Mike Castle vs. Christine O’Donnell: What’s Your Choice?
In the Republican primary for the Delaware Senate seat, you have two choices.
In one corner: Christine O’Donnell. True-blue conservative. Tea Party darling. Easy on the eyes. But she has stumbled badly in her campaign, and is widely thought to have a poor chance of winning the general election against the Democrat.
In the other corner, you have Mike Castle. Generally thought to have an excellent chance in the general election, but not a solid conservative by any stretch. Supports cap and trade. Thinks it’s unrealistic to repeal ObamaCare while Obama is President. But Geraghty shows he votes conservative on plenty of other issues — he voted against ObamaCare and the stimulus, for example — and he could be the guy who tips the balance of power in the Senate.
Which candidate do you choose?
It’s not an easy dilemma. I was among those who supported solid conservative Tom McClintock over Arnold Schwarzenegger in the recall election for California governor. My reasoning: McClintock is a hell of an impressive guy, and if everyone who had preferred him had voted for him, he could have won. He was a victim of a “he can’t win” mentality. Plus, I didn’t see Arnold as such a great plus. (I still don’t.)
On the other hand, I am not a fan of throwing away my vote to send a message that the candidate in question isn’t conservative enough for my finicky tastes. As long as he (or she) is conservative enough to help us, that works for me.
There are those who seek to make “pragmatic” a bad word. These people often express disdain at the importance of having Republicans in power if they are not sufficiently attuned to their principles.
I have noticed that these very same people often rant and rave about particular Obama policies, like ObamaCare, that a sufficient number of Republicans in Congress could have stopped.
You can’t have it both ways. If you’re going to complain about Obama’s policies, you can’t turn up your nose at a candidate who can help you fight those policies. Even — and this is important — even if that candidate is less than ideal.
Because every candidate is less than ideal.
So I’m good with trying to elect the more conservative candidate on the theory that the more conservative candidate has a chance. Personally, I’m not good with voting for that person as a protest vote when I know they can’t win.
I agree with William F. Buckley and the editors of the Wall Street Journal. The beat candidate is the most conservative one that can win.
So:
Can Christine O’Donnell win?
They picked her two years ago, to go up against Biden, right, where was all the scrutiny then,
ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/8/2010 @ 7:42 amwhy not focus on Castle’s record now.
Why, Patterico! Realism is no substitute for weird syntax and crude name-calling!
And after people call candidates crude names for not living up to “standards,” they sit out elections, or throw their votes away, and then they still get to complain about Democrats!
It’s a great gig for complainers.
Because fixing things takes, to irritate the Maynard G. Krebs of the world, work.
Eric Blair (58b0cf) — 9/8/2010 @ 7:51 amWhere is the evidence that he would so,
ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/8/2010 @ 7:53 amI didn’t realize that she was kinda hott. Screw it, I’m going with O’Donnell.
A.S. (23bc66) — 9/8/2010 @ 7:57 amI have a philosophical question, Patterico: what do you think is the point of voting? That is, what is your objective in casting a vote?
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/8/2010 @ 7:59 amI looked like Christine when I was sixteen but now I look like Mike. I’d go with the unprepossessing old guy.
The things is, you can only judge by appearances. You do not really see into a person’s heart or predict what he or she will in the future (and not yourself either).
nk (db4a41) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:03 amCastle will win the general. O’Donnell won’t….simple as that. This isn’t about silly “purity” this is about control of the Senate.
Michael (7a3b95) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:05 amI have a philosophical question, Patterico: what do you think is the point of voting? That is, what is your objective in casting a vote?
Comment by Leviticus — 9/8/2010 @ 7:59 am
For my part, Leviticus, that I believe in our form of government. And unity of community with my neighbors who also vote. We can’t just give up. I’m too old to be toting a rifle, fighting federal troops, in Utah. 😉
nk (db4a41) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:07 amThere is no such thing as throwing one’s vote away if one votes (the only way to throw one’s vote away is to not vote at all). The implication is that if you didn’t elect the winner, then you wasted your vote. It’s an intellectually lazy point of view.
Thomas (4f3421) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:13 amI’m more curious as to the practical purpose, nk – the whole “here’s a philosophical question” probably muddied that a little bit, sorry. Certainly, there’s symbolic value in voting in general; and I think there’s more value to symbolism than we’re willing to admit sometimes, and I’ll elaborate on that in a second. But as to the practical purpose of voting: is it to sway an election? Is it to express a preference for a favored candidate? Or is it something else entirely(or some other more nuanced version of one of the above)?
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:14 amLeviticus:
Good question.
Generally, to elect the best (usually the most conservative) candidate possible.
Patterico (0ff580) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:15 am“There is no such thing as throwing one’s vote away if one votes (the only way to throw one’s vote away is to not vote at all). The implication is that if you didn’t elect the winner, then you wasted your vote. It’s an intellectually lazy point of view.”
– Thomas
I definitely agree with the first part, but wouldn’t go so far as to endorse the last. Certainly, a rigorous utilitarian mentality could view things as such.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:16 amWe conservatives must also remind ourselves of the continual need to promote the brand and generate buzz.
I ask you: Would a 72-year old man who has been in politics longer than I’ve been alive help “promote the brand” and “generate buzz?” Or would an attractive warrior like Christine do more on the promotion and buzz-creation?
We’ve got more opportunities in ’12 as well as ’10. Trying to vote for Mike Castle to get to 51 seems like too much, too fast. Work on the brand promotion for the time being.
Brad S (9f6740) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:16 amOne is struck by the fact this is the establishment response, every single time, Crist, Specter, Grayson, McCain, (wasn’t the rationale back in 2008) Hutchinson, Murkowski; if they came up with
ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:16 ama more original argument we might listen more
attentively. Has the NRSC learned it’s lesson yet
Who would vote for a candidate who refuses to debate?
The choice is an easy one.
Thomas (4f3421) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:17 am“Generally, to elect the best (usually the most conservative) candidate possible.”
– Patterico
And have you ever succeeded in that goal, do you think?
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:20 amVote conservative …
tarpon (0d210f) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:25 amIn Chicago, to get new garbage cans. The precinct captain will come and pick you up and drive you to the polling place, too.
If you’re implying that democracy is corrupt, often mistaken, even foolish, you’ll have no argument from me. But that’s us, too.
nk (db4a41) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:26 amBut we can’t give up. In-between Rostenkowski and Blagojevich, we had two years of an honest Republican Congressman, Flanagan, in the Ilinois Fifth Congressional District.
nk (db4a41) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:28 amCastle’s fine just don’t look me in the eye and lie to me that he’s a conservative, Chris Christie.
Your Jersey trash integrity is showing.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:29 amThe real question is: ideology or pragmatism?
The GOP voters have been opting lately for ideology. It will be interesting to see how it plays out on election night.
JEA (229171) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:30 amI think we should take our advice on who to support from people like JEA.
JD (cf2162) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:34 amPragmatism can be just another word for fooling people to thinking that you agree with their ideology, JEA.
“All of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time”? 😉
nk (db4a41) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:37 amI have not voted for the rino castle in about 5 elections.The reason I lefi the gop is castle and mccain
stan (eabc89) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:45 amdick morris said that the first vote that any new congressman makes is on their leadership. the leadership is the chief problem here. if harry reid manages to survive this thing, then a vote for this guy is a vote for harry.
That makes this choice very easy for me.
that being said, i find it interesting he only says it is “unrealistic” to knock down obamacare. Which um, is not the same as being opposed to knocking it down, just believing it won’t work. i’d like to see him nailed down on whether it should have been passed, and whether in an ideal world, it should be repealed.
Aaron Worthing (b1db52) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:48 amSo will Castle do more damage inside the GOP or Coons as a Donk over the next six years.
I say on the justice approval, treaty ratification issues its a wash. Senate is lax on the former, tough on the latter by its nature.
I see Castle as a thorn, “gang of 14”-style subterfuge the whole way. No contest, Castle needs purging.
Went against Coleman MN for fourth party and got the comedian. Was that nuts? Couldn’t MN return the comedian next time? Not likely.
Get the career sh*tsack out when you can.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:49 amCastle could squelch a lot of this by vowing to not support any Cap & Destroy during the lame duck session.
JD (cf2162) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:56 amOkay, i think i am too heavily medicated to comment. i thought this was a dem v. republican thing, now it is clear that this is rino v. tea partier. my apologies.
