Patterico's Pontifications

6/28/2014

Time to Vote for the Democrat in Mississippi to Teach the Establishment GOP a Lesson?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 1:40 pm

The primary election in Mississippi may turn out to be a watershed moment for the Republican party. Evidence? Even a self-proclaimed “candy-ass RINO” like Allahpundit at Hot Air is talking up the virtues of voting for the Democrat to teach the Republican establishment a lesson:

If Cochran trounces Childers in the general election, the lesson learned by Republican incumbents will be that there’s no cost to beating conservative challengers by any means necessary. You guys will always turn out for them in November on the theory that the Democrat is worse, no matter how nasty to you they are in the primary, so they might as well be as nasty as they like. The question is, is the Democrat worse this time? He may be worse than Cochran on policy, but is he worse than the filthy patronage system that supports Cochran and which he supports in turn? That’s what you’re voting for, whether you like it or not, if you vote for Thad.

. . . .

The counterargument is simple, though: If not now, when? The GOP might do well enough in the fall to retake the Senate even if they lose Mississippi. If they don’t retake it, that’s not a disaster — this is, by Nate Silver’s estimate, the “least important election in years” because control of the upper chamber matters so little. The GOP will have more leverage over Court confirmations if they have a majority, but who knows if there’ll even be a vacancy on the Court? And gridlock on legislation is a fait accompli given Obama’s standoff with the Republican House regardless of what the Senate does. If you’re unwilling to risk a protest vote for a Democrat after the grotesque spectacle of a group of GOP cronies using liberal votes to prop up an elderly man whose heart isn’t in it anymore, you’ll never be willing. And if you’re unwilling, maybe it’s time to stop complaining about Cochran and cronyism and the rest of it and accept that this is who we are and who we’re going to be.

I know many of you see this as playing into the Democrats’ hands. But at this point, people who believe in limited government have no recourse to the Republican party. What have they done for us lately? Nothing. So we have to flex our muscles. The GOP has essentially declared war on us. If we have to respond, rather than roll over, then that’s what we’ll do. What practical difference does it really make if the Senate remains in Democrat hands from 2014 to 2016 anyway? Is the genteel wing of the GOP going to block an Obama nominee to the Supreme Court? Nope. So the answer is: it makes no difference.

I am disgusted by the tactics used by Cochran supporters in this election, and I want to know who is behind it. I have already posted circumstantial evidence suggesting a possible connection to the Barbour super-PAC. As some have pointed out, that evidence is not a smoking gun. The anonymous flyer appealing to black people on the basis of race was not necessarily put out by the super-PAC; there are other reasonable theories for the similarities between that flier and the super-PAC fliers. (Maybe somebody copied the super-PAC arguments, for example.) I put up that post because I want reporters asking questions. And I know some are.

I’m going to continue to work on this story. Some have even doubted whether the racist flyer was actually distributed. That much, I know happened — and I will be doing a post about it. Stay tuned.

407 Responses to “Time to Vote for the Democrat in Mississippi to Teach the Establishment GOP a Lesson?”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. Let’s give the House and Senate to the Dems. Let’s give all state offices to the Dems. Let’s propose an amendment that unless a perfect GOP candidate runs, Obama gets to stay in office for life.

    The perfect is the enemy of the good.

    Nathaniel Wright (1e47ba)

  3. yes yes yes

    it is time

    What the Mississippi Obscenity has shown us very very clearly, is that like the rest of America’s institutions – her fascist and oppressive government bureaus and cabinets – her inane and abusive public schools, her piggy piggy police departments, her grotesque propaganda slut media, her sleazy indoctrination camp colleges and universities – even the American Red Cross – the Republican Party is wholly and irredeemably corrupt.

    They’re on record now.

    On record saying clearly, trumpeting loudly:

    LIMITED GOVERNMENT IS RACIST AND REPUBLICANS WHO WISH TO LIMIT THE SCOPE AND FOOTPRINT OF GOVERNMENT, THEY ARE BIGOTS WHAT HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE BLACK PEOPLE

    Game over?

    Oh indeed.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  4. It seems that it would be a better move to either have a concerted effort at a third party or the like. My worry would be that the Wheelers and Dealers will then use that to say why they have to move farther left “Even Mississippi is to far left for a conservative to win”. Same reason I think staying home is a bad idea. I do not want them to win with this method, but I want the reason that they fail or nearly fail to be crystal clear

    Andrew (859f0f)

  5. Let’s give the House and Senate to the Dems. Let’s give all state offices to the Dems. Let’s propose an amendment that unless a perfect GOP candidate runs, Obama gets to stay in office for life.

    The perfect is the enemy of the good.

    You demolished a perfectly good straw man. Care to confront our actual argument now? You can find it in the post right above these comments.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  6. I guess it all depends on who a voter thinks is the greater evil; Thad Cochran/Haley Barbour or Obama/Alinsky, Inc.

    There’s only a hundred Senators, and they serve for six year terms.
    Unfortunately, in many instances, the consequences of their votes on the Senate floor can be much more far-reaching than just six years.
    The consequences of those votes can last a lifetime.

    We’ve got some really old fogeys on the Supreme Court. That’s something to keep in mind.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  7. In chess, sometimes a pawn must be sacrificed to gain a better position or to win the game.

    If someone proposes such a sacrifice, a valid argument against the sacrifice is: that will not help you achieve your ultimate goal.

    An invalid argument is: any time you give up a pawn you help the enemy. And an offensive argument is: by sacrificing that pawn, you actually want to lose the game.

    Nathaniel Wright, I am willing to reach out to you and say that I believe you and I are working for the same goal. I think we disagree on tactics — and that’s fine, because I have found myself on your side of the argument before.

    I would say the same thing about many establishment Republicans. But not all. I think some of them don’t give a rat’s ass about the principles of limited government — and those are the same people who will stoop to the tactics of the left, and level baseless and anonymous accusations of racism, for reasons of cronyism.

    I think it’s time to declare war on those people.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  8. I guess it all depends on who a voter thinks is the greater evil; Thad Cochran/Haley Barbour or Obama/Alinsky, Inc.

    It doesn’t. I think that’s a rational way to pose the argument, but I no longer agree.

    The Democrats will never be on our side. The establishment Republicans will be, if we scare the hell out of them and make them believe that the only way to preserve their office is to actually fight for limited government.

    So I think the choice is between:

    a) Accepting the status quo and settling for someone who is barely better on policy, but not meaningfully so, or

    b) Taking the fight to the GOP to make them actually act on what they claim to stand for.

    I choose b.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  9. We’ve got some really old fogeys on the Supreme Court. That’s something to keep in mind.

    Show me some reason to believe establishment GOP’ers will vote down an Obama nominee.

    I know, I know: maybe they will, and Democrats definitely won’t. Not good enough. See my previous comment. I have zero faith that the GOP will do anything to stop a radical Obama nominee unless public opinion is behind them — and if public opinion is behind them it won’t matter. These people have zero backbone and do not deserve my support. Moreover, anyone who engages in the kind of tactics that were used in the Cochran election deserves to be drummed out of public life.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  10. If you’re looking to make a statement to the idiot, corrupt GOP, then don’t vote for the dem. That will just hide your numbers. The GOP needs a lesson on who their base really is.

    Write in Chris McDaniel. Then, your numbers will be quantified, for the record.

    It may split the vote, and the dem win, but, it may not. Who knows? But, we DO know this: WeThePeople are only slightly better off, if at all, with the Cochrans & McConnells liars than we are with the DNC liars. The GOP is corrupt, and combined with the DNC, they’re the commiecrat party.

    ryukidn (37079a)

  11. ==I would say the same thing about many establishment Republicans. But not all. I think some of them don’t give a rat’s ass about the principles of limited government — and those are the same people who will stoop to the tactics of the left, and level baseless and anonymous accusations of racism, for reasons of cronyism. I think it’s time to declare war on those people.==

    Please let us know how to declare an outright yet nuanced war on the “some” and the “many” without also taking out and neutering the good ones including conservatives. I really want to know.

    elissa (fa2825)

  12. please tell us how to support a corrupt Republican whore senator like Thad Cochran and how to support a corrupt Republican Party without inflaming that corruption

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  13. I wrote 2 comments on adj Dana’s blog that fit here, too.

    No, it’s actually time for the TEA Party to quit the “let it burn” mantra, and start stoking the fires.

    Every Conservative in MS should vote for the Democrat challenger to Thad Cochran.
    Every Conservative in KY should vote for the Democrat challenger to Mitch McConnell.
    Every Conservative in Boehner’s Ohio district should vote for the Democrat challenger.

    It’s time to play hardball with the Establishment Republicans who have been busy lying to everyone and calling the TEA Party extremist racists. It’s time to do to the Establishment Republicans the exact same thing they have been doing to Conservative nominees–vote for the Democrat instead.

    The Democrats — all of them — and the Ruling Class Republicans are busily burning down the US. It’s time to make like it’s an oil well fire, and explode the fire away. Torch it and force it to burn far more quickly. Then come in and fix it right.

    Enough playing footsie. Enough voting the lesser of two evils, who is evil too. Just enough already.

    and

    “We should wait until a very serious emergency arrives before we blow Susan’s horn. What if something worse comes after we’ve already blown it? Then we won’t have her horn to blow it again!”

    “By that thinking, we shall never blow Susan’s horn.”

    John Hitchcock (a6c92d)

  14. Patterico,

    There are so many reasons we need to win the Senate this November. At the very least, we can hold the House, take the Senate, thereby keeping Obama in a stalemate between now and January 2017.
    I fully understand your sacrificing a pawn analogy, but I’m not sure it applies to this scenario in the sense that the Senate game is one that is won explicitly due to number of votes on the Senate floor.

    In chess, you can still checkmate your opponent even though you have “sacrificed a pawn” resulting in your opponent having captured “more of your pieces,” and “more of your valuable pieces,” even.
    In war, you can sacrifice vulnerable troops who are attacking the flank, in order to send a brigade up the middle, thereby resulting in “capturing the flag.”
    In soccer, Team X can still defeat Team Y even if they are playing short-handed due to losing a player to a red-card ejection.
    But on the Senate floor, you need to have the numbers.
    We’ve already lost too many seats that we ought to have won during the past two election cycles.
    Thad Cochran is a sleazebag. He ought to have retired by now. But there’s too much at stake to risk giving Hairy Reed another ally in the Senate.

    Voters in MS seem to like the pork that Cochran brings home. I hate it, but that’s federalism.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  15. Oh, and Patterico, I’m glad to see you’ve come over to my side of this argument after arguing against it so hard previously. Welcome.

    John Hitchcock (a6c92d)

  16. What state do you live in, again John Hitchcock?

    elissa (fa2825)

  17. Please let us know how to declare an outright yet nuanced war on the “some” and the “many” without also taking out and neutering the good ones including conservatives. I really want to know.

    I don’t proposed an outright yet nuanced war. If one declares war, one must fight to win.

    The key point is to battle only the people who deserve it. Those who engaged in these tactics need to go down. Anyone who actively gets in the way needs to go down. I propose leaving the rest alone; we will need their support later. Even if they disagree, they can disagree with us respectfully and vice versa. For example, elissa, I do not question your motives and I trust you do not question mine. You may disagree with a tactic of mine and I will hear you out.

    The fellow who suggests writing in McDaniel may be right; it depends on how close the race will be. One could simply stay at home, one could write in McDaniel, or one could vote for the Dem. But war means Cochran must lose, so that the GOP gets the message. If that means we lose a meaningless control of a Senate for two years, I’m willing to risk that. The GOP’s lackluster performance when we are in control is what makes the potential downside seem so small.

    If the GOP had shown us in the past that control of the Senate actually meant something, maybe I would care a lot about a GOP member winning every single race. They haven’t, so I don’t.

    #WAR

    Patterico (9c670f)

  18. Team R isn’t even trying Mr. Stone.

    They replaced disgraced amnestywhore Eric Cantor with… filthy disaster porkslut Kevin McCarthy.

    They’re taunting people who believe in personal freedom, free enterprise, and individual liberty.

    And so far they’re doing so with complete and utter obama-like impunity.

    But they’re not doing it with my help or support they’re not.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  19. Oh, and Patterico, I’m glad to see you’ve come over to my side of this argument after arguing against it so hard previously. Welcome.

    There is no question but that my views have changed. That’s why I think it’s so important not to burn bridges with people who still think the way I used to think.

    There are, no doubt, those who will beat their chests and berate people like me for having taken a while to change our minds. (I don’t include you in that crowd.) Those types of people are not going to help anything. This isn’t about pride. It’s not about being Tougher Than the Next Guy. It’s about accomplishing goals. In order to do that, we need allies. No need to be rude to people who might one day join us.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  20. There are so many reasons we need to win the Senate this November. At the very least, we can hold the House, take the Senate, thereby keeping Obama in a stalemate between now and January 2017.

    We’ll hold the House. We don’t need the Senate if we hold the House.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  21. In chess, sometimes a pawn must be sacrificed to gain a better position or to win the game.

    If someone proposes such a sacrifice, a valid argument against the sacrifice is: that will not help you achieve your ultimate goal.

    I understand the proper use of chess terminology, so don’t jump all over me for making this point: a sacrifice (out of the context of chess) is taking an action and getting nothing in return. If you gain something of value by virtue of the action, then it’s not a sacrifice.

    Voting against Cochran isn’t a sacrifice, if his means don’t justify his ends to you. Thus, the question becomes: do you view Cochran as a value — simply because he has an “R” after his name — or must an “R” actually embody a particular [set of] value[s]? Essentially, this is the issue that limited government folks have with RINOs — the RINOs don’t behave like limited government types that the RINOs claim they are.

    Of course, that’s the problem with most conservatives, too, unfortunately. As a current, yet typical example of how “conservatives” don’t understand “limited government” any more than the socialists, I give you Monica Wehby (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-06/why-obamacare-can-t-be-fixed).

    And she’s a doctor. You’d think she’d get it. But she doesn’t. Like most Republicans/conservatives.

    What is needed is that a) conservatives need to do what they need to do in order to purge the RINOs from Congress as best they can (at least put the fear of the Tea Party into them) but more importantly, b) they need to unite on what constitutes actual political and moral values.

    I know, I know — what a concept…

    J.P. (bd0246)

  22. I fully understand your sacrificing a pawn analogy, but I’m not sure it applies to this scenario in the sense that the Senate game is one that is won explicitly due to number of votes on the Senate floor.

    I think you’re ignoring the element of time. A sacrifice does not always pay off in one move. But it’s worth it if it pays off by the end of the game. I’m playing a long game.

    Again, we can disagree on tactics. That’s fine. Just don’t devolve into personal insults. (You’re not now, but you have in the past. I’m thinking about your inexcusable rudeness to DRJ.) We all want the same thing: limited government. If the GOP won’t deliver it, we make them do so, or form another party.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  23. A slap to the face of Karl Rove, and others, is well deserved – and overdue.
    Vote Childers – 2014!

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  24. The best reason for winning the Senate is so that there will be enough votes to convict Barack Obama when he’s impeached by the House of Representatives for his crimes.

    I agree that, under normal circumstances, the GOP should have to pay a price for engaging Democrats to defeat a primary challenge.

    Pick someone in the House, someone who crosses the aisle and take that one out, as retribution, if you need retribution.

    It’s too important that the Republicans control the Senate.

    We must remove a dictator. That is the task before Americans.

    Yes, we lost this battle. Let’s not sacrifice the war.

    someguy (84ecc5)

  25. The best reason for winning the Senate is so that there will be enough votes to convict Barack Obama when he’s impeached by the House of Representatives for his crimes.

    I hereby offer to bet you $1000 that Barack Obama will never be impeached, whether the GOP controls the Senate or not.

    You have a lot more faith in the spines of the GOP establishment than I do. You think John McCain would vote to impeach Barack Obama?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  26. You have to accept the bet today, though.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  27. Another view is to sit it out, and make Thad win it on his own – see how many of those Cochran Democrats will vote for him in the Fall. Many of the arguments relating to seniority used against McDaniel can be used against Childers too.
    McDaniel could very well be on the ballot for this seat again in 2016 – it’s a toss-up whether or not Thad can complete another term, of even last a year.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  28. I just don’t think that the scorched earth strategy is a winning hand.
    (Unless some dude with neck tattoos just broke into your house at 2 in the morning, and then I say, empty every chamber of your gun into him.)

    If I’m stranded in the desert and I’m given a choice between a glass of warm water VS nothing, I’ll take the half glass of warm water.
    Of course, I’d prefer a bottle of low-cal Gatorade that’s been in the fridge overnight, but hey, that isn’t on the menu at that very moment.

    We have to rip a page from Happy Warrior Ronald Reagan’s playbook and try to persuade hearts and minds. This takes time.
    But ceding the Senate seat for six years to the Alinskyites is not wise.
    What happens in 2017 if a Republican wins the White House, and we find that we “need” that MS Senate vote (that we lost in 2014) for a confirmation of a John Bolton to become the Secretary of State ?

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  29. boehnerpoofter hasn’t even bestirred himself to impanel a select committee to investigate the fascist and out-of-control IRS, Mr. someguy

    and he’s initiated a silly feckless lawsuit in lieu of any real opposition to obama’s lawless rape of the constitution

    Please to know…

    the boenerpoofter house isn’t going to be doing any impeachings

    Not this year, not next year, not ever.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  30. the *boehnerpoofter* house isn’t going to be doing any impeachings I mean

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  31. We’ll never have enough votes in the Senate in order to impeach Obama before his term is up.
    That’s just a fantasy.

    But golly-damn, think about all the Senate seats we could have right now if not for some awful campaigns during the past two election cycles.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  32. Yes, and many of those awful campaigns were by Establishment Republicans.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  33. No. The way to defeat this kind of thing is to swarm the party apparatus with Teas. Get off your duff. Pick the local candidate who both shares your views and is actively campaigning, and offer your help. Go down to the local Republican office and work for whatever candidate got the nomination, and “pay your dues.” Get involved. Get your friends involved. Walk precincts.

    And so forth.

    But don’t sit around and whine about how “they” won’t do what you want them to do. Eff “them.” BECOME “them.” Let someone else whine about what YOU are doing.

    Electing some you REALLY hate to spite someone you mildly hate is rather a bad case of Chronic Perspective Loss, and will just make it easier for the establishment to paint the Teas as spoiled brats.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  34. I am done with the VichyGOP. They have ONE principle and that is “Screw the TEAParty” at all costs.

    I will be voting for the Constitution Party or another acceptable 3rd party every chance I get from now on.

    Team McConnell and Boehner hate actual conservatives more than they want to overturn Democrat policies. They have proven this time after time after time.

    WarEagle82 (b18ccf)

  35. You think John McCain would vote to impeach Barack Obama?

    Yes. You have a better case that the Democrats left in the Senate would not, though.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  36. There is an old Hollywood movie cliche that says “revenge is a dish best served cold”. What is means is that you should not let your emotions overrule your reason.

    In this case it is best to not let our emotions make us loose sight of political reality. Let us first win the Senate and then find a way to punish Cochran.

    For those who think if we hold the House we then do not need the Senate,you are not thinking clearly. Control of the Senate means we can keep ultra liberals off of the Supreme Court, we can put Obama in the position of vetoing Keystone, we can put him and the Democrats on the defensive with EPA regulations that raise energy costs for citizens, force Obama to sign a budget for the first time in years and that is just for starters. With the Senate we can set the agenda and Obama and the Dems will be the obstructionists, setting us up for a sweep in 2016. It also has the added bonus of letting McConnell have enough rope to hang himself as majority leader. But if you insist on sacrificing big gains later for petty revenge now, there is nothing I can say to you.

    Thresherman (4efb38)

  37. I’m on-board, it’s well past time to put the hammer down. Screw the GOP establishment! If they’re going to act like Democrats we should treat them like Democrats. If they insist on defining conservatives as their #1 enemy then we have no option but to acknowledge their declaration of war and act accordingly. It’s the traditional way Americans respond to tyranny and it’s the way we have always fought to preserve our independence. Sic Semper Tyrannis

    Let’s face facts, the GOP establishment sees this as a fight to the death, if conservatives won’t knuckle under, won’t abandon cherished principles limiting the federal government to it’s constitutional responsibilities, roll over and support establishment moderates one after another, then they’d rather Democrats rule than allow conservatives to win elections.

    The GOP establishment has called the tune, now let them pay the piper!

    ropelight (f9f49c)

  38. McCain rejected the idea of impeachment over Benghazi — although he did suggest Obama would be impeached if he put boots on the ground in Syria.

    Susan Collins didn’t even vote to convict Clinton, so don’t count her as part of your impeaching “majority.”

    Patterico (9c670f)

  39. Control of the Senate means we can keep ultra liberals off of the Supreme Court

    Does it?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  40. The “impeach Obama” thing is a straw man, though. The Dems cannot convict The First and hold their coalition. That they might not be able to vote to acquit and hold their coalition could also be true, which might change the calculus.

    But the point of electing a Senate majority — and getting as big a margin as possible — is NOT to impeach. It’s so that the Congress can pass legislation and present it to the president to sign. He may veto it, sure, but every time he vetoes something that addresses a problem he has to explain why, and he cannot blame Congress for inaction. The more he vetoes popular legislation, the less chance his party has of keeping the job.

    And some of those vetoes will be overridden as his popularity declines. The shrill screaming of the little man behind the curtain will hold fewer and fewer votes as time goes on.

    To those that say “BUT THERE IS NO TIME!!!!!q1!!!1111!!”, well, maybe you are right, but short of a military coup, it will take time. You should have thought of that when you were protest-voting the Romney nomination. Which was just as stupid.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  41. Is Ruth Bader Ginsburg an ultra liberal? She was confirmed 96 to 3. Many of the people who voted for her are still there.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  42. please to tell me more about this military coup idea

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  43. Patrick,

    It’s nice to call my statement a straw man, but the more you advocate non-participation or voting for a Democrat to “teach a lesson” the more you empower the opposing party. You allow them to create the “perception” of GOP collusion to accomplish their goals. That’s not what happened here, as a GOP candidate directly solicited Dem voters, but the conspiracy theories attached to the aftermath set a foundation to enable the Moby-ing of elections.

