Taranto On the Election “The GOP Picks up Six Senate Seats. Let the Recriminations Begin.”
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; send your tips here.]
Really, if you haven’t already, you should make James Taranto’s Best of the Web a daily read. It’s a good mix of humor and sharp analysis. Yesterday’s commentary on the election, for instance, sounds just about exactly right. And it’s pure comment bait:
It’s hard to dispute the premise that Republicans would have been more likely to win the Senate races in Colorado, Delaware and Nevada had the establishment candidates prevailed in the primaries. But Graham, Lott and Frum overreach in seeing vindication for the party establishment in those losses.
For one thing, had the establishment had its way, the Republican caucus in the next Senate would include Arlen Specter and Charlie Crist–assuming those men would have beaten their Democratic opponents–instead of Pat Toomey and Marco Rubio…
It’s a bit odd for the GOP establishment to be blaming the Tea Party for the outcome of this year’s Senate elections. The party did gain six seats, its biggest pickup since 1994. By contrast, the Republicans lost six seats in 2006 and eight in 2008, when the Tea Party didn’t yet exist. True, they picked up four in 2004, but this year they held those and every other seat they carried back then.
Sure, primary voters probably could have chosen more wisely in Colorado, Delaware and Nevada. In future elections, Tea Party activists and Republican voters would do well to think more about electability. A rough-edged right-winger is better positioned to win in Kentucky than in Colorado. A liberal like Mike Castle may be the only kind of Republican who’s electable in a state like Delaware–something conservatives in Maine may want to take into account as Olympia Snowe faces re-election in 2012.
On the other hand, as the Utah example shows, some states are so conservative that when the rightmost candidate beats an incumbent in the Republican primary, the general-election outcome is virtually assured. And Lindsey Graham is up in 2014.
Someone once said on a blog (I have little hope of tracking down the original comment) that a huge part of the fault in the Delaware situation is the failure of the GOP’s establishment to recognize that the republicans wanted a more conservative nominee than Castle and to find a better alternative than O’Donnell. And let’s remember that many of O’Donnell’s problems had nothing to do with her political beliefs, and had everything to do with her personal shortcomings. The fact is years ago O’Donnell decided she wanted to be a celebrity conservative. So she went on MTV and on Bill Maher, and behaved in ways that drew attention to herself. And a lot of what she did came back to bite her in the hindquarters. Not to mention her resume problems, consisting of 1) not very much political or practical experience, and 2) she lied at least once (that we know of) about her resume. Eventually her reputation for flakiness got so bad that when she correctly stated something about the constitution, half the world laughed at her before the truth got its boots on. But even then Coons had to promise to extend the Bush tax cuts and Gawker felt the need to make the most disgusting attack on a political candidate I have ever seen. Imagine, then instead that the GOP establishment picked a conservative as likeable and serious as, say, Marco Rubio, to run in Deleware? I think it is fair to say that a Marco Rubio would have been every bit as competitive as Castle would have been—maybe more, because excited donors would be willing to give more to a true conservative. But on the other hand, while the GOP establishment made a mistake in failing to find a polished conservative, the fact is that on election day the base picked the worse candidate.
The answer is that both sides have to work together if we are going to take back the Senate and the Presidency in 2012. The establishment has to be more open to the input of the Tea Party. They cannot get their energy without taking their guidance. But at the same time, the Tea Party needs to be more realistic on the concept of electability and choose less flawed candidates. Still all around I would give the Tea Party an A- for its conduct in the election and the republican establishment a C+, largely for not screwing it up too much.
At least that is what I think. Reasonable people can disagree, and surely will.
Update: Krauthammer is usually insightful, but I found this analysis strange. On one hand he is saying that there is nothing unusual about such a massive swing. But on the other hand, he writes that “Tuesday was the electorate’s first opportunity to render a national verdict on [the Democrats’] manner of governance. The rejection was stunning.”
In other news Howard Dean’s spokesmodel spontaneously told us he was not challenging Obama for the primary electon, which Andrew Malcom of the LA Times considered dubious as a denial: “To prove this denial theory, tonight at dinner, while grinding the pepper, volunteer to your spouse out of the blue that you are definitely not cheating with someone else.”
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Blame Obama. Bush had the worst job creation record of any modern president, presided over the biggest stock market decline and recession in our lifetime.
Take 2 minutes if you consider yourself an American and read this.
Tom (9df40f) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:11 amYes, the tea party produced the worst candidates of the cycle… O’Donnell and Angle. But they also gave us the best candidates… Rubio, Lee, Johnson, and Paul. So, the record is a little mixed, but the Tea Party can learn from this and move forward. And I don’t think Buck and Miller were bad candidates, but they were mediocre campaigners and unprepared for the vitriol of the progressive left’s attacks. (“Ken Buck is Pro-Rape.” “Joe Miller is supported by child molesters!”)
Gregory of Yardale (a84c5d) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:20 am“By the Gods” man, you still don’t get it, Coons was manifestly unsuited for his previous job, and You let him rise to the next level, where his bad judgement will affect us all, from nominations for Ambassadorships to the Supreme Court, regulations on the FCC, and every little thing, that’s not looking at the long game, man
ian cormac (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:25 amI can say from the bottom of my heart, my dark evil heart, that I am not the least bit bothered that Tom’s purported link is not there.
JD (5dc352) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:27 amWhen the media outright lies, as they did in the Miller case, and seriously miscast Buck’s decision making what is one to do, As Rush put it, yesterday,
ian cormac (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:32 amif ‘food justice’ is such an imperative, California is lost, one would like to know if this ‘morale building exercise’ by the Delaware GOP netted any new supporters
Who is the capitalized “You” of whom you speak?
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:44 amI think O’Donnell’s fail will be a lot salubriously influential – more primary challenges to Team R establishment wankers – but next time around fewer flaky opportunists will throw their hat in the ring, and fewer still will be embraced.
Come 12 and 14 we’ll look back at Christy O with gratitude for what she taught us about the Team R establishment and how to beat them.
happyfeet (42fd61) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:48 amThe right wing has a particular zeal for purging what it sees as “RINOs”. That’s certainly understandable, but I don’t think it does the GOP good in the long run. Elections are won and lost in the middle and if you purge people from your own party for being too moderate, you might find yourself more often in a Delaware situation.
Kman (d25c82) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:48 amI see poking around the Web that some actually think there is no reason to have preferred Castle to Coons. Because it’s “clarifying” and such.
Using this argument, you could justify the passage of ObamaCare as “clarifying.” You could justify the passage of the stimulus as “clarifying.” You could even justify losing ten elections in a row as “clarifying.”
Me, I have all the clarity I need on the policies of the left. Now I want to win.
Some call electing people like Castle “losing more slowly.” Whatever. It’s better than getting Coons and “losing more quickly.”
Delaware is a losing state for us. If we can get a moderate who would have voted down the stimulus, that’s a win.
Those who leave their house every once in a while quickly learn that life isn’t perfect.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:49 am#1 How is Teh Won’s job creation record? Oh yes, all those census job and increases in government workers. History will tell us whether Obama turns out worse than that imbecile Jimmuh Carter. Is hyperinflation going to mean my home will at least triple in value to bring it back to where it was in 2006? Of course I assume everything else will rocket too.
Calypso Louie Farrakhan (798aba) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:51 amAs an aside, isn’t there some way that Obama can legalize all those “undocumented” workers to increase his 2012 vote total?
Kman
you never said anything else in the thread on the iowa supreme court. why not?
Also, i am sure the republican party appreciates your advice on how to win elections.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:54 amIt’s a collective You , every one of these candidates that went through will do serious damage to the Constitution, and to the “Republic for which it stands’ Forget about any notion of enforcing the border, with Hickenlooper specially, and Reid and Murkowski secondarily,
ian cormac (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:54 amMr. Patterico we can look for votes in the next Senate where having Castle instead of Coons in office would have made a difference. Instances of “who would have voted down” spendy things in the past is less persuasive in a Congress where Team R controls the House I think, which is where the spendings are born.
happyfeet (42fd61) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:55 amJD,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:01 amOnly
Real Americansleftards can read Tom’s link.“Imagine, then instead that the GOP establishment picked a conservative as likeable and serious as, say, Marco Rubio, to run in Deleware?”
But how many states have a conservative as likeable and serious as Marco Rubio? Maybe the reasons we see so many flawed candidates is that it is extremely difficult to find one without flaws. Often in elections we have to choose the lesser of two evils.
nohype (428b10) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:11 amWhat is your evidence of that? I look around and see people who are still happy that this particular flaky (and dishonest) opportunist got the nomination. Because who would want a vote against the stimulus when you could have a refreshingly clarifying vote for it instead?
Patterico (f8fed5) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:12 amI have no evidence – yet – anymore than you have evidence yet that Castle over Coons will prove a pivotal and impactful choice but I do have evidence of this:
What we were doing before? It wasn’t working.
happyfeet (42fd61) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:19 amoops.
I meant Coons over Castle – I get them mixed up.
happyfeet (42fd61) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:20 amI hope we control the House for Coons’s entire career in the Senate. Not too sanguine on that point.
You seem to think the demagogues have learned a lesson from this episode. I see no evidence of that.
Some people need a degree from the School of Hard Knocks before they can see reality. But that school doesn’t offer an online correspondence course.
Patterico (f8fed5) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:21 amChristy O was less a demagogue than an opportunist I think. But Castle was a cap n tradey global warming monkey. Those ones are never not demagogues – demagoguery is the lego bricks what built the global warming house. I know this for a fact cause I listen to National Soros Radio sometimes.
happyfeet (42fd61) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:25 amNo, the people who voted for Coons, learned nothing of the last two years, with Obama, those who facilitated his promotion, seem to have missed the point, then again, you are in ‘Abandon all hope, who enter here’ territory, singularities have a lighter grip
ian cormac (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:26 am“By the Gods” man, you still don’t get it, Coons was manifestly unsuited for his previous job, and You let him rise to the next level,
And Joe Biden, who held that seat for 25 years, was suited for his job ? Delaware is Delaware. There are semi-credible stories in that state that Castle might have resigned later (He’s no kid) when it was time for Beau Biden to be appointed.
Mike K (d6b02c) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:29 amIt was not just demagoguery, it was outright fraud,
ian cormac (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:32 amremember ‘hide the decline’. I really shudder to think what kind of demons will rise from Pandora’s box in the lame duck session
Huh? Hickenlooper has been elected Governor of Colorado. Colorado’s on the border of New Mexico. I’m wondering just what you think the Governor of CO has to do with enforcing the border.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:32 am______________________________________________
On one hand he is saying that there is nothing unusual about such a massive swing.
He may be basing that on what happened in the 1930s, when the leftism of FDR — in spite of his popularity, before and after — spooked enough voters to push the Congress to the right. And the swing at that time was greater than it was on Tuesday.
I mull over other differences between now and then, such as the arrival of easy communication in the 21st century (the Internet and TV versus only the radio in the 1930s), and the middle of the ideological spectrum over 60 years ago being to the right of where it is today—-various conservatives today would have been labeled “centrist” in the context of the 1930s.
As for Christine O’Donnell, I don’t know why various people on the right were, or remain, so emotionally tied to her. Her former campaign manager, who observed the woman up close and personal, said O’Donnell wasn’t even truly a rightist. I’d say she is more of an ego-centric opportunist than anything else.
If she continues to believe she should run for elected office in Delaware in particular, than I’d also describe her as a total fool.
Speaking of which, I wonder how much of the mindless leftism of a society like the following has influenced this statistic?:
So will liberalism run amok do to California what it has done to France? (I won’t say anything about what such politics have done to prosperous, wonderful, safe and tranquil Mexico).
Mark (411533) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:35 amAnother loss due to poor recruitment by the GOP establishment was Jackie Walorski in Indiana 2. The Dem there was ripe for the picking, but Walorski was just not seen as a credible candidate. I wanted to punch something yesterday as Michael Steele was going on and on about the excellent recruitment of candidates and how that led to the wipeout.
Pat – given that the GOP wasn’t actually close to taking the Senate, was it not better to have several “tea party” candidates who were more pure, than to have a Castle or Crist running?
Ed from SFV (c16c43) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:37 amI agree but I think you misunderstand me. The demagogues I am referring to are certain supporters of hers.
Patterico (f8fed5) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:38 amI hope against all hope that Howie runs in ’12 – imagine teh one being forced even more to the left than he already has demonstrated. Talk about becoming virtually unelectable – awesome. He’ll drag the Dem senators up for re – election into the ditch; and he knows all about that ditch.
Dmac (ad2c6a) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:41 amPat – given that the GOP wasn’t actually close to taking the Senate, was it not better to have several “tea party” candidates who were more pure, than to have a Castle or Crist running?
If we didn’t have O’Donnell, Angle and the others who lost, we might have taken the Senate. As it happened, we had no real shot to begin with.
Dmac (ad2c6a) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:42 amYou’re mushing together two distinct issues. You won’t find a word of criticism of Rubio in my archives. I’d like to see him become a national figure quickly. I have been behind the spirit of the Tea Party movement from the beginning and believe their eye is on the ball. Spending, spending, spending. Constitutional principles. These are what is important.
The only thing I am scornful of are those who want us to lose for the sake of some phantom “clarity.” That is a poor reason to give up votes, in my view.
I am not happy to have Chris Coons in the Senate. “Clarity” can go to hell. I want the votes against spending and bad judges.
Patterico (f8fed5) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:45 am“Bush had the worst job creation record of any modern president, presided over the biggest stock market decline and recession in our lifetime.”
And all that bad stuff happened when Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were running the Congress… fancy that.
Patrick (9e3371) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:45 amBennett, Hickenlooper, six of one, half a dozen of another, I don’t buy what that campaign manager was selling to the Times, or the parrakeets to CREW, After seeing what was done to Christine, why would anyone but statist apparatchiks even bother to run.
ian cormac (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:46 amWhen Kennedy’s replacement comes along, you will rue this day
“The demagogues I am referring to are certain supporters of hers.”
Patterico – Their mirror images can be found on sites like DailyKos and RacistDogFakes stripping the bark off Obama’s hide for not instituting a public option into health care reform or holding war crimes trials for Bush and Cheney.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:47 amI call it Fire Hydrant Lake it’s not the same, no matter how you phrase it, So Gov. Quinn huh,
ian cormac (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:56 amian – Tell me how Mark Levin is any different but on the opposite pole.
Quinn is a tool. Has Brady conceded?
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:58 amRemarkable leftist rant at DailyKos:
icr (a17259) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:02 amLost the link somehow:
icr (a17259) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:04 amnull
icr (a17259) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:05 amOh that was amusing, in a dark sort of way, I wonder how many candidates still have diaries on Kos
ian cormac (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:08 amSurely we would not want to blame an administration that presided over the worst recession in modern history, the biggest stock market losses, and the worst job record in history,…. no, just ignore these facts and blame the guy on the job for 22 months. Seems logical to me. You?
Please read this…
Tom (9df40f) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:23 amI don’t get it. 3 days after winning 60+ seats in the House, at least 6 new seats in the Senate, a large number of Governors, and over 650+ state legislators, more column space is being devoted to O’Donnell. WTF?! This race was covered more than any other race in the entire country, and she was never within 10 points of winning.
JD (85b089) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:27 amWell, what did we accomplish in California with Arnold, Meg and Carly? Party establishment candidates all. Sure Arnold did get elected twice and turned into a democrat. As to Meg–my dog could have beaten gov Moonbeam. By dog is a sweet tempered black female who loves children. She is both honest and conservative.
Bar Sinister (d47790) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:27 am“Tom” is pushing the exact same liberal claptrap and links that yelverton was last night.
JD (85b089) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:30 amDog’s are very good judges of character, nearly 150 million spent in California, that’s some kind of stimulus, I guess, mostly to ‘Iceberg’ Murphy and Fred Davis
ian cormac (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:33 am“Surely we would not want to blame a Congress that presided over the worst recession in modern history, the biggest stock market losses, and the worst job record in history,…. no, just ignore these facts and blame the guy on the job for 22 months. Seems logical to me. You?”
Tom – FTFY
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:41 am____________________________________________
Well, what did we accomplish in California with Arnold, Meg and Carly? Party establishment candidates all.
The leftism of California’s coastal areas (eg, LA and SF) — full of limousine liberals who think and vote like people in France, and others who think and vote like the electorate of Mexico — swamps whatever sanity exists in inland California. IOW, almost all the blame for what happens in the state has to be laid at the doorstep of the people, not the squishes or the party establishment.
Mark (411533) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:42 amWe who voted Ms. Bachmann back to DC note the mysogynist GOP party regulars were as vocal as feminazis, nutroots, and bolsheviks from the left in directing fire at Angle and O’Donnell.
Meanwhile, Cali circles the drain. You bastards deserve the reward stored up for ye.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 11/5/2010 @ 10:08 amEven in Blue States, there is a road to redemption for the TEA Party, and the GOP:
AD-RtR/OS! (8cbfdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 10:12 amFind more candidates such as LtCol Allen West (R-FL), Captain Chip Cravaack (USN-Ret/R-MN), or some of the other ex-Military vets
(sorry guys, but I don’t know all your names) who are now looking forward to service On The Hill.