But all that being said, i agree with Legal Insurrection that if you are not willing to debate, on TV, you shouldn’t even be in consideration. That is until i see something else in the fog of my meds.
Aaron Worthing (b1db52) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:56 am“Castle and Mccain”
It’s interesting to compare the two. Mccain’s not as much a RINO on paper, but he hails from a much redder state and has been able to betray conservatives in many powerful ways.
Castle’s not conservative and I don’t have any confidence he will go my way if any issue is controversial (when his vote really counts). He’s barely conservative enough to be a RINO. Cap and Tax? Good grief.
O’Donnell is a scumbag.
I said earlier Hayworth wasn’t an impressive enough candidate to beat a powerful RINO. That doesn’t mean I wanted Mccain to win… i didn’t. Hayworth would have been a better Senator, but he’s a bad candidate IMO.
O’Donnell’s a case where I really don’t want her to win. I do not understand the devoted Tea Partiers in this case. I’m usually one of them, but to me, issue #1 is corruption. I will not support a sleazier, less honest candidate, just because she tells me she’s more conservative. I wouldn’t let O’Donnell babysit my kids or repair my car. She’s screwed her campaign workers and her alma mater. She will lose because she ought to lose in the most basic way. She would be unable to resist the temptation of corruption as a Senator and would be much worse than a democrat or a RINO.
This is Delaware, and while they are more left than most states, I wish their people had been given an honest, strong, and conservative option. The Republican party has let the state down because it is so weak in that state.
It’s like choosing between a dirty McDonalds and a smelly Burger King.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:57 amA.W. – What happened?!
Speaking of, I have not seen Bro Bradley recently. Is he well?
JD (cf2162) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:57 amIncumbent or probable flake. Glad I don’t live there. Flake.
htom, not a professional politico (412a17) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:59 amDustin – Could you explain why you hold her in such contempt?
JD (cf2162) — 9/8/2010 @ 9:02 amI wonder if a problem with your thinking is that you didn’t engage in the comparison.
If O’Donnell was the Senator, she probably would need purging right now. She is reliable in her lying and cheating. It’s possible you just don’t realize how dark O’Donnell is.
Castle is one of those confident RINOs. He’s outspoken in opposition to a lot of conservative ideas. I agree, that would make a difference in the short term (in the primary), but Tea Partiers are thinking long term, too. This could have been an excellent chance to replace Castle, who has shown weakness to a very weak candidate.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 9:02 amPlease explain
JD (cf2162) — 9/8/2010 @ 9:04 amhtom – You better be careful. Using the word polit*co without the expressed written consent of politico.com will result in you getting sued.
JD (cf2162) — 9/8/2010 @ 9:10 amNo, I don’t think she can win. As for concerns about Castle’s “RINO” status if he wins the senate seat I’ll quote the two words a well known blogger brings up from time to time “Judicial Appointments”.
VOR2 (c9795e) — 9/8/2010 @ 9:12 amCastle is up by 10 points against the democrat vs O’Donnell who is down by 10 against the same Democrat. No-brainer. Castle will win, O’Donnell will lose. Why go for the loser? If I wanted that, I’d vote Libertarian.
Kevin Murphy (73dcc9) — 9/8/2010 @ 9:12 amwill not support a sleazier, less honest candidate, just because she tells me she’s more conservative
For what it’s worth, this is basically an exact analog to how I feel about Gavin Newsom.
aphrael (73ebe9) — 9/8/2010 @ 9:14 amNot to mention, Right Haven, might get involved, so she was OK to get the nod two years ago, but not now. His actual record doesn’t matter, we should settle for less, like Scott Brown, with the FinReg
ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/8/2010 @ 9:16 ambill
O’Donnell. And I dispute that she’s “stumbled badly” in her campaign. She’s been attacked viciously. And her opponent won’t debate her.
As to the practical-purity issue, my responsibility as I see it is not to calculate who has a better chance in the general election (based on unknowns and dynamics impossible to predict), it’s to go with person within the two party system who reflects my values. In addition, it’s to stand against those who offend those values. Castle voted for the DISCLOSE Act. In my view, this is a vote that can never be explained or tolerated. Never.
And I also despise RINOS. I want the GOP to know this.
rrpjr (193e3d) — 9/8/2010 @ 9:16 amGavin Newsom is wrong, on so many levels, aphrael. So smarmy.
JD (cf2162) — 9/8/2010 @ 9:17 amContempt is a very good word to use, JD, for my view.
I worry that since I often criticize conservatives I support, noting problems I’d like ironed out, that it might be hard to see where I’m coming from.
In this case, I’m just plain think she’s a bad person.
In short, she handles money in a dishonest way, and when asked clear questions about it, replies in a dishonest way. I have a very clear picture of her character, and believe she is quite ugly.
Her paid campaign staff have produces some incredibly nasty stuff about Castle, such as the “Is he gay?” video. O’Donnell’s reaction is to repeatedly deny that she made the video, not to point out that the rumor is wrong (it’s a scummy way of saying “I didn’t say he’s gay, what an insult… to his wife”). Her defense to many examples of dishonesty with money is that she’s not as rich as her opponent. Her main attack on Castle is that he’s wealthy, not that his votes are irresponsible. On that basis, I believe she does not truly care about or even really grok Tea Party values, but rather is a clever politician to use the platform. As a Senator over a blue state, and a shameless opportunist, O’Donnell will be a RINO soon anyway.
She didn’t pay a debt to her school for 12 years, and the school refused to award her a degree during this time. She called herself a graduate, but was not. She lied about this and says she called herself a student (in reality, she said she was a graduate). But she wasn’t a student, either. She was a deadbeat. She just doesn’t handle money in an intelligent way, or react to criticism in an intelligent way.
Actually, I think it would be easier if you listen to the best example of O’Donnell I’m aware of. While O’Donnell filibusters annoyingly the entire time, you get some sense of how she will spit out a lie instantly, and then get tangled in it. I think most people will come to the same conclusion I have if they hear it. Castle is quite undesirable politically, and O’Donnell is undesirable ethically. I don’t even trust O’Donnell’s politics.
Is Castle bad enough to purge him in favor of O’Donnell? He’s pretty bad, but no.
Modify Buckley’s quote. Elect the most conservative and least corrupt, who can win.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 9:18 amListen to my link above, and then go with O’Donnell if she reflects your values. Only problem is that I bet there is no such candidate available in Delaware.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 9:20 amO’Donnell has, as I understand it, told a couple of whoppers on radio or TV where it is recorded and obviously untrue. It sounds like she needs some more seasoning. Maybe until she looks like Castle.
Mike K (d6b02c) — 9/8/2010 @ 9:21 amThat is not quite what I was expecting to characterized as corrupt and cheating. Doesn’t mean she is a good person, I would argue she is demonstrably not by virtue of the fact she wants to be a politician, but I don’t see corruption in that.
JD (cf2162) — 9/8/2010 @ 9:23 amO’Donnell has character issues that would devastate her in the general. If you want Harry Reid or Chuckie Schumer as senate majority leader, vote for O’Donnell. If you prefer Mitch McConnell or Jim DeMint as senate majority leader, vote for Castle. Strategic voting here, folks. Straight from the William F. Buckley playbook — elect the more conservative candidate, work to build a conservative base in Del. for the next six years, then go after Castle in 2016 if his votes aren’t to your liking… but do it with someone better than O’Donnell.
either orr (6d4ded) — 9/8/2010 @ 9:25 amAnd all you folks in Delaware — work hard to stop Carney in the House race. He’s to the left of Biden, for cryin’ out loud.
JD, I realize it’s piddly stuff. What power she has had, she has used to cheat. But it’s not much power. She wasn’t on the grassy knoll and she didn’t raid Watergate.
I’m not listing every single little piddly thing I’m aware of, and I’m honestly more persuaded by how she reacted to these issues being brought up in that link I shared above.
She has extremely poor character. The only defense I’ve heard to it is that Castle is a RINO. I note that Castle is an outspoken and honest RINO, critical of the Tea Party to their face. Doesn’t make me like him, at all.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 9:33 amAnd we got Obamacare! Thank you SO much.
However flawed Coleman was, with him in the Senate, we would have had the votes to filibuster it.
And with a majority, nonsense like that (or cap-and-trade, or card-check) never makes it out of committee.
Eyes on the prize, folks.