    Not that this matters to either you or me directly as neither of us lives in Mississippi. It’s up to Mississippi voters to decide whether it is better to have an establishment GOP candidate or a Democrat. Personally, I’ll take Democrat lite over Hard Core Left.

    That said, I think it is far more important to look at actual voting records (Thad’s is here http://votesmart.org/candidate/53312/thad-cochran#.U688422wXYZ) than to look at perceptions and campaign strategies. If the guy described by the voting record at Vote Smart is “Democrat-Lite” then you and I have a different definition of what that means.

    Nathaniel Wright (1e47ba)

  44. Kevin M,

    Passing legislation that will be vetoed would be nice. Having an establishment GOP that allows Republicans to choose their own candidates would also be nice. I’m not saying there would not be any benefits to controlling the Senate for two years. It’s a cost-benefit analysis, and we weigh the pros and cons differently.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  45. Oh…and there is a difference between Hyperbole and a Straw Man. I was using hyperbole.

    Nathaniel Wright (1e47ba)

  46. But golly-damn, think about all the Senate seats we could have right now if not for some awful campaigns during the past two election cycles.

    I am.

    The Lugar campaign to elect the Democrat when he lost the primary.
    The Scuzzyfavor campaign to elect the Democrat when she clearly was lost.
    The GOP campaign to elect the current Democrat governor of Virginia.

    I could go on.

    I’m thinking about it, and I say, enough with the “let it burn” mentality. Torch that oil fire. Torch it now.

    John Hitchcock (a6c92d)

  47. Patterico,

    To hear you tell it we are all effed and we might as well just pull the temple walls down. I have no love for Cochran, and I hope he dies soon, really I do, but that is no cause to vote for a Democrat who would be worse. You would replace a lying, scheming backstabbing Republican with a lying, scheming backstabbing Democrat? There is some hope the Republican will backstab other people more.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  48. I’m not saying there would not be any benefits to controlling the Senate for two years. It’s a cost-benefit analysis, and we weigh the pros and cons differently.

    The benefits of your plan are what? I see none.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  49. It’s nice to call my statement a straw man

    It was. You suggested that if a “perfect” candidate is not nominated that I would oppose him. That I make the “perfect” the enemy of the good. That is not the argument of the post.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  50. The benefits of your plan are what? I see none.

    How do you think I would respond to that?

    I don’t feel like repeating myself. Let’s see if you can summarize my argument in a way that is fair, that I would agree is an accurate representation of my position.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  51. A write-in campaign might be what is best for all. RINO Murkowski won with one – though it drew from Dem voters – so it might be possible to use the “crossover” votes to mobilize additional base voters and pull voters away from Cochran. It might still result in a loss for a more conservative candidate, but it would still have the possibility of resulting in a win and punishment.

    Nathaniel Wright (1e47ba)

  52. To hear you tell it we are all effed and we might as well just pull the temple walls down.

    I think we are. We’ve been through this before. For example, you think Social Security is pretty much hunky dory. I say it’s a Ponzi scheme. You think anyone who says that is an idiot. I still say it is. I think we are headed for fiscal ruin. I don’t get the sense you agree. I think a person’s view of the severity of the crisis (or even whether a crisis exists) informs one’s view as to the range of acceptable tactics.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  53. A little cut and paste job:

    WHY MODERATE REPUBLICANS ABUSE CONSERVATIVES

    There are many theories that attempt to explain why moderate Republicans abuse their conservative partners. Some of those theories include the following: economic rewards, feelings of cultural superiority and/or entitlement, provocation by conservatives, and stress. While these issues can be associated with the abuse of conservatives, they are not the causes. If the associated factors are removed the violence of moderate Republicans against conservatives will not come to an end. The moderate Republican begins using abuse as an effective method for gaining and keeping his control over someone else. He continues the abuse for the same reasons. It is sad to say but the abuser usually does not suffer any adverse consequences because of his behavior.

    History shows us that the abuse of conservatives by their moderate partners has not been treated as a “real” issue or concern. The “real” issue is always presumed to be the threat posed by Democrats. Lack of severe consequences such as removal from office for those moderates guilty of abuse makes this apparent. Moderate Republicans who are known abusers are rarely ostracized. Most abusers are accepted by the people in the Republican Party and across the political spectrum regardless of how they treat their conservative partners. Usually no one can tell by looking at them that they are abusers because they come from all backgrounds, groups and personality profiles. But there are some characteristics that fit the profile of abusers such as:

    The abuser sees conservatives as objects. He does not view conservatives as people. He has no respect for conservatives as a group. He sees conservatives objects.

    An abuser has low self-esteem. He feels powerless and ineffective. Although he may appear to be successful, inside he feels inadequate.

    An abuser finds external excuses for his behavior. He will blame his abuse on his partner’s behavior or anything that comes to mind to excuse his abusive actions.

    He may be charming and pleasant between his acts of abuse. Outsiders may view him as a nice guy.

    An abuser may display some warning signs such as: a bad temper, cruelty to animals, extreme jealousy, possessiveness, verbal abuse and/or unpredictability.

    Has your moderate Republican partner displayed any of the above warning signs? Have you experienced any abuse from your partner? If you have, begin making your plans to get out and stay out. Once the abuse starts it usually will escalate so leave and leave now.

    ThOR (5d54bb)

  54. A write-in campaign might be what is best for all. RINO Murkowski won with one – though it drew from Dem voters – so it might be possible to use the “crossover” votes to mobilize additional base voters and pull voters away from Cochran. It might still result in a loss for a more conservative candidate, but it would still have the possibility of resulting in a win and punishment.

    I’m cool with a write-in, if it punishes the people who engaged in these tactics. But I want Cochran to lose. I want a lesson taught here. I’m less concerned with the mechanics of how it gets done, but I want it done.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  55. I see this differently as well, I see it one would see someone who thought Jimmy Carter was soft on Communism and “punished” Carter by helping the Soviets.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  56. Patrick,

    Your recent posts seem to fluctuate between a desire for almost perfect candidates and your desire to prevent a leftward shift in the SCOTUS. I thought your post here was leaning more to the perfect side than usual. When one states that “the perfect is the enemy of the good” one isn’t typically saying that you actually want a “perfect” candidate. They are saying you want a “more perfect” candidate than one. They are accusing you of sour grapes behavior, and I think there is some of that going on here. I also think there is some reason to rage as the campaign engaged in reprehensible behavior.

    I just think that a Democrat Senator is such a horrible punishment for the people of the US – and not for Cochran – that there is a huge disconnect for me.

    Nathaniel Wright (1e47ba)

  57. ==I don’t proposed an outright yet nuanced war. If one declares war, one must fight to win.
    The key point is to battle only the people who deserve it. Those who engaged in these tactics need to go down. Anyone who actively gets in the way needs to go down. I propose leaving the rest alone; we will need their support later. ==

    OK, Patterico. I know you have a plan in your mind but it’s not coming through clearly. I used the word “nuanced” for a reason. Maybe there’s a better word. But if the narrative and the messaging to voters is not nuanced how do you propose to protect the good ones then? How would the campaign message go that informs voters that Republican xxx sucketh and needs to be eradicated by electing a liberal, but Mike Lee and Ted Cruz, also Republicans, are good and we need more of them to fight the liberal scourge and save our country? I am not being intentionally argumentative to you or your concept– but all elections are national ones these days (or we would not be talking about MS or Ohio or Kentucky on this thread). The actions and messaging that some here are pushing are pure examples of cognitive dissonance. We’re not talking about reaching savvy blog readers or political junkies with respect to your war. You’d be talking about needing to reach the distracted and largely disinterested voting public with an understandable and cogent message–a big difference. They don’t all read Patterico or Red State. They don’t all listen to Mark Levin. As a marketing person I know that messaging has to work for its particular audience or it can do great damage to a brand or image or cause. And as a lawyer you know that, too.

    So again, how do you declare a war on “some” people without (unintentionally) also damaging the ones you most want to succeed elsewhere?

    elissa (fa2825)

  58. I think we are. We’ve been through this before. For example, you think Social Security is pretty much hunky dory. I say it’s a Ponzi scheme.

    A Ponzi scheme fails when it runs out of new people. SS may operate on similar principles, but it’s timeframe is long enough that the people at the top die off and new people are born before it can be a problem. I have looked at the finances and the expectancies and unless things change radically (the politicians increase outflows, cut inflows (as they did in 2009) or life expectancy grows quickly), there is enough money for it to continue indefitely with maybe some slight changes to track longer lifespans. It’s just math, and the numbers work out.

    Medicare is hosed, though.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  59. I do think we have a growing risk of fiscal ruin, but I think there is still time to address it. That requires the GOP to 1) gain the reins of power) and 2) them to do something with it. W’s people squandered time horribly, focusing on irrelevancies while the building was on fire. Obama has put fuel to the flames. But it isn’t over yet.

    I do despair, though, when people who might be helping fight the fire say “let it burn.” Mainly because for me at least, there is nothing but ashes and death if it does. And I think for all of you, too, but hell, maybe you think Road Warrior is a happy future.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  60. Kevin M, you’re not helping people debate you in a friendly fashion. You’re using Leftist tactics. Passive-aggressive, dishonest tactics.

    John Hitchcock (a6c92d)

  61. Or maybe, Kevin M, you think Logan’s Run is a happy future.

    John Hitchcock (a6c92d)

  62. Well, I am not going to argue further with the “Let It Burn” crew; may peace be upon you. I would gently suggest that the DNC is delighted with the way you are thinking, and ecstatic for the support. Personally, I look at how things have gone downhill since 2008, and I am pretty sure—in part because of this philosophy—that we have eight years of HRC ahead of us…and will not gain the Senate. I think some folks supposedly on the Right like this, in an odd variant of Cloward-Piven—-they believe some perfect Conservative State will arise, phoenix-like, from the ashes. Maybe so, but I weep for my children.

    As always, the best way to handle this terrible problem is by constant involvement and hard work over a long period of time, as Kevin M. points out upstairs (#33, and I agree with him wholeheartedly with #40). But it’s not as exciting and immediate as “let it burn” and beginning every post with terms like “whore” and “slut.”

    To each their own. But I would rather try to fix things than help cause what I suspect is before us. Giving up or relaxing to the inevitable is a kind of sin, according to some.

    I understand the point of view Patterico has, and wish him well. At least he is moderately polite about this post. But I do not agree, and I feel so very badly at what will happen in the future as a result of this philosophy. Even if my actions *don’t* help against the EEEVVVIIILLL RINOs, at least I can say I didn’t cast a vote to help the progressives. But that is me, and everyone’s mileage will vary.

    Again, I’m sure that the “Let It Burn” folks will be quite insistent that they are correct, and theirs is the only path. I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind. But I suspect there are many lurkers who think the way I do. We will have to work even harder to fight the storm ahead.

    Best wishes to all.

    Simon Jester (b13fce)

  63. There are Republican “progressives” just as there are Democrat “progressives”. Theodore Roosevelt was just such a one. And many in the House and Senate are, as well. Voting for them is voting for “progressives” because they are “progressives”.

    John Hitchcock (a6c92d)

  64. Everybody should click this link http://votesmart.org/candidate/53312/thad-cochran#.U688422wXYZ provided previously by Nathaniel Wright. I would much rather have Thad Cochran than Mark Kirk. But I would also much rather have Mark Kirk than Alexi Giannoulias. (I don’t know Childers.)

    A long time ago, there was a typhoid outbreak in this one place and everybody was boiling the drinking water. A little boy, let’s say four or five, didn’t like the taste of the boiled water. So he peed in the pitcher. True story.

    nk (dbc370)

  65. There’s no dilemma. Vote for the crook, it’s important.

    nk (dbc370)

  66. Hi Simon. Best wishes and peace be upon you.

    You know, in all my recent travels and associations– including several conservative campaign rallies and local planning meetings– I have never run into an actual real live “let it burn”-er except for some who comment on a few blogs here on the internet. That’s kind of interesting, I think, and may have some effect on how people think and will vote in future elections.

    elissa (fa2825)

  67. ==Vote for the crook, it’s important.==

    You can always recognize an experienced and well indoctrinated Illinoisan! :)

    elissa (fa2825)

  68. Say, didn’t a rapper just try to teach a somewhat similar lesson, albeit to his own damn self?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  69. The GOP has essentially declared war on us.

    i hope they fail

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  70. Pete Perry apparently thinks he can get along better with Ricky Cole, and through him Kasim Reed’s factotum, Mitzy Bitzy then the slimy teadoodles, we’ve seen this pattern before Ruedrich against Miller for Murkowski, Ross against Christine for Coombs,

    narciso (3fec35)

  71. You have to fight to win, even if you sometimes lose a battle. In the 1964 Presidential election, the moderates of the GOP abandoned Goldwater because they considered him an extremist and they wanted to pull the Party back to a more moderate stance. Ultimately, the Republican Party rejected the Rockefeller Republicans in favor of Ronald Reagan. Maybe Reagan would have won without the Rockefeller-Goldwater showdown and the strife it caused in the GOP hierarchy, but I don’t think he would have.

    Mark T (8c79bc)

  72. That was a bumper sticker in Louisiana when David Duke, the Nazi, was running against Edwin Edwards, the crook.

    nk (dbc370)

  73. did you drink too much milk,nk?

    mg (31009b)

  74. My vote is supposed to count but, thanks to the Republican Party bribing democrats, it didn’t. Think I won’t remember that??? I suggest that Mr. Rance get immediately to begin negating these phony results.

    Pat Handley (8eb2b1)

  75. Edwin Edwards is still running again for a House seat in Louisiana, btw.

    narciso (3fec35)

  76. To me it seems a simple question. Do you meekly crawl to the election booth in November and vote for the GOP candidate who smeared you and everything you want as not only wrong but racist?

    It isn’t just you who is racist. It’s your desire for fiscal responsibility and limited government that is racist. Why, you racists would cut massive entitlement spending like SNAP!

    That’s what the GOP is demanding of their base in Mississippi. Not just to overlook the personal insult, but to vote against their interests and instead for the continuation of everything they despise.

    I couldn’t’ do it. It would make me ill.

    Steve57 (246b06)

  77. McDaniel needs to run as a write-in candidate or else there’s nobody running what will represent non-aficionados of trashy-assed american food stamp culture

    and that’s a problem

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  78. The situation is much trickier and prone to error for the right or Republicans mainly because of opinion polls dating back several years. I place a lot of blame on the mess we’re facing and the contortionist routines that conservatives now have to go through on that large part of the public that has incubated or fostered RINOs, much less flat-out liberals, and the gameplaying of squishes like Cochran.

    For example — and it’s a sea-change controversy to me — I think of the various Republicans who over the past several years have become increasingly do-gooderish about same-sex marriage and how that has helped embolden and fuel the left the same way that someone like Hillary sniping at Barry’s incompetency (if not liberalism) has helped embolden or fuel the right.

    Unfortunately, on too many issues, based on too many Gallup or Rasmussen Polls, etc, I see voter sentiment trending towards a situation that duplicates the former and not the latter.

    ‘The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.’

    Mark (fdb0fc)

  79. Glad you mentioned SNAP, Steve. Mississippi is the #1 food stamp recipient in the United States. 24% of its residents get food stamps. Mississippi is also an agricultural state; it’s it primary industry; and biggest employer (29% of the workforce). Food stamps benefit farmers as much as the recipients. Do you think Mississippi’s Senators should oppose them to keep happyfeet from calling them fascists?

    nk (dbc370)

  80. Henry Barbour and Pete Perry, are ‘honorable men’ of that is there is no doubt, Cochran was responsible for that wonderful Katrina funding bill that had ‘not a smidgen of corruption’ and
    the notion that one of his staff, was caught in the Abramoff affair, that is rank rumor and innuendo,

    narciso (3fec35)

  81. We’re facing a Hobson’s Choice in cases like Cochran versus Childers.

    Maybe we should just allow the “undocumented” to overrun the border and let Mexico take over the running and governance of the US.

    Snerk!

    (But in an age when no less than the US military itself has been lured by the wiles of Nida-Hasan-ization, cynicism, skepticism and disgust are not without reason).

    Mark (fdb0fc)

  82. Yes, nk, because government deciding where to spend your money is always preferable to you deciding for yourself…

    John Hitchcock (a6c92d)

  83. It’s not about left and right, exclusive, it’s inside and outsiders, in Greece, the Syriza party, their occupy won the EU slate, in France, the UK, and Belgium, it was the right populists,

    narciso (3fec35)

  84. Mark, I get your drift but that is really not the definition of a a Hobson’s choice.

    elissa (fa2825)

  85. Cochran is a 100% pro-life and 0% pro-buggery. Those are good enough conservative credentials for me. If nothing else, he neutralizes Mark Kirk who is the other way around. Since we’re putting up false dilemmas, should we have elected Giannoulias? Because Kirk is suuuuuch a RINO?

    nk (dbc370)

  86. foodstamperization without representation is ugly and wrong and I don’t care if you from Mississippi that’s no excuse

    have a little self-respect

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  87. John H, do you think the voters in MS do not understand full well that they are voting for pork? Not saying that you or I agree with that or most any subsidies. Clearly we do not. But I think nk’s point is entirely valid. They are voting for where they want government to spend money (on them) and voting for whom they trust to get it for them.

    elissa (fa2825)

  88. the point of this alliance between Perry and Cole, is to acquire flexibility on issues like that,

    narciso (3fec35)

  89. They are voting for where they want government to spend money (on them) and voting for whom they trust to get it for them.

    my understanding is they’re also voting to repudiate the vile racism of teabaggers like Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz

    so i guess it’s kind of a two-fer

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  90. Could Reagan had won without the Goldwater v. Rockefeller dust-up?
    Without AuH2O there would have been no “A Time For Choosing”, aka The Speech; and without The Speech, there may have been no run against Pat Brown in ’66. Damn those butterflies.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  91. One thing we haven’t asked – perhaps Sammy can inform us – is what is the state of MS election law regarding write-in campaigns by someone who has lost a primary? Some states do not allow them.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  92. I’m with Pat on this. Unfortunately, I live in AZ and both my senators are worthless. At least there’s a good chance that one of them will meet his maker in the not too distant future. So, there’s that.

    Gazzer (62e2b3)

  93. If Cochran was a Representative, I would support this 100%. However, given the chance to take control of the Senate away from Reid and get Congress working again, I just can’t.

    gahrie (a05ed4)

  94. Flake, already showed signs of the strigoi bloodworm, when he showed himself as Fidel’s BFF,

    narciso (3fec35)

  95. Let’s not cut off our nose to spite Haley Barbour.

    Elephant Stone (995377)

  96. oh let’s do

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  97. They’ve been voting for Cochran and pork for decades, feets. The pork is old old old-like almost from before Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin were born. The manufactured racism meme is new new new and I think its effect on this race is somewhat (not entirely) but mostly overstated and hyperventilate-y. That’s unless of course McDaniel promised the same exact pork Thad’s been delivering and so it has to be the little extra racism meme thrown in that pushed Thad over the top. Hmm. I wonder what Childers’ position is on pork. Any body here who is planning to vote for him know?

    elissa (fa2825)

  98. you’re being relentlessly logical about this

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  99. Good point gahrie. Plus a two year term is waaay different than a six year term.

    elissa (fa2825)

  100. To answer your question, yes, I do believe that Barack Obama can be impeached, and likely will be impeached, and yes, John McCain will vote to convict him in the Senate.

    We cannot live in a society where the rule of law is so cavalierly disregarded. Where the IRS Commissioner can sit there in the House and just lie to the Congress right through is toothy grin and have the complete confidence that he is untouchable, while his employees obstruct justice, destroy evidence and act with absolute impunity to deprive American citizens of the right to freely elect their representatives and speak on their candidates behalf.

    Such a system is not untenable. It will result in absolute violence to the Presidency and to the federal government as a whole.

    Democrats didn’t sit around whinging that Nixon could never be impeached. They got to work getting it done.

    I suggest you do the same thing, Mr. Patterico.

    someguy (84ecc5)

  101. 87. John H, do you think the voters in MS do not understand full well that they are voting for pork? Not saying that you or I agree with that or most any subsidies. Clearly we do not. But I think nk’s point is entirely valid. They are voting for where they want government to spend money (on them) and voting for whom they trust to get it for them.
    elissa (fa2825) — 6/28/2014 @ 5:16 pm

    I seems to me you are lumping all Mississippi voters together. The point is the GOP voters in that state rejected the notion twice by repudiating had Cochran, and Cochran appealed instead to Democrats who want to keep the gray train rolling.

    Is it now your position, elissa, that conservatives in Mississippi should now vote for not only the candidate who called them racists, but for the overspending, pork-barrel politics they rejected?

    Steve57 (246b06)

  102. I have a tendency to get polemical, and I don’t want to here. My view of the way Mississippi runs its life is pretty bad. I think the Mississippi GOP represents the national GOP the way the contents of the colon represent the human body. So I do not take any big lesson from this. And I do want a pro-life, pro-freedom of religion, pro-Tenth Amendment vote in the Senate when the SCOAMF makes his next judicial appointment. It’s more than the Supreme Court. It’s also the DC Circuit where a lot of government regulations are challenged and there is no Senatorial privilege to table the appointment.

    nk (dbc370)

  103. it has to be the little extra racism meme thrown in that pushed Thad over the top.

    yes that’s exactly what happened elissa

    Mississippi Rs, they wanted to change – and twice now more of them have voted to take a much harder look at rampant pork and incontinent foodstampery by voting for Mr. McDaniel than voted for the senile incumbent porkwhore

    but Mississippi Rs will not get the change they voted for

    because Meghan’s coward daddy and his Main Street brothel cajoled democrats to the polls in large part by employing spurious accusations of teadoodle racism

    it’s not america

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  104. Mark, I get your drift but that is really not the definition of a a Hobson’s choice.

    Elissa, unless you believe the dilemma pointed out by Patterico isn’t an accurate one, I think the definition of the phrase in question fits perfectly.

    1: an apparently free choice when there is no real alternative
    2: the necessity of accepting one of two or more equally objectionable alternatives

    Personally, in most instances, I could never vote for a typical Democrat over even a squishy Republican. If I were so torn between two candidates along those lines, I’d perhaps leave that part of the ballot blank or I’d vote for a third-party candidate, even though I’d know that in most instances such a response would be good only for symbolic and not practical purposes.

