freaking Keyes. Serious question. Not sarc.
During the campaign, it was disclosed the Keye's daughter was a lesbian.
I don't support gay marriage. But, if one of my three children ever disclosed they were gay, I would accept their choice. I may not approve, but they are my children, and I would still love them. And I damn sure keep my disapproval to myself.
Alan Keyes disowned his own daughter. Because she was gay.
Sorry, maybe her life style choices don't fit into your particular political narrative, butshe is your own daughter.
At that point, he became a piece of shit.

Posted by: Mallamutt at October 20, 2009 04:12 PM (V9SYy)

339 What is it about Potsdam and sellouts to commies? (a little post-ww2 humor there)

Seriously guys, I put my money where my mouth is and gave to Hoffman's campaign. I frequently get telemarketer calls from the Republicans, but I am very, very pleased that I blew off the call from the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee.

The DC party is going to have to extract its head from its nether regions before someone gets the idea of running a comprehensive slate of Tea Party candidates up against RINOs in 2010.

Posted by: Steve Poling at October 20, 2009 04:13 PM (hnq5i)

340 Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was pretty sure we agreed. I was using your point to talk to others.
No need to apologize. I've been married 18 years. I'm used to someone using my points to talk to others. As in "if you don't clean your room like your father said, your father is going to ground you."
One day, Mom will get around to actually grounding someone.

Posted by: Mallamutt at October 20, 2009 04:14 PM (V9SYy)

341 Illinois did have Jack Ryan but he was caught trying to have sex with his wife so that was a disqualifier.
Yea, and his wife was some actress who was hwat - who was it again?

Posted by: Mallamutt at October 20, 2009 04:15 PM (V9SYy)

342 How about 'not comitting felonies'?
Hey, I think you asking a little much here.

Posted by: Blago at October 20, 2009 04:17 PM (V9SYy)

343 Jeri Ryan of Star Trek fame.
Damn him for wanting to hit that. But if I remember the story right, he was wanting to hit it in some public places with less than steller reputations.

Posted by: Mallamutt at October 20, 2009 04:18 PM (V9SYy)

344 RE: Alan Keyes/daughter - Wasn't aware of that. That does suck.

Posted by: teej at October 20, 2009 04:26 PM (c459z)

345 Re: The Ryan thing...

Weren't those allegations supposed to be in sealed records? Yet they somehow just go released through the magic of Cook County.

And 4 years later...The Won.

Awesome.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 20, 2009 04:44 PM (ur6Ar)

346 I actually thought Blago was marginally less corrupt then Topinka, and would have voted D anyway.
What on God's green earth would make you ever think that - seriously. Did you not know before he was elected that Balago's father in law was Richard Mell? Did you not hear of the rumors regarding the Blago investigation before that election?
Don't tell me you are that out of it.

Posted by: Mallamutt at October 20, 2009 04:57 PM (V9SYy)

347 Weren't those allegations supposed to be in sealed records? Yet they somehow just go released through the magic of Cook County.And 4 years later...The Won.
Was not magic. One of Obama's media allies filed the suit.

Posted by: Mallamutt at October 20, 2009 04:58 PM (V9SYy)

348 Palomino!
Palomino!
Palomino!

Posted by: N. Pelosiyeva, Member - Politburo, Central Committee at October 20, 2009 05:28 PM (s2bW4)

349 "Why don't you repeat your statement that you would trade a loss in
Afghanistan for the possibliltiy of a political atmosphere more to your
liking in the future. douchebag."

---

Oooh, how bad. Until you realize, if you have the requisite brain cells, that the only reason the military is in Afghanistan is specifically to create a political atmosphere here more to the country's liking in the future. We sacrifice, on a daily basis, men and money for that purpose. It doesn't exist to serve itself.

I'd gladly trade martial glory for domestic freedom. Particularly when that martial glory consists in carrying out policies abroad that we'd never be stupid enough to propose at home.

Posted by: MlR at October 20, 2009 06:47 PM (op9m5)

350 Well, on second thought, in some cases we are actually stupid enough to propose them at home as well.

Posted by: MlR at October 20, 2009 06:51 PM (op9m5)

351 Perhaps we need 13 Duids, to burn Condor feathers, until we get smoke of the correct color? Then whoevers' card of stone is on the alter, and their sun is in Aquarius....shall be our candidate! We can then bring forth these findings to the masses, declare elections unneccessary, and promise freehookers and blow to those registered to our party.
Or just thin the candidate pool on the other side by shooting hippies.