NJ Mark (ebc589) — 9/8/2010 @ 9:34 amShe’s earned it. The woman has copiously proven she’s incompetent to manage her own finances or her campaign finances, so why should she be entrusted with the nation’s? She’s lied about her own previous election results, and when called on it accused the questioner of being paid off by Castle. Hey, there’s a real winner for you.
She’s not electable and Castle is, so Patterico is dead on point.
Tully (62151d) — 9/8/2010 @ 9:35 amMaybe we should ask Joe Miller if she could win.
KobeClan (39eaf5) — 9/8/2010 @ 9:37 amNJ Mark, that’s a good point. I never liked Coleman, but compared with Franken? A good warning about the long term reality.
However, I don’t think this election is just about political differences. If it were, I would strongly support O’Donnell. She’s close enough to Castle in polls that if she lacked her character issues, I think we’d have another great upset and a real fight for the general. I’d be happy with that, even if it risked losing. Sometimes, taking that gamble on electability is worth it, because it has an effect on other leaders even when it fails. Only if there’s a real chance of victory.
In this case, I don’t even look to electability, because I will not support someone who would be a corrupt leader and is so dishonest.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 9:40 amIt’s bad enough to need to hold my nose while voting for Carley without worrying about the ballot in another state. Anyone who has the right to vote and fails to do so has no right to complain about the result. I voted for McClintock and later for Devore. Now I get to bitch about the result.
BarSinister (5280fc) — 9/8/2010 @ 9:40 amThat’s an excellent question!
Look at what it takes to beat an established RINO. It takes an honest, great leader, with just about every possible positive a politician can have. Proven patriotism and service. Family. The whole package. That’s what Tea Partiers should be thinking about now, with reference to the 2012 elections. Trying to oust powerful RINOs with their flush campaign coffers with O’Donnells and Hayworths will not work (not to compare Hayworth to O’Donnell… he’s much better, albeit still not the right tool for the job).
Is O’Donnell the whole package? Compare her background to Joe Miller’s. Compare her interview to a Joe Miller interview.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 9:44 amWhat power has she wielded honestly, with the cap n trade bill vote, he voted to shutter American industry, reduce the middle class to peasants with
ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/8/2010 @ 9:47 amthe energy taxes, the Disclose Act, puts a gag on unapproved organizations like the Tea Parties. And
the impact of Obamacare is one we will come to rue
for generations.
Dustin: that audio snippet is incredible.
aphrael (73ebe9) — 9/8/2010 @ 9:50 amBroader question. Suppose the RINO’s — Castle, Kirk (IL), Fiorina (CA) — win and the tea party darlings — Angle and Buck — go down in flames?
It will essentially mean the Tea Party strategy backfired and result in a greatly expanded moderate bloc in the Senate more influence.
Gregory of Yardale (07425b) — 9/8/2010 @ 9:57 am“In short, she handles money in a dishonest way, and when asked clear questions about it, replies in a dishonest way. I have a very clear picture of her character, and believe she is quite ugly.”
I don’t know. One can interpret those “financial issues” as merely Christine O’Donnell trying to operate a 2008 Senate campaign without any real financial support from the DE GOP. By that, I mean logistical and personnel support as well as money.
With that handicap, one is bound to make mistakes. So maybe we should realize that it is rather disgusting and unseemly for the DE GOP to be criticizing Christine in this manner when she did as well as one could hope in a 2008 election dominated by Joe Biden as VP.
Brad S (9f6740) — 9/8/2010 @ 9:58 amI’m not seeing a lot of “there” there in regards to Dustin’s animus against O’Donnell. It comes off as petty rather than substance-based.
Thomas (4f3421) — 9/8/2010 @ 10:08 amOnly if one is willfully blind. She’s handled her personal finances in the same incompetent fashion (foreclosure, back taxes, the money owed her college) so her endless excuses about “innocently” screwing up her campaign finances ring hollow. The people she still owes money to from her previous campaign (staffers, consultants, and even volunteer expenses) would no doubt like to be paid, but they haven’t been. She’s been busily raising money for her new campaign while letting those old debts from 2008 hang.
These are issues of both competence and character. She’s already failed those tests on both counts.
Tully (62151d) — 9/8/2010 @ 10:11 amTo beat an entrenched RINO is simple: more votes.
As a candidate for the general election, I’ll take a flawed conservative over a slick RINO any day.
I bristle at those Republicans who forget the words of Reagan, “speak no ill of fellow Republicans.”
Tell me why you are a better candidate, Mike.
You won’t cuz ya can’t.
If you like Sen. McCain, you’ll love Sen. Castle.
KobeClan (39eaf5) — 9/8/2010 @ 10:13 amI completely disagree.
However, if you ignore the ‘she hasn’t paid her staff, years after she let them go, and refuses to do so until they jump through hoops, even though she filed reports that they worked for her and she owed them X dollars’ issue, she has many other financially strange decisions. The degree, her house, etc.
And it’s not “rather disgusting” to point it out. I’m really more interested in her ridiculous manner of responding to this issue, than the fact that she didn’t pay her campaign a couple of years ago. That wasn’t smart financing, and that’s why her present campaign staff is awful (“is he gay?” video, for example, has cost her many votes). Of course, just because it’s an attack video on her opponent, in the heat of the race, from a person paid by her campaign, doesn’t mean it’s her video… no. Just endless examples of this silly crap.
Don’t let your (justifiable) desire to oust this RINO Castle cloud your judgment of O’Donnell.
No offense, but I wish people wouldn’t see this as a mere matter of political differences.
It doesn’t mean that the Tea Party strategy backfired, if only some of the Tea Party types oust RINOs. If we can win half these battles every two years, we’re doing extremely well. If we lose the battles with unvetted candidates who lose for ethics rather than politics, that’s just our infant level organization learning the hard lessons of American politics.
In fact, if the Tea Party fights hard for their (our? I consider myself Tea Party and have been to many Austin rallies) candidates in primaries, and then support the most conservative candidate in the general (Fiorina, for example), we aren’t just teaching the GOP a lesson, we are teaching the Democrats a lesson too.
I think the Tea Party is a great success already, and will be an even greater success in November. Even if one particular candidate or another should fail.
Supporting O’Donnell, or Debra Medina, or Ron Paul, in the name of the Tea Party, reeks to me. These folks simply can’t stand on their own.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 10:15 amThe only time Castle will vote with the Republicans is when Obama and Reid give him permission to, to keep up appearances. That is, when it won’t be a decisive vote. They count the votes before the formal vote so they know when his vote is needed or not. The big problem is that there are several Republicans in the senate who are secret Democrats and some of them haven’t been required to blow their cover yet. He’ll be a member of McCain’s “gang of #”.
j curtis (64f417) — 9/8/2010 @ 10:25 amI don’t think it’s petty. I think it’s piddly.
I don’t mean to malign you personally, but I’ve noticed that O’Donnell’s reaction to these problems is to pretend all these criticisms are from ‘bought off’ (to use her paranoid term) Castle supporters.
I can’t stand Castle. He’s worse than Mccain, on the spectrum, although it’s hard to say he’s a betrayer since he’s never really pretended to be all that conservative like old Maverick. I don’t want Castle to win.
However, I have substantiated my criticism of O’Donnell with a link proving she tells lies. And that she tells lies to cover up her other lies. And that she tells lies without really thinking about it. And that she filibusters and makes personal attacks when her lies are pointed out.
Indeed, these lies are mostly about piddly stuff. I’m not losing sleep worried about what horrible crimes she’s committed. She has a series of debts she hasn’t paid, and a series of dishonest personal attacks made to cover her ass. That’s all.
You can say I’m being petty, but I love my country a lot, and don’t consider my standards to be mean or narrow, but rather pretty reasonable.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 10:26 amJD
What happened?
its at my allergic to BS blog. i would link, but linking has gotten me into the spam filter jail a few times. 😉
Short version is the tuesday before yesterday my appendix decided to go all suicide bomber on me. meaning i had appendicitis, and had to have it yanked out. its as routine as these things get and normally i wouldn’t be so heavily medicated, but…
But then i started with one pain killer but it gave me gastro-intestinal issues i really didn’t need. I mean not to get gross, but no one wants constipation when they have three holes in their stomach muscles from surgery, right? So then on friday they get me on another pain med that… gave me hives. So now i am on steroids, and constant benedryl and trying to work, too.