There is a vast pool of qualified men and women coming out of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts that would be excellent stewards for our country.
These are men and women of honor and accomplishment, who are leaders, and their talents are sorely needed in positions of responsibility.
Coleman, won, yet it didn’t matter, as it was for Rossi, four years before, as apparently it is happening in Conneticutt
ian cormac (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 10:14 amWest didn’t win the first time around, even though she should have by all rights, Pantano, Kensinger
ian cormac (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 10:16 amare some of the other names you are thinking off
“…Delaware is Delaware…”
I blame DuPont: Too many chemicals released into the environment.
AD-RtR/OS! (8cbfdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 10:17 amWest didn’t win the first time around
And Grant’s first two assaults on Vicksburg were repulsed, and he only prevailed after a 6-week seige.
AD-RtR/OS! (8cbfdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 10:27 amBut, the point is, that West did win this time, and will be one of two Black, Conservative, Republican, Congressmen – who, of course, will be not invited to joing the Congressional Black Caucus.
I’ve been thinking Howard Dean wants to run in 2012 for months.
I still see that as a chance. But he can’t possibly win a general election without the support of African Americans. It would be a very stupid decision, but Dean’s prone to that occasionally (he’s also a brilliant political strategist who made 2006 and 2008 possible for Team D).
—-
It’s not O’Donnell who I’m annoyed with. We’re going to have challenged to a lot of incumbent Republicans over the next several years. Any TARP or Cap and Trade voter is vulnerable. We need to make sure that among the challengers is someone who is capable of winning both the primary and the general.
Patterico takes it for granted that O’donnell couldn’t win the general (of course). Obviously he’d prefer she beat Coons but you can’t just wish that outcome into being.
We need to also take it for granted that some incumbents, fair or not, can’t win their primaries in this environment. In this way, noting the two elections needed, Castle wasn’t very electable either (it was closer, I admit).
So instead of trying to talk strategic sense to the more hardcore Tea Partiers, we need to accommodate them. They deserved better than O’donnell, who was simply running every year and made the most of her opportunity. She will simply keep running for the same office instead of run for a lower office, which is what she should have done years ago.
Someone in Delaware with a successful business or law practice or military record has the desire to be Senator. Same is true in every state where a RINO hunt is forseeable. Looking back to O’donnell’s flaws is not as useful as looking forward to finding them and giving them some money.
We can’t undo the couple of missed opportunities of 2010. We can’t nominate Romney for 2008 retroactively. This is a lot less frustrating when you start working on 2012, though.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 10:27 amThis is getting ridiculous. Nail biters are resolved by bags of ballots or thousands of illegal votes (such as beat Coleman). And I’m sure the left will be pretending Vote Fraud is about Chinese hackers working for Dick Cheney instead.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 10:30 amHopefully, Dustin, but you see the level of ‘full body cavity’ analysis that was aimed at her, look
ian cormac (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 10:37 amat the way Miller was sheared up in Alaska, a West Point graduate, Army officer with a Yale degree, while Murkowski’s personal and professional foibles almost never made the front page. Or how about the almost microscopic examination of Buck’s prosecutorial strategies, apparently Hickenlooper was right in characterizing Colorado
Carper has to run in ’12 in DE. Could the DE-GOP find a more suitable candidate to run against him in the intervening 8-12 months?
If they can’t, they deserve to not sit in that seat.
BTW, ’12 also brings us the opportunity to deal with DiFi here in CA. Can we find a real candidate who hasn’t pissed-off bunches of people (like those who get annoying emails from eBay and PayPal, not counting all the ex-HP employees and customers who were not enamoured with Carly?)?
AD-RtR/OS! (8cbfdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 10:41 am1. We’ve got to come up with some new term to identify what is referred to as the Tea Party because their is no one Tea Party. Note: “party” as used in “Democratic Party” or “Republican Party” refers to an entity. But, historically, “party” in “Tea Party” referred to a wonderful bash that a bunch of costumed American PATRIOTS attended. So, perhaps we should refer to “Tea Partiers” or “Tea Party Progeny.”
2.
This was a great election for Republicans. Republicans have a net pickup of 60 seats in the House, while only having 2 previously Republican seats lost! In the Senate, Republicans captured 6 of the 19 Democratic seats up for grabs, while not losing a single one of the Republican seats. And the complexion of the Republican House and Senate delegations is markedly more “Republican” than it has been in a long time.
Meg Whitman (28a423) — 11/5/2010 @ 10:49 amI can agree with the A- for the Tea Partiers, but Republicans deserve a B or a B+.
That is a damn good response, Ian.
I got nothin’. I think he was excellent. He wasn’t perfect, but no one is. They aren’t going to get much better than that and we should have seen much more recrimination for Murkowski. Abiding any of this ‘I lost the primary and I don’t care’ crap is absolutely terrible long term strategy.
The GOP has to realize we’re going to have more incumbents lose their primaries. They see how Lisa was treated and are more likely to run as an independent now. This was also obviously unfair to Alaska Republicans. If we don’t maintain a political party at all, by observing primaries, then there’s no reason to support the GOP itself. A lot of people are giving up on the body and just supporting candidates, and this crap is why.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 10:51 am“Meg Whitman.”
Ira (28a423) — 11/5/2010 @ 10:52 amDamn, I forgot to turn off my sock puppet name.
Wow, Ms Whitman sure got a lot smarter than I remembered.
Ira, you’re right, the complexion of the Senate has completely changed. Obamacare would not be possible in the current Senate (to say nothing of the House!). We need more, but this is not to be sneezed at.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 10:55 amWe have Chuck DeVore. Or maybe Van Tran.
Michael Ejercito (249c90) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:12 amSo instead of trying to talk strategic sense to the more hardcore Tea Partiers, we need to accommodate them.
Dustin, comments like that make me think you, blog owner and the rest still don’t quite understand.
The point of the Tea Party ethos is not to win elections. It is to push everyone to the Right by convincing them of it virtues and belief in certain principles of government.
The individuals who lack understanding of strategy are the very Republicans who are wringing their hands over the few losses while glossing over the massive wins.
What is worse yet is the one advancing this silly argument are Senator RINOs and ex-Repub BigWigs who are a) scared and b) upset they did not get their committee chairs back.
If anyone understand STRATEGY it is Sarah Palin. Not Lindsey Graham or Chuck Grassley.
Lindsey Graham (a8a9b2) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:27 amBy teaching the values of the right, even if upsetting some of the students, the Tea Party will slowly win a majority. When these same folks go RINO, they eventually lose elections. Doesn’t happen over night but it does happen.
Barack Obama is no accident — he was created by RINOs who forgot what Conservatism means. They talked it somewhat but did not vote it.
So when forced to choose between an almost Liberal RINO or a real Liberal Barack — they vote Barack. Might as well get what you pay for.
Put a Real Conservative and see what happens. It ain’t 1964.
Lindsey Graham (a8a9b2) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:31 amDianne Feinstein consistently polls as the single most popular politician in California.
Neither Chuck DeVore nor Van Tran would be able to defeat her.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:32 amNot exactly, I don’t think that is the goal, certainly she wanted to move the conversation forward, but she didn’t want to lose if she could
justin cord (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:33 amhelp it. I had some qualms with some of her choices, notably Scott at the end, and Paul
And that’s surely happening. So good for you, and good for me, and good for America.
I’m talking about a very discrete issue. Incumbents who stray too far will be challenged, and we need to ensure in these cases that the successful challengers can win the general election.
We both recognize that the nature of the Tea Party leads to Repbulican incumbents seeing self preservation partly as being good conservatives. The ‘center’ has moved to the right, just as it moved to the left when Mccain was nominated.
That may be the point, in your opinion, of the entire enterprise, but I’m pointing out something specific about how to navigate this new political landscape.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:41 am___________________________________________
In other news Howard Dean’s spokesmodel spontaneously told us he was not challenging Obama for the primary electon
I wonder if any other Democrat/liberal is as full of the absurd amount of hubris, ego and vanity as indicated by this?:
By contrast…
^ Another one of those occasions when I observe a manifestation of surveys that reveal liberals actually are less generous, less nice, and less down-to-earth than their counterparts on the right.
Mark (411533) — 11/5/2010 @ 12:02 pmMark, that is remarkable. It it must drive Obama nuts. Because Bush doesn’t have to make a complaint to make a big dent. Obama can’t resist bashing Bush. He has referenced his ‘failed policies’ or what he ‘inherited’ in practically every speech he’s ever given.
Bush wasn’t perfect, but he showed a lot more appreciation for his people than Obama appears to.
Imagine being his staff, knowing their service is so undervalues by The One that they will be terminated if it is even slightly politically advantageous.
The fired Sherrod to preempt a Beck expose that wasn’t even planned. Obama is losing staff rapidly because he’s not cultivating any loyalty.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 12:38 pmIs this comment a reference to the above post?
Surely not.
Patterico (f8fed5) — 11/5/2010 @ 12:53 pmThe hyperlinks are almost all about O’Donnell,
justin cord (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 12:55 pm___________________________________________
He has referenced his ‘failed policies’ or what he ‘inherited’ in practically every speech he’s ever given.
These past few months have proven to me that when I’m turned off by various politicians similar to a Bill/Hillary Clinton or a Christine O’Donnell due to what I see as their lack of integrity and ethics — which is a nice way of saying their scrounginess — it really isn’t because I like or don’t like their ideology. Moreover, if all the lousy qualities I see hovering around Obama were true of a conservative/Republican, I’d find it no less pathetic and repellent.
I think it’s been classless when Clinton and Carter have brazenly slammed in public their successors in office. At least Reagan observed, and Bush I and Bush II so far have adhered to, the traditional unwritten code that ex-presidents don’t snipe at the current occupant of the White House. Then again, since when has the left not dumbed down some standard or matter of etiquette?
Mark (411533) — 11/5/2010 @ 1:02 pmPeople like to blame the Tea Party for Coons winning the Delaware Senate seat, but where is similar blame for the GOP and the NRSC for picking 9-term Congressman Mike Castle and thus losing Delaware’s lone House seat to the Democrats? I’m sure swapping a House seat for a Senate seat seemed like a good deal but it was also a big risk.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/5/2010 @ 1:20 pm“We who voted Ms. Bachmann back to DC note the mysogynist GOP party regulars were as vocal as feminazis, nutroots, and bolsheviks from the left in directing fire at Angle and O’Donnell.”
gary gulrud – I am sure all the people who voted for Bachmann appreciate you speaking up on her behalf. Maybe you should remind yourself of the tremendous support of the GOP party regulars like Rove, Cheney and Bush that helped get Bachmann to Washington in the first place and that she was a rising star before the Tea Party came into existence, or maybe not.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/5/2010 @ 1:22 pmDRJ, that’s a good point. Speaking for folks like Gary Galrud, Castle was far more tolerable in a House seat than in a Senate one (I’m joking with you Gary, though I suspect I’m right).
Sending the message that Castle’s choices are the path to success for Republicans was too much for some to swallow. I can try to explain to them, until I’m blue in the face, why Castle was the best bet. Or I can give up on that and accept this conservative primary constraint is just as real as the general election constraints.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 1:55 pmMark, I think there are plenty of folks who agree with you about this. It might make it a little harder for Republicans sometimes, but I love this ideal.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 1:56 pmDRJ – I think the right side out to be enjoying the historic victory from Tuesday rather than pointing fingers and engaging in recrimination, but that’s just me. Others have different agendas and fish to fry.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/5/2010 @ 2:20 pmMy agenda is moving forward. I am not pleased with the squandered opportunities in CO, NV, and WA. But I can be happy with the wins.
However….as Rush used to say a lot, one is either on offense, or one is on defense. I will hold the GOP establishment’s and leadership’s feet to the fire on setting a correct agenda. Hint: it ain’t compromise.
It is said that America always wins the war, and loses the peace. There is much truth to this. I’ll be damned if I will sit idly by while the power brokers blow this chance to align the GOP on a winning and conservative course (winning the peace) following the wipeout, aka “winning the war.”
Ed from SFV (c16c43) — 11/5/2010 @ 2:33 pmAD #48:
One of my biggest disappointments in this election was the defeat of Ilario Pantano in the southern coastal district of NC. Part of the reason, unfortunately, was the problem getting ballots to many thousands of deployed Marine voters in his district (while many of them are domiciled in other states, most of the Marine part of the Afghan surge lives there). But another is that the district is gerrymandered for the incumbent.
In addition, two or three strong vet candidates in MA were beaten by non-vet incumbents, including one incumbent whose wife pled guilty to $7m in money laundering during the campaign. Some states are just solid blue, and that’s that. (Incidentally, that guy is on the HASC, despite stated sympathy for the enemy and contempt for the troops, and is a prolific earmarker). The good news is that one of the ten MA Dems is toast in 2012: the state’s losing at least one seat, unless Deval Patrick drove out enough taxpayers to make it two.
Kevin R.C. O'Brien (b97e79) — 11/5/2010 @ 4:21 pmRe: Castle.
I’m not the first to notice a pattern emerging of a “mainstream” (i.e. K-street friendly, hired the “right” consultants [spouse of NRCC boss], endorsed by Beltway interest groups like NRCC and SC) candidate versus a conservative challenger.
Course of Action A: “Mainstream” Republican wins primary, disappointed conservative endorses him, and then throws the election because he’s such a squish, or wins the election and starts “growing in office.” Example: Lindsay Graham, Bob Dole, Charlie Taylor (NC-11 before Shuler), Linc Chafee, etc. Incipient example: Kelly Ayotte, who won the general with the support of TP/conservative Ovide Lamontagne whom she eked out a primary win over.
CoA B: Conservative wins, “mainstream” pol refuses to endorse, endorses opponent, changes party, slinks off and skulks to ensure Dem/K Street partner/golf buddy wins (examples Castle, Scozzafavva (sp?), Murkowski/Crist/Specter, too many to mention.
It’s an interesting and common pattern.
But the voices of “mainstreamism” (Post-ingenue Peggy Noonan, promoter-of-pedophiles David Frum, and what’s-her-name who replaced Ashley Dupre on Elliot Spitzer Swallows), say the conservatives need to back off and let these spoiled children run things… they went to Yarvard after all. And they might turn blue if they don’t get what they want.
Yeah… sure, we’ll listen to you, we all want our kids to grow up to be like Linc Chafee. (Well, maybe more than we’d let them be interns with David Frum). Hot tip: the Dems don’t want these spineless kleptocrats either. Specter, QED.
Kevin R.C. O'Brien (b97e79) — 11/5/2010 @ 4:37 pmI don’t know; it’s also a good indication that he was popular — and it’s almost certain that he would have won if primary voters had elected him instead of the dishonest opportunist. (Losing an exit poll by one point, in a race where you didn’t campaign, does not show you would have lost. It’s actually a pretty good indication you would have won.)
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 5:48 pmIt does not say much for your candidacy if you cannot be a t dishonest opportunist.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/5/2010 @ 5:53 pmThe GOP completely hosed up the Governor’s and Senate races in Colorado without any way to blame the Tea Party.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/5/2010 @ 5:58 pmHow about if you can’t beat a bearded Marxist?
Hey, your comment above — was it about this post? Or something else?
Patterico (f8fed5) — 11/5/2010 @ 5:58 pmHere is an apt quote:
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/5/2010 @ 5:58 pmThree men are out in a boat. The man on the left leans far out over the side. The man in the front, who by the way is the editor of a large national newspaper, senses that the boat is about to capsize, and advises the man on the right to move to the center.
Right, who was the one who’s plagiarism had been uncovered right before the primary, leaving only Maes in the slot,
justin cord (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 6:01 pmCastle can beat Coons can beat O’Donnell can beat Castle can beat Coons … Etc.
It’s a merry go round. Where should we have gotten off?
Some people are happy that Coons won. And that Reid is still majority leader in the Senate. Because it’s “clarifying.”
Me, I think the fact that people supposedly on our side are happy we lost is clarifying. Very much so.
Losing. It’s the new winning!
Patterico (f8fed5) — 11/5/2010 @ 6:03 pmcord, McInnis.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/5/2010 @ 6:04 pmIt must have really harshed the purists’ mellow that we took back the House and made such great gains in state races.
Imagine how much more “clarifying” it would have been to lose those races too!
Patterico (f8fed5) — 11/5/2010 @ 6:10 pmIt was not directed at this post, Patterico. It was a general statement and expression of exasperation that we are still discussing O’Donnell. There were over 700 people that won on Tuesday, and we are discussing someone that was never going to win, and whether or not we should castigate the R’s of Delaware for nominating someone other than the one that was being foisted upon him. How about blaming Castle for not being able to beat an idiot? He could hqve said “I will not vote for cap and trade especially in thue lame duck session” and won easily. Yet’ we are discussing someone that we know know how she grooms her pubes. The entire things has been an across the board fiasco.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/5/2010 @ 6:11 pmNo, only the Kossians, Hamsher’s Hydrants, and the Huff Po feel that way. One thought the stupid ended
justin cord (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 6:14 pmwith Biden, no it still has a long way to go. It’s
like the whole experience with Biden taught them
nothing
And for each uptick in his popularity that came from campaigning, I suspect Coons and the Democrats’ attack ads would result in an equal or greater downturn. Of course, it’s true that O’Donnell was an easier target than Castle, but how much excitement would an older candidate like Castle generate with conservative and independent Delaware voters?