Posted by: hutch1200 at October 20, 2009 08:15 PM (1JvFk)

352 @313: "Ideologues simply don't get elected."
Ich muss respektvoll etwas anderes sagen.

Posted by: An Austrian painter at October 20, 2009 08:17 PM (vupGF)

353 Age of Conan CD KeyAion Online CD keyCall of Duty II CD KeyChampions Online CD KeyCompany of Heroes CD KeyCounter - Strike CD key: http://www.cdkeyexpress.comDiablo 2 CD Key: http://www.cdkeyexpress.comFallout 3 CD KeyGrand Theft Auto IV CD KeyGuild Wars CD KeyNexon Cash for MapleStory: http://www.cdkeyexpress.comRed Alert 3 CD Key: http://www.cdkeyexpress.comStarCraft CD Key: http://www.cdkeyexpress.comThe Godfather II CD KeyThe Sim 3 CD KeyTitan Quest CD KeyWarCraft3 CD key: http://www.cdkeyexpress.comWarhammer Online CD keyWorld Of Warcraft CD Key http://www.cdkeyexpress.com
Burberry scarf: http://www.scarves-store.comsilk scarf: http://www.scarves-store.com

Posted by: jason at October 20, 2009 09:55 PM (TT3ZK)

354 New York state is a funny place. New York has the Republican party and the Conservative party, which is basically for all those former Republicans who could live with the moderates but just can't stand the many liberal Reublicans in the party. Hoffman is running on the the Conservative party ticket. If he wins he will not necessarily be running in the Republican primary in 13 months. I haven't been able to find out if he was registered as a Republican or a Conservative before he became the Conservative candidate. Normally, the Republican candidate is endorsed by the Conservative party and runs on both ballot lines (The Conservatives don't have enough people to run candidates for all positions). If he winsthis, he may not beallowed to compete in the Republican primary since he is now a Conservative, although if the Repubs endorse him rather than putting up their own candidate, he could run on both the Republican and Conservative lines in the regular election. However, I'm willing to bet that the Republican state party will want to be looking for a big put down of this upstart, and will make him work for every vote if he tries to get re-elected. That is one reason Rush is against 3rd parties. If you are 3rd party and trying to move the Republicans to the right, even if you win, you don't win.The bestway tomove the party is from within the party. Even so, in this case the effort is right and proper. Go Hoffman!!

Posted by: Ron at October 20, 2009 10:47 PM (poWQb)

355 I don't blame her for being scared.

Strange men who approach women walking to their cars who are alone in parking lots are to be suspected.

Having not been answered once, not answered twice, the man was clearly not taking the silence for an answer. He was not taking no for an answer. This is a warning sign, see also: The Gift of Fear'

Finally, someone obsessed enough to approach a woman in a parking lot walking to her car and to keep pestering her when she hasn't answered once and she hasn't answered twice, about that particular topic in that uncontrolled environment, would be someone to be leery of.

Your mileage may vary. I would have been creeped out and even afraid.

Posted by: SarahW at October 20, 2009 11:46 PM (CSrvi)

356 I lived in that God forsaken neck of the woods for a while....... I know the Dede types....

Calling the police is standard intimidation tactic / strategy #X.

Did she open her check list and consult it first? Or did she call Sheldon Silver to get that POS's input first? Bet you could FOI the phone call transcript....

Dede: " Hello... Police? Yes, I would like you to fuck with the reporter that just had the BALLS to ask me a question.... My family is influential you know..."

Police: " Yes Mam.... we will be right over."

I'm sending Hoffman some campaign money.....

We've got to take a stand somewhere everywhere. Now's the time.

Posted by: Mor Pissed by the Minute at October 21, 2009 06:25 AM (8iTbj)

357 Strange men who approach women walking to their cars who are alone in parking lots are to be suspected.
She is not a "woman", she's a politican. And she was surrounded by her goons, not alone.
He was not taking no for an answer. This is a warning sign, see also: The Gift of Fear'
Not taking no for an answer is the sign ofa decent reporter, you silly cow.