My joke is if i see locusts, i am running the other way. i would officially be in Old Testament Job territory, then.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/8/2010 @ 10:29 amI wanted to vote for Tom McClintock but was convinced by Hugh Hewett that Tom McClintock didn’t have a chance to win and to vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger. I have not been pleased with the result.
I can understand Dustin’s reservations at the same time. I don’t want a dishonest politician to represent my values. If a person lies about the little things, how can I be sure they aren’t lying about anything else?
And yet, do we really want someone in office who voted for cap and trade (or is it cap and tax) and does not seem willing to fight to overturn Obamacare? It took a long time for slavery to be abolished in England, yet Wilberforce vigorously fought for the abolition of slavery for many years. I really don’t want our party to give up just because they think that it’s unrealistic to repeal ObamaCare while Obama is President. I want them fighting each step of the way until public opinion is swayed and even the democrats vote to repeal obamacare and start to vote for conservative ideals, even if it’s just so they can get re-elected.
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 9/8/2010 @ 10:32 am“And it’s not “rather disgusting” to point it out.”
In this economic time, it is digusting to point it out. Not to mention, utterly tone-deaf. Imagine if, say, Jim DeMint were to start harping on Alvin Greene’s financial acumen, or lack thereof. I…don’t think we need to elaborate on the response, do we?
Brad S (9f6740) — 9/8/2010 @ 10:34 amExcuse me a minute while I, uugh, drag out my soapbox—. There.
With all due respect to my comment buddies here and elsewhere, I am growing concerned about the tendency of outsiders to wax certain and nastily about elections occurring in states other than where they live. (I am not talking about the sharing of observations and opinions–that’s great–but I am referring to the out of state pontificators and arguers.) I see this all the time as someone who lives in Illinois, and regularly am forced to read peoples’ critiques from elsewhere about who voters here should have voted for, or why they were stupid to vote for so and so who is “horrible”, and wonder how this or that could possibly have happened. It was also showing up loud and clear a few weeks ago with respect to the results of the Arizona primary.
The fact is, that each state is different from every other state. Its history, its economy, its hot buttons, its population makeup. There are always the “things” which insiders know and understand that rarely get put in the news: the cultural issues nobody can talk about openly but which people who live there understand, the “connections” which are not easy to see on the surface but are living undercurrents to everything that goes on in a state. These are all reasons that voters in each state must be trusted to make their own pragmatic election choices–and respected after they do. Sometimes the winner is a wonderful surprise, and sometimes the winner is the candidate who, even if it might look strange to outsiders, may be the lesser of two evils, or, may for some other reason, have a better chance to help achieve the end that needs to occur for that state and the nation.
I am going to trust the Republicans in Delaware to do the (in their opinion) right thing, because I firmly believe they share my goal of stopping the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda in its tracks–and they know best how to do that in their state.
elissa (0c0773) — 9/8/2010 @ 10:38 amBrad S,
In this economic time, it’s disgusting to point out that one candidate runs up debts and doesn’t always pay them according to her obligations?
I think in this economic time, it’s a legit point.
You say this is tone-deaf. Of Castle? I don’t even know if he’s bringing it up. I assume he is, but I’m not paying attention to him as he’s not worth my support. But that’s a fair point.
But I don’t have to be in the Castle camp to note that O’Donnell is financially terrible. I don’t really understand what you mean about this economic time being the wrong one to take issue with those who rack up debt and don’t show any sustainability. Are you saying there are bigger issues? There is no bigger issue than our debt, and those who would increase it.
Regardless, did you listen to my link? Why would you believe anything O’donnell has to say about her political views? She’s a pure pragmatic like Spector. She could betray her supporters, because that’s the easy and obvious path for a Delaware Senator. She admits she won’t pay one of her staffers until he provides some vague documentation. Even though she admits he worked for her and she claimed she owed him X dollars on a report. It’s not like this is an isolated example. She’s a promise breaker.
Nothing tone deaf or disgusting about pointing out how O’Donnell’s personal spending is a great example of the thinking that has ruined our nation’s economy.
but if you are ready to use her to fight Castle, I’m not standing in your way. In fact, I think she’s doomed, so you’re essentially making a very loud protest vote of Castle. Her ethics problems almost help your point, since many voters preferring even her to Castle makes Castle look terrible.
But the Tea Party has to do better at vetting people, by asking what’s special about Joe Miller. I think we could run someone like that in all 50 states if we worked hard enough.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 10:46 amWell they returned Biden to office, for 36 years, ponder that for a moment, no matter how many things he got wrong, from the Alaska Pipeline to the FISA bill to the VAWA law (that the Courts over turned)
ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/8/2010 @ 10:52 amthey had a decent Senator in Roth, but much of his
legacy, is being pulverized as we speak.
“I am growing concerned about the tendency of outsiders to wax certain and nastily about elections occurring in states other than where they live.”
You do realize that non-residents can and do make campaign contributions, right? Don’t you think that allows them to wax however they wish?
Thomas (4f3421) — 9/8/2010 @ 10:52 amelissa, that sounds reasonable.
I think looking at Delaware republicans shows a lot of people are just sick and tired of their options.
Most of the rhetoric is ‘look how bad my opponent is’. I haven’t heard much reason to support Castle, based on Castle, or the converse.
I think there’s a fine line. I don’t want to demand Delaware become Texas, but I want to help nudge them and other states, even if I’m an outsider. Brad S notes the terrible financial issues… those issues practically force me to interfere. Wickard and Raich and even the 14th Amendment have made it much harder for me to ignore what’s going on in sister states.
I would much prefer your attitude prevail, but it hasn’t and it’s hard to ignore.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 10:55 amNot looking to start a fight, Thomas, and won’t engage in one. Just felt like saying what I thought needed to be said. You are obviously most entitled to opine away and contribute away to elections you feel you want to influence even if you cannot cast a vote in them.
elissa (0c0773) — 9/8/2010 @ 11:04 amNever go for the candidate opposed to masturbation.
imdw (27af8c) — 9/8/2010 @ 11:04 amDustin – petty and piddly aren’t the right words either. But what you have described does not rise to the level of corrupt or cheating.
Politicians suck.
JD (f89659) — 9/8/2010 @ 11:20 amI heard Rush Limbaugh make the point today that we have to support the most conservative candidate…etc…however, he did not talk about O’Donnell’s competency or her ability to win the general election. Well, if you vote for the primary candidate that is most likely to lose to the liberal Democrat in the general election how is that advancing the cause of conservatism? This is Delaware we are talking about here and there are not as many conservatives in this state as there are in places like Alaska..and besides, O’Donnell has a strange record. She is said to be using campaign funds to pay her rent and she has accused Rasmussen of rigging poll results..she also said she won 2 out of 3 counties when she ran against Biden when in fact she was trounced. If the Tea Party Express wants to get behind a candidate, fine, but they should at least try and pick someone who can win and who has a good record. Rush is wrong here, just voting for someone who can not win because he or she claims to be the most conservative is ridiculous when the stakes are this high. Besides, if conservative activists throw away a Senate seat it will not endear them with a lot of rank and file center of right voters who want to see the Democrats stopped. It could backfire in a big way.
Terrye (7c855d) — 9/8/2010 @ 11:27 amThere are those who seek to make “pragmatic” a bad word. These people often express disdain at the importance of having Republicans in power if they are not sufficiently attuned to their principles.
I have noticed that these very same people often rant and rave about particular Obama policies, like ObamaCare, that a sufficient number of Republicans in Congress could have stopped.
There’s a typo there. You meant to say “.. that a sufficient number of conservatives in Congress could have stopped”. The mere fact that somebody has an “R” after his name tells us nothing about how he will vote on any particular issue.
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 11:29 amAs for concerns about Castle’s “RINO” status if he wins the senate seat I’ll quote the two words a well known blogger brings up from time to time “Judicial Appointments”.
Do you mean he won’t vote against Obama’s nominees? The Dem won’t either.
OTOH if a Republican is elected Prez in 2012 he’ll need Republicans to get his nominees through.
Gerald A (2b94cf) — 9/8/2010 @ 11:31 amJD, it was a political campaign. She’s saying her own documentation of her political campaign expenses are not true and she doesn’t have to meet the obligations she claimed back then.
Regardless, you’re right that this doesn’t rise to the level of corruption of Mayor Daley, or whoever burned up all the voting machines in Harris County (did anyone hear about that? Good Lord).
I think she’s got the same character, and I particularly see this in how she reacts in that interview, instinctively lying, even when it’s clearly making a tangled mess for her. Some people handle these problems in a way that I think shows contempt for society.