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/5/2010 @ 6:14 pmLosing the preliminary so you can win the final race is smart strategy, and the final in this instance is voting out Obama.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/5/2010 @ 6:15 pmThat was the fundamental problem, Kirk sort of squared the circle saying that it was wrong to do so, the Disclose Act is still on the drawing boards
justin cord (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 6:18 pmaccording to my fishwrap’s editorial position, Manchin is another ‘wool over the eyes’ flap,
Did you register this complaint at other sites that are also still discussing O’Donnell?
Patterico (f8fed5) — 11/5/2010 @ 6:21 pmPatterico – If you do not understand the clarifying strategy it is because you are not a sound thinking conservative or a member of the kewl kids klub. You don’t know the password or the secret handshake and will not be invited for their slumber parties.
Too bad, so sad.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/5/2010 @ 6:25 pmThis illustrates my opinion of rehashing the “if only …” post election.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/5/2010 @ 6:27 pmI agree with that last bit — but I’m concerned that the kind of logic that caused people to support the O’Donnell lost cause may impel people to support a lost cause to oppose Obama.
It won’t bother me too much unless we elbow aside a likely winner for a lost cause as we did in Delaware. Right now I don’t see a likely winner against Obama.
Patterico (f8fed5) — 11/5/2010 @ 6:28 pmO’Donnell didn’t cost us the Senate so the loss alone is not a huge deal. What is important is what we learn from it. What the “purists” have apparently learned is that losing is a good idea because it is clarifying. That’s a hell of a lesson to take into 2012.
Patterico (f8fed5) — 11/5/2010 @ 6:32 pmTaranto, wasn’t very keen on O’Donnell, but he didn’t harp on her constantly ‘you’ve blown the
justin cord (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 6:34 pmtransaxle’ Patterico, meanwhile the state around you, is being dragged down into the Old One’s realm
I just think we should be highlighting some of the good things, instead of kicking a rotting corpse. Tim Scott, Allen West, Marco Rubio, Todd Young, and countless others ….
Comment by JD — 11/5/2010 @ 6:37 pm
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/5/2010 @ 6:38 pmI have no responsibility not to “harp on” O’Donnell, especially now. She is a liar and she cost us the seat. Whatever it is you think I owe her is more than she deserves.
Patterico (f8fed5) — 11/5/2010 @ 6:39 pmI thought we should be endlessly bashing the “pragmatic” conservatives for being right about O’Donnell. Because being right isn’t really being right, because it was good that she lost, and it was good that Reid is still majority leader, because of how clarifying it all is.
I’m reminded of the guys in Spinal Tap standing around Elvis’s grave talking about perspective. There’s too much fucking clarity.
It’s bearable, certainly, given the great victories of which JD mentioned a few.
But if this frankly idiotic mindset costs us a chance to defeat Obama . . . there are more than a few of us who will want to strangle the “purists.”
Luckily, there is one fact saving is from such a scenario: it won’t cost us the chance to defeat him, because I can’t envision anyone who can beat him. Which, I have to say, is pathetic. Because he ought to be easy to beat.
Maybe we can sick the “idea” of Christine O’Donnell on Obama in 2012.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 6:45 pmWhy do you assume running actual conservatives will cause us to lose against Obarcky?
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/5/2010 @ 6:46 pmDid not that same fuxking mindset result in a whole lot of great wins?
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/5/2010 @ 6:47 pmNo, but she depressed the Republican and Tea Party brands in general, and probably cost senate and house seats beyond hers, not to mention the GOP’s unusually bad showing in Delaware state house seats this election, which will bode poorly for redistricting efforts.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/5/2010 @ 6:49 pm“I just think we should be highlighting some of the good things”
JD – I agree, we should clarify the future.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/5/2010 @ 6:50 pm“Maybe we can sick the “idea” of Christine O’Donnell on Obama in 2012.”
Witchcraft might work.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/5/2010 @ 6:52 pmWhy do you assume that’s what I’m arguing?
What mindset would that be? The mindset that says we can run a flake who serially misrepresents her record, attacks all critics as being bought off by the other side, and basically comes across as the perennial loser candidate? The mindset that says that anyone who points out said flaws is a heretic who must be relentlessly attacked for telling the truth? The mindset that says losing is good because it is clarifying?
Which one of these mindsets brought us the Rubio victory?
If you think this is all purely about whether we should support actual conservatives, I despair. You’re here every day, yet you don’t seem to have the slightest clue what I am actually arguing.
It’s almost as if someone sold you a caricature of my views, and you bought it.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 6:54 pmShow me the actual conservative who will defeat Obama.
It seems to me were are beautifully situated for 2016. Christie and/or Rubio would certainly be viable then, for example.
As for 2012, I think we’re screwed. I wish we weren’t, but who is going to beat Obama?
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 6:58 pmWTF?
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/5/2010 @ 6:58 pmWTF?
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:03 pm“It’s almost as if someone sold you a caricature of my views, and you bought it.”
People seem to have different definitions of conservatives. Self-described sound thinking conservatives/principled conservatives/classical liberals or purists describe conservatives pretty rigidly, and act like the polar opposite of the DailyKos, HuffPo, FireDogLake crowd. Others have a more flexible definition of conservatism, allowing them to consider a broader range of candidates and hence deserve to be burned at the stake, just the way the DKos and Firedoglake people hate Obama for dropping the public option in health care reform.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:03 pmAre you , are are you not, referring to the O’Donnell race? Or, are you trying to give my comments an unfair reading? I really don’t get it. Seems like I am being used as some proxy, and if so, fine. Whatevs. I made a comment. You don’t agree. Fine.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:07 pmI think the GOP has a lot of good candidates who can beat Obama, but not necessarily tea party approved conservative candidates. I fear, as you do, they will select Palin, who is unqualified.
Worse, she may admire Reagan, but she did something Reagan would never have done. She quit, in her first term.
Reagan stood up to the commies in Hollywood when it was very unpopular to do so. He governed and he did not quit. He peacefully and with strength fought the Soviets and, an old man, he did not quit.
Do you think non-tea party purity standard Chris Christie would quit because of some unfair ethics complaints against him? I don’t see it.
And she foisted O’Donnell, Angle, Miller, etc., in this election. Sure, many of her preferred candidates went on to win — and some of them were good candidates — but they generally won with a smaller percentage of the vote than RINOs got, and in obvious cases lacked spectacular.
Ace said today if Palin is the nominee, he goes third party. I don’t know if he meant it. But I DO know conservatives are often threatening to go third party if they don’t get their way.
Back on the subject of O’Donnell, Ace made a point earlier today that I think is entirely reasonable and the conservatives who supported her should care more about it than he and I do … particularly in light of O’Donnell’s financial problems and her dishonesty problems, as highlighted here by Patterico.
Quite.
Jeff B., an AoSHQ commenter, put it well in several of his comments, all of which I agree, and here is but one example:
The point, as I see it, is when you (and Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin) promote a candidate with no record of accomplishment, a history of making bizarre statements, and frequent lies about her own education record among other things … this is what you get.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:08 pmI don’t know today who the candidate is to run against Obama but I don’t believe that he is all that difficult to beat in general.
A year or a year and a half ago, Democrats in general looked unbeatable but they pissed all of that away. Obama just isn’t that invincible political player he was cracked up to be and shows real signs of having no clue how to use the office.
We have a year or more to find and develop the Obama defeating candidate.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:09 pmFoisted Miller upon us? What exactly do you think is so horrible about him?
Christoph is freaking fixated onO’Donnell. makes Dustin seem ambivalent about her.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:12 pmdaley:
Quite so. It becomes extra fun when one’s views are continually distorted. The fact that a daily reader can accuse me of thinking that running actual conservatives would cause us to lose to Obama — yet when called on this ridiculous statement does not even try to back it up — demonstrates that a daily pattern of distortion can work on damned near anyone.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:12 pm____________________________________________
As for 2012, I think we’re screwed.
Not sure how much of your skepticism or cynicism is exacerbated by your living in America’s answer to Greece/Mexico/France/Spain—aka California. However, when I see the various societies throughout the world that follow the formula of mindless liberalism run amok — or the idiocy of human nature in general — I can’t fault you for feeling so skeptical.
Four years of Obama will corrupt America’s judiciary for decades into the future. Eight years of Obama will just about decimate it, period.
I suspect the current president’s (previous or otherwise) trusted spiritual advisor, Jeremiah Wright, wishing a “goddamn America” scenario onto this society may have been fully activated in November 2008.
It will be a gift that keeps on giving.
Mark (411533) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:15 pmI’ll try once again:
JD, where on God’s green earth did you get the idea that I am arguing that running actual conservative candidates would cause us to lose to Obama?
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:16 pmI think the GOP has a lot of good candidates who can beat Obama, but not necessarily tea party approved conservative candidates. I fear, as you do, they will select Palin, who is unqualified.
Christoph, I’m curious which candidates you believe can beat Obama?
Dana (8ba2fb) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:18 pmMiller was not the problem in Alaska, Christoph, it was Murkowski’s belief that the primary system did not apply to her.
Like so many Alaskan politicians, she thinks she has an inheritance in that Senate seat.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:18 pmBut losing ten elections in a row would be clarifying!!!
Given the root of “decimate,” I think that’s a good word to describe what would happen if we lost ten elections in a row to uphold our proud standard of never voting for anyone who compromised on anything.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:19 pmI totally agree. I just think Palin isn’t the person to do it. She’s just not popular with anyone but her base.
And I liked her. I was thrilled when she was chosen. It is her track record since then that I have problem with. For example, quitting her governorship, endorsing dubious candidates in the primaries, but most of all … I thought, as a governor, she quite understandably was not an expert on foreign policy when she was selected.
She knew a lot about Alaska politics and gave great speeches. She obviously does connect very well with her staunchly pro-life base and I am as fervently pro-life as they come. I liked her.
But what Krauthmammer and pretty much everyone in the GOP “elite” thought she she do to be a serious Presidential candidate, was take some time off for serious study. Nothing at all wrong with that. I thought that’s exactly what she should do.
Instead she launched a big and continuing media blitz.
Now I must be honest in saying that’s what I thought she should do, but I didn’t think she would do it. I was right. I wish I was wrong, but I was right.
So at some point especially reading the polls and both reading about and hearing her continued unpopularity with the people she would have to convince to win a general election, I abandoned her as a potential Presidential candidate.
It’s less than 2 years out, people. She does terribly on head-to-head matchups. Even friggin’ Huckabee (and I can’t stand him) beats Obama now. So does Romney.
He’s beatable … only by someone else.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:19 pmLike Christoph, I fear they will select Palin, who would lose. The consolation (if you can call it that) is that nobody else could win.
Again, if we turned aside a clear winner for a Palin, I can’t imagine the frustration. But that seems unlikely.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:21 pmChristoph, great, you don’t like Palin. Maybe you actually stop obsessing about her during your sleep? Or is there some doubt about that and we need a sleep study?
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:22 pmMiller would have won, easily, had Murkowski kept her word. Not that I pretend that’s some kind of law of politics. It’s just not the fairest proxy. PLENTY of races are changed drastically by a third candidate.
When considering candidates to run against Obama, we need to focus on Ohio and Pennsylvania. We probably own Florida unless something major changes.
Toomey shows we’re not entirely secure in running a Tea Partiers. Palin probably would lose to Obama in PA.
So who beats Obama in PA? And can win a primary against Palin.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:22 pmWhat did Christoph say that merited that?
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:26 pmChristoph – again, what is the matter with Miller?
Patterico – apparently, i misunderstood you. You also apparently misunderstood me. To me, it seems like we slip in and out of the macro conversation about this.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:27 pmI kind of liked Miller in general so he wasn’t the strongest example in my list. He’s a very “attractive candidate” on paper and I’ve described him using those words.
Alas, I can say this. From a former judge and West Point grad I expect better behavior than I would from a random co-worker.
If I had a co-worker using my work computer without my knowledge to hide any activity of his (political or otherwise) and then when management started asking me questions about it, lying about it, denying it, then lying about what he was doing exactly … I wouldn’t like it.
I value honesty. That doesn’t cut it.
Yeah, that one incident isn’t as bad as Christine O’Donnell’s several combined with her lack of accomplishments, but I can entirely see why decent Alaskan Republicans cast a write-in ballot for their current Republican senator.
I prefer Miller on policy, but his dishonest attempts to use his co-workers computers surreptitiously to advance his political career came back to bite him.
That’s too bad. I liked Miller. And yes, to be honest, it was the weakest example I gave of candidates Palin shouldn’t have supported because she really couldn’t have known about it. All of my other points stand … and, unlike Palin, I would have backed off of tying my fate to his after Miller’s dishonesty at work was exposed.
It isn’t freeping the poll I care about. It’s violating his co-worker’s trust and standards of behaviur at an office. Just not cool.
Now, a lot of you will minimize that and there you go … we have different ways of looking at things. A lot of you minimize O’Donnell’s dishonesty as well, or dismiss it’s importance.
I guess it’s just a fundamentally different way of looking at the world.
But whoever is right or wrong between me and those who minimize Republican candidate’s dishonesty, it’s gonna cost votes. That’s just a fact.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:29 pmThis freaking Christoph is morally superior to anyone that disagrees with him is getting tiresome.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:31 pmOn other threads, I brought up the O’Donnell issue. I more or less made the points I made here plus a few others.
Do I hash out an issue more than some? Sure do. Is this the only one? No. Not at all.
So it isn’t an obsession with a woman thing despite slurs to the contrary.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:32 pmGod you insist on being ignorant in all things, what is the great point of foreign policy nuance that you don’t think she gets, unlike Amherst and Yale educated Coons, who wants to abandon Afghanistan. Or the brilliance of waging a currency war, with China, which Obama is entertaining.
She studied up on the health care bill’s vagaries, because Jindal had left the field. Krauthammer was condescendingly wrong about ‘death panels’ as he was about the perfidy of Obama. If she had stayed Governor she would be broke and probably mute as a spokesperson for the Tea Parties, and against the encroachment of radical Islam, represented by the GZM. Maybe if we had all the time in the world, but we don’t,
to prevent ‘the fundamental transformation’ of this country.
God help us, if we have Huckabee foisted on us, which is what that stupid PPP was trying to suggest, we don’t need another Carter
Marty McFly (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:33 pm“What did Christoph say that merited that?”
I think Christoph has been obsessing about Palin.
So it isn’t an obsession with a woman thing despite slurs to the contrary.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:35 pmI’ve made no such accusation at all. I think people have to get over Palin. If she’s such a bad candidate, she’ll fail out in the primary season by being defeated by the better candidate.
What disturbs me is how that misunderstanding tracks the distorted views of my positions put forth by certain “purists.”
How did I misunderstand you?
Patterico (f8fed5) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:36 pmRuedrich, the ostensible subject of the poll was forced off the commission that rules over all things in Alaska, because he was conducting private
Marty McFly (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:37 pmbusiness on its premises. As was the attorney general who authorized Palin’s investigations, who was also forced to resign. Murkowski somehow ‘forgot’ she owned hundreds of thousands of dollars
in land, on her disclosure statements
Well, Dana, looking at that recent poll that came out, apparently Huckabee and Romney, 2 candidates I never much liked (but respect in their individual ways), beats Obama if an election is held now.
That’s pretty shocking to me, at least about Huckabee. Romney, however, has business fantastically successful business experience so I could see him being popular during a financial recession. I saw a case for him as McCain’s running mate, but mostly because I believe McCain is pretty ignorant on economics.
There are so many, I like.
Jeb Bush, for example.
A Bush? Can a Bush win?
Well, George W. is a lot less popular than Jeb, and now apparently as many Americans think he’s a good president as Obama, so who knows?
I like Chris Christie a whole lot. He probably doesn’t have enough experience, but neither did Obama. And he’s got a real record as a prosecutor and a governor and has good approval ratings in a blusish state too.
I love Paul Ryan. Haley Barbour, but I wish he was younger.
I’m leaving out a lot of good people. I’m not one of these people who think the Republican bench is empty. I think it’s kind of stacked. I just think there’s this myopia about Palin (who won’t win).
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:38 pmThat worked out great in Delaware.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:42 pmI think some misunderstand you because you often bring it up strangely. For example, that thread with Karl yesterday, on how the democrats plan for 2012… very first comment has Cristoph insisting O’Donnell supporters are “yahoos” (actually, he used boldcaps).
Not to tattle. I’m just as obsessive about things too. But it’s a trend with Palin and O. I believe Cristoph said something along the lines of how it’s not possible to have character and want O’donnell to win her election, which is why Patterico wanted O’donnell to lose (I contended he wanted our flawed guy to beat their flawed guy).
Why does this matter?