    Mark (fdb0fc)

  105. It would be wonderful if we had 55 Ted Cruz clones in the Senate.
    Unfortunately, that’s not going to happen due to this little thing called federalism.
    MS chooses the Senator who best represents their desires—not the desires of people living in Texas, Wyoming, or Utah, or any other state.
    MS is literally fighting West Virginia (red)neck and (red)neck for the title of poorest state, so maybe there really is a demand by the citizens of Ole Miss to bring some porky pork federal tax dollars into the state.
    A Ted Cruz can get elected in some states, but not in others.
    Scott Brown may be able to win a special election in Taxachusetts, but it’s more difficult for a Republican to retain that seat in liberal MA during a presidential election year, even if his opponent is a fake Indian from Oklahoma.

    The Senate is a numbers game. Sacrificing a “pawn,” or a Senator that you don’t like, only hurts our number. We may be able to live with that for a year or two, but if we win back the White House, we may come to regret that when we’re trying to get a John Bolton confirmed by the Senate to become the new Secretary of State.
    Having a Democrat replace Cochran in MS would not be addition by subtraction.
    It would be subtraction by subtraction.
    Caused by division.
    Or something.

    There’s just too much evil stuff going on in the world—including the homefront—to play this game of intentionally reducing our number in the Senate.

    If some of you really believe Obama is as diabolical as you say, shouldn’t you fear that he’s going to go full on Alinsky during his final two years, following the mid-terms ? Who knows what kind of treaties he might agree to with foreign nations. And doesn’t that require Senate approval ?

    Elephant Stone (995377)

  106. Well, I’m sorry happyfeet but the hot fudge sundae with sprinkles, whipped cream and a cherry is not on the menu anymore. You can have a hot fudge sundae without sprinkles, whipped cream and a cherry, or you can have the boiled brussel sprouts, but you will have one or the other. Sorry, having neither is not an option unless you leave the country.

    nk (dbc370)

  107. 97. They’ve been voting for Cochran and pork for decades, feets. The pork is old old old-like almost from before Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin were born.

    elissa (fa2825) — 6/28/2014 @ 5:47 pm

    So they can’t change their minds? That’s what Haley Barbour et al appear to be saying.

    Steve57 (246b06)

  108. The Cook Report and most pollsters have rated and continue to rate the Mississippi Senate seat as likely to stay Republican, whether the nominee had been Cochran or McDaniel, so Mississippi voters were voting for or against pork and incumbency. The racial arguments were designed to appeal to black voters because they typically vote Democratic and are theoretically more interested in the federal funds Cochran brings home. It was an argument intended to scare Democratic voters so they would vote against McDaniel.

    Mark T (8c79bc)

  109. Steve57 #107,

    But it’s THEIR minds to make up.
    This is the other end of the sword of federalism.
    It enables you and your fellow residents of Texas to elect Ted Cruz, and replace David Dewhurst with Dan Patrick, but it also enables the poor state of MS to re-elect a generally conservative Senator who brings a lot of earmarks to his state.
    That’s what MS wants.

    Elephant Stone (995377)

  110. What Mr.feets said @103.

    Word.

    Steve57 (246b06)

  111. Illinois gave us William Hale Thompson, George Ryan and Dan Ryan, i’ll leave out it’s more illustrious one time resident. Of course, the pork is the issue, ‘the business, it’s not personal,
    to be fair we’ve saddled the nation with debby dubious (who will soon not be my rep) and Charlie Cheetah,

    narciso (3fec35)

  112. still i hope McDaniel mounts a vigorous write-in campaign

    and I hope the nasty senile codger loses his seat and spends the remainder of his time on earth wondering why he’s not a senator no more

    and I hope they start making the sundaes with all the fixins

    but that you have to use real money not food stamps if you want one

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  113. There’s just too much evil stuff going on in the world—including the homefront—to play this game of intentionally reducing our number in the Senate.

    I pretty much fully agree with that conclusion. We’re living in an increasingly broken-down (perhaps even perilous) era, and there’s no room for tactical mistakes.

    In a way if a person knows just how corrupting and foolhardy liberal impulses have become throughout the US and the Western World — and all of us must see that particular trait in family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers, bosses, acquaintances, etc — the phrase of “the perfect being the enemy of the good” becomes more and more appropriate, unfortunately or otherwise.

    Mark (fdb0fc)

  114. Everything comes at a price. Including Cochran’s sleazy smears of Teas and usury of black voters:

    Mississippi NAACP President Derrick Johnson told the Huffington Post, “Our advocacy towards his office is to support amending the Voting Rights Act, free of any conditions such as voter ID,” Johnson said. “I think this is an opportunity for him to show some reciprocity for African-Americans providing a strong level of support for him.

    Dana (fe2228)

  115. Patterico, I think your extreme frustration has colored your normally right-on thinking.

    “But at this point, people who believe in limited government have no recourse to the Republican party. ”

    To quote another, this is a “perfect vs good” sort of statement. You could just as accurately written: “but at this point, we will need a revolution to get back to limited government.”

    We had 6 years of a Republican congress, and now we’ve had 8 years of Democrat. Which one produced the worst results? I think it’s obvious. Neither was optimal, but the Republicans didn’t create Obamacare, and they didn’t back up a lawless president and a lawless bunch of bureaucrats.

    Maybe we are on an inevitable slide into a socialist and regulatory hell. Maybe not. But preventing Republicans from gaining a majority in this extremely critical election is almost certainly going to push us faster down that slope.

    Besides, do you think they’ll really “learn a lesson?” I doubt it. But, the Democrats will – they’ll know that they can cause the right to get irrational and start feeding on its own.

    John Moore (eca135)

  116. Elephant Stone @109,

    But not what the MS rank and file GOP voter wants.

    They made up their minds. They voted for McDaniel. The party cut them off at the knees. They are not happy.

    Republican voters should pick Republican candidates. Not Democrats. How hard is this for you to understand?

    Steve57 (246b06)

  117. Utopia; it’s not just for left wingers anymore.

    Elephant Stone (995377)

  118. Write in votes are illegal under Miss. law.
    And the deadline for an independent run has been missed.

    mg (31009b)

  119. Utopia is the horizon we are all marching to. You know what a horizon is, right? It’s an imaginary line in the distance and no matter how long you walk towards it you never reach it.

    nk (dbc370)

  120. senile old whores like Thad Cochran and Meghan’s coward daddy are bad for the brand anyways Mr. Stone

    Team R has a nasty image problem

    it’s the drooling geriatric white boy party

    and the only people pro-actively addressing it that I can see are these McDaniel voters

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  121. Steve57 #116,

    In the state of MS, they have a weird open run-off primary election. Cochran INC manipulated it to his advantage, perhaps illegally. As a result, maybe the state will re-visit having an open run-off election.
    But please stop with the goofy insinuations that somehow I actually like what happened.

    See, now we must move on to the question of what will the consequences be for America if a Democrat upsets Cochran in the general election.

    Elephant Stone (995377)

  122. Write in votes are illegal under Miss. law.

    is this because someone could write in the name of a black person?

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  123. I think this pretty much illustrates Allahpundit talking about Mississippi politics. Even if it doesn’t, it’s funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXG1PVA8Rx4

    nk (dbc370)

  124. ==Is it now your position, elissa, that conservatives in Mississippi should now vote for not only the candidate who called them racists, but for the overspending, pork-barrel politics they rejected?==

    I have no position on what individual MS voters of any stripe should or should not do Mr. John, although I surely hope from a practical standpoint that they do not collectively elect a Democrat senator who will certainly continue, if not make worse, the pork barrel big government spending you decry. I don’t honestly know what the citizens of MS want even after two contentious and skeevy (on both sides) Republican primaries, and respectfully I don’t think you do either. The mere fact of a run-off suggests considerable uncertainty over both men. I do know that when people from outside opine and rant about the politics of my state and who we should or should not have voted for it is often laughable because they clearly do not understand the geography of my state or anything about the politics or history or socioeconomics of my state. I kind of take that as a clue that even though I follow national politics I don’t know enough about other states’ uniqueness and quirks to directly meddle much in their affairs or elections. If I were a resident of Ohio or Utah or MS I’m not sure all the “advice” from out of state commentators and bloggers and opinionators would be all that welcome or useful.

    elissa (fa2825)

  125. He’s a slippery little weasel;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Childers

    you think Childers won’t bring up Cochran was head of Mississippi for Nixon in ’68, that’s an early splitting dog whistle, on this new electorate, brother Barbour has opened up.

    narciso (3fec35)

  126. The Democrats will never be on our side.

    It goes without saying that the Dems will never be on our side – they don’t need to be. However, we see the establishment Republicans resembling Democrats more and more each day. It’s clear to see who holds the power.

    The establishment Republicans will be, if we scare the hell out of them and make them believe that the only way to preserve their office is to actually fight for limited government.

    While I agree with this, I’m still unclear on how this would play out in practical terms with the average uninformed voter. I think this is way more problematic than it would appear. How to sell a plan like this? MS is its own strange world, I don’t know that what might possibly work there would translate to more progressive states.

    a) Accepting the status quo and settling for someone who is barely better on policy, but not meaningfully so, or

    b) Taking the fight to the GOP to make them actually act on what they claim to stand for.

    Choosing A simply regurgitates the ubiquitous resigned voter response of holding the nose and voting for the lesser of two evils. Most of us have expressed that during the past several national elections.

    Unfortunately, the risk of choosing B has the very possible potential of backfiring. (Supreme Court vacancies, etc). The question for me, is what the cost is to fight the GOP via choice B, rather than fighting from the inside of the party to effect the desired change. I just wonder if the cost of fighting back as in choice B would be greater in the long run?

    Dana (fe2228)

  127. But Austin Barbour, a campaign adviser to Mr. Cochran, said Mr. McDaniel had run out of options. Mr. Barbour said that a write-in campaign would be illegal under Mississippi law — the ballots would be thrown out — and that Mr. McDaniel had missed the deadline to get on the ballot as an independent.

    evidently race does not matter, happyfeet.

    mg (31009b)

  128. Just saw elissa @ 124.

    Yes. Good points. Mississippi could no more speak to California’s regional or statewide issues than I could to theirs. However, isn’t the principle pretty much the same across the board? Establishment GOP going all out – no matter how low, no matter what beliefs, morals or conservative principles they need to trash – in order to keep the noxious Tea usurpers out. A win at any cost is the bottom line. And clearly the strategy works.

    Dana (fe2228)

  129. You what’s really illegal, what they actually did, it’s funny that a disbarred minion of Kasim Reed’s machine was actually running this effort, and they had the nerve to complain about outside funds,

    narciso (3fec35)

  130. is a write-in campaign is illegal?

    or is it just that write-in ballots would be thrown out?

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  131. is a write-in campaign is illegal?

    is what i meant there

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  132. A world where NRSC money doesn’t line the pockets of Democratic political operatives isn’t a “utopia,”ES. It used to be called reality.

    Do you realie how far you’re lowering he bar by declaring he idea ha Republican oney should go o Republicans hopelessly “utopian?”

    It’s now “utopian” to expect the NRSC isn’t raising money under false pretenses?

    It’s now “utopian” to expect the NRSC isn’t defrauding me? Because if they ask e for a donation and it goes to a Democratic political machine, that’s exactly what they are committing; fraud.

    Steve57 (246b06)

  133. Something to keep in mind; the GOP seems to focus more on programs that are of help to those out of work rather than reduce fraud, stop corporate welfare and shut down government spending that benefits only corporations or wasteful procurement policies (yes I recognize that people work for and support corporations but the Gov picks winners and losers and lets fraud and waste go on).

    This scares off those that are relying on those programs and rightfully so. Why should they bear the burden for the country to supposedly get it’s fiscal house in order? (that’s IF it could actually happen but usually the programs are cut and other programs get expanded).

    No one will be willing to see their benefits cut unless jobs can somehow be provided/promoted. This would require the rollback of so many laws and regs and taxes that I don’t think it can be done by any party even with the WH, House and Senate. Too many well heeled pigs at the trough unwilling to share and with the money to stop or distort any corrections.

    What would happen is that millions who have lost jobs due to the incompetence and outright malice of those in government will have their lives put at risk so that GM can pay the pensions of the UAW but whose hiring practices and protectionist attitudes will prevent hiring and entrepeneurship.

    So the Republicans aren’t the answer to our fiscal problems either because their solutions (and we saw their true colors with Ryan’s budget) would not lead to any real reduction in money spent but would lead to social and personal costs that could divide the country further.

    It’s a Gordian knot and we don’t have a system that can easily cut through the tangles to remove the blockage with fairness and speed. And no one seems to have a real and workable plan to do so anyway.

    Let it burn seems to be what the elite expect (at least they seem to be preparing for it) so let’s give it to them and let’s see if they like a million Madame Defarge’s any better than the TEA partiers.

    jakee308 (f1b953)

  134. Can we make each other happy?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8X6mlbq45k

    mg (31009b)

  135. “You and many others are shooting yourself and your cause, in your anger at certain people. You are generalizing way too much, and you will hurt what you hold dear.”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  136. The establishment Republicans will be, if we scare the hell out of them and make them believe that the only way to preserve their office is to actually fight for limited government.

    Saw this in Dana’s comment. That’s it. The source of Tea Party angst is that they’re not scaring the establishment. Cantor was waived off as local politics. Graham, McConnell and Cochran won. The Tea Party is trying to break into the majors and is getting spiked by Ty Cobb, beaned by Nolan Ryan, and thrown out at the plate by a throw from left field by Ted Williams.

    nk (dbc370)

  137. Dana at 6:50pm. Thank you for this. I don’t know if you or he saw my comment addressed to Patterico up at 57, but I tried to raise several of the same concerns and issues about messaging you just did, (although as is typical you articulated it much better and more concisely.)

    elissa (fa2825)

  138. Alright since we can’t agree on this, are we in accord, how much of an idiot, Clooney is:

    http://www.justjared.com/photo-gallery/2597116/elisabetta-canalis-restaurant-opening-in-miami-02/

    narciso (3fec35)

  139. If not now, when?

    A special election.

    Sammy Finkelman (9ec422)

  140. Moue. He married the Carol Kane lookalike. No accounting for tastes.

    nk (dbc370)

  141. Patterico (9c670f) — 6/28/2014 @ 2:04 pm

    a) Accepting the status quo and settling for someone who is barely better on policy, but not meaningfully so, or

    It is mainly on the issue of federal spending that Cochran is not conservative.

    Although even there he is more conservative than the Democrat should be.

    Sammy Finkelman (9ec422)

  142. 40. Kevin M (b357ee) — 6/28/2014 @ 3:07 pm

    But the point of electing a Senate majority — and getting as big a margin as possible — is NOT to impeach.

    You need only a majority of the House of Representatives to impeach, but you need a 2/3 majority of the Senate members present to convict or remove from office.

    It’s so that the Congress can pass legislation and present it to the president to sign. He may veto it, sure, but every time he vetoes something that addresses a problem he has to explain why, and he cannot blame Congress for inaction. The more he vetoes popular legislation, the less chance his party has of keeping the job.

    You also would be able to present compromises taht cannot now come up for a vote, or at any rate, pass.

    And some of those vetoes will be overridden as his popularity declines.

    Or he might sign some bills to avoid that, or avoid an irrational vote for Democrats. He already did already, actually, during the government shutdown, signing two bills he had threatened to veto (they carved some spending from the government shutdown and he had threatened to veto any bill that anything of taht sort, IIRC)

    Sammy Finkelman (9ec422)

  143. 14. Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/28/2014 @ 2:27 pm

    Voters in MS seem to like the pork that Cochran brings home. I hate it, but that’s federalism.

    Some people are bothered by the fact that some of the people in Mississippi who like that are, for all intents and purposes, solid Democrats, and Cochran specifically appealed to them to vote for him on those grounds. (he did not choose any other issues, aside from the idea that his opponent didn’t have the proper respect and courtesy (and love?) for African Americans, whom he concentrated on) and maybe harbored nostalgia for the way things were before the 1960s.

    Sammy Finkelman (9ec422)

  144. “Voters in MS seem to like the pork that Cochran brings home. I hate it, but that’s federalism.”

    Voters in the other 49 states (whoops, forgot about Massachusetts, make that 48) were appalled by the stories of the sheep Cochran used to bring home.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  145. Kevin M, you’re not helping people debate you in a friendly fashion. You’re using Leftist tactics. Passive-aggressive, dishonest tactics.

    Something must have hit hard then. Good.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  146. 121. …But please stop with the goofy insinuations that somehow I actually like what happened.

    That’s not what I’ve insinuated, if that’s the term. I don’t think you appreciate the depth of the perfidy.

    See, now we must move on to the question of what will the consequences be for America if a Democrat upsets Cochran in the general election.

    Elephant Stone (995377) — 6/28/2014 @ 6:39 pm

    Yes. Precisely.

    Steve57 (246b06)

  147. You need only a majority of the House of Representatives to impeach,

    Sammy, do me a big big favor and do not correct me with pedantry.

    But in any case, the act of impeachment depends — politically — on what might happen in the Senate, and should not occur without considering that. The House leadership has to decide 1) if the president’s actions need to be called out as intolerable, or whether a lesser action (e.g. censure) will do, and 2) whether the Senate might convict.

    It is, strictly speaking, not necessary THAT the Senate convict — impeachment is a political act and a political trial. It is not a criminal trial and the Senate is not a jury. So, the decision by the House must be whether the trial in the Senate will accomplish their political goals. These goals might be something other than conviction. An acquittal of an obviously guilty president by a fanatically loyal Senate minority might not be such a good thing for the President’s party.

    But if you don’t have a majority in the Senate, the trial will be a voice vote on Day 1. At least with Harry Reid.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  148. there’s a case to be made that

    IF

    at the end of the day

    everyone understands that Thad Cochran is a sleazy dishonorable senile Republican whore

    and that he’s forever remembered as such

    remembered as an appalling disgrace to Mississippi

    and known by all to be a sure and certain resident in one of the more squalid circles of hell

    then some small measure of justice has been derived

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  149. See, now we must move on to the question of what will the consequences be for America if a Democrat upsets Cochran in the general election.

    Elephant Stone (995377) — 6/28/2014 @ 6:39 pm

    Yes. Precisely.

    Oh, I don’t expect anything too bad. The classification of firearms ammunition as destructive devices by the BATFE; the mandating of a semester of same-sex dating in freshman year of high school by the Department of Education; the Supreme Court holding that churches being obligated to conduct same-sex marriages does not infringe the First Amendment right to worship; slavery reparations. Little things like that.

    nk (dbc370)

  150. But back to the topic.

    I remember the old libertarian argument that if you vote for a candidate that you don’t like, they will think you must like it (you voted for it) and they’ll give you more of it. This was an argument for voting 3rd party, for a candidate you liked more. Even if they must lose, there was a message to be sent.

    Two things here: 1) The people who voted for Thomas Carey (who ran a paper “anti-incumbent” campaign) may have disliked “incumbents” but the result was the ur-incumbent, and 2) voting for the candidate you REALLY don’t like instead may not send the message you intend.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  151. IF … at the end of the day … everyone understands that Thad Cochran is a sleazy dishonorable senile Republican whore

    They know that now. They knew that last Tuesday. They probably knew that in 1996.

    What I would really like people to understand is you shouldn’t have open primaries. If you must allow crossovers, then the rule on runoffs is that only people who voted in the first election can vote in the runoff, as it’s just too tempting for the other side (or the primary candidate closer to the other side) otherwise.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  152. the Rand Paul says open primaries are super-groovy

    but…

    sometimes I think the Rand Paul has his own agenda

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  153. Is it true that with all the umbrage he is taking after being personally insulted by Cochran happyfeet is going to pack up and move to MS so he can take a stand–register and vote for Childers? Oh wait. Prolly not. happyfeet never votes anywhere for anything.

    elissa (fa2825)

  154. nonono

    i don’t vote here

    number one my vote is meaningless

    but most importantly

    cause that’s how they get you for jury duty

    Los Angeles is very sleazy like that

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  155. last time i voted was for Meghan’s p.o.s. brainwashed coward daddy

    and i would take that one back if i could

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  156. cause that’s how they get you for jury duty

    I hate to tell you this, but they use other records, too. Apparently someone sued, saying that only having voters as jurors gave a biased pool of government-worshipers or some such.

    I think they use utility records, too, but I could be wrong. Someone here may know.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  157. i think it’s voting and dmv

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  158. but anyways so far I’ve avoided it

    to be honest I don’t really mind right now – and I tried and failed to get an absentee ballot in 2012 before I left on a big road trip

    and so I might could vote if I’m here in 2016

    but that’s super-unlikely

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  159. sometimes I think the Rand Paul has his own agenda

    Rand wants to fundamentally transform the Republican Party. It probably needs it. He has appeal that crosses over to the non-statist left (there is such a thing). Pot, anti-war, anti-NSA, etc.

    Since he is also more of a fiscal conservative than 99% of the GOP, a federalist, and at least not pro-abortion, he can bring a lot of Republicans with him despite his transgressions on foreign policy. The latter bother me, though, even though Obama’s faceplant in Iraq gives Rand unexpected cover.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  160. Yeah, I kind of figured that one out, Mr. Feet. Not surprisingly in the slightest.

    Simon Jester (f0b3f1)

  161. vote if I’m here in 2016

    But suppose a near-senile corrupt Dianne Feinstein was trolling for GOP votes in her battle with some ultra Progressive fool (e.g. Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris, Sandra Fluke, we have so many)?

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  162. The voting thing is an old wive’s tale. They DMV records now.

    Gazzer (62e2b3)

  163. I just won’t be here at some point Mr. M

    i’ll probably be in and around here for a little while cause of my orthodontist is here

    but

    this place is getting kind of stale

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  164. figured which one out?

    the only vote I missed was for Romney

    and he disgusted me

    him and his whole freaky family

    WEIRDOS.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  165. Gotta check my records, sir, but I seem to remember you claiming to have voted for him, in 2012. But it sounds like you were disenfranchised. Which means, in this case, a vote for BHO. Good for you! It’s funny you complain about the state of things, but…

    It’s MUCH cooler to call people names and say odd stuff than to try to fix things. I keep forgetting how to be hip.

    But everyone is cool with that, so hey. Whatevs. Go have some trendy food and have a good evening.

    This is why we can’t have nice things.