I don’t think I’m overstating my case, but you’re right that it’s a mischaracterization to imply she’s part of massive federal corruption.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 11:36 amThe mere fact that somebody has an “R” after his name tells us nothing about how he will vote on any particular issue.
No Republican voted for it. You don’t think that has any bearing on what would have happened if there was a few more Republicans?
Gerald A (2b94cf) — 9/8/2010 @ 11:36 amWell, if you vote for the primary candidate that is most likely to lose to the liberal Democrat in the general election how is that advancing the cause of conservatism?
That sword cuts both ways. How is electing the candidate who has already sided with the Democrats in a number of votes, going to advance the cause of conservatism?
I think this election is a catch-22. Either you elect a RINO, who does NOT espouse conservative values, yet people attribute his votes and his values to the conservative cause because he has an (R) after his name… OR you elect the inexperienced candidate who has some potential problems (financially, and otherwise), and now everyone attributes her failures and faults to the conservative cause because she has an (R) after her name…
conservativeinthecity (801a51) — 9/8/2010 @ 11:39 amIndeed. I don’t begrudge people their decision to support one or the other of the bad choices. But it’s not a referendum on the Tea Party. It shouldn’t be used as an example for the rest of the movement, or even the movement in Delaware. This would be an entirely different election if we were talking about a reform candidate who was credible.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 11:41 amCastle would be an awful Republican anywhere outside Delaware, a state bluer than Papa Smurf. That being said, I’d rather a squishy half-conservative than a full on left wing Democrat. People forget that 1994 elevated a lot of moderate Republicans to victory, it wasn’t a pure conservative win. O’Donnell has zero chance in the general election. Let’s get this straight. Less than 30% of Delaware’s population is Republican. Castle wins the general election because he pulls a significant number of moderate Democrats from their party’s candidate. If O’Donnell wins, it’s a 100% guaranteed loss for the GOP here. We should stop arguing over whether this is a choice between a real conservative and a Olympia Snowe-like moderate, because it isn’t. This is a choice between Castle and a liberal Democrat. Remember that, Delaware Republicans.
East Coast Chris (ded5f2) — 9/8/2010 @ 11:43 amThis issue is a tough one but the GOP needs to be aware that they could be sailing squarely into a bad situation come November. There has been a lot of talk/concern that the GOP is (in some districts/states) putting forward or supporting candidates that can win rather then candidates with a real conservative grounding. The rationale seems to be better to have a quasi-conservative Republican (RINO I suppose) than a Dem. This is all well and good however should the GOP win the senate with a small majority say, 52-48 and win the congress as well then for the next two years as far as the public is concerned the GOP will own the economy.
What happens when the Republicans try to repair some of the economic carnage and run into their own members that don’t want to starve Obamcare financially until it can be repealed or that think that the Cap and Trade bill is still a good idea. I’m sure don’t have an answer to this but it could be both a time of great reward and great risk for the GOP and the GOP senate and house leaders are going to have to be strong people.
scr_north (3da40b) — 9/8/2010 @ 11:44 amThis is a choice between Castle and a liberal Democrat. Remember that, Delaware Republicans.
Maybe I’m a bit ignorant (and I’ll admit that), but how exactly is Castle different than a liberal democrat? What would Castle vote for/against, that the liberal candidate would/wouldn’t?
conservativeinthecity (801a51) — 9/8/2010 @ 11:45 amSubotai:
You say the fact that someone has an R behind his name tells us nothing about how he will vote..well not one Republican, including Castle voted for Obamacare..and besides, how do we know how O’Donnell will vote?
Terrye (7c855d) — 9/8/2010 @ 11:45 amI always vote on principle.
Castle needs to be ousted. He is a snake of a RINO.
I don’t give a rat’s ass about so-called “electability.” That’s establishment B.S. for “Vote for OUR guy (even if he or she is a RINO).”
No more.
RogerCotton (46c147) — 9/8/2010 @ 11:47 amEast Coast Chris,
What do you think of a hypothetical reform candidate… a Tea Partier that looks more like Scott Brown.
Someone who speaks to reform, scrutiny of crooks, some of the Palin style corruption platform from her time in Alaska before her ascendency to national politics.
Not necessarily a social conservative, or even a foreign policy one. Just a reformer yet Rino-ish sort, appealing as best she could to Tea Party types and moderate democrats?
Is this hopelessly unrealistic in Deleware? I think the level of support O’Donnell has, in spite of the problems I’ve sited, shows there’s a real potential for even places like Delaware for a fiscally sane leader to beat democrats.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 11:47 amWe should also remember what he voted against:
The stimulus
Obamacare
Federally funding for abortions
I can live with his cap & trade vote. It’s meaningless now as the bill will never get out of Congress starting in 2011. Disclose is also dead, especially in the Senate, where a mere 40 Republicans derailed it.
East Coast Chris (ded5f2) — 9/8/2010 @ 11:48 amBy the way, Castle’s campaign lied about O’Donnell having “tax problems.”
That was B.S. and they knew it and they STILL smeared her.
RogerCotton (46c147) — 9/8/2010 @ 11:48 amI am going to trust the Republicans in Delaware to do the (in their opinion) right thing, because…
Don’t be surprised if they don’t.
Blacque Jacques Shellacque (609d83) — 9/8/2010 @ 11:49 amconservativeinthecity:
No, it is not just a sword that cuts both ways. People in different states vote for people who represent their attitudes and prejudices..that means it is inevitable that from time to time their representative might vote with his constituency in mind rather than his party..however, the number of Republicans in the Senate will make a crucial difference as to which party controls the agenda and what bills are even brought up for vote. If the Republicans had controlled the Senate, Obamacare would not be law today. It is just that simple, it is arithmetic.
Terrye (7c855d) — 9/8/2010 @ 11:50 amAnd we got Obamacare! Thank you SO much.
However flawed Coleman was, with him in the Senate, we would have had the votes to filibuster it.
People like him being in the Senate is why we did not have either a majority or a filibuster proof minority.
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 11:53 amThe party of no uniformly and completely voted NO on Obamacare. Did those of you who say “RINOs” are no different than Liberal Democrats miss that one? It’s a very big way Republicans are different from liberal democrats.
elissa (0c0773) — 9/8/2010 @ 11:55 amHe’d be part of the Republican majority. When the stakes are this high, that’s really all I need to know. His presence in a majority would remove EVERY liberal Democrat from their committee chairmanships. Tell me how that’s not a victory.
Or you can leave Harry Reid and Pat Leahey and the rest of them in power, subject the rest of us to ever-increasing taxes and regulations, and congratulate yourself that you “didn’t vote for no RINO.”
I repeat, for the sake of but one RINO, we could have stopped Obamacare in its tracks.
NJ Mark (ebc589) — 9/8/2010 @ 11:58 amYou say the fact that someone has an R behind his name tells us nothing about how he will vote..well not one Republican, including Castle voted for Obamacare.
That’s because they are in the minority at present. I’d like to think that I’m not the only person here whose memory extends back to before Obama took office, back to when people like McCain were avid cheerleaders for things which they now (temporarily) oppose.
If the Republicans had had a slim majority in the Senate in 2009, some version of Obamacare would still have passed. A smaller, rather less bad version. But still some version. Because the GOP Senate caucus has a lot of people in it who consider making deals with the Democrats to be the essence of good statesmanship.
The Republican party as a whole has a lot of such people in it.
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 12:07 pmNo, it is not just a sword that cuts both ways. People in different states vote for people who represent their attitudes and prejudices..that means it is inevitable that from time to time their representative might vote with his constituency in mind rather than his party…
My catch-22 comment was directed at those making the argument that votes should be cast for whom would best advance conservative values, not to whom would better represent their constituents. In this case I feel that both O’Donnell and Castle would be damaging to advancing a conservative agenda.
However, that being said, I still feel that whomever has the best chance of defeating the Democrat should be elected, for the reasons you (and others) have given in regards to chairmanships.
conservativeinthecity (801a51) — 9/8/2010 @ 12:16 pmHe’d be part of the Republican majority. When the stakes are this high, that’s really all I need to know. His presence in a majority would remove EVERY liberal Democrat from their committee chairmanships. Tell me how that’s not a victory.
His being part of the Republican majority means that in rather short order, the Republicans no longer have the majority.
Electing people like Castle may make good sense in the very short term (zero to two years). But in the longer term (eight to ten years) it only serves to empower the left.