I think it’s going to be super easy for the democrats to play these two factions of the party against eachother. Expect Senate Bills to come forward planning to do what Cristoph seems to do (on purpose or not) which is to instigate acrimony between these purists and pragmatics.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:42 pmRomney will never win a Presidential election in the US so give up beating his drum. Two reasons: Romneycare in Massachusetts and the Mormon prejudice.
The American public has had enough of the Bush family, they are not Kennedy’s, give up on Jeb Bush.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:43 pmIt seems like sometimes you are talking about O’Donnell specifically, and other times, about her in the macro sense.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:43 pmNo, you didn’t. I wasn’t referring to you nor necessarily solely to comments on this thread.
Anyway, yeah, I’m kind of obsessing on the self-destructive tendency of true blue conservatives (as Ace calls them) to focus on oddball candidates and believe their words when they have a history of lying.
There’s audio of O’Donnell’s former campaign manager saying she didn’t give a damn about conservatism and was just in it for the money (for goodness sakes).
I DO think there’s LOTS of evidence O’Donnell is motivated to get money … the easy way. And that’s why I think Ace is COMPLETELY right that someone should take a close look at the finances of O’Donnell’s campaign to make sure that the true blue conservatives’ money from across the country doesn’t fall into her pocket.
Besides, she’s trashing Republicans all over the place today. If she wants people to stop trashing her, stopping attacking her own party and taking responsibility for her loss would be a good starting point: She was given lots of money to campaign with.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:44 pmOne won’t know till they actually run in the primary, Guiliani was considered the front runner
justin cord (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:44 pmin the last go around, then again, in part due to
the slander campaign started by WAyne Barrett of the VV, he lost a great deal of ground. Romney, despite the wide support of the commentariat, never
caught fire, and by process of elimination we were
left with McCain
You respond to a perfectly rational comment about Palin with snark and justify it by saying he is obsessing. That’s the kind of thing people said to me about O’Donnell. It is straight out of the squelching dissent playbook.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:45 pmPatterico, I guess we should be asking the Democrats who the best GOP candidate is? Kinda makes for a strange primary.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:45 pmI’m squelching dissent?
Fine. I’ll cease doing anything of the sort on your blog by not commenting here further.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:47 pmArguments against O’Donnell are easy in hindsight but we don’t have that luxury when candidates are volunteering to run and local/state/national organizations are choosing who to support. Obviously the GOP establishment picked Castle over O’Donnell, probably with good reason because they were leery of O’Donnell and her history. But it would be the ultimate hypocrisy for the Republican Party to embrace free markets and smaller government while mandating top-down selection of Party candidates.
Furthermore, President Bush was a lavish Big Government spender and every viable Presidential candidate the GOP fielded in 2008 had similar histories and proposals. The Republican Party needed this correction to make it possible for candidates like Pence, Pawlenty, and Christie to get attention. If the only misfires were O’Donnell, McMahon, and Angle, it was worth it.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:48 pmI think your comment to SPQR was uncalled for, Patterico, especially given your love of snark. Goodbye.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:49 pmBear in mind that nobody worth a crap ran against O’donnell.
This isn’t like California or Alaska or Arizona or Connecticut, where awesome candidates ran in the primary. In those states, the primary winner didn’t get their ass kicked 17 points over.
O’donnell was just situated perfectly where few other conservatives considered running against Castle for the nomination.
There’s a big difference between that and the GOP 2012 primary. Palin will have to beat a lot of smart candidates. I suspect she is weighing the facts (that the recent election proved she will be hard pressed to win the general).
This is the cure to our problem. If Palin were to wholeheartedly endorse someone more electable, it will spell ‘Unity!’.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:50 pmWell you can’t hold Romney’s Mormonism against him, many of the things I hate about the Huck. The propensity of him to follow the advice of “Iceberg Murphy” is a bigger issue
Why do I suspect that like with Larry Persilly, who parlayed his Palin bashing into the job in charge of the new Alaskan pipeline, that staffer will be suitably rewarded. It’s not that surprising, Elton who crafted ‘travelgate’ received a post at Interior under Obama, and Rouse, who behind the scenes, coordinate much of this slander campaign, sits at the right hand of the President
justin cord (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:50 pmI think that’s true; the macro sense is that O’Donnell was a flawed candidate whom people supported irrationally. I do not want to see that mistake repeated on a national scale.
There are certain demagogic charlatans who would rewrite my argument to replace “flawed” with “conservative.” Said charlatans seek, for purely personal and petty reasons, to portray me as a non-conservative who does not support conservatives.
And you, of all people, seem to be buying into it.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:51 pmGOP Picks up 600+ Seats Nationwide. Let the Recriminations Begin.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:51 pmSPQR wasn’t just responding to that one comment, Patterico.
Cristoph’s a smart guy and he’s got some smart points, but sometimes he either accidentally or deliberately seems to have some bad faith.
SPQR’s comment resembles the ugly comments that came out about O’Donnell a couple months back, but there’s a difference.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:53 pm__________________________________________
But losing ten elections in a row would be clarifying!!!
Such sarcasm and exasperation are simply a response to those who can’t figure out that 2 + 2 = 4. The people who don’t accept where you’re coming from need an infusion of common sense. They also certainly need a wake-up call about aspects of human nature.
Benjamin Franklin, by contrast, understood what makes many people tick, at least based on the following quote attributed to him:
The corrupting, greedy, self-destructive nature of leftist sentiment was apparent to someone from over 200 years ago. That’s why anyone who is fully aware of that side of human nature has to adjust his or her strategies and tactics accordingly.
So envision someone like Sarah Palin (much less an oddball chameleon like Christine O’Donnell) trying to superimpose herself onto all the millions of people throughout America who are merely variations of the populace of Greece/Mexico/Spain/France/Venezuela.
Perhaps that’s one reason why people who are well versed in such shortcomings can easily throw their hands up in despair and realize that voting with their feet is the only vote that ultimately matters—ie, try to imagine anyone with common sense attempting to figure out the mindset pervasive in, say, the city of Detroit, or urban/coastal California, or a country like France or Mexico.
Mark (411533) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:53 pmYou might as well jump on the bandwagon, JD. Looks like I am losing all my other friends tonight.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:53 pmDRJ, thanks for that perspective.
Dustin,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:54 pmI think it’s going to be super easy for the democrats to play these two factions of the party against each other.
Precisely why those two factions must work extra hard at not letting tactical differences turn into into personal feuds.
Whatever. I asked you a question, and after biting off my head, you finally clarified, and I misunderstood what you had been saying, thinking you were discussing the specific when you were talking in the macro. I am not a proxy for your disagreement with him.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:54 pmJD, I am talking about both O’Donnell and, more importantly, her supporters. O’Donnell isn’t learning any lessons here anytime soon. I’m hoping SOME of her supporters, by being confronted with how they let themselves effectively get conned, will one day before 2012, keep this in mind.
And other than that I’m just exasperated. It was so obvious to me that not only was she dishonest, she was throwing away a win.
And all sorts of people here have hated on Mike Castle easily to the degree I have criticized O’Donnell (but defended her at times to when she received unfair, sexist attacks). I disagree with them and I agree with Charles Krauthammer.
Mike Castle wasn’t a bad Republican. He was a Delaware Republican.
As it happens, I am more interested in science than politics. I totally, utterly oppose Castle’s Cap and Trade vote, and his thinking on AGW.
But that’s becoming old hat now. Climategate and other factors make it less likely to ever pass, plus the makeup of this congress. And a lot of Republicans have bought into the environmental hysteria. We can’t repudiate them all or there’d never be a GOP majority anywhere.
Castle was maligned and I never whined that is unfair or obsessive. I defended him as better than Coons (because it was always a choice between him and Coons: O’Donnell was never a viable option). But if people criticize O’Donnell as resolutely as many, many here criticized Castle, somehow that’s different.
Well, it is different: Mike Castle, despite some either fuzzy thinking and/or needing to appeal to his constituents’ views (which is his job), has a more honest and better personal character.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:54 pmPatterico,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:55 pmYou’ll have to try a lot harder to lose all your friends. 😉
Arguments against O’Donnell are easy in hindsight but we don’t have that luxury when candidates are volunteering to run and local/state/national organizations are choosing who to support.
I think the arguments against O’Donnell came fairly early on but people didn’t want to listen and possibly reassess their candidate. The ferocity of the Tea Party in promoting O’Donnell – in spite of the concerns – was troubling. But it seemed the far more important was to get a TP backed candidate in no matter what, rather than getting the best candidate up front.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:58 pmI was not talking to you, Christoph. When I am, it tends to be clear. Being better than Coons is like being better than a hemorrhoid. Your moralizing about people that supported O’Donnell was ridiculous.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/5/2010 @ 7:59 pmWhy is it that we want to focus on this, rather than the successes?
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:01 pmChristoph is a jerk, much of the time, Dustin.
Maybe there is a background i am not familiar with. I don’t read all the comments here. I just didn’t see how that comment of his merited the response he got. I probably took it personally since it sounded very much like comments that were directed at me during the O’Donnell campaign.
I don’t see why making that observation should cause two long-time readers to declare that they are not commenting here any more. Maybe it would be better for me to sign off, since evidently something I am saying tonight is causing me to lose several friends all at once.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:01 pmReality is suboptimal.
A few nominations were bad moves. I don’t see the problem with noting just what that shows in swing states for 2012. That’s how losing the prelim can lead to winning the final, to steal your metaphor.
As JD keeps reminding us, things worked out really well anyway with a few mistakes. Nobody has horrible character or is stupid… most of these bad nominations came from a lack of great options. The candidates that won primaries against strong competition (like Fiorina) didn’t get their asses kicked 17 points over… they were quite competitive.
Who can beat Obama in PA and also beat Palin in a primary?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:01 pmThere is no other place to flee to, Mark, ‘this is
justin cord (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:02 pmthe last best place on Earth’ I don’t see how you can be so nonchalant about it. Yes both Cicero, and A.P. Tyler preceded that sentiment
I’m sure you’ve read enough comments to know that I don’t handle that stuff super well.
I probably have not been charitable enough to Cristoph. I’m not complaining about him and I don’t want to pwn him or push him out of here.
I’m just sticking up for SPQR.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:04 pmThe thing, though, is answering the question: “Who is electable?” And the answer is very difficult to quantify.
Here’s my best example, because it exposes the dichotomy of who is electable: Rand Paul.
Rand Paul went to Baylor University in Waco, Texas. Everyone in Texas knows Baylor. My father went to Baylor. He was a NoZe brother, before he transferred to East Texas Baptist University.
Any native Texan knows with any connection to Baylor or who grew up a Baptist knows the NoZe. They are a semi-satirical group, long-embedded in the university’s life as an outlet against the rigid rules and mores of the Baptist Doctrine. My Dad went there in the ’50s. It’s really nothing new.
Just as any other college group, or fraternity or sorority, they engage in college pranks. It is astonishing to me that a grown man, running for office to be a U.S. Senator, would try to use the college transgressions as a way to be elected.
Nonetheless, Rand Paul’s father, Ron Paul, has been regarded in the State of Texas as something of a misguided firebrand devoted to Libertarian causes that most people in the state regard as loony. However, his constituency consistently re-elected him, regardless.
Ron has been a continually failed presidential candidate, while Rand will soon be a Senator.
Why was Rand electable, while his father is considered a pitiable also-ran?
Why was Rand successful in Kentucky, when the natural inclination of Texans is Libertarian?
The pecan doesn’t fall far from the tree.
Jerry B (743fd1) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:04 pmDammit, I swore I wouldn’t do that, Jerry B is Ag80.
Ag80 (743fd1) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:06 pmWell, personally, I’m glad Ace and you are being upfront about O’Donnell.
I don’t mind it at all, and I don’t see why JD (who I have no problem with) should mind. It’s not like there aren’t other threads. He’s probably just interested in not falling into a big mess, but that mess needs to be resolved sooner rather than later, or at least hashed out and abandoned.
O’Donnell is a huge frustration.
I hope the readers declaring they aren’t coming back chill out. People were holding their tongues on O’Donnell as the election approached and I think that should be acknowledged.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:07 pmI see your point, SPQR. I personally would not have run in the general after losing in the primary.
But in fairness, I do think there’s another way to look at it.
Miller — unfortunately — is not a candidate who has shown himself to be entirely honest in how he conducted himself at his workplace. Murkowski, probably aided by a hefty amount of common politician narcissism, believes she is better for the people of Alaska than Miller, who she opposed because of that belief.
In loyalty to the Republican party, she should have backed off and endorsed Miller. But, due to either a character defect on her part, a sincere belief Miller was wrong to represent Alaska, or both, she felt otherwise.
You can criticize that. I have.
But then she went to the people of Alaska and asked their opinion. The people of Alaska have apparently chosen her. It’s their call.
Write-in candidacies are legal, democratic, and the very rareness with which they succeed lead me to believe this is what the people of Alaska want. The people of Alaska, by a significant plurality, supported her decision to oppose Miller after her primary defeat.
I have to soberly respect that even if I disagree with her as a candidate.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:08 pmCastle was willing to go along with the left consensus, what Tyrrell has famously called the kultursmog, what still reigns in academia and journalism, This was true whether on the fraud of climate change, or the insistance that Iraq was in ‘Civil War’ both were wrong.
justin cord (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:09 pmSPQR’s comment that he was leaving was hopefully sarcastic or hyperbole or whatever you want to call it.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:10 pmThank you. Your expression of support means a lot, now especially. There are things happening that I can’t easily talk about that are making my life more stressful than normal.
SPQR, if I was unfair to you, because of a larger context I missed and/or because I took things too personally, I apologize.
DRJ, you are almost always right about everything and if you took umbrage at my comment then my comment was probably wrong.
I hope neither of you will actually abandon the blog as you suggested.
Either of you is welcome to e-mail me regarding the things I am alluding to, which might help explain the stress I am under. The fact that I don’t splash these things all over my blog does not make the issues less stressful.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:10 pmDustin, you are not to lecture me on bad faith. There is definitely another side to that story.
I don’t want to get into it with you right now (or ever, frankly, because I find most of my discussions with you unproductive; I believe you let your emotions get the better of your reasoning where I am concerned).
I am sure you have a negative opinion of me. I won’t say I don’t care, but the degree I care is pretty small.
I think you’re often a pretty rational guy who is sometimes wrong about certain things (newsflash: more than once on this thread, as I have on many, I’ve outlined a situation where I was wrong initially and changed my mind when new information came to my attention). I think you’re right about others.
But I believe you lose your rationality when you let your emotions take control.
You’re in your 20s, I presume?
😉
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:16 pmThis from the person who really expanded the write in campaign to show what a farce it was;
) The outgoing Lt Governor, Campbell, a Murkowskee Republican, (the guy who’s job description it is to run the Election process) changed his mind today and said Miller can be counted as a Write In candidate if he appears properly on the Ballot. Then in a complete non-sequiter Campbell said that the Election rules are the Election rules and that they will be abided by and not be changed.
2) Then it was announced that now the Absentee Ballots (different than the Write-In Ballots) will be counted first, which has never been the policy or rule, as always before it is the Write-In’s counted first, and the Absentee Ballots counted last. This change of ‘the rules that will be abided by and not changed’ seems innocuous until you think about who benefits from this policy. By coincidence, the benefactor is Lisa, not Joe.
The reasoning is this: There are I think between 30,000 and 80,000 Absentee Ballots out there (sorry I did not catch the proper number and may be way off) If they are counted first, and speculation is heavy that they favor Joe, then a concrete number of votes that needs to be find among the Write-Ins when they eventually are counted, will be available to the Murcowskee Cmapaign counters. If for example Joe got (X) number votes via the Absentee Count, then the folks doing the counting who support Lisa then know they need (X + 1) in order to win, so that gives them a concrete number to push for when counting and litigating the Write-In ballots—and that process as we have already seen is now a ‘flexible procedure’, since Lt Governor Campbell already has indicated it is not subject to the written rule of Law but as in previous elections, but instead is subject to some amorphous thing he refers to as “the intent of the voter”. Talk guys say this is directly against what the written Election policy on counting Write-In’s has always been before. The previous policy was that the written name MUST match the name the Write In candidate listed as the name that that individual would run under; (ie) Lisa Murkowski. No ifs, ands, or buts about it; nothing else will do but that, which is why the last Write In candidate 10 years back, Robin Taylor, had 5,000 votes tossed out.
3) Even worse, today we learn that in Juneau, the process of examining Absentee Ballots to see if they will be accepted for the eventual count, was begun this morning at 10:00 AM. This was not on any publicized timetable. We later learned that the Murcowskee campaign was given notice of this process in advance so that they were able to have their Team of Lawyers on hand for that process of challenge this morning. The Miller camp was not advised of it, and did not know about it until Alaska Repub Party Chairman was notified of it sometime today, and then gave a call to the Miller camp this afternoon. And all this all the heels of the Lt Governor yesterday saying he was moving the process up from the usual timetable of 17 November to 10 November.
Regardless, I still think Miller will lose, but it is infuriating simply watching this travesty unfold. Whether its intentional corruption or incompetence on the part of the Lt Governor, he ought to be in jail and we deserve better. And the really sad part to me is that all this is covered way better by National Talk Shows like Levin or Hannity etc than it is by our local media.