    Simon Jester (f0b3f1)

  166. I read this earlier…

    PRUDEN: Shameless race-baiting, betrayal in Mississippi
    GOP establishment wins, but at a high cost to party unity

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/26/pruden-race-baiting-and-betrayal-in-mississippi/#ixzz35zqgStxD

    Betrayal is a dangerous game. The gains are nearly always for a shorter term than expected. The establishment Republicans have a lot to say about big tents and party loyalty, but when someone without “the smell of the hive” unexpectedly upsets their candidate, there’s the urge to squash and pout.

    The Tea Party is a blunt instrument, a reaction to establishment arrogance. Their candidates are new to the game, always bold, usually brash and sometimes unsophisticated, and learning. But they’re not going away. “The duel between the Hatfields and the McCoys is far from settled,” says one Republican strategist. In fact, it has barely begun.

    Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.

    Ch012501 (a1406c)

  167. I think this is an excellent post, Patterico. I’m glad to have the choice articulated so clearly and forcefully. It pushes us to decide where we draw the line and decide how long we’re willing to remain in a weakened position as we are being slandered and used as bait to ensure a win with voters by establishment R’s. It also provokes consideration of the options available to fight back.

    Some are already on board with #WAR, others choose opposite tactics, and others are still working their way through it. No matter where anyone falls, it’s good to have this aired and good to push the envelope, so to speak.

    Dana (fe2228)

  168. yeah check your records Mr. Jester

    and remember that, in the end, that even though California was super-close, it ended up tipping towards food stamp by just enough margin that my vote wouldn’t have turned the tide

    unfortunately

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  169. I agree with you Dana. It’s an interesting post and has fostered a good conversation which has been occasionally contentious but civil for the most part. Of course the night is young. I just really wish the title of the thread that Patterico chose to use was not the title of the thread that will live out into infinity. Yes it draws clicks but…..

    elissa (fa2825)

  170. Yes. The republic is THAT broken.

    The Whigs could not bring themselves to get riled up over a moral/social issue and were replaced by those who insisted morality took precedence over political expediences.

    So, what issue today is big enough to transform the GOP into the next iteration? Without one, it ain’t gonna happen. A day of fiscal reckoning is coming and it absolutely will be transformative, and horrific. Before then? The fascists and statists won’t be stopped.

    Mark – you make the argument that some states won’t brook hardline Cruz’s and Lee’s. You are correct. The problem is that Mississippi is among the most conservative and by rights should have elected McDaniel against Thad. Do you not see just how broke the system is when the political class arranges the decks even in a place like that? Nothing short of a “war” is gonna result in meaningful change.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  171. I seem to remember you claiming to have voted for him, in 2012.

    You are mistaken. I argued with him at length about his decision to not vote for the GOP nominee in 2012.

    It’s MUCH cooler to call people names and say odd stuff than to try to fix things.

    This goes back to what Patterico was saying, which is similar to something I’ve been attempting to convey for a couple of years.

    People who decline to support the GOP are not declining to try to fix things. They are calculating a different way to fix things. A different strategy. In my opinion, the only reason Obama was elected in the first place was the GOP becoming irrelevant due to its corruption. It wasn’t presenting a credible and responsible case for limited government.

    The problems this country faces are severe, and I believe the GOP being corrupt was necessary to things getting that bad. The American people haven’t had an honest, principled alternative. They’ve had a ‘they are worse than us’ alternative, which is an unprincipled thing to my view, and apparently to the American people who keep rejecting RINO nominees.

    So again, how to fix that? What if the GOP’s corruption is caused by elitist political dynasties that have cynically calculated that conservatives can be manipulated out of dollars and votes by those who seek nothing but power, and will dole out entitlements and corporate welfare to get that power.

    If you do think that the GOP is run by such cold and unprincipled calculations, then OF COURSE YOU WILL NOT VOTE FOR THEM because that will adjust their calculations. Better yet, it will harm the corrupt party that has sucked the oxygen out of an intelligent semi-libertarian political movement based on limited government. When the only alternatives for socially liberal and fiscally conservative people are so fringe, something has badly distorted our political options. And it’s the GOP.

    Things cannot be fixed with the political options we have now, with the progressive party vs the very progressive party.

    Dustin (8eac2f)

  172. Just like with Pat, I have no contempt for those who are still fooled into supporting the GOP at large (vs supporting those very few Republicans who are worthy). I used to do that.

    And I’ve changed my mind about those are are hostile to conservatives straying from the GOP plantation. This country needs as much of that ugliness as possible as it fuels the fire of anger with the GOP that could lead to major changes. Thank you, Thad.

    Dustin (8eac2f)

  173. Elissa is worried about outsiders telling Mississippians what to do. The Mississippians I have been talking to are not real happy about the DC establishment trying to alter the choices Republicans are making by using leftist tactics to smear their preferred candidate.

    There will be pushback. Do any of you pro-establishment folks think the establishment bears any responsibility for that?

    Patterico (6b9b92)

  174. Honestly, I see Cochran as a clueless puppet. He’s not even the one I’m angry at.

    Patterico (6b9b92)

  175. Out of McConnell’s mouth, “I’m going to crush the tea party.”

    Why should we support this group? Vote McDaniel or not at all. These pricks need to learn they work for us and we are not their subjects.

    njrob (77dd4a)

  176. if i lived in Mississippi, i would definitely vote for either the Dem candidate, or the Green Party one, which is what i’m doing here in #Failifornia in November when Neel KashAndKari goes up against Moonbeam.

    the RNC and their “most electable” candidate “strategery” seems to have only one goal: keeping conservatives out of Washington.

    and i can understand why the POS that make up the RNC want to keep it that way.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  177. Feets, you seem to believe that the folks what understand biology, don’t confuse exits with entrances and support strong family foundations and ties are the “freaks” and “weirdos”. Not very tolerant but damn preachy, ain’tcha?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  178. The GOP and their “salute the flag” meme are precisely as the left was in the 60s who screamed about how important it was to talk things out so that all sides be heard. Those radicals didn’t mean it then (and now we see just how much they “tolerate” speech today. The GOP doesn’t mean it when its own voters abandon their guy for one who actually espouses the values of the party platform. Isn’t that right, Sen. Donnelly?

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  179. Was it just me, or was Thad Cochran looking rather sheepish after that victory?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  180. I see Cochran as a clueless puppet.

    He gets one strike for being in power that long.

    Another for the spending.

    Third for knowing he lost the primary, if you define primary as majority of votes from your party.

    Dustin (8eac2f)

  181. The best reason for winning the Senate is so that there will be enough votes to convict Barack Obama when he’s impeached by the House of Representatives for his crimes.

    That would be 67 senators. There is no prospect, however optimistic, of that happening this November. Either The Rs will take a majority or they won’t, but they won’t have 2/3. And in any case, who says Cochran would vote to convict 0bama? He voted to convict Clinton, but that was then and this is now.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  182. this place is getting kind of stale

    I doubt you’ll leave in winter.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  183. you are not wrong

    this whole winter thing is

    I just don’t get why people put up with it

    it’s depressing and cold and frankly I don’t have the clothes for it

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  184. There will be pushback. Do any of you pro-establishment folks think the establishment bears any responsibility for that?

    I am all for pushback, I just think that Pyrrhic pushback is a mistake.

    THe MS Teas have a golden opportunity. Right now, today, they could get however many signatures they needed on a new party petition. The way to scare the bejeezus out of the GOP is MS is to scare the bejeezus out of them, and that would do it, for sure. Rather that threaten to vote for the Democrat (a threat that might be hard to deliver on, given that many (most?) voters would balk on election day), you threaten making them irrelevant. Threaten their power not some party toady (who is going to resign soon enough if elected anyway).

    No, start an official Tea Party somewhere (and Mississippi will do fine) and threaten them with a party schism that they might end up on the wrong side of. It will give them pause.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  185. I think the best way for conservative voters to punish the establishment GOP is to write-in Chris M’s name. Sure, it won’t count and the Dem may win, but the message would be unmistakable. Especially if Chris receives more votes than Thad and Dem wins by a strikingly low margin. Even the MSM will be able to figure out what really happened.

    felipe (960c75)

  186. That would be 67 senators. There is no prospect, however optimistic, of that happening this November.

    No. The absolute best, short of planes crashing, that the GOP can do is 60 seats, in a massive sweep of everything that isn’t utterly nailed down. That includes winning in states like Hawaii, which I’d bet against pretty heavily. RCP has it 46-46 with 8 on the cusp, 2 Ds near the cusp and 4 more Ds off in the wings. In a good strong sweep with no witches or rape-rapes, the GOP gets 54 seats.

    On the other hand, though, if the charges are bad enough, and provable, you might not need 67 Republicans. With a white Democrat as president, with the FUBAR level as high as it is, if you could prove he directed a cover up of the IRS mess you’d probably have a conviction. It’s the black vote that the Dems absolutely need to keep that makes it tough. But it won’t help to hold that and lose twice as much from the middle. Nixon had 40-some Senators, but they could not hang. And no, it wasn’t that they were more honorable — they were politicians, too — it was that the party would be killed worse by an acquittal. That could apply to Obama, too, but we don’t have the proof and maybe not the charges.

    But give him a year — he seems to be adept at effing up. After Iran gets nukes, China takes Taiwan and we re-enter recession? Anything is possible.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  187. felipe,

    I don’t know what the rules are, but usually write-ins aren’t counted for candidates who are unqualified to be write-ins. I remember back in ’92, there was a movement to write in Perot’s name on the GOP primary, and many people did, but he had not filed in time to be a write-in candidate and they did not even record the votes.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  188. Over nearly 50 years as a voter I have developed a strong urge for a specific Constitutional amendment. A person can serve in Congress no more than 12 years total in either or both houses. However, at the end of the twelfth year the person is taken out to a wall behind the state house and executed with a bullet through the brain. If he leaves office one term before the term that would bring him or her to 12 years then he can go home peacefully. He or she is prohibited from having any contact with current members of congress in any manner other than via subpoena. But all other forms of legal employment are, of course, open to them.

    A secondary idea I have for the current fiscal condition of the country is that for each dollar the combined Senate and House trim from the budget they get a penny to split among themselves. This offer is good until the size of the government gets down to 10% of its current size. If it proves feasible this offer can be renewed with a new reduction target. Of course, if they go for the target they must have no financial dealings outside of their pay and bonus. Speakers fees would be prohibited. Receiving gifts would be prohibited. Campaign contributions would be prohibited because they are creating their own reelection funds with their share of the budget reductions.

    No, I don’t trust politicians any further than their wallets and lust for power. The longer they serve the higher the probability that they are legislating for themselves and big interests than for their supposed bosses, the electorate.

    {^_^}

    JDow (c4e4c5)

  189. A secondary idea I have for the current fiscal condition of the country is that for each dollar the combined Senate and House trim from the budget they get a penny to split among themselves.

    To quote Wally from “Dilbert” when told there’s a bonus for finding bugs: “I’m gonna write myself a minivan.” Each budget proposed will be greater than before, and y will cut it back, but spending will still go up.

    Over the last 10 years, California has cut about $50 billion from the budget, and it has increased every year.

    If you want to control finances, you need to control spending directly, as in:

    “Unless authorized by a 3/4ths vote of each House, the total of any year’s expenditures may not exceed 20% of the average of the prior 3 year’s Gross Domestic Product.”

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  190. “Unless authorized by a 3/4ths vote of each House, the total of any year’s expenditures may not exceed 20% of the average of the prior 3 year’s Gross Domestic Product.”

    You can’t put an arbitrarily calculated figure – that they might even stop calculating – into a constitutional amendment.

    What I have proposed is tying eveyr single expensditure to a source of revenue, which may include borrowing.

    Sammy Finkelman (9ec422)

  191. First, what makes you so sure that, if he’s reelected, 76-year-old Thad Cochran will serve an entire term? Cultivate the Governor to ensure that if a Senate seat becomes vacant, your guy will be appointed.

    The GOP might do well enough in the fall to retake the Senate even if they lose Mississippi. If they don’t retake it, that’s not a disaster — this is, by Nate Silver’s estimate, the “least important election in years” because control of the upper chamber matters so little. The GOP will have more leverage over Court confirmations if they have a majority, but who knows if there’ll even be a vacancy on the Court?

    Second, I’ve noticed that whenever someone says “Oh, that’ll never happen, and even if it does it won’t be that bad!” it’s a good idea to wear an athletic cup, because Fate is about to kick someone in the balls.

    Herp McDerp (bf3e80)

  192. Kevin M #184 – better yet, if the Tea party voters *join* their local GOP in enough numbers, they get to *be* the local GOP … and then they have a much better chance of having their guy as the official GOP candidate …

    This November, the important task is to get control of the Senate away from the Democrats … and electing a Democrat Senator in Mississippi is a less-than-optimal way of doing that …

    Alastor (2e7f9f)

  193. The point being made is about consequences. The only real issue is whether having the Senate and the House controlled by the GOP make any difference. Likely it will not make much difference. The GOP will be mauled in the run up to Nov 2016 as in “you ain’t seen nothing yet”. Compress the W years, the anti-Palin campaign, etc., and you have merely a starting point. The GOP will simply never stand up to Obama, even if they had a veto-proof Congress.

    Face reality. Conservatives have lost DC and simply will never regain any meaningful control. The only option is to fight the war in the States and invoke Article V and revive the Republic form of government. If you’re not willing to do that, then figure out how to survive a socialist-totalitarian state.

    cedarhill (a3205c)

  194. the important task is to get control of the Senate away from the Democrats

    The RNC should have thought about that before enlisting democrat votes and smearing Tea Partiers.

    They should have thought about it before doing away with the debt ceiling.

    I doubt the country’s trajectory is much different either way. The GOP should have made clear that it would be before presuming the votes of those with standards.

    Dustin (8eac2f)

  195. the lesson, they seem to be teaching us, is ‘resistance is futile’ to all of this;

    http://americanthinker.com/2014/06/shifting_sands.html

    narciso (3fec35)

  196. No need to vote for the Dhimmi. Fold, staple and mutilate.

    BTW, Drudge is now linking to zerohedge links. Daley and his Quasimodo, pill pusher, climb it and rotate when you summit.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  197. 196. Amerikkka is looking for leaders with the courage to fight for her convictions.

    No convictions, no courage, Deuteronomic Baseball rules, two strikes, you’re out, Zombies.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  198. 192. I’ll second that analysis. Ogabe has put Congress on notice, their counsel is irrelevant. Look for him to ignore SCOTUS and just continue to create government en toto.

    A Senate under McConnell’s steerage is worse than useless.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  199. Dear mom,

    It sure is hot over here in North Africa. And it smells bad, too. I’m fine but I can’t take this Army life anymore. The food is terrible, and such small portions. Patton, our general, is a rude pottymouth. Just today, he slapped a soldier. I’ve always had my doubts about him anyway, with his sissy pearl-handled revolvers, strutting around in a chrome helmet liner and that gay caballero jacket to show off his behind. I think he’s a confirmed bachelor. I don’t think he plays on our team. If you know what I mean. Anyway, I’ve had it. Tonight I’m crossing the line and enlisting with Rommel who’s just over the sand dunes. My love to dad and little Buford.

    Your adoring son,
    Cletus

    nk (dbc370)

  200. Dana:

    a) Accepting the status quo and settling for someone who is barely better on policy, but not meaningfully so, or

    b) Taking the fight to the GOP to make them actually act on what they claim to stand for.

    Choosing A simply regurgitates the ubiquitous resigned voter response of holding the nose and voting for the lesser of two evils. Most of us have expressed that during the past several national elections.

    Unfortunately, the risk of choosing B has the very possible potential of backfiring. (Supreme Court vacancies, etc). The question for me, is what the cost is to fight the GOP via choice B, rather than fighting from the inside of the party to effect the desired change. I just wonder if the cost of fighting back as in choice B would be greater in the long run?

    I think this is a good point, and it explains why many commenters are worried about not supporting Cochran now that he’s the nominee, and thus potentially contributing to keeping the Democrats in control of the Senate.

    However, looking at what the GOP and the NRSC did in this Mississippi election, they’ve given us the answer to that question. The GOP took the fight to the tea party because it was worried about losing the Mississippi Senate seat to the tea party candidate, not the Democrats. The GOP proved this was its goal by intentionally using race to turn out Democrats to help Cochran win. Clearly the GOP isn’t worried about the long term consequences of labeling other Republicans as racists or of hurting party unity. So if the GOP isn’t worried about hurting its chances by starting a fight over what it stands for, why should other Republicans worry about fighting for they stand for?

    Mitch (8c79bc)

  201. Not voting for Romney was/is not the same as voting for Obama. Jeez.

    JD (191f33)

  202. Is it prince rebus or reese pribus of the r.n.c. that is still missing?

    mg (31009b)

  203. Someone wisely noted that the messaging on all of these races is national now. Thanks to the establishment GOP, conservatives are racists is a BS meme given the aura of veracity now. And they expect conservatives to just roll over and take it.

    The idea that someone is letting perfect be the enemy of the good, or this is a quest for purity, etc is outright nonsense. It should not be too much to expect the GOP candidate not baselessly smear the conservative opponents as racists, and use Dem vote in the GOP primary, while running on Dem issues.

    JD (191f33)

  204. The issue has been defined, the lines are sharp and clearly drawn, and the question certainly is worthy of careful consideration: either conservatives can continue to submit to GOP establishment treachery, play ball and kiss the ass of high handed elites who not only despise them but fully intend to continue treating them as sacrificial pawns; or conservatives can face the fact they’ll never be more than step-children in the establishment’s GOP, never truly be welcomed home, never allowed a permanent seat at the table, and only tolerated at party conventions so long as they remain silent and compliant.

    After the way conservatives have been treated who can blame them if they decide to act independently, withhold their funding and refuse to support or vote for the establishment’s entitled candidates (like Bob Dole, Dede Scozzafava, John McCain, or Thad Cochran)?

    ropelight (8eeb9a)

  205. If this were for a House seat, I’d say “yes” to voting for the Democrat. It sends a message but keeps the more conservative party in the majority. But in the Senate, the issue isn’t just about policy. The Senate has an advise and consent role with presidential appointments. With Harry Reid employing the nuclear option, it makes it all the more important for the GOP to regain the majority. This is why I say that voting for the Democrat in a Senate race is a combination of foolish and petulant.

    Bird Dog (688c08)

  206. Thad campaigned on protecting the precious “Black President” from the Tea Party. That is how he won the primary. He cannot be depended up to vote to remove Obama from Office if re-elected. GET RID OF The DISGUSTING RINO!

    Lloyd Miller (db7468)

  207. == conservatives are racists is a BS meme given the aura of veracity now….. It should not be too much to expect the GOP candidate not baselessly smear the conservative opponents as racists,==

    Agree. Totally. But unfortunately, it does not help the larger cause that Joe Walsh, the one-term former IL congressman and one of the main self proclaimed and vocal Tea Party spokesmen here, coincidentally just last week got kicked off his own radio show by station management for repeatedly using words that are generally considered racial slurs (such as n##ger and sp#c). He apparently did not use them as direct slurs, his “intent” apparently was to have an honest on-air discussion about political correctness. He’s an idiot but I’m not suggesting he’s a racist. Others have suggested it. And to say that this controversy– which made the Chicago papers– will not exactly help other conservatives/repubs running in a state where we have to fight for every single seat, is an understatement. If some of you have not heard about this it is because it didn’t seem to get much play as a cautionary tale in even our most reliable right wing blogs. But it did happen. And Salon, Huffpo and Kos among others did an absolutely stellar job of publicizing it and interpreting” it nationally.

    http://politics.suntimes.com/article/chicago/ex-rep-joe-walsh-%E2%80%98kicked-air%E2%80%99-over-racist-terms-radio/fri-06202014-837am

    elissa (fa2825)

  208. We live in a SOAP democracy now, not a Republic. Vote for either face of the SOAP party or don’t bother. The SOAP doesn’t learn, it doesn’t have to. It’s the SOAP.

    SOAP, it’s what’s good for you!

    htom (412a17)

  209. coincidentally just last week got kicked off his own radio show by station management for repeatedly using words that are generally considered racial slurs (such as n##ger and sp#c).

    So just referring to the word for use in a discussion is verboten unless you’re part of the aggrieved race, gender, whatever, etc. That’s why we’ll never have a truly honest discussion about anything of consequence. Holder was right! We are cowards, just not for the reason he imagines. We’re cowards for allowing discussion in a public forum to be determined by childish political correctness, even in an academic(and supposedly intellectual) setting.

    Hadoop (f7d5ba)

  210. He’s an idiot but I’m not suggesting he’s a racist

    I agree with you if you mean he’s tactically an idiot, but if you think the topic of his on-air discussion was idiotic, then, nope, I strongly disagree.

    Similarly, I don’t know if Patterico realizes that one of his own opinions about a major socio-cultural controversy of today plays right into the hands of the left/Democrats, just as the dumb Republican hierarchy that devised Cochran’s strategy to smear the conservative opponent also plays straight into the hands of the left/Democrats.

    Of course, the former is heartfelt and sincere, whereas Cochran’s people exploited a POV in a truly cynical, manipulative, contemptible manner. But from a purely TACTICAL standpoint, the prevailing opinions out there — whether sincere or strategic — are giving plenty of wiggle room to liberals.

    Another thing to always keep in mind: During the budget sequester, opinion polls showed more people blaming the Republicans instead of President “Goddamn America” for the shuttering of parks, museums and what-not. Even more stupidly — and more telling — opinion polls continue to show that a larger percentage of Americans, even in 2014, still blame George W Bush for the Great Recession and not Jeremiah Wright’s buddy.

    The squishes in the Republican Party are only the tip of the iceberg as to why the US (and Western World in general) is taking a leisurely cruise on the SS Titanic.

    Mark (fdb0fc)

  211. This talk of “taking the Senate” is nonsense. The VichyGOP has demonstrated for years that they will not work to roll back progressive nonsense or reduce the size of government or even make meaningful cuts in the rate of growth. “We” are not going to “take back the Senate” until we clear out the Senate.

    And who in their right mind believes Obama will EVER be impeached? Seriously? The House and Senate have no interest in standing up to Obama, let alone impeaching him!

    Unless extraterrestrials or Mexican cartels take over the US government, Obama will finish his term, start collecting his pension and figure out how he can have Michelle continue with plans to destroy fundamentally change America.