Why is it that the country lurches rapidly to the left while the Democrats have control, and either slides slowly to the left or stays where the Democrats left it while the Republicans have control? Answer that question honestly and the election of people like Castle looks a lot less clever.
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 12:17 pmSo the real question here is, if Castle loses, and it’s O’Donnell vs. Democrat, which way to majority Castle-supporters swing?
How many voters are you gaining by having Castle run, vs. how many voters are you losing if O’Donnell wins?
conservativeinthecity (801a51) — 9/8/2010 @ 12:18 pmI repeat, for the sake of but one RINO, we could have stopped Obamacare in its tracks.
And I repeat that the existence of multiple RINO’s in the GOP is what gave the Democrats super-majorities in Congress and Obama in the WH in the first place.
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 12:24 pmI’m not sure where you’re getting that prediction about “some verson” of Obamacare passing if the GOP had a tiny majority.
we had two years of an honest Republican Congressman, Flanagan, in the Ilinois Fifth Congressional District
Don’t forget our prior GOP senator, Patrick Fitzgerald, who was run out of town by his own party for daring to appoint a prosecutor who wasn’t a bootlicking suck – up to Daley and Madigan.
Dmac (d61c0d) — 9/8/2010 @ 12:25 pmAnd with a majority, nonsense like that (or cap-and-trade, or card-check) never makes it out of committee
You’re assuming that people like Castle or Graham or McCain are not on the committee. Why?
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 12:28 pminteresting point at the *other* law blog….
me? i’m going with the hawt chick in stompy boots.
moron in good standing (fb8750) — 9/8/2010 @ 12:32 pmO’Donnell because Castle is a Political Class HACK who is selling America’s soul for a his own riches! It is WE The People who will pay for Cap & Tax NOT Mike! It is Mike that is rich to the tune if 8M after scheming and plotting whilst in Congress! Mike Castle and the RINO”s MUST GO!
JadedByPolitics (a74345) — 9/8/2010 @ 12:33 pmconservativeinthecity:
Yes, I agree.
Terrye (9d8507) — 9/8/2010 @ 12:33 pmI’m not sure where you’re getting that prediction about “some verson” of Obamacare passing if the GOP had a tiny majority
I’m getting it from the last thirty years of observing the Republican party at work, as well as from the dynamics at work in Congress. The party out of power can and usually does simply oppose. The party in power has to “solve problems”. In this case that means passing some sort of healthcare bill. Some sort of healthcare bill which would get the support of many of the Democrats and Obama’s signature.
So some sort of health care bill would have passed, and given the RINOish nature of the Senate GOP, it would not have been a very good one. (Even if better than the one the Democrats passed on their own)
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 12:35 pmSubotai:
A couple of things, one of them being that the cap and trade bill supported by Waxman is not supported by people like McCain and Graham…for another thing it is about numbers…that means that if most of the people are Republicans and if most of the Republicans vote no then it does not make it to the floor..that is why you did not see successful votes for bills like this when the Republicans were actually in charge. BTW, since Democrats have taken control deficits have skyrocketed, utility costs are up, unemployment is up and consumer confidence is way down. If that is not reason to vote for the Republicans and kick people like Pelosi out of power then you are not serious about the issues. It is just that simple.
Terrye (9d8507) — 9/8/2010 @ 12:37 pmAnd subotai, what makes you think it was the existence of the RINOs that gave the Democrats the super majority in the first place? It seems to me that if people were really upset that the RINOs were not conservative enough they would not have voted en masse for a bunch of liberal Democrats in the first place. Maybe people thought the liberals had changed and now they found out that they have not.
After all, in that recent election in Arizona McCain beat Hayworth largely because Hayworth was a crappy candidate, so apparently people would prefer a sane and competent RINO to an unethical candidate who runs as a conservative.
Terrye (9d8507) — 9/8/2010 @ 12:41 pmIt’s feasible, but it’s hardly a certainty. Unless you’re crazy, and think we could elect actual conservatives everywhere, when only about 30 to 40% at best of voters see things that way (Sadly).
My guess is that RINOcare would have died like Mccain’s amnesty did.
Jadedbypolitics, what’s wrong with being wealthy? The attack on Castle, that he’s evil because he’s rich, or that he must be corrupt because he’s rich, is a stupid attack. I thought O’Donnell said he was born into a trust fund. now he’s rich because of corrupt dealings? I think that’s just projection from O’Donnell. she can’t see a way to succeed in this country without cheating financially.
Castle’s a RINO and quite a dumbass. but I haven’t seen any indication he’s dishonest. He’s actually remarkably frank about his lack of conservative principles.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 12:42 pmHere’s the thing:
The whole Castle/O’Donnell – Crist/Rubio – Lieberman/Lamont – Tea Party/Establishment debate is indicative of a larger dissatisfaction with the two-party establishment. That’s not some massively insightful observation on my part – Patterico knows as much, and it’s more or less stated in the post. The interest in this thread indicates a broader acknowledgment of that trend.
To my mind, the major question is a simple one: “how do we treat these third-party incursions into two-party turf?” Are they destructive or healthy? And are they destructive or healthy in their own right, or merely viewed as such in light of their practical consequences?
Patterico seems to fall into the camp which would acknowledge the beneficial potential of Tea Party candidates, but is worried that their candidacies will be ultimately destructive in light of their practical consequences – namely, Democratic victories resulting in harmful policies. Again, he says as much in the post.
I believe that these third-party incursions – “challenges” is perhaps a better word – are healthy, in and of themselves (that is, on philosophical grounds); and I believe that they will have beneficial practical effects if we refuse to abandon them for the sake of short-term victories.
Forgive me if I wax melodramatic for a moment – I don’t really know how else to get the point across: the dismantling of the two-party system is this generation’s political revolution – as necessary to the continued life of the republican ideal as any democratic struggle we’ve undertaken, I think. Oppression under the British was physical; oppression under the two-party system is mental, making us slaves to a false dichotomy and an unending series of unsatisfactory and meaningless political choices. Under the British, revolution and the attainment of the republican ideal meant taking up arms against a physical oppressor; under the two-party system, revolution and the reclamation of the republican ideal means rejecting the false dichotomy and its attendant banalities, and realizing that there are better ways to choose our legislators.
So for me, that’s Political Priority #1. If my lack of support for Democratic politicians means that Republican politicians pass some pieces of legislation I don’t like, then so be it. The Democrats are going to pass some legislation I don’t like, too – and in fact, even the most representative and honest legislature in the world is going to pass some legislation I don’t like at some point. I want a voice, and an honest advocate – it’s as simple as that (and I don’t think you can ask for much else in a free society). And the two parties have exhausted their ability to provide me that.
If any market should be truly free, it’s the market of ideas; and the political market follows closely behind. And if our political market were truly free, the Democratic and Republican parties would be dead as dinosaurs. So my efforts are going to go towards the deregulation of the political market, and towards fostering competition between political firms.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/8/2010 @ 12:42 pmA couple of things, one of them being that the cap and trade bill supported by Waxman is not supported by people like McCain and Graham
McCain and Graham support the cap-and trade concept. That is all that matters. All that remains is for the to hammer out their minor differences of opinion with Waxman.
for another thing it is about numbers…that means that if most of the people are Republicans and if most of the Republicans vote no then it does not make it to the floor.
Wrong. If a committee has seven Democrats and eight Republicans on it (the sort of thing which would be the case of the GOP had a slim majority) then it would only take one Republican on the committee to side with the Democrats n order for their view to prevail. Even though “most” of the Republicans on the committee disagreed.
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 12:43 pmI didn’t read any of these comments yet (but will later). That tropical storm that fell apart then landed in TX got my internet all woozy. A foot of rain overnight doesn’t help stuff.
Anyway, the way I vote: In the Primaries, I vote for the best choice regardless of electability 100 percent of the time. In the General, I vote for the more conservative/less liberal/progressive option of the two main options 99.5 percent of the time, with the remaining 0.5 percent of the time voting for a conservative third-party choice when both of the main choices are variants of arsenic.
As far as Castle/O’Donnell, Primary, vote O’Donnell and General if O’Donnell doesn’t win, vote 3rd party. If you go to RCP, and select Senate, no toss-ups, it shows R 49. That is with DE and without CA, NV, WI. Fiorina is a clear RINO, but likely the best CA could hope for. Castle is borderline DIABLO and not the best DE could hope for. CA, NV, WI are all winnable. So, without a RINO/DIABLO Castle, Republicans can still gain the majority in the Senate.