If you think there is even a pretense to fairness
justin cord (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:20 pmin any of this, there’s a bridge I’d like to sell you
I think I am seeing JD’s point about Christoph’s arrogance.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:20 pm____________________________________________
There is no other place to flee to, Mark, ‘this is the last best place on Earth’
I’ve long been aware of, and fascinated by, the phenomenon of people (and everything that goes with them, good or bad, or both) voting with their feet. That awareness is one thing that tempers my focus on politics, or a belief that election day is the ultimate determinant.
Also, the way that limousine liberals vote with their feet (or wallets) has long interested me and illustrated to me the epitome of two-faced, dishonest behavior.
Christoph is a jerk, much of the time, Dustin.
This forum, because of its graphic formatting (eg, no separators between posts), tends to be difficult for me to easily and casually keep scroll through. So I admit to getting a eyes-glazing-over type of reaction because everyone’s text runs together–sort of like trying to read a Word document typed without the use of paragraph breaks.
I apparently have skipped over instances when Christoph has posted things that make him a “jerk.” If so, I’m in the dark. However, based on his comments above, he seems pretty realistic and down-to-earth to me.
Mark (411533) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:24 pmDustin was the first time to call me a liar. I believe he has called me a liar twice and I have called him a liar twice, over, it would seem, 4 different things.
I really don’t want to, again, expend all the energy to go over all that ground again, when I think the odds of getting Dustin to acknowledge he made a mistake about even his first charge (which I believe I immediately gave enough info to credibly dispel) is low.
But at the same time, if he is going to constantly attack my character as opposed to discuss the idea at hand, there is only so much I can overlook before replying in kind.
He thinks I have poor character. I get that. I’d still prefer to discuss the issue.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:26 pmPatterico – my disagreement with you was not personal.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:28 pmI think I am in a bad mood, JD.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:31 pmDon’t worry, I’m not bothering with Cristoph.
Patterico has tremendous respect from me. We’re of like mind lately, but when we’ve disagreed it’s never been a problem at all.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:31 pmSheesh. What is going on here? It’s like everyone is having to walk on eggshells.
Imagine what things would be like if everyone in this forum were 100% diametrically different from one another. IOW, if we were ultra-liberals conversing with ultra-conservatives.
Mark (411533) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:31 pmAnd while I didn’t think SPQR’s comment about my being “obsessed” with Palin (when what I really am is obsessed with defeating Obama in 2012, to which I plead guilty!) was very effective, but I don’t take offense to it. I hope he and Patterico make up.
I appreciate Patterico defending my comments about Palin on this thread as rational. However, I don’t think there’s any reason for the two of them to fall out over this. At all.
Egos get bruised easily online. I know this well from personal experience. Socially as well as debating politics or science. I think people are more likely to argue when typing and not being able to see and hear all the other communication queues we evolved to take note of.
I’ve had plenty of online spats with people that would never have happened in real life, largely due to the medium. Chalk it up to that, shake hands, and move on.
I’m just expressing an opinion here. No need to break up a friendship over it!
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:32 pmI don’t know what you’re going through, I can imagine it’s not an easy thing, a long time friend
passed away last week, a relative has been in and out of the hospital, for one reason or another.
Over time, I have come to understand where Dustin is coming from, Texas having it’s own unique idiosyncracies. I find it less understandable based on your public stances, the LA Times, will invariably lie, as does McClatchy
justin cord (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:40 pmI got a nice email from Patterico that he was under no obligation to send.
I realized from it that I was being an ass and I apologized to him. And I apologize to Patterico here. Patterico is someone whose good opinion is important to me and I reacted childishly to disappointing him.
I do not withdraw my general opinion about Christoph’s comments on Palin but apologize to Christoph for my tone.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:42 pmSPQR:
I don’t think an apology to Christoph is necessary.
I think I am in a bad mood and have not handled things well tonight.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:46 pmNor was an apology to me necessary, to be clear.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:47 pmMr. Ace is in his grumpy place today too
happyfeet (42fd61) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:47 pmNor was an apology to me necessary, to be clear.
Then once again, I don’t share your opinion.
I did not live up to my own opinion of myself.
I was especially embarrassed to see DRJ’s reaction.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:49 pmThank you, SPQR, I accept your apology.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:50 pmMr. Feets – How much room is there in the grumpy place?
I was thinking of having a tasty beverage, but I could go either way.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:53 pmI’m sorry to hear it, justin cord. My condolences about your friend and I hope your family member recovers completely and soon.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:54 pmThen perhaps you should have tequila instead.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:57 pm________________________________________
Comment by Christoph — 11/5/2010 @ 8:32 pm
Generally the only people posting here who ever strike me as coming off like jerks are the ones who debate as though they’re snot-faced teenagers–and in almost all cases, they also are of the left. Are you in either of those categories? Doesn’t seem like it to me.
I can’t figure out what’s going on here. Post-election hangover, perhaps?
As for Palin, I will admit to getting a bit irked today when Peggy Noonan dissed her in a postmortem-election piece in the Wall Street Journal. However, I have to be realistic enough to realize that when someone like Noonan, much less anyone who is a 100% Republican squish, much less a 100% independent, much less a rock-ribbed Democrat, responds in such a way to Palin, there is a problem.
I saw a Gallup Poll not long ago and the negatives associated with “Sarah Palin” were way too high to be comfortable with. By comparison, the positives associated with the name “Bill Clinton” were (sickeningly) high. When I observe things like that, I wonder how much of America is infected with a good dose of Euro-socialist (or Banana-Republic) fever. Whatever the case, one has to respond accordingly, including coming up with the cure (ie, tactics and strategies) for what ails the nation.
Always keep in mind that lots of people in modern society fall for the idea that liberal biases are a sign of one’s kindness, generosity, compassion and sophistication. It’s BS, but it is what it is.
Mark (411533) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:57 pmthe grumpy place is almost SRO I think this week
happyfeet (42fd61) — 11/5/2010 @ 8:58 pmJustin Cord,
Alaskans definitely deserve better than what they are getting from their government right now.
The entrenched crooks are acting like a cornered animal. This race is easily the most disappointing one.
Sorry about your loss, and it’s good to have perspective. I think SPQR’s frank and humble reaction to a problem here has shown character.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:01 pmThe next 2 years could be very long and very acrimonious within the GOP. Hotair commenters have split into two distinct groups. It is generally more civil here so was surprised to see this thread.
VOR2 (b7895a) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:02 pmAll we need is a Ross Perot to tempt the purists away from the fold and Obama waltzes into the second term.
I just read somewhere that non-Tea Party conservative candidates do not believe in constitutional principles.
I DID NOT KNOW THAT
It is amazing what some people will say to justify their positions.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:04 pm“the grumpy place is almost SRO I think this week”
Mr. Feets – I’ll go for the juicy steak, tasty beverage and finish a movie. Perrier’s Bounty.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:07 pmYou would think that we could be happy for at least one week.
Joan Rivers (c8c1d2) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:08 pmthat sounds like a good plan Mr. daley…
I thought Mr. McConnell’s speech today was a lot better than I would have hoped for, for what it’s worth
happyfeet (42fd61) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:10 pmI’m thrilled. The fact I want to set the ground so that 2012 is successful as well doesn’t mean I’m not happy with the result.
This is a post-election debriefing.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:11 pmThanks, Christoph, Dustin,
The media and academia, lie, I don’t know if it’s 24/7 or some smaller cohort. They rarely bring up
the Enron budgeting measures pioneered by Franklin
Raines, the ties to Enron and Global Crossing, his passage of the CRA revisions, the HUD regulations under Cisneros then Cuomo, that facilitated this crisis. Many of the officials who were around when AQ was getting it’s sea legs, gravitated toward groups like the CAP and then moved back during this administration.
Noonan fell into a deep swoon over Obama, as did Parker, maybe it’s a throwback to her days with Rather. Others who had a similar reaction was Danielle (Frum) Crittenden, Anne Applebaum, and Heather McDonald, I still have respect for the last, not so much for the others
justin cord (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:11 pmdaleyrocks, I’m missing context on your comment at 9:04pm.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:12 pmAnyway, this is a “recriminations” thread. If you can’t argue here, where can you argue, man?
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:14 pmSPQR – One of the usual places.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:17 pm“There’s no fighting in the War Room” eh
justin cord (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:18 pmSPQR – Which distorts posts here.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:18 pmdaleyrocks, one I no longer frequent?
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:18 pmOh justin cord, Noonan is sooo back.
Her comment on President Obama’s Wednesday press conference: “Viewers would have found it disappointing if there had been any viewers.” She continues: “The president is speaking, in effect, to an empty room. From my notes five minutes in: ‘This wet blanket, this occupier of the least interesting corner of the faculty lounge, this joy-free zone, this inert gas.’”
Dana (8ba2fb) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:20 pm“You would think that we could be happy for at least one week.”
I filled my bath tub with pudding and went for the full body immersion. Why just let my b*lls have fun.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:20 pmSPQR – I believe so.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:20 pmNow I need to bleach my short term memory.
Thanks a f**king lot, daleyrocks.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:21 pmShe was taking me to task, not you. And rightly so.
I don’t know all the context of Christoph’s comments about Palin but I do remember his comments about DRJ. I will never forgive those, and I believe I once swore he would never return to the blog, but I also sincerely wanted to put all blog unpleasantness behind me recently and I thought unbanning absolutely everyone was important to that. I wasn’t able to put all the unpleasantness behind me after all, and I still chafe too much at certain people who mischaracterize my views out of petty spite and jealousy, but I am trying, and I will continue with the refusal to ban anyone for that reason. It is psychologically important to me.
I’m rambling so much I sound like Dustin! (No offense, dude. I tease because I love.)
Anyway, a couple of commenters here now know what’s eating me. I apologize to others for general grumpiness.
I will not be deterred by any of it. I’ll try to be more good-humored in the process though.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:22 pm@Dana
Ouch. That’s some quote.
I read Noonan’s article on Palin vs. Reagan with some trepidation. I agree with her overall point. I wouldn’t have used the same word (not only for reasons of decorum, but also it’s inaccurate).
There are plenty of fairly smart people who aren’t ideal for Presidential nomination.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:23 pm“I’m rambling so much I sound like Dustin! (No offense, dude. I tease because I love.)”
LOL.
SPQR: apologize for Patterico’s so called love.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:25 pmSome fresh Obama Kool Aid to get people out of their grumpy places.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:25 pmCan we all hug it out?
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:27 pmPlease ban daleyrocks for the mental image he gave us at … no, I’m not even going to mention the timestamp.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:29 pmthis joy-free zone, this inert gas.
I love this part – when the piling on here sinks to ridiculously absurd levels and bruised egos start jockeying for the top of the woe-is-me cake, I’ll think of this quote.
I’m sorry you’re having a difficult time, Patterico. Post-vacation is always a bit of a letdown (especially if a wonderful vacation was had), and certainly the post-Cali election has been a serious downer. I hope you’ll plow through your situation with grace and dignity and with the strong support of Mrs. P and those who care for you. That is what they are there for.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:29 pmI never hug.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:30 pmOh daley, pudding balls?
Really??
Shame on you.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:30 pmSPQR – Should I describe how it felt?
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:30 pmSee, daleyrocks, now you’ve done it.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:30 pmNo, don’t describe anymore.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:31 pmI am not a hugger.
Joan Rivers (c8c1d2) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:32 pmJust me and the candlelight, the pre-warmed pudding, Ronald Reagan speaking quietly in the background, my twelve pack abs……..
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:34 pmActually no, Noonan was covering for Obama, for the better part of a year, disdaining the circumstances that led to the rise of the Tea Party, ignorant of how Obama had actually risen in power, through guile and misrepresentation, or how his proxies had tried to bankrupt Palin. Anyone who really pays attention to Obama, could see he was a thin skinned, ill informed charlatan, with practically no accomplishments to his name, before rising to high office
There are still a great deal of people out there who are ignorant of the nature of the’fundamental transformation” being attempted upon this country
justin cord (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:35 pm“These goggles they do nothing’ You know I always found that Ace metaphor about pudding a little creepy, along with the Mad Wicket stalker photoshop
justin cord (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:37 pmI agree with Justin on Noonan, who has been extremely bright over the years, but I think showed her ass a few times recently.
Not that the hilarious imagery Dana quotes isn’t brilliant.
His press conference over the election is exactly why he doesn’t give press conferences.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:37 pm“the Mad Wicket stalker photoshop”
Set it to your wife/gal’s wallpaper on their laptop and maximize their browser.
In an hour or two, enjoy the reaction.
–
A big part of ace’s shtick is showing that very strong conservatives are not stodgy and boring and repressed.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:40 pmWhoa, man, I just realized the problem between us. We look at things totally differently. I think you see that as a bad thing.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:43 pmNoonan is about as relevant to me as Kathleen Parker and Meghan Mc.
Pudding is a great moisturizer.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:43 pm“You know I always found that Ace metaphor about pudding a little creepy”
justin – You must not have enjoyed a misspent youth.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:45 pm_______________________________________
but I do remember his comments about DRJ
People sure are unpredictable. You get 10 different people in a room, you come up with 10 different opinions or reactions.
I was talking with a very liberal guy on Wednesday. He said this week’s election was one of those that made him happier than any other he’s ever lived through. I thought to myself “huh?!,” although I wasn’t too surprised when he then said he was referring to the vote in California—btw, there were a FEW — but only a few — ballot propositions whose passage were a relief to me. He also said with a big smile that he had done campaign cold-calling on Monday and helped a liberal/Democrat get elected to some office in Colorado. Of course, I was privately rolling my eyes.
Here’s the oddly unpredictable part: He — a big-time liberal — said that the California of his youth (the 1950s, 1960s) was once a “golden state,” when freeways were less crowded, housing was less expensive, well-paying jobs were plentiful, neighborhoods were tranquil, etc, etc.
I found myself — a big-time conservative — responding that the state had always had been a mixed bag to me. For instance, the era when LA didn’t even have a MLB team, when much of its older housing was, yea, cheap, but also looked it. When the place was written off as a wasteland.
The differing POVs of him and me? Who’da thunk it?
Mark (411533) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:46 pmHence my “She’s soo back”. Clearly she left us for a while…
Actually I thought the worst thing you can say about a president: He won’t even make a good former president.
His detachment is so great, it is even from himself. As he spoke, he seemed to be narrating from a remove. It was like hearing the audiobook of Volume I of his presidential memoirs. “Obama was frustrated. He honestly didn’t understand what the country was doing. It was as if they had compulsive hand-washing disorder. In ’08 they washed off Bush. Now they’re washing off Obama. There he is, swirling down the drain! It’s all too dramatic, too polar. The morning after the election it occurred to him: maybe he should take strong action. Maybe he should fire America! They did well in 2008, but since then they’ve been slipping. They weren’t giving him the followership he needed. But that wouldn’t work, they’d only complain. He had to keep his cool. His aides kept telling him, ‘Show humility.’ But they never told him what humility looked like. What was he supposed to do, burst into tears and say hit me? Not knowing how to feel humility or therefore show humility he decided to announce humility: He found the election ‘humbling,’ he said.”
Dana (8ba2fb) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:47 pmI have *one* musics for you Mr. P… this week was not very successful with the new music clickings
happyfeet (42fd61) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:47 pmbut here … he’s a douchebag now – Kanye discovered him and douched him up proper… but he used to be very talented… this song took me a couple tries to grok – but when I saw what he was saying – and maybe I’m slow – but when I got it I thought it was elegant, and elegant in a very retro way… it was just kind of a nice surprise
___________________________________________
Anyone who really pays attention to Obama,
No excuse for ANYONE to have not seen straight through the guy.
The reason?
Two words: “Jeremiah” and “Wright.”
Mark (411533) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:49 pmThe last time, he opened up, with such a press conference was when he expressed the idea that the Cambridge cop acted stupidly, and doctors are lopping off limbs and removing organs unnecessarily
justin cord (82637e) — 11/5/2010 @ 9:50 pmDana – That’s a great paragraph.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/5/2010 @ 10:16 pmAyers and Dohrn were what did it for me.
My own father never has to this day got it and thinks talking about all this right-wing conspirationalist B.S. Further, he trusts the media to have brought it to his attention if it were important. And he has a good “feeling” for the truth.
I don’t think my father was alone.
But even on these threads I see much irrationality. It just seems to be applied in different areas. I suppose it’s part of the human condition.
This will be more of what Patterico calls my arrogance.
Whatever. Bite me. That’s how I see it.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/5/2010 @ 10:20 pmIt is, isn’t it, daley?
Maybe he should fire America!
I really don’t find this a stretch… after all, he seems quite unhappy and disappointed in us. He expected so much more and we simply have not delivered.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 11/5/2010 @ 10:22 pmI guess what I’m saying is I scratch my head in amazement at the obtuseness of people here … I slap my forehead in astonishment at leftists’ obtuseness … and I wonder what you do when you encounter mine.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/5/2010 @ 10:25 pmDana – We just don’t appreciate what an awesome president he is yet. We are not sufficiently grateful he chose to run for the office. We are the ones who should be humble, not him.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/5/2010 @ 10:27 pm“This will be more of what Patterico calls my arrogance.”