    The VichyGOP isn’t interested in the Constitution, limited government or conservative principles. That should be clear to anyone not engaged in the willing suspension of disbelief.

    WarEagle82 (b18ccf)

  212. well it always works out, they end up three short, and scapegoat easy targets like Christine or Sharon, and never any of their preferred candidates, Allen, Thompson and Mack should have been able to prevail, but they were routed by the Occupy faction in their respective states as well as the IRS,

    narciso (3fec35)

  213. 179. Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/28/2014 @ 11:48 pm

    Was it just me, or was Thad Cochran looking rather sheepish after that victory?

    This is probably correct. He was probably pushed into running, and perhaps he didn’t agree with all of the tactics. He probably didn’t even understand fully why some people wanted him in. They said, all the money he can bring in for Mississippi, but it was probably more than that. And it may also have to do with general legislation.

    Thad Cochran, by the way, is on the road to becoming Chairman of the Senate Appropriatons Committee if the Republoicans gain a majority in the U.S. Senate.

    Sammy Finkelman (9ec422)

  214. ditto on McDaniel or Nothing.

    my only concern with this is that if mississippi goes for the democrat and the put the numbers together and find that McDaniel end up with a larger number the GOP establishment will be all like, “well, cochran WOULD have won if McDaniel hadn’t spoiled the race!”

    hack (17dd65)

  215. He was probably pushed into running, and perhaps he didn’t agree with all of the tactics. He probably didn’t even understand fully why some people wanted him in

    Good grief. No disrespect intended, but this is naive. Cochran has not been a Senator for this long without being a savvy politician. He is aware of what was said about his state’s conservative voters by his campaign. He is in charge of his campaign. He is responsible for his campaign. This strategy was debated, and he made the decision to employ it.

    Dustin (7f67e8)

  216. The people on here that suggest conservative voters keep taking beatings and go back to their abusers because the other side would abuse you more scare me. What would it take to convince you that the Republican establishment does not have your interests at heart and will never stop abusing you?

    njrob (77dd4a)

  217. “well, cochran WOULD have won if McDaniel hadn’t spoiled the race!”

    Yeah, and that’s exactly what they will say.

    just like Mccain would have won had Obama not spoiled the race. It’s time to recognize that the GOP and conservatives are largely political opponents. It’s the establishments of both parties vs the welfare of future country. Take anyone over 50 out of the equation and it’s very difficult to argue otherwise.

    Dustin (7f67e8)

  218. @ Patterico,

    Honestly, I see Cochran as a clueless puppet. He’s not even the one I’m angry at.

    I will counter that with: he is a crafty, old fox. There is a reason he has last in politics for as long as he has. He is politically savvy and knows how to manipulate and reward his voters. One cannot be so clueless as to not know the basic strategy in play to ensure a win. If he were that clueless, I believe he would be doddering and almost incapable of stringing to two sentences together. I also believe his conscience is so seared that he is no longer capable of differentiating between lies and truth.

    Dana (fe2228)

  219. It’s like with McCain in the end, it was his decision to suspend the campaign, Jones came up with the excuse memo, and Dr. Evil (Schmidt) and Norma Desmond (Wallace) sold it, the Huntress was the only one not in on the deal,

    narciso (3fec35)

  220. Whether it’s within the rules or not, why wouldn’t a voter write in McDaniel? If the point is to drive the message home to the GOP, not whether or not it counts, then they should write in McDaniel’s name. That way, a voter can still choose the conservative candidate without feeling sick about straight out voting for a Democrat *and* send the message.

    Dana (fe2228)

  221. The RNC needs to address this monstrosity. I want to hear condemnation from Priebus and Cochran should disavow the result. Barbour may have simply been acting to preserve his lobbying income here, but he did it at the cost of what may turn into a fatal blow against the GOP. I really don’t think Washington Republicans have any idea how ugly base sentiment is right now.

    I could never bring myself to vote for a fascist Democrat. I cannot vote for Harry Reid’s control of the Senate, or for Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominees. I just cannot do it.

    But I won’t give any more time or money to Republicans either. Any Republicans. I gave the lit to three campaigns last cycle, including that fool Mitt Romney. I’m sorry I did that. I worked in two phone banks, for which I’m also sorry.

    So I won’t vote for the evil ones, but I also won’t vote or work for Republicans. If Priebus speaks out and says what needs to be said, and if Cochran disavows the primary result and how it was achieved, I’ll get back involved. But right now, screw ‘em.

    MTF (1e3ba0)

  222. Elissa is worried about outsiders telling Mississippians what to do. The Mississippians I have been talking to are not real happy about the DC establishment trying to alter the choices Republicans are making by using leftist tactics to smear their preferred candidate.

    There will be pushback. Do any of you pro-establishment folks think the establishment bears any responsibility for that?

    I’m glad that you have first-hand knowledge of what Mississippians are thinking about this. I’ve been reading some MS papers and there is not mention, of course. It was something I wondered about as well. MS is its own unique entity, just like CA is.

    And speaking of California, if i lived in Mississippi, i would definitely vote for either the Dem candidate, or the Green Party one, which is what i’m doing here in #Failifornia in November when Neel KashAndKari goes up against Moonbeam., and unlike Mississippi, our state is in a Democratic stranglehold already, so how does voting for the Jerry Brown help anything? Is it possible that the only way a Republican can ever possibly get elected is to go more moderate? Is it possible that in our state – unique and different from MS – won’t benefit from the same strategy as being suggested with MS?

    Dana (fe2228)

  223. Governor Whitman, and Matt Fong say hi, Wilson won on the Prop 187 wave, regardless of his other politics,

    narciso (3fec35)

  224. our state is in a Democratic stranglehold already, so how does voting for the Jerry Brown help anything?

    Exactly. That’s so stating the obvious, it shouldn’t even need to be pointed out.

    I don’t know enough about the long-term postings of redc1c4 to be sure exactly who we’re dealing with, but his (or her) stated strategy is so deluded and foolish, I wouldn’t be surprised if he actually is a liberal masquerading as a conservative Republican.

    Mark (fdb0fc)

  225. Dana, with a Top Two Election, there won’t be a Green Party candidate on the ballot this November.
    So, you face the choice of Brown, or Nothing (I know that is a distinction without a difference).
    However, CA still allows “approved” write-ins.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  226. Local TP groups are doing well. National TP groups (who Brit Hume reminds us, have become “establishment” in their own right) are not. An example of this Cantor’s stunning loss. National TP groups didn’t do much of anything in VA and focused on Mississippi, where they lost.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  227. Folks… much of the country already thinks that whites in Mississippi – rightly or wrongly, whatever their politics – are a fairly racist lot.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  228. Folks… much of the country already thinks that whites in Mississippi – rightly or wrongly, whatever their politics – are a fairly racist lot.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/29/2014 @ 10:03 am

    Who cares?

    Either we have a right to pick our representatives or we leave and start a party where we do. Could’ve sworn a war was started over taxation without representation.

    njrob (77dd4a)

  229. I have been clear for 4 years, the goal is not Republicans. The goal is the drag the middle of the country as far right as possible.

    Ergo, yes, sink Thad Cochran by all means needed and send the Establishment to hell.

    Our problem is not Democrat or Republican … it is Conservative versus “OTHER”

    Rodney King's Spirit (eb0bf8)

  230. Oh, and I won’t ever give a penny to the Republican Party.

    Never.

    Again.

    Rodney King's Spirit (eb0bf8)

  231. Stopped in 2006!

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  232. Harry Reid controlling the Senate and protecting Obama by allowing to not have to veto things like tax reform and the Ryan budget and entitlement reforms is a big reason he was re-elected. You can argue all you want that the establishment played dirty (they did), but we gain nothing longterm or short term by having a liberal replace an aging Republican senator in a red state. McDaniel tripped at the finish line and couldn’t break 50% the first time, we’re talking about 6 years, not two. The time to defeat the establishment is 2016 for president and this December when the Speaker vote happens and Hensarling challenges.

    Carl (93bab8)

  233. I’m guessing the highly publicized politicization of the IRS, and it now being perceived as an entity gunning for conservatives, is already having a dampening effect on the campaign contributions to right-leaning causes and organizations. The only thing that may help counter that trend is growing disgust towards Obama and the left.

    But the fringes on the left-end of the spectrum probably don’t give a damn about or aren’t influenced by that, while perhaps a greater portion of the activists on the right, particularly if they don’t keep all their prized possessions in bed mattresses, may be more greatly affected by what’s going on.

    These are choppy waters we’re navigating through right now, and I don’t see things clearing up for quite awhile.

    Mark (fdb0fc)

  234. we’re talking about 6 years, not two. The time to defeat the establishment is 2016 for president and this December when the Speaker vote happens and Hensarling challenges.

    Carl (93bab8) — 6/29/2014 @ 10:40 am

    Don’t care. We defeated Cantor for his 2 years and the message they got was to go nuclear and call us racists and say we were trying to stop Obama. The implication that they would support Obama was clear. I will not be abused any more. No more staying on the Republican plantation.

    njrob (77dd4a)

  235. Food for thought

    Tea Party groups are larger than ever, the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights said in a report in January. But only one of six national groups has a membership bigger than the turnout for the Tea Party rally in Washington, D.C., Sept. 12, 2009.

    Tea Partiers are older, whiter, much better educated than other Americans, CBS found in a poll in December 2012. Fifty-four percent are Republicans; 41 percent independents; 5 percent Democrats.
    “Activists” — about 4 percent of Tea Party identifiers – are angrier and have more radical views than the rank and file, CBS said.

    The reputation of the Tea Party has been besmirched nearly as much by the antics of some who claim to lead it as by the left’s vicious smears. Dave Brat, the economics professor who upset Rep. Cantor, epitomizes what a conservative insurgent candidate ought to be. He kept his tone civil, he focused on issues, he treated Rep. Cantor with respect — and perhaps because of that got no help from national Tea Party groups or from those in Washington who loudly proclaim their hostility to the “GOP establishment.” They expended their efforts instead on behalf of more strident candidates, some with disturbing associations and ethical challenges, in quixotic challenges to “establishment” conservatives.

    But in most primaries, pluralities and sometimes majorities of those who identify with the Tea Party vote for the candidates their self-proclaimed generals oppose. Only those incumbents more responsive to special interests than to their constituents have gotten into trouble.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/06/29/liberals_delude_themselves_about_the_tea_party_123147.html#ixzz363E4YJSH

    elissa (fa2825)

  236. Aften Tottenham and green energy and Libya, the tory faithful decided the UKIP was a better bet,

    narciso (3fec35)

  237. Stop whining and bitching because you lost in an open primary. Christ, conservatives have to be the biggest freakin’ crybabies I’ve ever seen.

    JEA (fb1111)

  238. elissa (fa2825) — 6/29/2014 @ 10:50 am

    And the vast majority of settlers in America didn’t support revolution against the crown. Did that matter in the end?

    njrob (77dd4a)

  239. “Either we have a right to pick our representatives or we leave and start a party where we do. Could’ve sworn a war was started over taxation without representation.”

    Perhaps I mistook the “nj” in your moniker as meaning you lived in New Jersey. If you do live in NJ, you’re a pretty long way from Mississippi, not just as the crow flies.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  240. Brat caught them off guard, otherwise they would have slimed him, the minions may be deluded, but their minders clearly are not,

    narciso (3fec35)

  241. I didn’t write the article njrob. Jack Kelly did. If you think any of his observations are wrong or his data mis-stated, maybe you can take up any concerns about it you have with him, or post a comment over there. The thrust of his article is about how liberals misunderstand and underestimate what tea is about. I thought some here might find the piece interesting. It’s OK if you did not– or if it hit a little too close to home.

    elissa (fa2825)

  242. Perhaps I mistook the “nj” in your moniker as meaning you lived in New Jersey. If you do live in NJ, you’re a pretty long way from Mississippi, not just as the crow flies.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/29/2014 @ 11:02 am

    I do at the moment. I’ve also lived in NYC and Ohio. What’s your point?

    njrob (77dd4a)

  243. elissa (fa2825) — 6/29/2014 @ 11:08 am

    Since you didn’t post why you found it interesting, you left it open to the reader for interpretation. It’s not close to home at all. It’s old news.

    You seem to ignore the vast majorities that feel the government doesn’t represent them as you continue to support the status quo.

    My point was clear. The founders didn’t wait for a majority of settlers to decide to leave the crown before they decided to declare independence. Why should we not do the same? Or do you think we aren’t worthy of representation?

    njrob (77dd4a)

  244. A substantial majority of Republican Mississippi voters told the Republican party they wanted Mcdaniel to represent them. The establishment told them to go to hell.

    njrob (77dd4a)

  245. I do at the moment. I’ve also lived in NYC and Ohio. What’s your point?

    njrob (77dd4a) — 6/29/2014 @ 11:12 am

    My point is grab yer gun, drive to Mississippi and declare yer independence.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  246. Or take yer medication.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  247. How many times will the GOPe sucker punch the tea party and beg for forgiveness later? Hoisting the pitchforks at the party now might mean we don’t have to hoist the pitchforks on the government, later.

    East Bay Jay (a5dac7)

  248. re; robin abcarian, Scott Brown apparently doesn’t think prolifers have any rights, worth respecting,

    narciso (3fec35)

  249. “The perfect is the enemy of the good.
    Nathaniel Wright (1e47ba) — 6/28/2014 @ 1:46 pm ”

    What they don’t tell you Nate is that the Perfect is also the enemy few the absolutely ass-tasitc and useless crap that you’d throw away and rather have nothing than keep.

    But perhaps you’ll explain how having liberal policies pass with a (D) on them is bad but the SAME policies with an (R) is “good”?

    What? That’s the “good” you’re pushing for that this “perfect” is the enemy of.
    The perfect is also the enemy of the lazy annoying useless crap; which seems to be where you’re offended, you really want the lazy annoying useless crap.

    Why?

    ertdfg (3357aa)

  250. What happened to the idea of supporting McDaniel as a write-in candidate? Patterico — what do you think of this? I bet with a big enough concerted effort it could win.

    Loretta Morris (bcd1ce)

  251. Or take yer medication.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

    Or I can choose not to support the party that spits in my face with my time, my money and my vote.

    Jerk.

    njrob (8c954d)

  252. I think that’s the best possible alternative, voting for Childers seems to be voting to eleven, to be fair, Cochran did stand against the anti Gitmo idiocy, that is still raring it’s head:

    http://nypost.com/2014/06/28/will-obama-ever-move-the-16-worst-terrorists-in-gitmo/

    narciso (3fec35)

  253. Cochran doesn’t stand against or for anything

    Cochran’s role is to sit in his chair making pee pee in his depends undergarments while staffers decide his positions for him

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  254. the Dog Trainer doesn’t dissapoint;

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-suspect-in-benghazi-attack-in-us-custody-amid-tight-security-20140628-story.html

    I will not burden you with Hilzik’s ‘question no one is asking;

    narciso (3fec35)

  255. Given that it took over 30,000 Democrat voters for Cochran to win the primary – Democrat voters who will probably vote for the Dem candidate in the November election (if they bother to vote at all) – why not tell everyone who voted for McDaniel to show up in November and write his name in?

    This time, the Independent candidate might actually pull off the upset – it happened with Murkowski in Alaska, right?

    Teresa in Fort Worth, TX (@Teresa_Koch) (f38e70)

  256. Thad Cochran doesn’t stand for anything? Really?

    Rated 100% by the NRA, and the National Right to Life Committee;
    Rated 0% by the ACLU, NARAL, and Human Rights Campaign (Gay Marriage)
    Rated 15% by AFL-CIO (lifetime rating)

    Read the whole thing: http://votesmart.org/candidate/53312/thad-cochran#.U7BsMbF2nx6 Courtesy commenter Nathaniel Wright.

    You know, I’ve got this guy Brauner(R) running for Governor of Illinois and the only thing he’s conservative about is that his tax bracket stays low. He doesn’t give a hoot about anything else I care about. But I’m still going to vote for him over Quinn.

    nk (dbc370)

  257. And Ramadan Mubarak, everybody!

    nk (dbc370)

  258. Mississippi voters know their vote can be exchanged for cold cash. Democrats and Republicans have no option now but to shell out. It’ll be a buyer’s market come November. Let the good times roll.

    ropelight (8eeb9a)

  259. Hinds County GOP chairman Pete Perry arrested for DUI:

    Perry has been at the center of a possible challenge in the Republican primary runoff for U.S. Senate. Supporters of challenger Chris McDaniel have been reviewing voting records in Hinds County since incumbent U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran won the June 24 runoff.

    The McDaniel campaign says they have found more than 1,000 illegally cast votes in Hinds County, most centered around voters who allegedly cast a ballot in the June 3 Democratic primary and then voted in the June 24 Republican primary runoff. Perry, however, says that most of the votes cited by McDaniel supporters were actually clerical errors made by poll workers that were later corrected by the poll workers themselves.

    McDaniel supporters have criticized Perry’s involvement with the elections because his firm received $60,000 during the primary from Mississippi Conservatives PAC, which supports Cochran, to help turn out votes for the incumbent. In Mississippi, political parties and not the state or county run the primary elections.

    Dana (fe2228)

  260. I think we are. We’ve been through this before. For example, you think Social Security is pretty much hunky dory. I say it’s a Ponzi scheme.

    A Ponzi scheme fails when it runs out of new people. SS may operate on similar principles, but it’s timeframe is long enough that the people at the top die off and new people are born before it can be a problem. I have looked at the finances and the expectancies and unless things change radically (the politicians increase outflows, cut inflows (as they did in 2009) or life expectancy grows quickly), there is enough money for it to continue indefitely with maybe some slight changes to track longer lifespans. It’s just math, and the numbers work out.

    Medicare is hosed, though.

    Ponzi schemes fail when the supply of new suckers dries up, and the old investors have been promised a payout that is now impossible. This can’t happen to Social Security for two reasons. The supply of new suckers can’t dry up because people don’t have a choice about joining. If Mr Ponzi had the power to recruit people into his scheme at gunpoint it would never have collapsed. And unlike in a Ponzi scheme, nobody has been guaranteed a payout. Since at least 1960, i.e. before even the oldest current “contributors” to SS made their first payment, everybody has been on notice that “contributing” to SS does not give one any sort contractual right to anything, ever. There is nobody now paying in who did so under the impression that this guaranteed them an eventual payout, let alone how big a payout. So when the money runs low, Congress can just change the eligibility requirements, or cut the payout, and thus keep the scheme running. Or it can decide one fine morning to repeal the whole scheme, and nobody would have any legal recourse. Ponzi couldn’t do that without subjecting himself to fraud charges.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  261. This link goes to the forum of people responding to an article posted to the LA Times, and currently linked at drudgreport.com, about people in the city of Detroit having their water shut off, which is now causing talk about bringing in the UN to assist the residents of Detroit.

    Such predicaments should make Americans both cry and (and based on the majority of the comments posted under the article) also laugh, if it weren’t all so ludicrous.

    The insanity of Thad Cochran exploiting the mindless liberalism of the black community (ie, surveys indicate that over 90-plus percent of black Americans align themselves with the left/Democrats) and, then, the mostly black populace in Detroit being victims of their own mindless liberalism, all overseen by the mindless liberalism of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party, is a perfect circle.

    The United States of America in 2014, in the 21st century.

    Mark (fdb0fc)

  262. Mississippi cops are notorious for their corrupt traffic stop practices. It could mean only that Perry has a nice car that the cop wanted to seize and auction off.

    nk (dbc370)

  263. that reminds me, the narrative for this story, began with the Clarion Ledger, revealing Clayton Kelly’s tapes, and trying to tie McDaniel to it, that happened about a week before the primary,

    narciso (3fec35)

  264. meanwhile the whorepublicans in Iowa are just begging begging begging for a third party to kneecap their pathetic ethanol-swilling whore asses

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  265. the Combine made sure to trickle the revelations, very slowly, glossing over the contradictions, to make sure McDaniels would not win the primary outright,

    narciso (3fec35)

  266. Both Childers and Cochran consistently received 100% pro-life marks from the National Right to Life Committee and 0% ratings from pro-abortion groups such as NARAL.

    http://usconservatives.about.com/od/2014-Elections/fl/The-Conservative-Case-for-Travis-Childers.htm

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  267. To answer your question, yes, I do believe that Barack Obama can be impeached, and likely will be impeached, and yes, John McCain will vote to convict him in the Senate.

    We cannot live in a society where the rule of law is so cavalierly disregarded.

    And yet we do. I think you are confusing “ought” with “can” and “will”. I agree that 0bama, Holder, and several others ought to be impeached and convicted. I don’t agree that it can happen, let alone that it will.

    Such a system is not untenable. It will result in absolute violence to the Presidency and to the federal government as a whole.

    I think you mean “is untenable”, or “is not tenable”. But it is tenable; there have been many presidents who have done similar violence (though perhaps not to this extent) and they were not impeached, and the system survived and is still here. How and why the wicked prosper is an ancient conundrum, but that they do is indisputable.

    Democrats didn’t sit around whinging that Nixon could never be impeached. They got to work getting it done.

    There were some major differences.
    1) They controlled both houses. They had 56 senators, and there were probably at least a dozen R senators who were honest enough to be willing to vote for a conviction if the charges were proved. Today there is not a single D senator who would vote to convict 0bama, even if he were caught red-handed.
    2) No president had been impeached since Johnson, so even just the prospect of the shame of being impeached was enough to make Nixon resign, even if he could be confident of acquittal in the Senate. Clinton broke that barrier; he was impeached and brazened it out, and carried the public with him. Like Barnie Frank turning his back on the House when being reprimanded, he emerged the hero and the Rs as the villains. 0bama wouldn’t think twice about going through the same farce; he’d probably relish it, and parlay it into a 2016 win for Michelle.
    3) The biggest difference is that Nixon had the MSM against him, whipping up public opinion for impeachment, while Clinton had the MSM in his back pocket, whipping up opinion against the impeachment, and 0bama would be the same, only more so. I recall seeing a newspaper editorial from 1968, right after Nixon’s election, calling for the Ds to impeach him as soon as they could find an excuse. So when an excuse emerged they jumped on it.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  268. Cochran has a 79% lifetime rating as a conservative by the ACU. “True” conservatives are those who score 80% or better by their rating system.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  269. Thad Cochran won a primary runoff by turning out the black vote. Now they are asking — what are you going to do for us?