Castle would be no better than the Maine Sisters, and likely worse. He’s no option in my book. And he’s not needed.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 9/8/2010 @ 12:45 pmI’d rather take my chances with the Castles and McCains than with sure-thing hardcore leftists like the Leaheys and Schumers. At least there’s some chance we can appeal to party loyalty.
I’m not following. By voting against the RINO’s or sitting out, it was conservatives who aided and abetted the Democrats into the majority. Minnesotans who went third-party against Coleman instead gave us Sen. Stuart Smalley, the 60th Dem. Then they patted themselves on the back for their ideological purity. (Yes, Arlen Spectacle was the actual 60th vote, but without Smalley, Spectacle was a non-factor.)
The purists are harming the country far more than any RINO could.
And now we’ve got Obamacare. Congratulations.
NJ Mark (ebc589) — 9/8/2010 @ 12:45 pmAnd maybe we’re better off with Mccain shamnesty than Obama amnesty.
I don’t think so. I think we’re still able to fight that kind of crap off completely. But it’s one point of view out there that isn’t irrational or anything.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 12:47 pmsince Democrats have taken control deficits have skyrocketed, utility costs are up, unemployment is up and consumer confidence is way down. If that is not reason to vote for the Republicans and kick people like Pelosi out of power then you are not serious about the issues.
Voting for the sort of Republicans you favor is the exact reason why the Democrats were able to take power and do all those bad things.
I’d like to think that the Republicans used their time out of power to do some soul-searching and introspection and had now seen the error of their ways. But its blindingly obvious that its not true. The party is still dedicated to the same liberalism-lite which got it crushed just recently.
So, even if it does take back the majority this November, its victory will be fleeting and insubstantial.
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 12:50 pmAlso, this thread is remarkably polite and ideas-centered, 115 comments or so in. Bravo, everybody.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/8/2010 @ 12:52 pmIt’s feasible, but it’s hardly a certainty. Unless you’re crazy, and think we could elect actual conservatives everywhere, when only about 30 to 40% at best of voters see things that way
Only about 20% of voters describe themselves as “liberal”, yet the Democrats manage to elect liberals everywhere.
Call me crazy, but I’d like to think that our 40% can accomplish at least as much as their 20%.
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 12:54 pmAnxiously awaiting the poll where I can vote whether Patterico’s entry is Swiftian satire or if he was serious.
My position till the day I die: vote for the most conservative candidate. William F. Buckley and the Wall Street Journal are only authorities for conservative ideals when they are conservative in their conclusions. Thanks to pragmatism, we’ve had to deal with Arlen Spector and John McCain in Republican Party leadership roles, impervious to any influence, experts at compromise, with the hope that they’re not immune to conservative pressure on specific monumentally important pieces of legislation.
pk (f66720) — 9/8/2010 @ 12:59 pmI don’t want to send a representative that knows how to play in Washington. I want to send a rube, someone that has a basic understanding of right and wrong, not someone that knows the nuances of negotiating compromise legislation. I want to elect someone that knows that special interest influence is BAD and that voting on their principles and the principles of the voters in their district is GOOD.
The caveat is that you need an experienced staff for support and to help interpret the laws that are up for vote, building that staff is a critical component to becoming an effective legislator. And I’m assuming that if you have an “R” in front of your name on the ballot, there is some sort of responsibility toward the party in that regard.
But the party itself needs reforming. It needs to retire Newt Gingrich, Dick Morris, and Ronald Reagan and build a brand of thoughtful energetic problem solvers, a group of elected officials that believe that Americans can solve their own problems at the grass-root level and elect officials that work towards empowering them.
But if I was elected to office because of the local Tea Party presence, to represent their point of view I would without pause vote against any legislation that would grow the government. I would look for the branch of government that I served in to encourage a private sector solution to any problem that my branch considered serious enough to address in session. And any legislation that I had co-authored would repeal previous legislation that shackled the economy through taxation or regulation.
I’m sorry, but the center, and those who can harness it, have the power.
And it doesn’t sound like you really think the Republican party will realistically be what you want. I’m not sure what your actual plan is, but I’d be happy to hear it.
Lay out the actual political steps you want, and the actual policies you want.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:01 pmMike Castle is a squish. But I see Christine O’Donnell as thoroughly dishonest and untrustworthy – and if she believes some of the stuff she is saying, mentally unbalanced to boot.
She basically hasn’t held a real job in 5 years – since Intercollegiate Studies Institute fired her for running her PR business while on their time. She sued them for gender discrimination, but dropped the suit.
Meanwhile, she has run for Congress in 3 consecutive cycles, and has been stiffing her campaign staff and vendors while using campaign contributions to pay her mortgage and utilities. She bragged in one interview that she could pay herself a salary while campaigning as long as she was not working!
She sold her home to avoid a sheriff’s sale after a $90,000 judgment was entered against her. She claimed to the press to have had no knowledge of that suit, but the proof of service has a sheriff swearing to having served her personally.
Her FEC disclosure form says she earned only $5800 last year. When asked about it by the media, she said that she actually earned a lot more than that but didn’t have to report it. If she did earn, she also had to report it. Financial disclosure forms aren’t optional.
So far all we’re talking about is our own version of Maxine Waters and Laura Richardson.
Now here’s where she goes into downright bizarre territory.
She claims now that her home campaign office was broken into in 2008, and that she didn’t file a police report because she didn’t want to make a big deal of it. That should trigger your BS detector. She goes on to suggest that Mike Castle and the DE GOP chairman (Ross) were behind the breakin. Apparently, if she believes this tripe, she thinks that the Republican Congressman and the Republican Party chairman were pulling a Watergate on the sacrificial lamb candidate against Joe Biden. I have no idea just what they’d be looking for – perhaps proof the moon landing was fake.
Her campaign further implies that Rasmussen polls that have Castle beating the Dem by double digits and her losing to the Dem by double digits are not to be believed because the RNC and NRSC are pulling Rasmussen’s strings. Maybe they all got together at Bohemian Grove to plot faking polls.
Then we get to her radio meltdown, where she accuses a host WHO HAD ENDORSED HER of being paid off by Castle because he asked her tough questions – like why she claimed to have won 2 of Delaware’s 3 counties when she lost one of them by a couple hundred votes, lost the second by 14 points, and lost the third by more than 2-1.
We’re getting into either seriously delusional or seriously dishonest territory here.
Personally, I don’t vote for either.
NickM (49890e) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:03 pmBy voting against the RINO’s or sitting out, it was conservatives who aided and abetted the Democrats into the majority.
Leaving aside your peculiar claim that it was conservative voters who gave the Democrats their huge victory in the last election, you’re confused about what I said. I’m talking about the consequences of particular policies and policy makers on the voting pubic at large. I’m saying that liberalism is unpopular, and that the reason the parties keep trading power with each other is that they both push unpopular liberal policies.
Minnesotans who went third-party against Coleman instead gave us Sen. Stuart Smalley, the 60th Dem. Then they patted themselves on the back for their ideological purity.
I’d like to see some evidence that Minnesotans patted themselves on the back for their ideological purity. Perhaps the liberal ones who voted for the DFL did that.
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:03 pmWell, so much for formatting and paragraph breaks.
NickM (49890e) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:05 pmSubotai:
I am sorry, but I think you are the one who is wrong. How many cap and trade bills and nationalized health care plans passed when the Republicans were in control of Congress. None. The point is that you support the most conservative person possible, however, in some parts of the country the people who will win are going to people you call RINOs. Here in Indiana, Coats won the primary..not because the GOP elite wanted him, but because he was well known and respected in the state and he actually is representative of a lot of the people who live here. The voters make the determination as to who they want to represent them and like it or not a lot of those people are not hard core conservatives, they are center right.
Terrye (9d8507) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:07 pmI don’t really know how else to get the point across: the dismantling of the two-party system is this generation’s political revolution
I used to believe this fervently, now not so much. For the simple reason that Europe has done it that way for it’s life post – WW2, with mostly disasterous results. You wind up with two or even three minority parties sharing power, which means nothing ever gets done of consequence. Now, if you’re proposing a kind of gridlock, then that would be OK…at least for awhile.
Dmac (d61c0d) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:08 pmAnd it doesn’t sound like you really think the Republican party will realistically be what you want
Are you trying to end our recent truce? Or were you just never observing it to begin with?