Christoph – It is not arrogance. You are obviously better than the rest of us and we have no honor. Deal with it.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/5/2010 @ 10:31 pmOh for godsake, in a pudding bath with you all until you can get over yourselves. Arrogant, prideful, angry, baiting, self-centered nonsense.
Clearly a guy thing.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 11/5/2010 @ 10:34 pmDana – Smelly sneaker coming your way!
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/5/2010 @ 10:38 pmUs guys and our head-butting.
Dana, did you see my post in comment 136 about GOP candidates who could possibly challenge Obama in 2012? Note, I don’t support every candidate I mentioned, but they have their backers. Whad did you think?
I believe 2012 is winnable with a credible candidate.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/5/2010 @ 10:42 pmYou just can’t help it.
Patterico was really nice to you in this thread, and you still have to get ugly.
It’s like when I said, gently and nicely, that you mischaracterized Patterico, and he actually wanted O’Donnell to beat Coons but wouldn’t pretend O’Donnell didn’t have problems, you simply could not be polite about that.
You took it as some horrible, egregious slur. A “lie”, I guess.
And as you complained about how unfair I was to you, you constantly used insults and flamebait.
Maybe people are not actually bullying you. Maybe you’re the one trying to be the bully. I didn’t call you dense, idiot, twit, yahoo, pathetic, sad, or a failed Christian. You’re the one leveling those terms.
And it’s very arrogant. You think you’re entitled to judge people, without bothering to discuss beyond a 2 inch depth, which basically involves you repeating the same crap most people agree with.
Last night, when no one said it was “regrettable” that a murder was wrong? We didn’t have to say that. It was obvious. It didn’t justify this.
So stop complaining. You’ve been treated extremely nicely.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 10:49 pmEric Blair likes the term “alphabetist.” He most often uses it to blast people who would vote for a dead skunk if it had a “D” emblazoned on its back. But there appears to be plenty of rabid alphabetists who are in love with the “R” as well. And it is as disgusting to have an “R” alphabetist as it is to have a “D” alphabetist.
There must be Principles upon which a person stands. And the person must stand, if that means standing alone. For you “R” alphabetists, what are your true Principles? Because “electability” will never under any terms be one of mine. “Electability” as a Principle is Vichy.
The GOP big-shots openly backed the same candidate the Dem big-shots backed behind the scenes in this election cycle. Charlie Crist. And Marco Rubio was polling around 4 percent when he started getting support from big names who are not part of the RNC inner circle. Crist was electable; Rubio was not. How’d that work out?
I mean, seriously, Patterico and others, how far left does the “R” have to get before you ignore your Vichy “electability” Principle and stand on real principles? If all you’re going to do is throw tantrums about the leftist electable “R” while voting for the leftist electable “R” then what is the purpose of actually saying anything in the first place?
If you have a chunk of rancid meat along with your good meat, do you decide you cannot afford to lose any meat and keep the rancid meat? Or do you decide to cast out the rancid meat to prevent the further tainting of what meat you have remaining?
Patterico, you have normally been a clear and reasoned voice but lately I’ve seen a great deal of wild, unhinged, irrational blasting away because you didn’t like that people put principle above surrender-voting. Do you not understand that sometimes you have to take a stand and say “no more” to the political class before they actually take you seriously? Do you not understand that “NO, no, no, okay” will always lead the political class to rightfully understand that your “no” isn’t actually “no” but rather “yes”?
For the past few months, I’ve been rather uneasy when seeing Patterico’s name on an article or in a thread because I don’t know which Patterico I’m going to see. The well-reasoned one who uses good logic or the irrational alphabetist who angrily mangles rhetoric. And that has kept me away from the site more lately.
Whether I stand with others or I stand alone, I stand.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 11/5/2010 @ 10:51 pmWell, this is clearly flamebait.
Why do you expect people to beg you to explain what’s obtuse? It’s obviously not going to be actual obtuseness, but rather someone having a different opinion.
You seem to hate the idea of people having a debate with many different opinions.
I know, I’m a dense, twit, jackass, sad, pathetic Christian. I’m forgetting something. Oh yeah, Liar.
When you start threads with boldcaps “YAHOOS!”, particularly on a off topic tangent, you come across as obtuse and flamebait. Did you intend that comment to express any understanding of the post you were trolling or the people you were insulting again?
A few serious comments later, no one had responded to you, so you shout “Whoa, whoa, whoa!” in bold. Why? You were off topic again, bashing O’Donnell again.
You got this respectful response from me. I disagreed in a tactful way to someone calling me a jackass. I’m not attempting to relitigate that argument. It’s just a great example of how you can’t handle civil discourse.
And that is why people think you are arrogant and none of us accept your judgment that we are obtuse and immoral.
This pattern is why some great people interpret what you say as flamebait or hatred. Me, I still have no idea what’s up with your comments. You clearly know how to discuss things without saying ‘bite me, jackass’ at the drop of a hat.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:01 pmI think that’s a legit question (I wish it was asked a little less pointedly because people are already flipping out over this).
I don’t think Patterico’s been mangling rhetoric. He has been consistent to the principle of ‘elect the most conservative candidate who can win’.
His main post above tries to explain this from both sides of the fight. He wants to fight for conservatism in primaries, and vote Republican in the general election. This is hampered a bit by his electability concern, which is not being an ‘alphabetist’.
I don’t think Castle was ‘rancid meat’. I think he was a vote against Obamacare, and a vote against Stimulus and a vote for conservative judges. That was the difference between him and Coons.
I very much respect John’s rancid meat metaphor, however. I think kicking Castle out sent a message to other Republicans and will keep them more conservative.
But I also think it’s totally irresponsible to engage in teaching that RINO a lesson without having a winner lined up to take their place. Our nation is at stake.
Patterico is not just saying “sure, cool” to RINOs going to the left. Most people kicking Castle out are not saying “sure, cool” to Coons winning his Senate election.
There are some people who do think both those things and they are both wrong, but they are also pretty rare. This is not a clear cut right/wrong issue because it involves a compromise that has to be made. I realize Mark Levin realize said you can’t make a compromise and be a real winner, but he compromised away a vote against Obamacare and a vote against the stimulus. You can’t avoid a choice by denying its existence.
It’s good to see you around, Hitchcock, and I hope you stick around. I just think P’s position is different from what you thought it was.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:12 pmAh, but Dustin, he has also made quite a few barbed attacks at people who reject “electability” and vote principle. His premises regarding those people are most often badly flawed and he lashes out irrationally as a result. That is where his mangled rhetoric lies.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:20 pm“Ah, but Dustin, he has also made quite a few barbed attacks at people who reject “electability” and vote principle.”
John – In fairness, I think those barbed attacks you reference were in response to having Patterico’s own positions attacked, most often after having the positions distorted or lied about. Those distortions and lies continue today, for whatever it’s worth. If you feel his premises were badly flawed or irrational in his attacks, you and I will have to disagree.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:26 pmAny time I have asked Hitchcock for specifics on these criticisms I have been met with silence. Links and quotes might make it possible for me to respond in a meaningful way.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:28 pmI fully agree our nation is at stake. And Castle is a cap-n-taxer, so that lame-duck issue doesn’t change with Castle or Coons. As far as the responsibility factor goes, it is the GOP big-shots who choose and fund the select candidates. The direct rejection of the hand-chosen candidate is sometimes necessary without a top-flight alternative. Else, the Party Apparatus will not get distilled; the top-flight candidate may never show up or if it does, it won’t get supported by the political class apparatus.
The House was won. That will stop the legislative agenda. More conservative Republicans went into the Senate. They can put the kybosh on bad judicial nominations. A conservative agenda cannot get past Obama. Now is a perfect time to slap the statist Republicans around. If not now, when? As you said, the country is at stake. And letting the Republicans stay to the left is not helping.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:29 pmYeah, there’s been barbed rhetoric.
I don’t know if they are badly flawed. I do know that a large number of people demanded Patterico shut up, attacked him very unfairly, and were doing so as ‘alphabetists’, insisting we not harm our candidate’s hopes with a telling of the truth.
Patterico isn’t perfect or anything, but I think this constant stream of mischaracterizing Patterico’s position on this issue and bashing him relentlessly poisoned the well.
So that probably explains the barbed attacks. Some people did reject electability, so that’s why he’s attack that position.
If he was characterizing someone’s position in a flawed way, specifically, then you should identify it. I suspect Patterico would correct the error. If you’re simply saying that some people didn’t hold the view Patterico was criticizing, I don’t think that shows Patterico as irrational.
No doubt, many O’donnell supporters were not irrational at all.
Which person are you referring to as the victim of an irrational attack, exactly? I could be off base here… I don’t read some of the blogs involved here.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:29 pmFor example, Hitchcock uses the example of Rubio. And then implies I was against Rubio. Find me the link to support that implication.
You can’t. Know why? It doesn’t exist. I don’t think I have ever said a single bad thing about Marco Rubio.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:33 pmJust so we’re on the same page… you’re showing you understand the pro-Castle argument, right? If this isn’t a difference between them, then it’s not a bad consequence of Castle being elected. This is assuming our choice was either Castle or Coons and no-one else (which is accurate, very unfortunately).
There’s more to it than winning the House. Coons will be in the Senate for a long, long time. They cannot put the kybosh on bad nominations.
The nation is at stake, so I insist you consider what I said: it is not responsible to hunt RINOs without a winner ready to take their place and win that seat from a Democrat. We have to make sure we do it right. The difference between Coons and Castle was substantial.
We did this right in several cases, John. It’s so easy to see the difference between O’Donnell and an example of ousting a RINO with someone ready to finish the job. Rubio? Miller? There’s a longer list… some won and some lost, but this is the way to do it.
The problem in Delaware was that both tactics were poor. Castle couldn’t get support from the base, and O’Donnell is … well, I just don’t have the heart to bash her anymore, but she wasn’t electable.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:36 pmThere was no implication of your being against Rubio. He was an example of “unelectable.”
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:39 pmGood luck getting specifics from Hitchcock. I have tried. Never is a single specific offered.
I will say that certain people have labored mightily to create a caricature of me as a “pragmatic” conservative who cares nothing about principles. It would be shocking if nobody got taken in by the constant drumbeat of mischaracterization.
It’s easy to identify whose impressions are based on caricatures drawn by others. All you have to do is ask them for specific examples. When they fail to provide them, but still KNOW I’m lacking in principle — that’s when you can tell they’ve been taken in.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:40 pmWell, since I am this principle-less squish, then I must have opposed Rubio, right?
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:41 pmYeah, that’s a great example of conflating enemies.
Rubio was called unelectable, just like O’donnell. I think it’s unfair to compare this to O’Donnell. All those years Rubio was working his way up, O’Donnell was not. Rubio should have have had to fight against his own party. To be sure, the party shouldn’t have involved itself in Castle’s primary either (if they did… they probably did).
But if we have to refer to Rubio or some other issue to explain why O’Donnell ought to be supported, I think that’s a real mistake.
John mentioned letting the GOP move left… that’s a major concern of mine too, and I worry O’donnell’s loss will have an impact towards the left. I’m not clairvoyant and don’t really know, but I’m just saying this isn’t cut and dry.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:45 pmReads to me like an implication that I opposed Rubio. Why use that example and then immediately demand that I justify my “Vichy ‘electability’ Principle”?
Again, I ask for specifics. Surprise me and provide them.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:45 pmRubio is not a dishonest person who has serially misrepresented his record.
Also, he WAS electable.
And I never said different.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:47 pmI think there are a ton of candidates that would please both John and Patterco. O’Donnell is not one of them. Castle isn’t either (I suspect they both find him pretty lacking).
We are arguing about tactics, not principles of government.
The DE election was a huge mess with relentless negativity that makes it damn near impossible to discuss without rubbing old wounds. It’s really made it a lot harder to discuss 2012.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:49 pmI want to get this right because I saw muddied and tangled thinking. (And sometimes what you see isn’t what is there, as in eyewitnesses.)
We need 51 senators.
Somehow that’ll get us a good President.
And without a good President, we can’t get good judges.
But I would’ve voted in favor of Sotomayor because if I voted against, Obama may have sent an even worse choice (that I somehow couldn’t have also rejected).
And if you don’t vote for a bad Republican, you won’t get the 51 senators we need.
But I don’t have a way to get the out-of-touch Republican ruling class back in touch since I’m voting in bad Republicans.
And that thing about being a minority for 10 election cycles to stand on principle? Well, that’s a bit hyperbolic, but it has a meaning that I fully support. It means that the out-of-touch ruling class is gonna get mangled as well, until they get tired of being mangled and get back in touch.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:51 pmI just went back and reviewed my numerous requests (via Twitter DM) that Hitchcock provide a single example of what he called “elitism, out-of-context remarks and strawman tactics.”
I got absolutely nothing then and I am confident I’ll get nothing now.
It’s quite amazing to see how people get taken in by an aggressive and constant campaign of distortion.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:53 pmDustin,
You simply can’t look at things in a balanced way where I am concerned — exactly like I said above.
Suffice it to say that while Patterico expressed the opinion that many of my posts were reasonable, not every post of Patterico regarding me was “really nice” on this thread, and if you don’t believe me, read them.
In return I said something about, “Bite me.” He’s a grown man. He’s gonna live.
Now let’s get to the meat of it.
Clearly if you read this thread, it is clear that today Patterico still believes Christine O’Donnell is a liar (see Comment 101).
On September 14th, Patterico wrote a post congratulating O’Donnell on her win. On September 19th, Patterico wrote another post expressing initial disquiet over her character and expressing a desire to look into this, for which he was roundly criticized on this blog and around the blogosphere. On September 30th, Patterico wrote another post where he pointed out serious problems with O’Donnell’s character regarding her honesty. His update had further examples of her dishonesty from another source.
In that post, Patterico wrote:
But you know all this because we went over it recently ad nauseum with links and citations galore.
I was extrapolating to derive Patterico’s position.
Since Patterico, to the best of my knowledge, still believed O’Donnell was a liar, and since Patterico said he would declare a “pox on all their houses” because he hates weasels and refuses to support a serial liar, is my position that Patterico never said he actually supported O’Donnell after September 30th really unreasonable? I never said he wanted Coons to win. Clearly, he said a pox on both their houses.
Is it a mischaracterization?
I asked you, repeatedly, for any information Patterico had signaled a new position after September 30th when he mentally began to throw in the towel on O’Donnell because of her dishonesty. You refused to provide it, over and over again, and claimed not to understand the significance of these dates which showed how Patterico’s stance on O’Donnell had changed when he learned more about her.
You continued to hold to the view that Patterico said he supported O’Donnell and that was that.
And that’s entirely true … as I pointed out … on September 14th. And I also pointed out by September 30th, it was no longer true.
As I pointed out to you during that conversation, it is possible that Patterico came around to supporting O’Donnell over Coons despite his statement on September 30th he would declare a pox on both their houses. I asked you to show this and you would not.
All of this including my willingness to consider the possibility that Patterico may have changed his mind since that post is there for anyone who wants to read this thread.
Your ridiculous unwilligness to consider what I was saying or even the various times I quoted Patterico — not because quoting him makes me right, but because others like you seriously misquoting him and I felt like putting the record straight — by linking to his posts, plural … is one thing. But on another thread, you again said you had no idea what the significance of September 30th is, despite how I showed Patterico’s position changed as he gained more info about O’Donnell and all the time we talked about it on the other thread.
As if!
But damn it’s frustrating talking about this stuff with you. It can’t be that hard to understand. YOU wanted O’Donnell to win over Coons. Maybe I did despite her dishonesty. There’s no evidence that Patterico did, is there?
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:53 pmbtw, the more I recall the election, the more I recall little things O’Donnell did that are just incredibly annoying, such as insisting someone is paid off by Castle. That really got the paranoia in the air that led to some of her supporters being extremely uncharitable. Which, of course, led to her detractors being defensive.
Even now, after she has lost, she is bashing her own party. She would have run as a third party candidate, hopeless, even if it gave Castle the seat. She already did once. And she is demanding people should have fallen in line for her? Even people who did fall in line (such as Rove, who endorsed her) should have done MORE, Cornyn should have given MORE, etc.
She is not the right proxy for this discussion.
I think Rubio is a great focus for the RINO hunting discussion. Patterico can’t be criticized on this one, but it’s a blueprint for how to save our party. O’Donnell is a blueprint for how NOT to save our party.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:54 pmAnd from my understanding, it takes a single senator to put an indefinite hold on a judicial nominee. It may be within a committee, but a single anonymous senator can hold a nomination.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:55 pmHitchcock, get back to me when you’re ready to provide some kind of substantiation for the nasty and personal attacks you have directed at me for weeks.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:55 pmAs I said, I don’t want to relitigate that argument. I have my points, and you gave yours, in that thread. If you think you ‘won’, congratulations, but I was relying on Patterico saying he would have voted for her, or that he supported our flawed guy over theirs. He got tired of the issue, but he never refuted that.