    Already the members of the Congressional Black Caucus are talking about what they want Cochran to do. The wish list is fulling up with ideas like maintaining funding for food stamps, beefing up programs that help poor blacks in Mississippi and even supporting the Voting Rights Act.

    “Absolutely we have expectations,” Rep Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio), said in an interview.

    you can’t behave like a wanton needy little whore and not put out after you take the money

    is the takeaway from this new politico article

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  270. Who knows if there will even be any vacancies in the next two years?

    Anyone with a functioning brain. Just look at the ages. Besides, we KNOW there will be at least 200 lower court vacancies to fill with lifetime appointments – that’s been the average for the last two decades. Those judges will be affecting our great-grandchildren’s lives.

    There are definitely some who hate the elected leadership of the GOP more than they hate liberal Democrats. They hate our policies, our tactics, and only support our nominees when “their” guy wins. I suggest they form their own party now so they can begin qualifying for state ballots for 2016.

    Estragon (ada867)

  271. after what happened with berobed pervert John Roberts and all of his sordid not-fit-for-print masturbatory constitutional hijinks

    the court argument rings pretty hollow

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  272. #270:

    I quibble with some of this.

    1) Clinton’s impeachment is irrelevant. The charges made (perjury) were ionsufficient to remove him from office, or at least were so judged. It wasn’t that the charges were unproven (except maybe to Spector), but that the public (and half a dozen GOP Senators) decided that they didn’t add up to enough. It was an easy vote for the Democrat Senators, as the independent voters saw it as a witch hunt.

    2) I believe that, if the Republicans do very well in 2014, and if Obama gets noticeably weaker (approval ratings down around a third), and if the IRS mess, or its cover up can be nailed to the WH door, Obama will be impeached.

    3) I doubt he will be convicted, barring some REAL downturn in his fortunes, but I don’t think you need to do that. What you need to do is convince the independent voters that the Democrat Party will turn a blind eye to any kind of malfeasance and that their lives and fortunes are not safe in such hands. OJ wasn’t convicted either, and yet…

    4) The press is the wild card. The media and how it reaches the people is changing very quickly. Each year that passes has the Network News model losing another cohort of viewers. Young folks are cutting the TV cord just like they did the phone cord. If the MSM had control of things, the IRS, and Benghazi scandals would be old news in the rear view mirror. They don’t, and that must upset TPTB quite a lot.

    2)

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  273. you can’t behave like a wanton needy little whore and not put out after you take the money

    So, your argument is that Cochrane is an honest politician?

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  274. mister happy feet #274,

    if senate confirmation of the judiciary is not really a big deal, then why was it so important to send mcdaniel to do the job in the first place ?
    either it’s important to send conservatives to the senate, or it’s not. all this compartmentalizing about the importance of the senate isn’t particularly persuasive.

    Elephant Stone (995377)

  275. We suspected he would backslide, and the use of Kasim Reed’s Atlanta machine sort of confirms the point,

    narciso (3fec35)

  276. mr feets – we have to suspect that, if you were offered $10 million to sleep with Nancy Pelosi, you would happily bring the champagne …

    With that said, now that we have established your profession, here’s 25 cents, now go do your job with former Speaker Pelosi !

    What is that you say ? But you are different ?

    How ?

    Alastor (2e7f9f)

  277. Vote for the Dem in MS (Cochran) but also in SC (Graham) and TN (Alexander). In MS to thwart Barbour. In TN and SC to gently explain to the GOPe that they cannot support amnesty.

    And who cares if the GOPe control the Senate? There is no bill that a GOPe controlled Legislature could pass of which a Conservative would approve that Preezy would sign anyway.

    Steve in Greensboro (6ba54f)

  278. No, we need a top strategist to counter Pelosi, Garfield is not getting it done, thanks for reminding us, how they closed ranks to block Hensarling, from the leadership

    narciso (3fec35)

  279. I think the best way for conservative voters to punish the establishment GOP is to write-in Chris M’s name. Sure, it won’t count and the Dem may win, but the message would be unmistakable. Especially if Chris receives more votes than Thad and Dem wins by a strikingly low margin. Even the MSM will be able to figure out what really happened.

    Actually, that’s not such a bad idea. The “No Dams” strategy. In 1982 or thereabouts, Tasmania held a referendum on which of three dams should be built for hydroelectricity. Now a few things you have to know:

    1. From the way enviro nuts go on about alternative energy and global warming and fossil fuels and against nuclear, you’d think they’d be for hydro, but you’d be wrong. “Alternative energy” really means whatever methods of energy generation are not commercially practical; as soon as a method becomes practical, it stops being alternative and the enviros start opposing it. So they support hydro only in places where it will never be implemented.

    2. Tasmania was infected early with the green disease.

    So the enviros wanted no dams, but that was not an option. So they campaigned for people to deliberately spoil their ballots by writing “no dams” on them and not voting for any of the options. The campaign succeeded – about 40% of the vote was invalid, and scrutineers reported that another 10% or so of those who did vote for one of the options also wrote “no dams” on their ballots. One of the options, to dam the Gordon river below the Franklin river, won about 90% of the valid votes, but the message was clear, and after some shenanigans in the High Court it ended up not getting built. And as far as I know no dams have been built in Tasmania since then. I don’t know what’s happened to electricity prices, but I can imagine.

    Anyway, this sounds like a similar idea. It would have no legal effect, but the politicians would have to sit up and pay attention.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  280. Mr. McDaniel understands that this piteous brokedick little country is spending itself into the gutter and that senile Thad Cochran’s food stamp mentality is a big part of the problem Mr. Stone

    plus McDaniel has every incentive to stand up to Cochran’s seedy dishonorable unprincipled allies like Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Lamar Alexander, and Meghan’s brainwashed cowardwhore daddy

    judges are the least of it

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  281. It’s really important to thwart amnesty and stop the Alinsky Machine, so let’s elect Democrats to the Senate. That way if we win the White House in 2016, our new President will have more obstructionist Democrat votes to contend with, particularly if the new GOP President attempts to get someone like a John Bolton confirmed to return to the UN or to become the new Secretary of State.

    Oh Lord.

    Elephant Stone (995377)

  282. Not voting for Romney was/is not the same as voting for Obama. Jeez.

    No, it was only half a vote for 0bama.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  283. Thad campaigned on protecting the precious “Black President” from the Tea Party. That is how he won the primary. He cannot be depended up to vote to remove Obama from Office if re-elected. GET RID OF The DISGUSTING RINO!

    No, he can’t be depended on to do so, but Childers can be depended on not to do so.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  284. mister happy feet,

    so right after you finished complaining about justice roberts, you then turn around and try to convince me that “judges are the least of it.”

    mi amigo, with those twists, you should try out for cirque de soleil. (i hear the hotel in vegas they perform at allows free buffet for performers.)

    Elephant Stone (995377)

  285. happy, the shtick where you say “whore” in almost every comment gets old for some people.

    Patterico (c7c3b3)

  286. I love how some of our friends who are so wild about the idea of impeaching Obama, are also wild about the idea of sending more Democrats to the Senate. If they expect even a chance of conviction in the Senate, I’d love to hear how that math is going to compute.

    Hmmm…maybe Chuckie Schumer will have an epiphany in the middle of the nite. And then he’ll call up Hairy Reed, and…

    Elephant Stone (995377)

  287. the Dems to a man and woman, all act like honey badgers, it’s almost impossible for them to abandon a candidate, gosnell’s girl who got a valentine in the Times today.

    narciso (3fec35)

  288. you can’t behave like a wanton needy little whore and not put out after you take the money

    is the takeaway from this new politico article

    Um, sure you can. I don’t see anything in the article to suggest that you can’t. You just can’t stop the sucker from whining about it, is all.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  289. Furthermore, Cornyn cut Akin entirely out of funding, that makes him look like a two faced weasel if they committed significant resources before,

    narciso (3fec35)

  290. We’re long past the time when it’s reasonable to think electoral politics will save America. It’s time to finally move past that and go with a different approach. IMO we need to take power away from the national government and give it to ourselves, that is, We the People must take for ourselves a direct role in government so that we can bypass the political class and fix what is ailing this country.

    Ed (ffa0b7)

  291. It’s really important to thwart amnesty and stop the Alinsky Machine, so let’s elect Democrats to the Senate. That way if we win the White House in 2016,

    But then it won’t matter if we elect a GOP president, since the Dems control the Senate. And Mr reducio ad absurdum rears his ugly head.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  292. 1) Clinton’s impeachment is irrelevant. The charges made (perjury) were ionsufficient to remove him from office, or at least were so judged.

    Only because it was a Democrat and they were Democrats. The charges were at least as serious as the ones against Nixon.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  293. We the People must take for ourselves a direct role in government so that we can bypass the political class and fix what is ailing this country.

    Can I write the checks?

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  294. The charges were at least as serious as the ones against Nixon.

    Maybe to a lawyer, but I think not even then. But that doesn’t matter. If Nixon had been tried and acquitted by a monolithic GOP, almost every GOP Senator would have lost their next election. This was clear from the House members who tried to defend Nixon in the televised hearings. People like Charles E Wiggins were treated harshly. Wiggins district in NW Orange County, CA included Nixon’s hometown of Whittier, and was about as Republican as Watts is Dem, yet he nearly lost and retired soon after.

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=guAoAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ACkEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7297,3465620&dq=charles-wiggins&hl=en

    Should Obama be impeached, the main objective is to convince the public that he’s a crook and should be removed. If you can do that, the rest won’t matter (and if you can’t, it won’t matter either).

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  295. The charges were at least as serious as the ones against Nixon.

    I suspect 8 out of ten people with an opinion would say the charges were “he lied about sex.”

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  296. He was trying to protect the lady’s reputation, like a true Southern gentleman.

    nk (dbc370)

  297. I suspect 8 out of ten people with an opinion would say the charges were “he lied about sex.”

    And the same 8 out of ten will say something similar about the charges against 0bama.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  298. They’ll say the real charge was “presidenting while black”.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  299. oh my goodness

    that one and its variants are challenging words/concepts to replace in any meaningful discussion of american politics

    but i will endeavor

    let me think on it

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  300. “Not voting for Romney was/is not the same as voting for Obama. Jeez.

    No, it was only half a vote for 0bama.”

    Oh sweet infant baby jesus

    JD (191f33)

  301. It’s really important to thwart amnesty and stop the Alinsky Machine, so let’s elect Democrats to the Senate. That way if we win the White House in 2016,

    But then it won’t matter if we elect a GOP president, since the Dems control the Senate. And Mr reducio ad absurdum rears his ugly head.

    SON: Daddy, tell me again about the time when Republicans controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress, and the budget was slashed and entitlements were reformed!

    DAD: Well, son, entitlements were indeed reformed. Why, we passed a new one, called the prescription drug benefit! And deficits? Why, they continued to skyrocket, much worse then under the previous president, a Democrat. So you see, son, having Republicans in charge is super-important. Don’t ever forget it.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  302. 305- Mr. Patterico, Thank You.
    Republicans conveniently forget that episode of leadership gone progressive.

    mg (31009b)

  303. “Not voting for Romney was/is not the same as voting for Obama. Jeez.

    No, it was only half a vote for 0bama.”

    Oh sweet infant baby jesus

    It’s very simple arithmetic. Not voting for Romney, by someone who would otherwise have done so, was exactly the same as giving 0bama half a vote.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  304. mg (31009b) — 6/29/2014 @ 6:00 pm

    We should send a box of cigars to Ronnie Earle for his help in ridding us of Tom DeLay.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  305. And yet when the proto-TEA-party movement stayed home in 2006, because the Rs had seemed to be spending like drunken Democrats, we saw what the real Democrats could do. And since 2009 we saw that what we thought was bad was nothing compared to the real thing. Don’t you wish federal spending was now “merely” what it was in 2006, when W and his merry band of Rs were running things?

    Milhouse (b95258)

  306. 209. …But unfortunately, it does not help the larger cause that Joe Walsh, the one-term former IL congressman and one of the main self proclaimed and vocal Tea Party spokesmen here, coincidentally just last week got kicked off his own radio show by station management for repeatedly using words that are generally considered racial slurs (such as n##ger and sp#c). He apparently did not use them as direct slurs, his “intent” apparently was to have an honest on-air discussion about political correctness. He’s an idiot…

    elissa (fa2825) — 6/29/2014 @ 7:49 am

    Whether Joe Walsh is an idiot or not I can’t say. But the larger issue, it seems to me, is how do we win with idiots on the team? Team D has their share, too. I give you Sloe Joe Biden, Sheila Jackson Lee, and that guy worried Guam will tip over if we station too many Marines on it just to kick things off. And just look at all he own goals Hillary! just scored against herself. But of course they almost always get a pass from the MFM; “That’s just Joe being Joe.” In Hillary!’s case the MFM is scrambling to lean up her mess.

    If one of these Democratic gaffe machines says something too horrendous to ignore an apology usually is enough to make the whole thing go away. If worse comes to worse the guy may have to resign, but the MFM always makes sure to present the issue as an individual failure that says nothing about the left or the party as a whole.

    Naturally they do the opposite when it’s an idiot associated with team R. And establishment team R just made things ten times worse by smearing its own conservative base as racist rednecks. But since no one can make it through a campaign without screwing up, it seems to me that even the Stupid Party would have some sort of strategy for dealing with the inevitable questions on the predictable Democratic talking points from the Democrats that make up the MFM when somebody they can link to team R makes a gaffe that fits their narrative.

    It appears to me that such a media strategy is doable. For instance, Wendy Davis is proving that late term abortion is a loser even among liberal Democratic women. So when some Democratic operative posing as a network news reporter tries to play gotcha with a GOP pol or spokesman on abortion by trying o make him or her own some idiot’s remarks about “real rape victims don’t get pregnant” or something or other, if it were me I’d shift the focus from he small percentage of abortions due to rape to the far larger problem of late term abortions. Which is essentially infanticide, and this makes almost all people queasy. This is why the Wendy Dais campaign won’t even tell her own electorate her position on abortion, or what he only thing she achieved statewide notoriety and attention from he national party for, her filibuster, was even about. She had to run away from her own history because her voters are running from her when they discover it. Hopefully the Gosnell movie will be out by then, but I’d make sure to tie that in, too.

    I submit that they don’t come up with any such sort of media strategy because they can’t. And they can’t because they believe the MFM/Democratic party narrative themselves. Similarly, they can’t make a case for conservative principles because for the most part they have none.

    This isn’t he first time establishment Rs tripped all over themselves to to tell he world their own conservative base is a bunch of racists. The 2007 amnesty, anyone?

    http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/04/lindsay-graham-to-la-raza-were-gonna-tell-the-bigots-to-shut-up/

    …Graham comes off as a sincere, well-meaning but misguided fellow until the personal story professing such surprise that a man named Garza could be a great American–soft bigotry of low expectations, anyone?–and that late line about “bigots.”

    Who is he talking about?

    …He’s surely not talking about the people right in front of him, who belong to a group called “The Race” and who say things like this.

    I get it. He must be talking about them. And him. And all of us who support border enforcement.

    For some reason even nastier quotes from John McCain, who lied about securing the border to get reelected to the Senate then almost immediately crossed over to work on amnesty with Shumer and the rest of the lying “gang of 8,” elude me at the moment.

    I am convinced these sentiments are widely shared among inside-the-beltway Rs.

    It’s why Ted Cruz said this after the GOP caved and gave he Democrats and Obama everything they wanted in the way of a “clean” debt ceiling increase, despite the fact that Mitch McConnell said just weeks before he couldn’t imagine passing a clean debt ceiling increase. Something the GOP leadership had been claiming they’d fight over for months:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/13/Ted-Cruz-Hell-will-freeze-over-before-establishment-GOP-listens-to-American-people

    “If we wait on the entrenched politicians in Washington, hell will freeze over before that happens,” Cruz answered when Levin asked whether Republicans will ever listen.

    …He noted that in the prelude to the shutdown, many Republicans preferred to push for spending cuts with the debt ceiling as leverage.

    “A few months ago, when we were fighting trying to stop the disaster that is Obamacare, where a lot of Washington gray beards said, ‘we are going to fight on the debt ceiling. That’s where the fight will be,’” Cruz said. “It’s like they think the American people are a bunch of rubes, we don’t remember what they say.”

    …“Make no mistake about it,” Cruz said. “This was their desired outcome. An awful lot of Republicans wanted exactly what Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid wanted, which is to raise the debt ceiling. But, they wanted to be able to tell what they view as their foolish gullible constituents that they didn’t do it, and they’re mad because by my refusing to consent to [a bare-majority vote] they had to come out in the open and admit to that.”

    I therefore must conclude Thad Cochran and Haley Barbour weren’t just saying what they had to say to win. They were saying what they really believe. Not just about the inherent racism of their own base. That the last thing they want is smaller government or to cut entitlement spending. Indeed, any fiscal restraint at all. And they’re not the only ones. Did the Republicans demonstrate any fiscal restraint the last time they were in charge?

    “I got the message,” McCain vowed repeatedly on the campaign trail in South Carolina. “We will secure the borders first.”

    None of them have gotten the message. Any message. So in addition to figuring out how to win with idiots on our side and the press on the other, we need to take Uncle Milty’s advice and stop concentrating on electing the right people, but figure out a way to make the wrong people do the right things. As it stands the incentives are to do what the big check writers want, not what the voters want.

    Unfortunately it’s probably too late. We should have figured out how to make the wrong people do the right things back in the ’60s or ’70s, when Friedman first offered that advice.

    Steve57 (246b06)

  307. With all due respect, Patterico:

    Son: Dad, why did the Republicans fight among themselves so much, putting their differences under a microscope, and ignoring what the Democrats did, which was so much worse?

    Father: Many people said that there were no differences between the two parties.

    Son: But there were, on so many issues!

    Father: Sadly, son, folks like to fight for purity in their beliefs. They like to be around people who think just like they do, and call people who don’t agree stupid or evil. Why, they would even say that a Republican President would have made the same decisions as a Democrat President.

    Son: But that is silly, Father—just an overheated rhetorical statement designed to get people riled up.

    Father: So it was, son. But you see, at that time, everyone in America had been polarized…

    Son: Like that fellow Alinksy said?

    Father: Yes, son. On both sides. So people overstated in one direction, and ignored in the other. Nothing in the middle, ever. If you agreed, you were a saint and without sin. If you disagreed, you were evil and to be condemned.

    Son: It sounds like term limits were needed—to many people, on both sides, just helped the bureaucracy. They didn’t care about their jobs.

    Father: That’s true, son. It was frustrating. And many folks on the Right gave up, sat out elections, and picked at small differences…while ignoring the larger ones from the other party.

    Son: So only ideologues were permitted in politics?

    Father: Yes. And that’s why so many people just voted according to a letter, or just one issue, like Lilliput in “Gulliver’s Travels.” Or didn’t vote at all.

    Son: But that didn’t stop them from complaining!

    Father: No indeed, son. And all the carping and disagreement put things off, and confused issues. Why, there were some people who seemed happy at the idea of the whole system falling apart.

    Son: Why?

    Father: Because they believed, for some reason, that something wonderful and pure and in perfect agreement with their world view would emerge from the ashes.

    Son: But it didn’t!

    Father: No son, it didn’t. But we should get back to weeding. It’ll be dark soon, and the patrols will be out. We have to bring enough potatoes to our local Pelosi to keep from your being indentured.

    Simon Jester (781b97)

  308. Justify it anyway you like Milhouse. They had a chance to set this country up for future generations and failed miserably.
    Country Club Republicans need to step in front of president lackluster’s bus.

    mg (31009b)

  309. Simon:

    That’s funny, and sad, and scary.

    Agreed that whatever Republicans are, Democrats are worse.

    I really think we should all band together against the worse enemy.

    But that’s not what the Cochran forces did. Can we get a little “what the hell were you guys thinking” directed their way?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  310. “It’s very simple arithmetic. Not voting for Romney, by someone who would otherwise have done so, was exactly the same as giving 0bama half a vote.”

    Your silly construct assumes that your vote is owed to one side.

    JD (191f33)

  311. That “purity” strawman never gets old.

    JD (191f33)

  312. …but the MFM always makes sure to present the issue as an individual failure that says nothing about the left or the party as a whole.

    Indeed, usually the MFM literally does say absolutely nothing about the individual’s party affiliation.

    Steve57 (246b06)

  313. 315. Indeed, I was thinking of creating a Venn Diagram of my concerns versus those of the Big Donors, Left and Right, calling them concentric with major party legislation and visualizing the overlap.

    Me and the majors basically disjoint sets, the majors themselves sharing upwards of 50% area.

    Me and the Republicans basically agree that bestiality proscription should remain with the States and we are agin. On the rest no consensus.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  314. That “purity” strawman never gets old.

    I think some of the commemters here are mistaking our position as a desire for purity. I won’t deny that a desire to push the GOP in the direction of limited government is part of what motivates me. But mostly, in this case, I (and many, many others like me) am outraged at a totally dishonest attack by establishment Republicans, using lefty racial politics and appeals to federal largesse, in an effort to turn out Democrats in a Republican primary.

    This is intolerable, and most of the arguments I see do not seem to diagnose the disease correctly; therefore their discussions about the cure seem off-base.

    I honestly would like to have a dialogue with the more reasonable folks, like Simon, who oppose voting for the Democrat — which I think is a totally rational position to take — and ask them: what would you have us do, if anything, about the tactics used by the right in this campaign?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  315. #305: Patterico,

    At #59 in this thread I noted that W’s folks had all the levers and squandered it. I got very upset with W about the point they did the Medicare Part D thing, and more so as time went on, as did you iirc.

    That does not mean that a President Cruz or a President Paul would squander such an advantage. The GOP having control is a necessary condition to righting the ship. It is of course not a sufficient one — there also has to be the will. President Santorum, President Huckabee, President Graham…. there are lots of ways to eff it up.

    That does not mean you shouldn’t try.