Posted by: flenser at October 21, 2009 10:29 AM (6KiM2)

358 sarahW your an termite[sorry for maligning the character of termite's] apparently NY has a law on the books that you cannot call a woman to ask hard questions while their in their home..................LOL what jokes my fellow new yorkers be

Posted by: Oprahisanarrogantbeeyotch at October 22, 2009 08:58 PM (/yIJv)

359 Promotion: "Buy two ugg boots get a ugg slipper FOR FREE"
2009 UGG Fall-Winter NEW Collection:
http://www.cnetinside.com UGG Online Store
UGG Classic Tall UGG Ultimate BindUGG Classic Cardy UGG Bailey Button UGG Classic Short UGG Knightsbridge UGG Classic Crochet UGG Rainier Eskimo
http://www.supra-sale.com
Fabulous supra muska skytop mens shoes
SUPRA suprano High Mens Favorite Shoes
Nike Shox NZ IINike Shox R4 Torch Nike Shox TL3 Nike Shox Dream
http://www.12shox.com
Air Max 2010 New ArrivalAir Max Skyline Shoe Air Max 2009 SeriesAir Max 2009 II New Nike LUNARGLIDE+ Running ShoeAir Tiempo Rival AP Soccer Shoes
http://www.online-airmax.com
You will find New design and Cheap items here!
Free shipping, Delivery by EMS, 6-9 business days to your door!

Posted by: jugjoif at November 11, 2009 04:01 AM (Tyq20)

360 There is a good place which provide wholesale Links of London.
All kinds of Links of London jewelry are offered here. What 's more,buy
our cheap Links of London jewelry for wholesale give you chance of
discount and even free gifts. Come here to enjoy your favorit jewelry!

Posted by: Kevin at January 04, 2010 10:46 PM (1JwsB)

361 We are sure you can't resist the temptation of Links of London Czar Cross Charm,because it is so amazing.Besides,Links London Czar Cross Charm is a symbol representing faith,belief and strength of character.Links London is your best choice!

Posted by: congcong at January 25, 2010 04:23 AM (AEJ3L)

362 مواضيع إسلاميه - فقة - عقيدة

منتدى الصوتيات والمرئيات
مواضيع عامه
أخبار عامه - جرائم - اثارة
السياحة والسفر
English Language
منتدى خدمة الأعضاء
الركـن الهادئ
منتدى الترحيب والضيافه
ملتقى الأعضاء
منتدى كرسي الآعتراف
منتدى الحوار وتطوير الذات
صحة - طب بديل - تغذية - أعشاب - رجيم
عالم الرجل - ازياء - موضه - ماركات
عالم حواء - العناية بالبشره - اسرار البنات
مطبخ حواء - أكلات - معجنات - حلويات
الزواج - الحياة الزوجية - الحمل - مشاكل الزواج
ديكور - أثاث - غرف نوم - مطابخ - حمامات
شعر - قصائد - قصايد - همس القوافي
بعثرات قلم
خواطر - نثر - عذب الكلام
Stories - قصص - قصص قصيره
صور - كاريكاتير - مناظر
نكت - ضحك - وناسة - فرفشة
العاب - ألعاب - مسابقات
برامج - شرح - تحميل - خلفيات
فلاش - سويتش - تصاميم - فلاشات
رسائل جوال - مسجات - وسائط
مسنجر - برامج ماسنجر - توبيكات
منتدى الرياضه المحليه و العالميه
رابطة العالمي, رابطة الزعيم, رابطة العميد, رابطة قلعة الكؤوس
Motorcycles - Cars - سيارات - دراجات
تطوير منتديـات vb 3.5.xِ
تطوير منتديـات vb3.6.xِ
تطوير منتديـات vb3.7.0الايميل - حماية الايميل - حماية الايميل
حماية الاجهزة -حمايه الاجهزه - حماية الاجهزه
شات- شات كتابي - منتديات- دليل المواقع - ود الكويت - توبيكات- دليل مواقع

Posted by: hhhhh at February 14, 2010 05:10 AM (5sLs0)

363 best netbook/discount lcd tv/cheap online shopping/hot holiday toys/discount electronic stores/best selling toys/department stores online/deluxescan/

inwdigg/

Posted by: google at February 16, 2010 02:10 AM (+QoGN)

364 Want to Choose best China gifts for you? Welcome to our Chinese arts crafts on line shop! We offer Chinese knots, Chinese paper-cutting, Chinese peasant painting, cloth art embroidery, MaShao facial make-up, Sachets, shadow puppet, straw plaiting, wheat stalk picture. Here you will find the most satisfied things, whether on designs or prices, we make sure you will benefit!