If you REALLY want to remark on this, do so in the correct thread. People should see that you started the thread off topic with blatant flamebait, and that my attempt to discuss this started off very politely… and then I got defensive because … well, they can see for themselves.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/5/2010 @ 11:56 pmFor example, Chris Coons will use that power.
I would bet, were there a good way to prove this.
There will be a Senate majority in 2012, but Coons will still be part of that body, and he is known to abuse his power. I am not OK with that just because Schumer and Leahy and the rest of those folks will also abuse their power.
As I keep saying, this just isn’t the best example of RINO hunting. There are too many additional factors that complicate it. We just had a massive election with several examples of RINO hunting, some not leading to general election success just like DE didn’t. We don’t discuss those because most of us agree on those.
And the reason is that John and Patterico actually agree on the aspects that matter. Rubio is exhibit A.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/6/2010 @ 12:00 amIt will be harder to win the Senate in 2012 because of this. It will be harder to keep the Senate in 2014 because of this. Etc.
This one seat matters a lot. It mattered probably 100 million campaign dollars worth over the next decade. And that’s ignoring policy.
I disagree with Patterico that we are unlikely to win the WH in 2012. I think Obama will be toxic and Palin or someone she endorses will take the swing states.
I don’t think there’s anything muddled about my guesses. I could be wrong, but how many jellybeans do you see in that jar?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/6/2010 @ 12:04 amIf you took one single weaselly candidate out of the equation, you’d find a lot of agreement between me and the people who seem so hell-bent on painting me as a sell-out.
But it is very important to certain “purists” to pretend otherwise. I am talking about more than one person here; they are dishonest peas in a cynical pod. But they have one common driving force: petty vindictiveness.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/6/2010 @ 12:08 amMangled rhetoric.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 11/6/2010 @ 12:13 amWell, as I said, our nation’s at stake. I’m pretty annoyed at having my character attacked lately, so I won’t follow this thought in that direction.
If someone’s tearing down the tent, for petty reasons of blog war or whatever, they should really reevaluate what they meant to accomplish with that blog. If it was just rubbing their ego … mission accomplished.
This purity thing is obviously largely about identifying people who aren’t. You don’t get to a very large number via subtraction.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/6/2010 @ 12:17 amPatterico, you should note that I have supported many of your other positions even while attacking you in one general area. On the same day, even.
But thank you for calling me a petty, vindictive liar. It so helps to support your position.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 11/6/2010 @ 12:18 amHitchcock,
If you tried quoting my post, instead of the ludicrous misreading you provide in 266, maybe you’d find my position harder to mock.
Hint: you misstate things right off the bat, when you say I claim 51 Senators will get us a good President. WTF? I never said any such thing.
Link and quote the post and criticize what I actually wrote.
I’ll be over here holding my breath.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/6/2010 @ 12:18 amHe’s not mangling, John. He’s trying to highlight the few he actually took exception to. Are you claiming these folks don’t exist? Patterico isn’t naming names because it’s old news.
Did you agree with me on my Rubio point? If you guys are on the same page on what really matters here, why not reflect on that and work on 2012?
Rubio-type RINO hunts in primaries seems like a worthy endeavor.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/6/2010 @ 12:19 amI never said any such thing about you. Nor do I believe it.
I believe you been fooled by petty, vindictive liars who distort my positions.
Am I wrong? You haven’t been fooled by others? You are basing your criticisms on your own reading of my writing?
Prove it. Give me specifics, just once.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/6/2010 @ 12:22 amAs I predicted, Hitchcock is finding multiple ways to evade specifics. He knows what he has been told by Levin, Riehl, Goldstein, and the rest of the petty and childish demagogues, and thus there is no need to back up what he claims with any actual quotes and links.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/6/2010 @ 12:24 amThis will take me some time because I suck at googling, can’t remember specific words to hunt, don’t know how to google a specific site for phrases anyway (if it goes beyond a simple search-box on the site), and read too darned slowly, so I’ll have to go back manually. My research skills suck, but I’ma hunt sumpin down.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 11/6/2010 @ 12:26 amThere’s a lot of that going around.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/6/2010 @ 12:27 amJohn, did Patterico actually call you a liar?
He is saying you have bought a version of Patterico that was constructed out of petty vindictiveness.
You’re being asked to identify something, so the idea is there that you’re wrong about this. If you can’t locate it, consider that you could be mistaken. If you’re refusing to admit this, it does seem petty. That’s beneath you, in my opinion. And if you’re just caught up in the argument, well, you’re suffering from vindictiveness. I understand it, but it is what it is.
With all due respect, why not just resolve this by either saying ‘hey, I can’t locate what I thought was there.’ or ‘here it is’?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/6/2010 @ 12:28 amsite:patterico.com SEARCH TERM
Put it in quotes as such:
site:patterico.com “SEARCH TERM” if you’re looking for a complete phrase.
You can even do a combined search as such:
site:patterico.com “a phrase I remember making” some other words
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/6/2010 @ 12:29 amOkay, I rarely listen to Levin, found his high-and-mighty act you noted a bit rough around the edges, and refuse to go to PW since back a year or more. And from what I’ve read on Riehl, I haven’t seen him petty.
Anyway, off to my research which could well take a couple hours with my slow reading and stuff.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 11/6/2010 @ 12:29 amRE Patterico saying he would vote for O’Donnell despite her having ethical issues because she would vote a certain way?
All I offer is my word! And everyone believes me. Does that annoy you?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/6/2010 @ 12:29 amHitchcock, I don’t see you as petty or vindictive or a liar.
I do see you as someone who accused me weeks ago of “elitism, out-of-context remarks and strawman tactics” — and persistently refuses to substantiate that very personal and nasty accusation.
I could ask you for specifics another ten times, but I don’t see the need. I think I have made my point.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/6/2010 @ 12:30 amComments crossed. It looks like you’re willing to make an effort (finally).
I do appreciate that.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/6/2010 @ 12:32 amHeh. I guess you missed the numerous posts where he called me “azz wipe” and such. It was a remarkably adult and non-petty performance.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/6/2010 @ 12:34 amNo, man. The majority of any group generally doesn’t know what’s going on. It seems to be a rule of nature.
Hell, you look at Palin’s terrible negatives and awful head-to-head polling and you conclude:
I am not at all troubled by the people who take your word over the empirical evidence to the contrary on this or the other subject. It’s just a fact of life, man. Those of us with higher IQs simply soldier on.
Oh, Dustin?
About O’Donnell and Palin, let me make my point another way:
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/6/2010 @ 12:36 amBookmark that quote. That’s like “I work here is done.”
Gee, how could anyone have called you arrogant?
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/6/2010 @ 12:50 amYour links do not make any point I disagreed with, Christoph. They do not bolster the issues you’re making, which are not that O’Donnell is unelectable. That is a PREMISE. Your CONCLUSION is one of many sweeping generalizations. That people are ‘yahoos’ or ‘jackasses’ or ‘pathetic’.
BTW, I don’t know why it’s such a big deal whether Patterico wanted O’Donnell to beat Coons or not. I simply offered a polite correction to Christoph and he completely lost his cool.
I don’t offer that as an example Christoph is wrong. I offer it as an example of how his tone has poisoned the discourse.
I could link Patterico saying he would vote for O’Donnell, but why? I’m not trying to convince Christoph. I can’t.
Last thread I chatted with him, he mentioned some homicide, and half an hour later called the whole thread pathetic and sad and failed Christians for not dropping their conversation to express regret over it. We failed his challenge (even those of us who noted that was a horrible crime… he admits he didn’t read the comments but used a ctrl-F). You can’t convince Christoph you’re not inferior to Christoph. He is the grand inquisitor and he is very angry.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/6/2010 @ 12:52 am“Sheesh. What is going on here?”
That’s what I was wondering.
I thought maybe I’d wandered into a drama queen/let’s explore our personal relationships (by ripping each other to shreds) website by mistake.
If I wanted to hear this kind of crap I’d give one of my ex-wives a call.
Dave Surls (897d1c) — 11/6/2010 @ 12:52 amI’m wrong. It bolsters his conclusion except that I already grant it was a mistake to nominate O’donnell so it’s odd he thinks he’s got a point to show me that Ace agrees with me.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/6/2010 @ 12:53 amYeah, I’m pretty much done with politics.
Having to deal with slippery folks like Dustin just isn’t worth it. Let’s be real.
I find politics entertaining, but I’m not accomplishing much by commenting here. Patterico might be, but even then more as a media critic (which is good).
Maybe I’ll be back for some juicy legal story or something. But having to “debate” with people like Dustin who call you mentally ill when you point out the deficiencies in their arguments, with facts and evidence, and find they constantly move the goalposts, change subjects, launch ad hominem slur after slur, all the while pretending they were mostly nice as pie … is really too much.
I enjoy discussing the ideas, but I really don’t like having to deal with the dishonest in order to get to the ideas.
And waa, waa, that’s politics. Yeah. I get that.
But I ain’t a politician. This is a waste of my time.
I reserve the right to change my mind. But when even Patterico’s fans like Dustin feel no moral compunctions with mischaracterizing Patterico’s positions and attacking me for correctly representing them without backing down, expressing a willingness to change my position if but only he could provide any evidence for his position (which he can’t), and feels no internal moral tug to just say, “Ya know, I mighta got that wrong, now that I read what he wrote.”
It really is too much.
I HAVE agreed with some things Dustin has said, like the other day I overlooked a comment he had made, and I immediately apologized for the mistaken conclusion I had jumped to when this was pointed out.
Dustin? Not so much. He’s not really into that kind of thing.
And is the unpleasantness of dealing with characters like that really worth it? Yeah, maybe, if I was going to make the investment in time to try and build an influential blog. But as a commenter who simply loves ideas themselves?
Ah, screw it.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/6/2010 @ 1:23 amYou are correct. I missed those posts. I read Riehl in starts and sputters, unlike this site where I occasionally bypass a week or so but otherwise read more than once a day.
I found a weak cite and am writing something up. It takes time to organize a thought, go outside into the cold for half a cig, come back in and organize another thought, rinse, repeat. 😛
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 11/6/2010 @ 1:29 amAnyway, I found a weak cite (which I felt you followed up with a bit of sore feelings live blog title).
The Cost of Losing Enough Elections: The Death of Our Constitution
As I said, I quit reading PW a year or so ago, because of a lot of bovine biproduct being thrown around amidst the good stuff. But you quoted PW saying something I agree with.
PW’s statement very much reads as hyperbole. I could say his exact words and mean every syllable of it and still be hyperbolic at the same time. Your response was hyperbolic. But you wanted a debate based on an assumed non-hyperbolic statement.
You asked this question multiple times. The question is irrelevant because you’re requiring an assumption that is not supported. Assuming reindeer fart jujubees, do you support … Irrelevant question. The answer is not a binary option but rather a “null” response.
That question is much akin to the “static pie” model of taxation and governmental interference in economics. It refuses to see a different option other than binary. You have, on multiple occasions, used such false-premise questions while expecting binary responses as if the premise were valid.
Along the “taxation” line, you tax what you want to curtail. If you say you’ll stick to your principles even if it means you’re in the minority for 10 election cycles and you stick to your guns, you’re essentially taxing people who do not hold your principles out of political existence. And if the Party wants to be relevant, it will move long before those 10 election cycles are complete.
There is also a national/local election aspect that gets overlooked. A single election cycle can have a dramatic national impact (and I assert that’s what both 2008 and 2010 were) but it can take several more cycles at the statewide level. With the US at 42 percent conservative, 20 percent liberal; with over 70 percent of the Republican base and over half of Independents stating the Republican political class is out of touch and too liberal, the past two election cycles at the national level have already pushed Republicans further right. Various locales, not so much just yet.
And that’s the point. Stand firm and don’t back down and politicians being what they are, they will back down eventually (faster at the national than at the statewide).
As far as the “purist” accusation goes, there is only One pure enough and He isn’t a US citizen, so I have to default to less-than-pure. But I have my limits and I have some specific vote-killer positions.
Okay, maybe not straw-man in this instance, but definitely poisoning the well. And a possible implicit hasty generalization. You’ve taken a valid counter-point and poisoned it with the assumed incoming ad hominem addendum, thereby invalidating the point some would have made without making use of the ad hominem. Again, this is one of the tactics I’ve seen you recycle, and I do consider this as a preemptive ad hom on your part.
Anyway, most of the stuff comes from before these two links. I believe you pointed out you’d vote for either Sotomayor or Kagan out of a fear Obama would nominate someone worse as a replacement. And that runs directly counter to the claim for a need for more Republicans in the Senate to save the Constitution, in my view.
(I remember in concepts and flow and not specific statements or dates. Good for solid B in college History classes I took in the 80s, not good enough for A. And I don’t bookmark specific pages or copy for files — too lazy.)
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 11/6/2010 @ 2:03 amI briefly thought Sotomayor (who they had been touting since the Mid 90s, was a decent choice, just goes to show you how uninformed I was back in te day, and Kagan, is another horror show, and letting Coons, slip through and Murray, Boxer,Reid
return to the Senate is foolhardy.
Look, Ensign, Pickering (apparently) and that rep who was conducting the abstinence research with his aide, are all fallible, I don’t think Christine was trying to be a celebrity, she was trying to get out her message in venues where
justin cord (82637e) — 11/6/2010 @ 7:18 amconservatives are not usually heard, she was naive about some of this, I grant you,
John Hitchcock, I have read your response and will respond to it later, after children’s soccer games.
In the interim, can you answer this question for me? Do you believe that you have substantiated your accusation that I engaged in a pattern of “elitism, out-of-context remarks and strawman tactics” as you claimed on Twitter?
Or you do think that you have cited some examples where you disagree with me?
I’m fine with people disagreeing with me. But if you have to go further and make an accusation that I have engaged in “elitism, out-of-context remarks and strawman tactics” then you’re going to have to do a lot better than the above.
I will address your points more specifically later. I would appreciate an answer to that question in the meantime, though, if possible.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/6/2010 @ 7:27 amChristoph is above politics but might stop in occasionally to grace us with his presence.
GOOD TO KNOW
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/6/2010 @ 8:05 amBoth Mark Levin and Dan Riehl supported the campaign of Scott Brown in Massachusetts last year, hardly the type of rock-ribbed conservative they now love to brag about. The point, the purity and principles of the so-called solid thinking conservatives are pretty flexible and situational even if the claim otherwise. Expediency and pragmatism, there is no substitute!
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/6/2010 @ 9:06 amI’ll start here in the car.
Your first premise, John, seems to be that Goldstein’s post was hyperbolic, and I admitted no other possibility.
You seem to have it backwards. I admitted there were two possible interpretations. You are the one insisting on only one possible interpretation being right.
Moreover, I don’t believe it WAS hyperbole. He thought so much of the example that he elevated it from a comment to a post. In the context of his “never ever compromise your principles” philosophy, I believe he was quite sincere.
And, unlike you, I read him. So I have a basis for my interpretation.
As for my position that there was no reason to vote against Sotomayor: we have to confront the fact that when we lose presidential elections, we lose Supreme Court seats. We were never going to defeat Sotomayor and doing so would like have been counterproductive. She at least showed some promise of being good on criminal law issues, and was actually probably better than who she replaced.
Certain people seem to claim McCain would have been no better than Obama. Absurd. McCain would not have given us Sotomayor.
Still waiting for the examples of elitism, strawmen, and out of context quotes.
Patterico (7bd4dc) — 11/6/2010 @ 9:16 amYes, because he promised to be the 41st vote against health care, Brown subsequently voted forthe equally abominable Fin Reg bill, whose consequences we will rue, until it is properly staked which will have to wait for another day, as well as the equally useless other stimulus that went nowhere
Castle apparently didn’t make that point, or find need to apologize for his vote on DISCLOSE or cap n trade, Gainey apparently didn’t think that was of import in his interview with O’Donnell, real life consequences of the vote,
justin cord (82637e) — 11/6/2010 @ 9:17 amHow can you “mean every syllable” of a deliberate exaggeration?
I think you and I are using different definitions of “hyperbole.”
It would be nice if you admitted that you overstated your criticism and that it was unfair.
Patterico (7bd4dc) — 11/6/2010 @ 9:31 amWe are worse off with Scott Brown. Martha Coakley would have been so much more clarifying.
Patterico (7bd4dc) — 11/6/2010 @ 9:35 amDid we forget the Gang of 14, how Schmidt, who thinks SSM is inevitable, seems to be one of the key decision makers. The problem is, too many ostensible conservatives default to the liberal template, hence Rove insisted Medicare Part D, go through, as well as Amnesty, CFR, which Jefferson
justin cord (82637e) — 11/6/2010 @ 9:37 amwould whip our hides, if he could stop ‘turning over’
“We are worse off with Scott Brown. Martha Coakley would have been so much more clarifying.”
That situation was obviously DIFFERENT because Massachusetts was also a Northeast blue state, but nothing like Delaware.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/6/2010 @ 9:40 amPRINCIPLES!!!!!!!
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/6/2010 @ 9:41 amWe were surprised by his victory.
I would not have predicted that Coakley would have run a campaign horrible enough to get a Republican elected as the U.S. senator from Massachussetts.