    Even if you think it’s all hopeless, consider that you are wrong. IF you are, then you want the GOP in charge. If you are right, it won’t matter. There is no scenario, though where giving power to the nation’s enemies can help.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  316. 311. MS notwithstanding, the Republicans are done as a credible counterweight. The Dhimmis determine the GOP agenda, the ‘compromise’, the way forward.

    http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2014/06/dream-team-leaders-of-second-american.html

    Democracy is a complete and irreparable bust. The second Republic will have less flexible, forward looking safeguards against tyranny, like Constitutional prohibitions against transfer payments and delegation of powers, etc.

    General social upheaval isn’t just unavoidable, it is necessary.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  317. Since you asked politely, as always, Patterico….

    I do NOT think what Cochron did was great. I think it was slimy. But I am not experienced with Mississippi politics.

    At the same time, I don’t think that anyone in that election covered themselves in glory:

    http://www.clarionledger.com/story/dailyledes/2014/06/27/mayfield-death-pat-bruce/11484789/

    I hope we can agree that the entire election was nasty. There is a lot of that going around.

    The problem is actually not partisan, but is systemic. We need to have real term limits, and no revolving door into the DC community. How to do that? I have no idea. But the common thread we keep seeing is for politicians to not be accountable to their constituents.

    Me? I worry that Chicago style politics is the New Normal in our world. It makes me weep a little.

    Simon Jester (781b97)

  318. 318. I’m not even interested in dialogue with willful mendacity.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  319. But that’s not what the Cochran forces did. Can we get a little “what the hell were you guys thinking” directed their way?

    I imagine that a lot of stuff is going to happen in the trenches in MS between the Teas and the old guard. A lot of county committees are going to see their cozy little officer elections jammed with cross Teas. Some dirt will reach the newspapers. Some people won’t look the other way — like the county chair who got popped for DUI yesterday.

    If I was in MS, I’d be pissed and I’d have gone through the why-not-vote-for-Childers scenario already (actually I went through it before you posted — I understand the feelings, and I live in CA as you do). But, upon reaching the other side, there would only be two major directions: take over the local party, or create a new one.

    I’d favor taking over the local party, since some really cold revenge could be handed out at the state convention next time.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  320. 323. “I’d favor taking over the local party”

    If you have time, the best way to go. I just don’t see the Union holding together more than a very few years. The current world order is coming apart as we speak.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  321. The New York Times had a story about tax foreclosures in Detroit, which may be counterproductive.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/us/detroit-needs-residents-but-sends-some-packing.html

    Sammy Finkelman (b7774f)

  322. 318. I’m not even interested in dialogue with willful mendacity.

    But I totally disagree that the people who oppose voting for the Democrat are willfully mendacious. (Man, it’s hard not to write mendoucheous. Thanks, JD!) As I have said here many times, I am not an expert tactician or pol, and voting for the actual Bad Guy is not something that is obviously the Only Right Answer. There are plenty of people who comment here who think the proposal advanced in this post is very dangerous, who honestly hold that belief, and who want the same ultimate results we want, gary. I think people should not misdirect their righteous anger at the elements of the GOP who carried out the travesty we saw in MS.

    And yeah, Simon, that nursing home thing was crazy. I see Charles Johnson acting on Twitter as though there is nothing wrong with that, which I think betrays a lack of judgment. Of course that was a ridiculous and obviously counterproductive move. I don’t think McDaniel was behind it, though.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  323. Fannie and Freddy, Sallie May(or Student Loan Authority De Jure), the FDIC, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., etc., all are capitalized to finite levels intending to handle routine failure of their regulated markets.

    Catastrophic economic collapse will render them bust overnight, payouts of even their limited resources will never be completed.

    “If you’re not concerned, you’re not paying attention” say Axel Merk, founder and Chief Investment Officer of Merk Funds (and former President of the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis and a former FOMC member). Like many, he sees today’s excessive high-price, low-volume, zero-volatility markets as an unnatural and dangerous result of misguided intervention by the Federal Reserve… “Now, the capital base and the equity of the Fed is very small. Odds are that the losses would wipe out the equity at the Fed.”

    IOW, even the Fed’s balance sheet, today standing at near $5 Trillion can be wiped out overnight. Just imagine the scenario a couple year’s hence enjoying 5% interest rates and 2009-era foreclosures. The Fed’s bonds and MBS will be effectively untradeable.

    Things will be worse in the private sector.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  324. Yes, that’s tragic what happened to Mayfield, of course the Dems do this all the time, with American Bridge, or Jason Carter hires a blogger who sells his tape of Romney’s fundraiser to David Corn, who edits it, becomes a campaign ad, and wins a Pulitzer,

    narciso (3fec35)

  325. 326. I was alluding to the limited orbit of accusing those with whom you share no worldview of being ‘purists’ for not dropping differences and working arm in arm.

    We, the usurpers and, they, the loyalists to whom I referred, use similar phrases, fragments of language, but there is no broad agreement on anything practical.

    Sure I can, short of admiration, hold a grudging respect for dirty tacticians but only as the intrigue recedes in the rearview mirror.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  326. The Teas are neither organized enough nor strong enough to weed out the zanies. When they are, they will be taken seriously by the regular GOP and given a voice in the slate-making and in the parsing out of funds. The present regular GOP is not especially interested in grassroots, in any event. Its reliance is on big-money donors — out of state donors — and paid-for, professional, media campaigns.

    nk (dbc370)

  327. 330. And, I might suggest, there is a powerful draw to the zanies of some repute, in the conceit of ‘leadership’. The TEA Party Express or FreedomWorks for example were founded by Republican counter insurgents.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  328. JD – Not to decide is to decide. Not to vote is to vote. The good Germans who stayed home in Florida and Ohio made a conscious decision to ignore the harm which was self-evident. If one makes no effort to change, or in this case to fight the corruption, one chooses to accept the known corruption.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  329. Why, we passed a new one, called the prescription drug benefit! And deficits? Why, they continued to skyrocket, much worse then under the previous president, a Democrat.

    A hint as to why that likely was going to happen, even before the contested election of 2000 was finally resolved, was George W Bush’s use of the phrase “compassionate conservative.” The unspoken message behind his phraseology was that — unlike liberalism — conservatism without a qualifier therefore must be non-compassionate, uncaring, unloving, unkind and, well, heartless.

    From that is born the squish-squish-squish one can observe in far too much of the America populace. The irony of that is this society in the 21st century is squishier (or more liberal than ever before) yet is also becoming oddly crueler, meaner and more deranged—eg, the perfect example of that being Detroit, Michigan or the Nidal-Hasan-ized US military with its bloody rampages.

    what would you have us do, if anything, about the tactics used by the right in this campaign?

    It’s tough to know which strategy will make the most sense, or which formula will have the greatest chance of success. Again, that’s due to the ethos of cheap, modern-day compassion, embraced by far too many Americans. Or that mixed together with a sense of self-entitlement and sloppy self-interest—based on many people’s notion that a liberal government will be an easier one to exploit when goodies are being handed out and one is down on his/her luck.

    The following quote has been mis-attributed to certain well-known scholars of the distant past. But whoever the actual author really is, he seemed quite savvy about human nature, of then and today:

    A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

    The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.

    Mark (fdb0fc)

  330. OT-
    Pardon me, but I decided I was going to take the time tonight to switch to PaleMoon from Mozilla, and I remembered there was some fine point in setting it up so Mozilla was totally out of the loop,
    but I couldn’t find it looking through the posts about Eich and Mozilla.
    Does anyone remember what I’m talking about and can tell me?
    And I’m assuming that no one has had a bad experience moving to PaleMoon and duckduckgo.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  331. the difference is they almost never get arrested, the eavesdropper in the McConnell case, who happened to be a person of interest in another case, what happened there.

    narciso (3fec35)

  332. Maybe I should have said “bombthrowers” instead of zanies. I meant guys who think it’s smart to take pictures of old women in nursing homes. Not “wackobirds” who piss off Arizona deadwood on the Senate floor.

    nk (dbc370)

  333. The Cantor loss is indicative of a mass consensus that our political class is unsuitable for the purpose.

    If their is a revolution in our future(a big if), Republicans, per se, will not be a part.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  334. 332. Participating in Congress is harmful to Amerikkka. Voting for someone who shares one’s vision yet is certain not to participate in Congress may seem effete and futile.

    But it beats the alternative.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  335. “If one makes no effort to change, or in this case to fight the corruption, one chooses to accept the known corruption.”

    Or, one could say neither side earned or deserved my vote.

    That whole not voting is voting thing reminded me of the Dem argument that choosing to not engage in an economic activity was in fact an economic activity so they could regulate the hell out of it.

    JD (191f33)

  336. Maybe a certain portion saw what happened to Vanderslip and Adelson even before the election, just like the Auto Task Force closed profitable dealerships, how many were audited for even making one contribution, it’s ‘gangster government’ as one put it,

    narciso (3fec35)

  337. Well my comment is buried at the bottom of over 327 comments so no one may notice, but I think Patterico is not providing the complete picture of the political landscape. I’m not saying he said anything inaccurate, just that there are some additional items that anyone looking at this situation should also take into account. My apologies if this has already been beaten to death in the comments, as I am posting this before wading through all of them.

    Is control of the U.S. Senate from 2015-2017 as unimportant as Patterico says? Probably. But here is what he left out.

    1)As regards the fate of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, this might be the most critical phase of the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court. There is a large swell of gun cases working their way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and a new decision shaping the boundaries of the 2nd Amendment is overdue. Obama has already added two anti-gun justices to the Supreme Court, and any additional justices he adds may sway the razor edged 5-4 balance that currently holds in the court. The Supreme Court minority faction has already voiced it’s desire to nullify the 2nd Amendment in their written opinion in the D.C. v Heller case and the McDonald v Chicago case, all they need is one more justice to make them a majority instead of a minority faction.

    2)The same math that give the Republicans a decided edge in retaking the majority of the U.S. Senate in the 2014 elections is reversed in 2016. In 2016 it is the Republicans who will be trying to hold on to many more incumbent Senators than the Democrats. So how well the Republicans do in the 2014 election may be decisive in if the Republicans hold onto a majority in the 2016 election. If the Republicans manage to elect a president in 2016, how important will a Senate majority be then? Whether a Republican president is able to do things like roll back Obamacare in part depends on how well the Republicans do in the U.S. Senate races of 2014. Perhaps even more terrifying, how important will a Republican majority in the U.S. Senate be if the Democrats manage to grab the presidency again in 2016?

    Now despite all that, I agree that Cochran should be punished and the crony wing of the Republican leadership should be taught a lesson, even if that means losing the seat. The long term interests of the party and the nation will be better served that way.

    Brad (7c0f64)

  338. “Whether a Republican president is able to do things like roll back Obamacare ”

    A Republican president gets to amend it and change it in the same way Obama has done. No Senate needed.

    JD (191f33)

  339. JD – Except that the fox was already in the henhouse!

    The choice was to at least try something, or to succomb to a turrible fate.

    I am no fan of Romney the pol. But, things would be significantly better today. The inexorable slide to ruin would continue, yes.

    Man, I do not like being on the other side of you. You are a wonderful guy with whom I share pretty much the same goals. Yet, we had a chance to stem the tide at least a smidge. As always, we have seen the enemy and he is us.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  340. I know it’s a Nate Silver talking point, but the Dems don’t think like that, during Republican presidencies they take a house of congress or both, and it’s ramming speed all the way, consider
    1986, and 2006, in the first they past tax reform that reduced the deductability of real estate interest, which toppled the portfolios that the S&Ls rested upon, in the latter all the shenanigans
    with subprime that accelerated the bubble, and they profited in the second,

    narciso (3fec35)

  341. When one side treats a contest like a badminton match, and the other like a military campaign, who prevails,

    narciso (3fec35)

  342. JD

    I have no more desire to live under a Republican King than I do a Democratic King. Though I understand your implication that if we do end up with a Republican King the Democrats will have Obama and their support of Obama to blame for it.

    Brad (7c0f64)

  343. That “purity” strawman never gets old.

    In this case it’s more properly called a canard.

    There was no quest for purity. A least, not from conservatives. Conservative Senators pledged not to campaign against incumbents. Not even liberal Republican incumbents like Cochran, whose ACU rating has plummeted to near Democrat numbers at the low sixty percent range. They wanted to campaign for McDaniel, but for the sake of party unity they suspended the quest for purity and kept their word.

    http://spectator.org/articles/59786/gop-soul-searching-over-thad-cochran

    …But most of all, there is a lot of soul-searching going on—particularly on the part of a number of the Senate’s more outspoken conservatives, who might have gone into Mississippi to help McDaniel but for their having made a pledge not to campaign against incumbents. “That pledge would have to presuppose that Cochran wouldn’t run a Democratic campaign in a Republican primary, right?” said one of the staffers.

    If you read the article you’ll see that one thing that has irked some Senate Republicans (Senators and staffers alike) is that Cochran may have used NRSC money to pay Democratic operatives to get Democrats to the polls. One thing is certain; NRSC money was used to attack and vilify conservatives and appeal to Democrats.

    …There were further allegations, substantiated in news reports, of “street money” paid to Democratic fixers to turn out the votes of, shall we say, “new” Republican voters crossing over to vote for Cochran on a one-time basis.

    …According to these conversations, some $800,000 was raised for Cochran by his Senate colleagues after the McDaniel victory in the primary’s first round, largely under the rubric of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. This wasn’t seen as a particularly controversial matter at the time; the NRSC is an organization by and for the Republican members of the Senate and Cochran had raised money for his colleagues in the past, so there would have been no reason to deny him help.

    …Though there were published reports to the effect—and Barbour was open about it—that Cochran’s runoff strategy was to “expand the electorate” by seeking Democratic votes in a Republican primary, there wasn’t a lot of attention paid to where the funds being raised would go.

    …As such, the staffers say, it wasn’t until Wednesday, when the fallout began to descend, that Cochran’s tactics became an issue. And now, several senators are more than a little uneasy with those tactics, which they feel responsible for since they raised money for Cochran.

    Presumably some of he people who gave ha $800k o he NRSC for Cochran’s campaign wouldn’t have if they knew they’d be paying to line the pockets of Democratic operatives with “walking around money” and to attack and vilify conservative members of the GOP rank and file as racists.

    Perhaps some of the donors to Haley Barbour’s dishonestly named “Mississippi Conservatives PAC” would have felt the same way about Barbour spending tens of thousands of dollars to a Georgia Democratic operative for robo-calls slandering conservatives as racists.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/381365/meet-mitzi-bickers-eliana-johnson

    …And, apparently, for Thad Cochran. Federal Election Commission reports indicate that the Mississippi Conservatives PAC paid The Bickers Group $25,000 last week for “GOTV phone services” — even though, according to the Georgia secretary of state’s website, The Bickers Group dissolved in September 2012.

    From what I understand Barbour’s PAC may have paid The Bickers Group up to $44k in all for a range of such “services.”

    I suppose wanting nominally GOP PACs and campaigns to spend my contributions on something other than attacking me and calling me names is demanding too much damned purity in your view, Simon Jester?

    Personally I consider that soliciting money under false pretenses, but maybe that is only due to my unreasonable standards of ideological purity.

    How about thinking that GOP Senators shouldn’t be calling me a bigot for wanting border security first while accepting awards from La Raza? Or leaking to the press that the only reason GOP voters oppose amnesty is because they’re racists?

    http://riehlworldview.com/2014/01/lindsey-graham-and-john-mccain-tag-team-conservatives-in-buzzfeeds-racist-smear.html

    Am I demanding just too much damned purity when I take umbrage at that, Simon Jester?

    Steve57 (246b06)

  344. Patterico,

    I am unwilling to vote Democrat. I don’t believe I could do it in good conscience. My vote is something I treasure and value and to willingly give it to someone I oppose on political and moral terms is simply something I don’t believe I can do with a clear conscience. How to, in practical terms, hit the establishment is something I asked up thread. For myself, I believe contributing financially and working for conservatives is one way. I also believe word of mouth and talking to friends and neighbors is one of the most positive things that can be done. Also, meeting with local politicians, assemblymen, senators is another way. I recently had an opportunity to have a good 45 min conversation with mine regarding this very issue. I think writing op-eds in newspapers, blogs like this, etc., also help. Real term limits, as Simon suggested, absolutely. The getting-there is always the hardest. If the tactic you believe is most effective is to vote Democrat, then do so. If people like me don’t think they could swallow doing that, then there are other ways. Perhaps, collectively, it will all be catalyst enough to bring them down.

    Further, you stated that you see Cochran as a clueless puppet. To me, that’s playing right into his and the GOP’s manipulating hand as you under estimate him. How are we to fight against an enemy that we don’t even recognize as a major player on every level? As I responded above, I believe Cochran is a clever and manipulative fox who has played a dirty game for decades. He is well practiced in the art of deception and a liar through and through. He is not an old doddering fool, but I believe that to be his schtick. These people are more ruthless than perceived. And that’s because they’re at a level of desperation to keep hold of the reins. If there was no imminent threat, there would not be these levels of corruption. The closer the Teas close in, the uglier it will get. This campaign was a clear indicator of how threatened the GOP feels. (McDaniel’s own campaign machinations, not withstanding).

    Dana (fe2228)

  345. I would add, that witnessing the level that the GOP is willing to stoop to in order to keep out the Teas is a positive of the two-sided coin. It’s dreadful, of course, but I believe it also evidences they are operating out of fear.

    Nobody, not even an old man like Cochran, get the benefit of the doubt.

    Dana (fe2228)

  346. Three comments:

    First, even if Cochran wins re-election, that does not mean old-bull Republicans will feel invulnerable. Cochran, despite his funding, name recognition, seniority, and pork delivery, came within an ace of losing. That’s a wake-up call and a shot across the bow.

    Second, what do the liberals want Mississippi voters to do? It’s been argued that losing the seat for six years would be better than the effects of the re-election of Cochran. Do any liberals think that the re-election of Cochran would be better for their agenda than possible Democrat control of the Senate? The Democrat activists who turned out votes for Cochran almost certainly did so because they hope that Republican division might allow them to win the seat.

    Third, some people get all excited and insist that there is no difference between the likes of Cochran and liberal Democrats. I’ve seen the ridiculous (and easily refuted) claim that the voting record of John McCain was the same as Hillary Clinton’s. Cochran, for all his faults, votes the right way most of the time. Cochran voted against the appointments of Kagan and Sotomayor, for instance, but only one Democrat did.

    Rich Rostrom (3ad0ff)

  347. Yes, allah jumped, first lets see if Cochran’s margin can at least be trimmed, if not annulled then we move to the write in phase,

    narciso (3fec35)

  348. MD in Philly, re Pale Moon:

    This is what you are looking for. http://www.voxday.blogspot.com/2014/04/fumigating-firefox.html

    I’d say don’t bother, but that’s your business. If you do, all credit and blame to Steve57, please. http://patterico.com/2014/04/23/first-world-problems-for-women/#comment-1555928

    nk (dbc370)

  349. BTW, Google works much better than Patterico’s search function for finding stuff on Patterico’s Pontifications. I found this, in about one minute, like this. I went to Google and typed in “Patterico’s comment Pale Moon” (without the quotation marks). Google gave me the a list of Patterico’s posts. The first post was the “thought crime” one. I opened the comments and used the Find function from the Edit menu for pale moon. Not what I wanted. I opened the second post Google showed me, same procedure, “Bingo”.

    If only Google weren’t so … you know.

    nk (dbc370)

  350. votes the right way most of the time

    Most of the time it isn’t close. That’s how RINOs pull of the long con. That’s why RINOs rely so heavily on metrics and scores instead of simple principles like ‘deficits’ or the like.

    There’s a reason so many democrats came out to vote for Cochran. He ran explicitly on more spending.

    Dustin (2bea2c)

  351. Mississippi is the poorest state in the country. It is literally a welfare state. The only way a Mississippi politician is going to get people to vote for him on a “less spending” message is by using an “us against the welfare cheats” strategy. Which unavoidably has racial components and pits poor versus poorer.

    nk (dbc370)

  352. You’d think it would be obvious, nk.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  353. The last pale moon I saw was the 6′ 4″ center on our basketball team, an albino named Blaine, hanging moon out the window of our bus after we beat archrival El Dorado High for the league championship.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  354. After a day spent reading one pinheadedly ridiculous, whiny nostrum after another, along comes Rich Rostrom, a breath of fresh air. Well said, sir!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  355. The only path to solution is via sunsetting the Federal government and starting over. Alexander Hamilton gets to rise again.

    How is voting Republican furthering that end?

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  356. The only way a Mississippi politician is going to get people to vote for him on a “less spending” message is by using an “us against the welfare cheats” strategy.

    Then please explain why McDaniel won the majority of Republican votes in the Republican primary? Many of those voters were poor.

    I realize that dependency is a big problem, but there’s a reason Cochran had to import the ‘pro more gov spending’ democrat votes into the primary.

    A lot of people understand that being dependent on the federal government is foolish, and have a sense of personal pride, even if they are poor. Many of these people voted for McDaniel.

    There is a reason so many democrats came out to vote for Cochran. And nk’s right… some of that has to do with a fear of a reformer combating those cheating the system. Of course that is a major facet of the smear that conservatives are racist.

    My point stands. Especially in this day and age, it is rather silly to look at someone’s ACU score over nearly forty years to say a RINO isn’t a RINO when he’s smearing conservatives for wanting to cut spending, and promising more spending. Those scores are a con based on the idea of voting ‘the right way’ when an issue isn’t a close vote.

    Dustin (2bea2c)

  357. How is voting Republican furthering that end?

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

    Voting for a RINO actually harms the cause of limited government. It perpetuates a system where both options increase the debt and reduce our freedoms. The RINOs understand that, which is why they get so personal and nasty as Cochran’s campaign did and many commenters here do. They do not have reason on their side, so the poor table gets pounded angrily that someone dared speak the truth of the GOP’s fundamental problem.

    Dustin (2bea2c)

  358. Milhouse —

    Ponzi schemes fail when the supply of new suckers dries up, and the old investors have been promised a payout that is now impossible. This can’t happen to Social Security for two reasons. The supply of new suckers can’t dry up because people don’t have a choice about joining. If Mr Ponzi had the power to recruit people into his scheme at gunpoint it would never have collapsed. And unlike in a Ponzi scheme, nobody has been guaranteed a payout. Since at least 1960, i.e. before even the oldest current “contributors” to SS made their first payment, everybody has been on notice that “contributing” to SS does not give one any sort contractual right to anything, ever. There is nobody now paying in who did so under the impression that this guaranteed them an eventual payout, let alone how big a payout. So when the money runs low, Congress can just change the eligibility requirements, or cut the payout, and thus keep the scheme running. Or it can decide one fine morning to repeal the whole scheme, and nobody would have any legal recourse. Ponzi couldn’t do that without subjecting himself to fraud charges.