Posted by: China Gifts at February 26, 2010 03:29 AM (8Qtii)

365
ugg boots
christian louboutin
louboutin
christian louboutin
louboutin shoes
christian louboutin boots
lv handbags
mbt shoes

christian louboutin

jimmy choo
cheap jimmy choo
discount jimmy choo
jimmy choo sale
jimmy choo shoes
jimmy choo boots

Manolo Blahnik

cheap Manolo Blahnik
discount Manolo Blahnik
Manolo Blahnik sale
Manolo Blahnik shoes
Manolo Blahnik boots

Yves saint Laurent
cheap Yves saint Laurent
discount Yves saint Laurent

Yves saint Laurent sale
Yves saint Laurent pumps
Yves saint Laurent boots

Ed Hardy
cheap Ed Hardy
discount Ed Hardy
Ed Hardy sale
Ed Hardy boots

Balmain Shoes
cheap Balmain Shoes
discount Balmain Shoes
Balmain Shoes sale
Balmain boots

Alexander McQueen
cheap Alexander McQueen
discount Alexander McQueen

Alexander McQueen sale
Alexander McQueen shoes
Alexander McQueen pumps

gucci shoes
cheap Gucci shoes
discount gucci shoes
gucci Shoes sale
gucci shoes

UGG boots
cheap UGG boots
discount UGG boots
UGG boots sale
UGG australia

Tory Burch Shoes
cheap Tory Burch Shoes
discount Tory Burch Shoes

Tory Burch Shoes sale
Tory Burch Shoes

Bottega Veneta
cheap Bottega Veneta
discount Bottega Veneta
Bottega Veneta sale
Bottega Veneta

Lanvin Shoes

cheap Lanvin Shoes
discount Lanvin Shoes
Lanvin Shoes sale
Lanvin boots

Herve Leger Dress
cheap Herve Leger Dress
discount Herve Leger Dress
Herve Leger Dress sale

Herve Leger

MBT Shoes
cheap MBT Shoes
discount MBT Shoes
MBT Shoes
MBT Shoes

Posted by: DDDFFF at February 27, 2010 01:47 AM (6/fNO)

366 wholesale and retail the varies Nike shoes
such as Nike kobe max, nike air rift, Nike Shox shoes, which one
would you choose.

Posted by: nike at March 22, 2010 11:11 PM (s0Gau)

367 Welcome
to
our website,links of
london
Bracelets can provide you with a variety of links of london jewellery are high quality and are sold at a
cheap
price !Links of London
Necklaces .Links
of London Rings .We are sure you can't resist the temptation of Links of London Czar Cross
Charm,because it is so amazing.Cheap Links London is at
discount
now.Friendship
Bracelets

Posted by: JACK at March 28, 2010 11:29 AM (1yYZj)

368 fashion watch Led watches led wristwatches Led watch watch led watches led led wrist watch led watch sale led watch for sale led watch store buy led watch led watch shop mens led watch ladies led watch leds watch watch with led binary watch binary watches led binary led binary clock binary watch led binary clocks binary led watch led digital watch led digital watches led display watch vintage led watch vintage led watches red led watch red led watches blue led watch blue led watches watch pimp pimp watch pimp led watch retro led watch retro led watches retro led digital watch

Posted by: yug at April 01, 2010 09:45 AM (Gdy6b)

369 Those athletes just starting triathlon training and haven't tried this
sport before need to follow a few basic steps to improve performance
and most importantly, reduce the risk of injury.

Posted by: triathlon training guide at April 05, 2010 11:37 PM (zSRzh)

370 GHD straighteners , GHD hair straighteners ,cheap christian
louboutin shoes,womens
high heels,cheap UGG
boots,UGG boots

Posted by: GHD Straighteners at April 10, 2010 03:52 AM (4Is5v)

371
i think the product is so good ! Dont miss it ! come and buy one for yourself !

Posted by: Nike pas cher at August 06, 2010 03:06 AM (wpxC6)

372
HandbagsForUs.com is an online discount designer handbags store which offers cheap handbags and purses including satchel handbags, handbags on saleand wholesale handbags.

Posted by: handbags canada at April 25, 2011 01:30 PM (dovND)

373 Many famous Juicy Couture
celebrities like to show off the Juicy Couture line of apparel. Much of
their fashion is tagged with a slogan that plays upon their name.The
Juicy Couture product appeals to an eclectic array of customers, and
they are constantly pushing limits in their designs and ideas

Posted by: HEBE at July 02, 2011 02:58 AM (ymE3k)

Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.0921 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0392 seconds, 381 records returned.
Page size 267 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.