Michael Ejercito (249c90) — 11/6/2010 @ 9:46 amThat situation was obviously DIFFERENT because Massachusetts was also a Northeast blue state, but nothing like Delaware.
Yes, because Delaware had never kept sending the same Leftist Dem back to the Senate year after year since the early 70’s!
AD-RtR/OS! (0f5c41) — 11/6/2010 @ 9:51 amGlad you explained how Massachusetts is so much more Blue than Delaware.
__________________________________________
McCain would not have given us Sotomayor.
Bing, bing, bing!
I sometimes wonder if various postings I key into this forum sound like they’re coming from a flat-out ideologue or ultra-conservative—if only because I have such disdain for liberalism and liberals and often snipe at squishes (or “centrists”). But I would have to describe myself exactly that way if I couldn’t accept or figure out the point you’re making.
So my definition of “ultra-conservative” is a person who is into a hard-headed “my way or the highway” frame of mind when dealing with a variety of politicians and policymaking.
However, I do sympathize with true-blue rightists who are exasperated by all the mindless liberalism that has filtered through society over the past several decades. Even more so since the middle point of the political spectrum (ie “centrism”) has shifted left over the past 50-plus years. That’s enough to annoy anyone with more than a bit of common sense and therefore cause resentment about the idea of bargaining or accommodating “progressivism.”
Mark (411533) — 11/6/2010 @ 10:08 amOf course.
What is counterproductive, I think, is taking that resentment and turning it against people who are on your side, and want the same things as you — but have a different idea about how to get there.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/6/2010 @ 10:13 am“Even more so since the middle point of the political spectrum (ie “centrism”) has shifted left over the past 50-plus years”
Debatable.
Optimus Prime (0692b1) — 11/6/2010 @ 10:18 am“We were surprised by his victory.”
Michael Ejercito – Makes no difference. Based upon the unified field theory of clarifying solid thinking conservatism/classical liberalism/believers in constitutional principles/pure conservatives/RINO purgers/Tea Party Conservatism, should that side of the spectrum have supported Scott Brown’s candidacy for the Senate as a typical squishy New England moderate Republican?
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/6/2010 @ 10:18 amMon Dieu! And I thought Libertarians were riven with factionalism!!
Please, my Republican and conservative friends, please stop tearing each other to shreds. You know who’ll benefit.
Otherwise, you’ll end up like this.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 11/6/2010 @ 10:19 am“What is counterproductive, I think, is taking that resentment and turning it against people who are on your side, and want the same things as you — but have a different idea about how to get there.”
Candy-azz RINO azz-wipe!
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/6/2010 @ 10:23 amIdeological purity is admirable, but politically it amounts to suicide. If you “purge” the RINOs out of the Republican Party, you lose any chance to ever win the so-called blue states. If there is any lesson to be gained from Europe, it’s that even embattered left-wing slots may be conquered by the right, provided that you have dumb liberals with a poor record on one hand, and bright conservatives on the other. And once the place is won, it’s forever: Great-Britain has never been the same since Thatcher took power. Now do you think Thatcher might have been elected and re-elected if she had deliberately appealed to just one fraction of the electorate? So we have to keep those RINOs, like it or not. That is, if we want to be and stay in power.
Optimus Prime (0692b1) — 11/6/2010 @ 10:26 am_____________________________________________
What is counterproductive, I think, is taking that resentment and turning it against people who are on your side,
I’m sure some of that goes beyond politics and is merely the hard-headed mentality of some people, or, using Mark Levin as one example, the asshole nature of some folks’ personality.
I’ve seen debates about a variety of topics on the web, ranging from sports to movies, food to cars, and you’d be amazed at how heated and personal things can become.
However, because political issues often are so important and affect society in general — compared with, say, sports or movies — I think the reactions you describe not only are, as you say, counterproductive, they come close to being ridiculously irresponsible. That’s because, as far as I’m concerned, anything or anyone that undermines common sense (which modern Western society increasingly is so deficient in), either purposefully or inadvertently, pisses me off to no end.
Mark (411533) — 11/6/2010 @ 10:27 amJust to be clear, I’m not trying to ‘win’ or run you off. I’m trying to show how you respond to a very polite difference of opinion, and turn it into a huge fight. You think I’m trying to ruin your life and burn your house down, but all I said was that you mischaracterized a position, on accident, and I have a different one to offer.
I do reject your argument in this case, but that just isn’t the point. People are simply never going to agree on various things. You’re not even arguing over something that matters. It’s of absolutely no consequence except to use it for personal attacks (which you did, proceeding to say everyone not holding your view lacks moral character).
I’m not asking for very much from you. I’m not asking you to agree with me.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/6/2010 @ 10:27 amhttp://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/11/how-sheer-idiocy-of-nrsc-john-cornyn.html
justin cord (82637e) — 11/6/2010 @ 10:28 amOptimus Prime – IOW, you pick the low hanging fruit when you can on the way to electoral majorities.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/6/2010 @ 10:29 amDustin – I don’t think you were around the last time Christoph infested this blog. Picking fights is his stock in trade and he has been banned at many sites for the behavior. The conduct which he accuses others of is that which he engages in himself. He is aggressively dishonest and merely wants to stir sh*t up.
I have not been engaging him this time around because he’s not worth the effort. He believes himself to be superior to other commenters, but he’s an intellectually dishonest hack IMHO. I don’t want to put words in JD’s mouth, but I believe he’s been largely avoiding him for the same reasons.
Just sayin’.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/6/2010 @ 10:38 amI’ve had fairly heated disagreements with nk, JD, John, daleyrocks, epwj, but in all cases, even with EPWJ, we just move on with our day without being miserable.
I’ve had not-so-heated disagreements with just about everyone here, including DRJ and Patterico, without letting it ruin my day.
If your disagreements with me are so bad you’re ‘done with politics’, that reflects on you, not me. I do stick to my guns, and I definitely go on and on longer than just about anybody here, but I’m not trying to condemn people I disagree with.
Just as DRJ said, when you’re calling me a dense jackass liar pathetic Christian, that’s saying more about you than me.
I agree to disagree with most people here to some degree. If Jeff Goldstein and Patterico would agree to disagree instead of LIVE TO WIN, I think Jeff would be happier (I am biased, but I see Patterico attempt to do this and get rejected). I’m not trying to instigate a fight… just trying to show my point. You’re creating a much more personal dispute than there’s any reason to have. If you lived my life, I bet you would have more perspective and it would be harder to tick you off.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/6/2010 @ 10:39 amYou outline the problem that Steyn and Hannan have rather eloquently point out, about Obamacare, it has the potential to ‘fundamentally transform’
justin cord (82637e) — 11/6/2010 @ 10:43 amAmerican society, as it has in “Perfidious Albion’
the Tories returning in ’51, chose not to repeal it, the MacMillan faction, chose to accomodate themselves to it, and even Thatcher could make little headway. This is why the continued attacks
on O’Donnell seem counterproductive, she isn’t going away any time soon, deal with that fact
That’s how it looks to me. It’s one thing to disagree, or even get mad about it. You and I have had disagreements without it ruining our lives, though.
I’m going to follow you and JD on this. Thanks.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/6/2010 @ 10:45 amPeople are simply never going to agree on various things.
It took me a long time to learn that lesson. People have different life experiences, different outlooks, and even their genetic differences may come into play.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 11/6/2010 @ 10:46 am“I know one thing: that $3 million spent in the final weeks on those five campaigns could have swung four or five seats to the GOP.”
justin – Sheer conjecture on the part of Doug Ross. Also, what polling showed Boxer ahead by nine points prior to the election? I think I must have missed that.
I know it’s a recriminations thread, but this is ridiculous.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/6/2010 @ 10:50 am_______________________________
Debatable.
Not when as recently as the 1960s, no less, legislation in the US Congress to forbid lynching was controversial, stirring up angst in, among others, Southern Democrats. Yep, believe it or not.
Over 40 years later and it’s now somewhat controversial (or “mean spirited”) to spat at the Obama administration for shrugging off Black Panthers intimidating voters in Philadelphia.
JFK’s Catholicism caused a stir in the 1960s. Today? Obama’s connection to Islamicism and his close ties to Reverend Jeremiah Wright are par for the course. (In light of that, even a raised eyebrow about the racial background of Obama seems quaint and nonsensically old-fashioned).
What next? The possible and rumored bisexuality of a sitting president (eg, Obama)? Ho-hum.
Interracial marriage was peculiar and a bit controversial several decades ago. Today? Nothing less than same-sex marriage will merit the seal of approval for rallying against prudish raised eyebrows.
Even as recently as 1995, in the movie “An American President,” the main female character says something about people in the US not accepting a president — a single one, at that — going out on dates with a girlfriend. Today? It’s almost quaint if we assume the Oval Office isn’t going to be the scene of sexy, explicit fun and games. BJs and cigars, anyone?
Mark (411533) — 11/6/2010 @ 10:51 am“You and I have had disagreements without it ruining our lives, though.”
Dustin – Agreed. We’ve gotten sideways on various issues and threads but then moved on. No big deal. The blog does not serve as an echo chamber.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/6/2010 @ 10:53 amThe welfare state did not transform Albion.
War did.
The reason why America and Europe adopted different social models after the war is plainly that America was never invaded, had suffered much less human losses and had a strong economy. Europe except for Switzerland had none of that. Also, local governments had to deal with strong communist parties and the risk of a brought-to-you-by-Joe revolution. And let’s honest, welfare state worked well for Europe – as long as it had a sustained demography, high employment and minimal immigration. I don’t see it surviving long in its current form, though, and that’s the best argument for the United States not to adopt it: why burden ourselves with a system that even its creators no longer want and/or able to sustain?
Optimus Prime (0692b1) — 11/6/2010 @ 10:54 amOh Bradley, the liberals certainly sound like the more big-hug good guys, don’t they? How interesting they suggest this gene variant would cause them to want to know more about their friend’s povs, considering libs and progs often tend to be narrow-minded judgmental beings who rarely deign to consider an opposing view as anything worth their time.
Lead researcher James H. Fowler of UC San Diego and his colleagues hypothesized that people with the novelty-seeking gene variant would be more interested in learning about their friends’ points of view. As a consequence, people with this genetic predisposition who have a greater-than-average number of friends would be exposed to a wider variety of social norms and lifestyles, which might make them more liberal than average. They reported that “it is the crucial interaction of two factors – the genetic predisposition and the environmental condition of having many friends in adolescence – that is associated with being more liberal.” The research team also showed that this held true independent of ethnicity, culture, sex or age.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 11/6/2010 @ 10:55 amDustin – On a positive note, at least this time around Christoph has spared us the details of his colorful and wide-ranging dating life.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/6/2010 @ 10:56 amYes, and we should be reminded we have a safe schools advisor who favored ‘nontraditional’ forms
justin cord (82637e) — 11/6/2010 @ 10:58 amof social interaction, what’s next, as Scalia proffered in his dissent in Lawrence, the slippery slope runs like the slalom course at the opening of the “Wide World of Sports” with the Copland score
Mark,
What you describe as “moving leftwards” leaves me puzzled as to what you define as the Right. As far as I’m concerned, I’m perfectly OK with lynching being universally condemned and interracial marriage being accepted – there are some less pleasant things coming in the bargain, but those are the ones a conservative should address, not the larger picture. Regarding the possibility of a bisexual (Obama? Where? Who?) or a wildly dating president a la Sarkozy/Berlusconi, I’m skeptical. Americans may have become more tolerant, but this tolerance has limits. Gays for instance have won respect and support in large part because of their adhesion to bourgeois value (They want to marry! They want to have kids!) If we ever have a gay or lesbian president, s/he’ll be married with children, not some drug-taking, party-going swinger. Plus ça change…
Optimus Prime (0692b1) — 11/6/2010 @ 11:04 amIt’s shorthand for how the pendulum has swung, in many places like the Coasts, those who are traditional minded in social relations, are regarded as the President calls them, ‘bitter clingers’. Sarkozy illustrates the problem of reforming the welfare state, as he is now being
justin cord (82637e) — 11/6/2010 @ 11:14 amhammered with the Bettencourt/Werth brouhaha, he’s been more resolute on the Iran question than the current occupant. As for Berlusconi, he is a marvel isn’t he
People like to make fun of Berlusconi but look at the good jobs he got his mistresses. What did Clinton’s mistress get? A $32K a yr job?
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/6/2010 @ 11:22 amYou are partly correct, daleyrocks. I just cannot stand arrogant pompous sanctimonious holier than thou pricks that claims superior intelligence and morals while demonstrating no evidence to support same. In short’ Christoph is a nozzle of douche, which I realize is likely insulting, to actual nozzles of douche.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/6/2010 @ 11:23 am_____________________________________________
we have a safe schools advisor who favored ‘nontraditional’ forms of social interaction,
You know why it’s a joke to not believe that the mid-point of the ideological spectrum has shifted left over the past several decades? Because even I — repeat, I — find it difficult to be all that surprised about the following. IOW, even I find myself thinking, “oh, well, par for the course. Let’s move on. Next subject, please.”
The phenomenon of desensitization — and defining deviancy down, down, down — knows no limits.
The guy now in the White House had a close spiritual advisor who happily proclaimed “Goddamn America.” Well, yep, that’s what we’re doing to ourselves.
A big thanks and shout-out to the plurality of American voters back in November 2008. That will be seen as the date you made the US pretty much officially “jump the shark.”
Mark (411533) — 11/6/2010 @ 11:26 am_____________________________________________
Romney will never win a Presidential election in the US so give up beating his drum. Two reasons: Romneycare in Massachusetts and the Mormon prejudice.
The American public has had enough of the Bush family, they are not Kennedy’s, give up on Jeb Bush.
Comment by SPQR — 11/5/2010
Let me be clear… that some people on the left would harbor these prejudices is a given, as they don’t have both oars in the water on any issue, but when I hear or read that my fellow center all the way to the far-right Americans would ever hold anti-Mormon feelings to this degree repulses me, quite frankly.
Granted, it’s a generality, but you will not find a group of people who have a better work ethic, are more down with our founding American principles and what it means to BE an American, who serve others, who promote and LIVE positive family values, who are tolerant, who are forces for the common good… when I read this stuff, it nearly drives me nuts.
People on the center and right who hold these prejudices really need to look inside themselves and determine how they’ve arrived at being that sort of person.
Enough of my rant. I’ve said what I meant to say.
ColonelHaiku (beb613) — 11/6/2010 @ 11:31 amColonelHaiku, I have a lot of Mormon friends and value them highly.
Yet it is true that the American public does harbor some anti-Mormon prejudices and that this would be a hindrance for Romney that you would see exploited by the leftwing without scruple.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/6/2010 @ 11:34 am“I have a lot of Mormon friends and value them highly.”
SPQR – Plus they make great designated drivers. Heh!
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/6/2010 @ 11:38 amDaleyrocks – see 339.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/6/2010 @ 11:41 amJD – Got it.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/6/2010 @ 11:56 amMy sincere apologies to douchenozzles everywhere.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/6/2010 @ 11:58 amI agree, Haiku. Mormons are, by and large, awesome people. I see absolutely no reason for anyone to have a problem supporting a man because he’s mormon.
In the cold calculus of politics, we have to realize the dems will be sexist, racist, and anti Catholic, Muslim, gay and Mormon, if a GOP contender is any of those things.
With Romney, I have other issues with him… I think he is a very poor political leader because he has ‘evolved’ on core issues. But I’d be happy to nominate a black, woman, Mormon, etc, even though it’s a given this makes it a little harder to win in the short term. By letting the shills on the left betray their own claims about tolerance, the right makes huge gains. Palin is exhibit A.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/6/2010 @ 12:07 pmRacists!
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/6/2010 @ 1:12 pmRacists!
And Kyoto.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/6/2010 @ 1:13 pmComment by Optimus Prime — 11/6/2010 @ 10:54 am
England has slowly drifted away from the traditions that made her great since the end of The Great War, where she lost an entire generation, or more, of leadership on the Hallowed Poppy Fields of Flanders and France.
We have no such excuse for what we do today!
AD-RtR/OS! (0f5c41) — 11/6/2010 @ 2:04 pmComment by SPQR — 11/6/2010 @ 11:34 am
Is it the public at-large, or is it just the “credentialed” class?
AD-RtR/OS! (0f5c41) — 11/6/2010 @ 2:08 pmAD, well both in my opinion, but I claim no special expertise other than observation.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/6/2010 @ 6:07 pmMassachusetts does offer an disquieting parallel to consider, Patrick was Obama 1.0, coming after the ebb of a long GOP tide, his administration was full of platitude, he was ripe for the pickin till an independent candidate, Cahill, got in the way, and in the end, DEval eked out another win,
This along with the defeat of Bielat, another excellent candidate, dispirited many of my friends
justin cord (82637e) — 11/6/2010 @ 6:15 pmin that branch office of the tea party
Did John Hitchcock ever acknowledge my responses to him? Or did he disappear?
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/7/2010 @ 11:29 amPatterico – What you see is what you got.
Now back to my conservative authentication certification classes.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/7/2010 @ 11:44 am