    I was paying into Social Security since 1959, and it was not until 1966 I was exposed to the “Social Security is a Ponzi scheme” description. It was long after that I learned there was no guaranteed payment. There is a finite (and falling) number of people who are paying into Social Security. There are both rising numbers of retiring collecting and rising numbers of disabled collecting. While Social Security does not, in some very technical ways, meet some of the legal definitions of a Ponzi scheme, the belief of the “investors” and the laws of mathematics are not so particular. It will effectively go bust — your Social Security payment will buy you a doughnut a month.

    htom (412a17)

  359. nk @352, guilty as charged. As I became accustomed to saying while still in the Nay, I have no excuses.

    http://forum.palemoon.org/feed.php?f=24

    1. If you visit certain sites (Including Mozilla Firefox product pages and the likes), they may think you are using Mozilla Firefox. This is because I (on purpose) set the “Firefox Compatibility” flag in Pale Moon, which makes the browser indicate in its User Agent string that it is Firefox compatible.

    2. This compatibility flag can be disabled in about:config, by setting general.useragent.compatMode.firefox to false

    3. This compatibility mode is needed for a lot of websites that determine browser capabilities by way of the UserAgent (a bad practice, but still widespread because it is very easy for website designers to implement). If they find an “unknown” browser, the website may break in unpredictable ways, or what is often done these days, switch to a “mobile” version of the website which really doesn’t work for desktop browsing. Ultimately, the website owners need to fix this and do proper capability or browser detection – please do write them if you find a broken website.

    4. This is a trade-off. You have to choose to let Pale Moon indicate Firefox compatibility (with the chance of being detected as Firefox), or to drop the compatibility indicator (with the chance of websites breaking or displaying incorrect website layouts for desktop use).

    5. So, by default, I choose to give people more compatibility, so it doesn’t interfere with their browsing. People who want to break away from Firefox completely and want to drop any Firefox ID in the browser User Agent, can simply do so by setting the above preference, at the risk of encountering issues while browsing.

    Steve57 (246b06)

  360. It’s a good thing that calling somebody outright a RINO isn’t insulting or anything.–you know completely unlike a Tea taking offense when they feel like they’re being maligned or called names.

    And the sad thing is that you don’t even see the rhetorical equivalence at all, do you? .

    elissa (fa2825)

  361. It will effectively go bust — your Social Security payment will buy you a doughnut a month.

    It’s one of the most looming disasters. I give Bush 43 credit for attempting to fix it. Unfortunately many Republicans saw the short term and personal cost of standing up for this. The GOP had a chance before 2006 to fix many things, but doing so would be very costly politically.

    And so they didn’t fix it. They said you can’t fix stuff if you’re not in power, so you gotta be clever about it and kick the can down the road on some things, while compromising on other things. And the size, cost, and intrusion of the federal government ballooned. It was a lie. Reform wasn’t the ultimate goal. It was simply a promise to get conservatives to vote.

    Imagine if instead of a new entitlement, the GOP had simply balanced the budget, reformed Social Security, secured the border, and etc etc. Such a radical transformation would have had the media smearing the GOP as quasi-fascist. But that’s what the media did anyway! The GOP would have very likely lost power. But that’s what happened anyway!

    And when the democrats showed America an irresponsible path, Americans would have a real choice between going over the cliff or not. They don’t really have that choice now, and the consequences are very serious despite the unserious insults tossed at those who want to fix this.

    That’s what this Mississipi election is about. Frankly, it’s what almost all elections these days are about.

    Dustin (2bea2c)

  362. People who promote behavior that – in the short haul – is strategically destructive, should be castigated as the short-sighted ninnies they are. This country is in grave danger and if we lose in November and in 2016, we can pretty much kiss our collective asses goodbye.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  363. It’s a good thing that calling somebody outright a RINO isn’t insulting or anything.–you know completely unlike a Tea taking offense when they feel like they’re being maligned or called names.

    RINO is a very handy term that I use to discuss Republicans who are in favor of increasing the spending and size of government, because that shows they are not principled conservatives. Some Republicans pretend to be conservative when it’s easy. These days, more and more, some Republicans do not even pretend anymore, which is redefining what a Republican is, and makes my term more and more strained, as I don’t even call myself a Republican.

    you don’t even see the rhetorical equivalence at all, do you? .

    Is this thoughtful and accurate expression of a politician’s ultimate lack of utility to a conservative equivalent to conservatives being smeared as racist over things that are not racist? No, I really don’t think so. Is it equivalent to calling Tea Partiers hot headed and impatient? Yeah, sure.

    Whether RINO is equivalent to something derogatory depends on how accurate the derogatory expression is. I’m not sure how to gauge how insulting it is. To me, it’s like calling a person left handed. It’s simply a matter of fact.

    Dustin (2bea2c)

  364. There is a finite (and falling) number of people who are paying into Social Security.

    That was true for a while — Gen X was a small group — but the Millennials are almost the size of the Baby Boom. The changes that happened circa ’86 correct for a lot of the Gen X strain. There may still be some strain by lifespans getting longer than assumed, but they aren’t getting THAT much longer, and any further correction will be mild. I would expect that some of Gen X and all the Millennials will have to wait until 70 to collect, just like Boomers got pushed off to 66 and 67.

    I’m more concerned that politicians will start doling out benefits to people who never paid in, particularly parents and grandparents of immigrants. They did that once and it got cut out, but liberals have never given up on finding unmet needs.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  365. . This country is in grave danger and if we lose in November and in 2016, we can pretty much kiss our collective asses goodbye.

    So your argument is based on scaring people.

    You explain that those who do not crumble at this, but instead show a little resolve, are “short-sighted ninnies”.

    Because their tactic is counter productive “in the short haul”.

    OK.

    I disagree. I think you are very confused about what “short sighted” and “ninny” means.

    I agree with you that the tactic I support is counterproductive to the GOP in the short term. My argument is based on holding tough in hopes of making reform possible in the long term. You obviously disagree with it, but I think you understand it at least, and could at least make your reactions a little more on the money.

    Instead of ninny, maybe stubborn or reckless. Instead of short sighted, perhaps say quixotic or hopelessly naive. Not that I agree with those terms, but they show an understanding of the possible pitfalls in my view.

    I do hope that if America were given an honest conservative option, instead of a progressive GOP, or whatever the hell I’m supposed to call what I would refer to as “RINO”, that Americans would support that option.

    Stop trying to think of something ugly to say for a second and listen to me: We are already in this severe trouble you describe! You make it sound pretty bad, and it is that bad!

    But here is where we differ. I think we are still in this same trouble, headed for the same cliff, if we elect democrat-lite. Even if we somehow keep government at the same size it is today, which is more conservative than a Thad Cochran or John Mccain would do, we are in that trouble. Even if we balance the budget, our unfunded entitlement liabilities are simply crushing.

    We are screwed unless one thing happens: real reform emerges as an option, and that option is eventually selected.

    To get real reform as an option, the GOP must not crush real reform as an option, over and over and over. To get it selected, that reform option will need credibility before the American people as a whole take a hard look at what the democrat/republicans have done.

    What I’m asking for is so different from what you called “Short term ninny” that I figured I’d explain it again. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m talking about long term resolve.

    Dustin (2bea2c)

  366. Justify it anyway you like Milhouse. They had a chance to set this country up for future generations and failed miserably.
    Country Club Republicans need to step in front of president lackluster’s bus.

    Justify it?! What led you to believe I would want to do that? That’s the last thing I want to do. It’s unjustifiable. But so what? Republicans are the worst people in the world — except for the Democrats.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  367. “It’s very simple arithmetic. Not voting for Romney, by someone who would otherwise have done so, was exactly the same as giving 0bama half a vote.”

    Your silly construct assumes that your vote is owed to one side.

    No, it assumes that you are opposed to everything the Democrats stand for, and therefore if you weren’t in snit you would have voted for the Republican. Choosing not to do so is therefore the same as giving half a vote to 0bama. What was that line about evil’s triumph needing only the silence of good men?

    Milhouse (b95258)

  368. Milhouse, but if they didn’t vote for the democrat, that’s half a vote for the republican, right?

    I mean, conservatives disagree with the ultimate result of both, which is very similar.

    Why presume conservatives belong to one progressive political party and not the other?

    Dustin (2bea2c)

  369. Dustin, for years you have seemed like a kindred soul. It’s weird. I read comments like this and I think: that’s exactly what I was thinking.

    What’s weird is: you and I both opposed Christine O’Donnell. I think I still would, because she seemed dishonest — but with virtually everyone else it lined up as establishment vs. Tea. Every time it seems like your thought process is in sync with mine. Just weird how that works.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  370. No, it assumes that you are opposed to everything the Democrats stand for, and therefore if you weren’t in snit you would have voted for the Republican. Choosing not to do so is therefore the same as giving half a vote to 0bama. What was that line about evil’s triumph needing only the silence of good men?

    No matter how much we explain ourselves, the establishment folks apparently feel compelled to characterize our position as an irrational cry of petulance. Maybe we just want to change the Republicans’ position rather than simply being in a “snit.” As Dustin noted above, we could be accused of being wrong, or having a poor strategy, but of course that doesn’t give the Internet blog commenter the frisson of self-righteousness that must necessarily accompany any criticism of a differing opinion. It can’t just be that someone holds a different opinion, you see. It must be that they hold that opinion because they have a moral failing of some sort — a failing that we, the good ones, lack. The weak people get into a “snit.” We, their wise betters, manage our emotions for the greater good.

    Look over my comments in this thread and note how I consistently assume good faith and rationality on the part of those who differ with me. How often do we receive reciprocal shows of basic respect for our good faith?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  371. Yeah, it’s interesting how that works. I’ve become very very tired of discussing anything about the 2012 election, which was one severe disappointment after another, but that was the tipping point for me. That’s where I realized we are so desperately screwed right now that picking the lesser of two evils is not enough.

    The pet peeve for me has always been poor integrity. That’s why I cling to this “RINO” term, even when I probably should know better. It conveys more than ‘he’s a moderate’. It conveys ‘he pretends to be something he isn’t’.

    So if you assume O’Donnell is a fake, there’s no inconsistency. A sidenote: I have become far more skeptical of news reports about the upstart conservative. Anyone who challenges the GOP from the right is crucified as a moron, a liar, a kook, a criminal, etc. Especially by the ‘moderates’ in news. They have to prove their even-handedness to their progressive betters.

    All politicians are prima facie of questionable character. They are put their families through this political process in exchange for power, because their egos gave them the notion they should decide how the country should work. They all make compromises in exchange for power. Few, if any, lions of the right do not eventually disappoint. But with that in mind, my reaction isn’t that I’m naive to support the reformer of the day. It’s that the media can trash anybody simply by choosing what to report. All the untarnished guys in the middle and on the left are simply protected. With them, the deception is assumed. So I grade O’Donnell more softly now.

    Somehow the right will need to find a way to remain disciplined and loyal so that we aren’t easily fractured. That’s so difficult because most of us are easily turned off by integrity issues. I watched the right swim from one candidate to another in 2011, like we were being herded. Because we were. And then there were only poor options left.

    Dustin (2bea2c)

  372. Dustin

    I get awfully tired of feeling like it’s the media choosing the Republican nominee for President rather than the Republicans. I felt that way about 2008, but especially about 2012.

    Brad (7c0f64)

  373. Problem I have with the flyer is that it looks obvious (to me) that it was done on a PC with Word or something and printed on a color printer. Could have been done at any Kinkos or someone’s living room.

    Also, for something that was “widely distributed among the black community” only one copy has turned up and no envelope. There is nothing on that that gives any attribution of the source of it and the only person who seems to have one of these is one Charles C Johnson who also seems to have a personal financial interest in keeping this going through a gofundme account.

    I’m skeptical. It was just as despicable for the McDaniel campaign to robocall people and tell them Cochran was a co-sponsor of Obamacare. MS politics is pretty nasty and has been for years. But as far as the flyer is concerned, I see no evidence that the Cochran campaign did it and none that a “superPAC” did it, either. They would probably do a better job, I would think.

    crosspatch (6adcc9)

  374. Thad Cochran voted for cloture, without which Obamacare would not be funded. Then he voted against the actual funding that his vote enabled. That’s how they do it. John Cornyn did the same thing, and I’m ashamed to say Texas didn’t mount nearly as good a response as Mississippi conservatives did.

    Dustin (2bea2c)

  375. with due respect, Dustin, you were wrong, the whole FEC complaint by CREW was in cooperation with the local version of Pete Perry, Tom Ross, the IRS lien, totally bogus, her educational CV, might have been a little dodgy, but not anymore then the current Vice President, or the esteemed late senior Senator from Massachussetts, but gigabytes were wasted in the two minute hate, that led to Senator
    Coons,

    narciso (3fec35)

  376. no disrespect taken at all, narciso.

    She got a raw deal.

    Dustin (2bea2c)

  377. Reagan once said that somebody who agrees with you 70% of the time is an ally when compared with somebody who agrees with you 0% of the time.

    Reagan would be branded a candy-ass RINO establishment traitor by today’s ‘conservatives.’

    Your strategy is a one-way ticket to Democrat domination of every aspect of your lives in perpetuity.

    Let’s give the House and Senate to the Dems. Let’s give all state offices to the Dems. Let’s propose an amendment that unless a perfect GOP candidate runs, Obama gets to stay in office for life.

    The perfect is the enemy of the good.

    Bingo.

    Good Lt. (5ea2d0)

  378. Even if someone agreed with you 20% of the time and somebody else agreed with you 35% of the time, it might make sense to vote for the person who agreed wih you less, if some votes were more key.

    A really crucial vote in the Senate is for Majority Leader. Harry Reid has allowed, or arranged for, virtually no amendments to come to the floor for a vote.

    Even some Democrats are complaining.

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/democrats-against-harry-reid-1403825300

    … Wyoming Republican John Barrasso recently noted on the floor that Senate Democrats proposed 676 amendments in the last year but were allowed votes on all of seven. Republicans proposed 812 and got votes on 11. Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee has been allowed twice as many amendment votes (15) in the Republican House in the last year than Mr. Reid has allowed his entire Senate caucus. Not one of the nine Senate Democrats elected in 2012 has been granted a floor vote on any of their amendments.

    All of this has been central to Mr. Reid’s strategy of ducking debates on issues or House legislation that might have a chance of passing and getting to President Obama’s desk. That’s helped the White House, but Democrats running for re-election are now having to explain why they even want to return to Washington if they can’t even vote on the Keystone XL pipeline, reforming ObamaCare, or anything else. In a few months they may wish they had revolted sooner.

    Sammy Finkelman (b7774f)

  379. Nobody bashed RINOs better than Reagan. People forget that. Things weren’t as dire then, either. They really weren’t. Reagan actually gave up on his party due to its ridiculous turn left. The democrat party, I mean. A lot of people did that, historically, and it’s going to happen again with the GOP.

    The problem isn’t that I’m merely getting my way 70% of the time with a “moderate”. The problem is that I’m certain the country’s headed to financial ruin unless we get reform that the GOP is crushing, and the only way to save the country is to stop the GOP from doing that.

    Dustin (2bea2c)

  380. I can concede that it makes no difference from 2014 to 2016. But the consequences extend until 2020. That should at least be considered.

    red sweater (0e3608)

  381. I have no more desire to live under a Republican King than I do a Democratic King.

    Nor do I, but apparently we’ve been living for 226 years under a constitution that, all unbeknownst to us, has allowed the president to use his prosecutorial discretion arbitrarily, to announce to the world that there will be no prosecutions under certain laws, so people should feel free to break them. Those are now the rules, apparently those have always been the rules, so I look forward to President Walker taking full advantage of them by directing the EPA, the NLRB, and the ATF never to prosecute anyone for anything, instructions to the DOJ to drop all prosecutions of pro-life activists, putting J Christian Adams in charge of the Voting Rights Division with the power to fire anyone who won’t fall in line with the new order and hire people who will, etc. When the Democrats complain, rub their faces in what’s going on now, and demand that before any reform can be contemptlated they must explicitly denounce the 0bama administration and all its works. Then introduce a constitutional amendment to rein in the presidency.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  382. I was paying into Social Security since 1959, and it was not until 1966 I was exposed to the “Social Security is a Ponzi scheme” description. It was long after that I learned there was no guaranteed payment.

    You were on notice of this since at least 1960, when the Supreme Court explicitly said so. It’s not the government’s fault that you weren’t paying attention.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  383. Never vote for a democrat.
    It would be better to Vote a write in for McDaniel. Split the vote and force the Republicans to realize their party is made of people with a conscience.
    Cochran does not deserve a vote from any Republican with principles. Nor does his Democrat opponent.

    Kzintius (b9ff91)

  384. “So your argument is based on scaring people.”

    No, I think my argument is reality-based. Some among us believe there are no differences between the two parties, but there are.
    Examples are in foreign and domestic policy, appointing judges, and in giving a Senate controlled by the Right the ability to advance legislation for a vote and not have a sh*theel Majority Leader (e.g., Harry Reid) strangle it in the crib.

    Not winning later this year and in 2016 will make it much, much harder to save our civil society and the Rule of Law. Don’t look for saints in politics, especially in Mississippi. You won’t find them, but you will find Democrats just grinning in anticipation of exploiting ANY rift they can find. If it isn’t apparent by now, they are much more adept at this than we are.

    Conservatives believe Man is flawed. Some among us seem way too confident that it’s mostly the other man.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  385. Milhouse, but if they didn’t vote for the democrat, that’s half a vote for the republican, right?

    Only if they would otherwise have voted Democrat.

    I mean, conservatives disagree with the ultimate result of both, which is very similar.

    Why presume conservatives belong to one progressive political party and not the other?

    Because you know that isn’t true. The natural state for a conservative is to hold his nose and vote R, just as the natural state for a “progressive” or whatever they call themselves nowadays is to hold hir nose and vote D.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  386. My $.02 on this kerfuffle… there’s a difference between (what some are fond of calling) RINOs and Conservatives, just as there’s a difference between a primary and general election. There’s a choice between a RINO and a Conservative in a primary. In the general election, you have a choice between a conservative and a Democrat or – worst case – a RINO and a Democrat.

    If a RINO has been chosen by winning a primary, making a choice to vote for a Conservative by casting a write-in or 3rd party vote, or choosing to stay home and not vote in the general election is a gift to the Democrats, for you will have facilitated a Democrat win.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  387. It depends for what office, and how much of a RINO the person is. Some Rs really are that in name only, and could easily fit into Team D. Others would fit there if not for one issue. Mike Bloomberg, for instance, has always been a D, and only ran as a R because it let him skip a crowded and expensive primary battle for the D nomination. And sometimes there’s just not much to pick and choose between the R and D candidates for an office. E.g. in 1996 I couldn’t see any reason to prefer Dole over Clinton, or vice versa. It honestly made no difference to me which of them won, and even in hindsight that still seems true. But in neither case was a majority at stake; that makes the senate different.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  388. Col, a tip: (Alt+0162 = ¢)
    You’re Welcome.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  389. On the IBM PC Alt-155 was the cent sign.

    If you find a cent sign somewhere, or can use a table, you can cut and paste the cent sign.

    Sammy Finkelman (b7774f)

  390. Thanks nk and Steve57 for the info.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  391. That tip ain’t worth a plug $.05, askeptic…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  392. 390. “You have facilitated..”

    Sorry, I missed, using actual events and consequences, where it was established a Dem win is a Thug loss and vice versa.

    For that matter, I assert the number of angels able to simultaneously dance on the head of a pin is uncountably infinite.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  393. It’s all sh*t, gary… got it two years ago, thanks

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  394. Dem win: Obama
    Consequence: Tire pressure sensors with dashboard warning light on daughter’s mother’s new SUV

    nk (dbc370)

  395. To get a ¢ in HTML, type ¢

    Milhouse (b95258)

  396. 397, 398. Your democratic Republic is a sham, gentlefolk. Ye pisseth into the wind.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  397. Case in point, playing all sides of the action, are you not?

    http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/06/french-bank-bnp-paribas-pleads-guilty.html

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  398. The poor in MS have fallen on a new employment scheme. Bussed to the polling booths early and often as bids and counter-bids are all accepted. Next there’ll be a pension.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  399. Some comrades deny the objective character of laws of science, and of laws of political economy. They deny that the laws of political economy reflect law-governed processes which operate independently of the will of man. They believe that in view of the specific role assigned to the state by history, the state and its leaders can abolish existing laws of political economy and can “form,” “create,” new laws.

    These comrades are profoundly mistaken. It is evident that they confuse laws of science, which reflect objective processes in nature or society, processes which take place independently of the will of man, with the laws which are issued by governments, which are made by the will of man, and which have only juridical validity. But they must not be confused.

    We regard laws of science–whether they be laws of natural science or laws of political economy–as the reflection of objective processes which take place independently of the will of man. Man may discover these laws, get to know them, study them, reckon with them in his activities and utilize them in the interests of society, but he cannot change or abolish them. Still less can he form or create new laws of science.

    nk (dbc370)

  400. One of the distinguishing features of political economy is that its laws, unlike those of natural science, are impermanent, that they, or at least the majority of them, operate for a definite historical period, after which they give place to new laws. However, these laws are not abolished, but lose their validity owing to the new economic conditions and depart from the scene in order to give place to new laws, laws which are not created by the will of man, but which arise from the new economic conditions.

    nk (dbc370)

  401. 404, 405. Thank your bud Nietzsche for a hand in this confusion, thank Mendel for much of the rest.

    The gene pool rots in situ.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  402. That was Stalin, actually. Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR. http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks04/0400331.txt I was particularly struck by his assessment that as capitalism concentrates wealth into the hands of a relatively few it makes it that much easier for the government to seize. I think we could take over the entire economy of the United States, including agriculture* and international trade, just by replacing a 100 or so people.

    In Stalin’s time, agriculture was much more decentralized than industry and trade but ADM, Tyson Foods and a few others have solved that problem for us.

    nk (dbc370)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.1452 secs.