I’m sorry, but the center, and those who can harness it, have the power
I’m sorry, but that remark is completely unresponsive to the point I made, which is that their 20% can get liberals elected in Mountana, but our 40% cannot get conservatives elected on the East cast.
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:09 pmEast coast
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:09 pmThe day we all get along and this is not controversial is the day I’m out of the conservative movement.
In America we elect people, not parties. These issues are a natural consequence. The Delaware voters will decide, God bless ’em.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:09 pmBTW, if I may add to the earlier point – Americans generally don’t like wishy – washy political parties. I actually voted for John Anderson way back when Reagan was first elected, and realized that he would have been far worse as a leader, simply because his policy stands were too squishy and would have been easily co – opted by other parties.
Dmac (d61c0d) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:10 pmHere in Indiana, Coats won the primary..not because the GOP elite wanted him ..
Coats was the candidate of the GOP elite.
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:14 pmAnd Subotai:
What do you mean by the kind of Republican I favor? I am saying the same thing Reagan did, you are better off with half a loaf than starving. If you get half a loaf, you can work for the other half, if you starve you are dead. In other words, you can talk about the kind of Republican I favor, but the voters of Arizona picked McCain..if you want them to vote for the more conservative candidate then you need to have more competent and attractive candidates running as conservatives. You can not just ignore the voters and demand purity.
Terrye (9d8507) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:14 pmSubotai:
I live in Indiana, and have for years..there were several candidates and Coats won because the people voted for him. They liked him, they knew him…apparently they do not care if he is the candidate of the GOP elite, he was the guy they wanted. You act as if the two are mutually exclusive, they are not. For instance Castle has won 12 state wide elections in Delaware. The last time O’Donnell ran was when she was running against Biden who everyone knew was going to be VP and she still got beat by 65-35. The voters matter, it is them you have to convince..not me. Just railing against the big bad RINOs for their lack of purity will not always win you elections if you do not have a decent candidate.
Terrye (9d8507) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:27 pm“I’m sorry, but that remark is completely unresponsive to the point I made, which is that their 20% can get liberals elected in Mountana, but our 40% cannot get conservatives elected on the East cast.
Comment by Subotai — ”
I guess I could engage you. I directly answered your point, actually. I see this is just going to lead to the thread being ugly. Never mind, Subotai. It’s a shame that every time someone asks you to explain your political views they get this kind of reaction.
I think the center is where political power is. That’s my ‘on point’ reaction to your claim that only 20% are liberal and 30% are conservative, or wherever that is depending on the poll phrasing and issues of the day. All candidates, from Obama to Palin to Reagan to Carter, do their best to appeal to the center.
Anyway, I don’t want to bother with this kind of back and forth, but I actually did answer your question, so don’t say go down that path just to avoid answering mine (Lay out the actual political steps you want that you think will reach the actual policies you want.) What’s your actual view?
You can reject my claim that political power is in the center. It’s clear you reject a lot of my views, and that’s totally cool. Beyond rejecting stuff, what do you want American policy to be on Health Care, Immigration, foreign policy, etc (whatever you think is most important) and how do you propose a political party win the power to get that done?
I’m just curious if I’m missing something here. It sounds like you believe the GOP is hopeless and of no consequence, so what’s your specific alternative path for it?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:30 pmEh, posted before I edited. Anyway, if this is going to be ugly, I’ll just let it go. We can’t agree on some facts, and that’s just life. No sweat. If you want to explain yourself, that would be a lot better.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:32 pmConservatism.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:32 pmMaybe I’m a bit ignorant (and I’ll admit that), but how exactly is Castle different than a liberal democrat?
Did you not read my very next post? He voted against Obamacare and the stimulus!!!!
East Coast Chris (ded5f2) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:40 pmA lot of RINO’s at least pretend to like conservatives when they’re courting them for an election. Mike Castle doesn’t do that. He’s a progressive, and shows disdain for conservatives on 2A, pro-life, and cap-and-trade. At this point in our history we cannot afford to have him. I am a DE voter and if O’Donnell doesn’t get the nod, I’m voting libertarian:
http://www.jimrash.com/jim.html
I believe cap and trade is the cherry on top of the other administration goals that, when fully implemented, mean complete government control over our lives, and complete economic destruction. Even if you believe, like Mike Castle does, that global warming is causing sea levels to rise, cap and trade has no impact on sea levels! Why the hell would we elect a guy who’d vote to destroy our economy?
BadIdeaGuy (8b1c74) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:41 pmIt is necessary to be pragmatic in order to get things — the right things — done in this country.
Ronald Reagan was pragmatic. He got things done.
If you continually hold out for “the perfect candidate”, or consistently vote for the candidate whose views most closely resemble your own, even though that candidate has no chance of winning, then you are wasting your vote AND giving the pragmatists on the other side of the aisle a chance to ensure victory for their candidate that had the best chance of winning going in.
19 million people voted for Ross Perot, because they didn’t want Bush41 to raise taxes. As a result we got Slick Willie — and increased taxes.
Baby steps. Things get better with baby steps. ANY Republican representing Delaware is better than NO Republican representing Delaware.
Icy Texan (d62058) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:42 pm“I used to believe this fervently, now not so much. For the simple reason that Europe has done it that way for it’s life post – WW2, with mostly disasterous results. You wind up with two or even three minority parties sharing power, which means nothing ever gets done of consequence. Now, if you’re proposing a kind of gridlock, then that would be OK…at least for awhile.”
– Dmac
I dunno about “disastrous” results. Germany, for instance, is doing all right with a half proportional, half geographic representation system (which I would favor a switch to).
And at some level, I am proposing a level of gridlock – limited government in a non-ideological sense, if you will. If the legislature is the voice of the people as a whole, then it makes little sense for it to go out of its way to fund pet projects which no one outside of Puckerhuddle, Minnesota gives a rat’s as about. And the two-party logrolling that our system facilitates facilitates those pet projects in turn.
So: if the destruction of the two-party system entailed some degree of gridlock, I would be alright with that. We would deal with the problems that we needed to deal with when we needed to deal with them – that is, when it became necessary to deal with them. And I’m sure we’d deal with some other stuff along the way. And that’s what government’s for, and that’s what “limited government” is: the recognition that there are some things that the shouldn’t be involved in. What exactly those things are is up for debate.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:43 pmThe voters make the determination as to who they want to represent them and like it or not a lot of those people are not hard core conservatives, they are center right.
Everyone says that, and I think it is probably true.
The question which I’ve been raising is why this center-right people never seems to get a center-right government.
Maybe Patterico can do another poll.
Do you think that the Republican Party in the period 2000 – 2008 is best described as:
Far Right
Center Right
Center
Center Left
Far Left
I suspect that the Castle supporters are drawn largely from those who would answer with “Far Right” or “Center Right”.
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:44 pmIs this hopelessly unrealistic in Deleware? I think the level of support O’Donnell has, in spite of the problems I’ve sited, shows there’s a real potential for even places like Delaware for a fiscally sane leader to beat democrats.
O’Donnell can’t even win 50% of Delaware Republicans, the only poll which shows she can even beat Castle is hopelessly flawed. Delaware is not an open primary state, the GOP chooses it’s candidates and the population at large chooses between them in the general election. O’Donnell is a guaranteed loser in the general election. Democrats outnumber Republicans in Delaware almost 3-1. Republicans in Delaware are of the moderate variety to begin with. Coons will destroy her in a general election. She’s run for office before, and Delaware residents are well acquainted with her. It’s the outside Tea Party forces which appear to be clueless. She’s no Joe Miller. She’s pathetic. There’s no guarantee she’d be reliably conservative to begin with. This is Delaware we are talking about. No GOP candidate is going to pursue a voting record which all but prevents a possible re-election.
East Coast Chris (ded5f2) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:45 pm“There are those who seek to make “pragmatic” a bad word.”
The people who made ‘pragmatic’ a bad word were Kennedy, McNamara, Rusk, and the rest of the Camelot crowd. Their ‘pragmatic’ choices were catastrophic. Don’t let yours be.
tehag (9e00c4) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:46 pmSubotai:
Maybe the question you should be asking is if you know what those voters consider to be center right. I have a feeling, you would call center right..RINO.
Terrye (9d8507) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:46 pmAnyway, if this is going to be ugly, I’ll just let it go. We can’t agree on some facts, and that’s just life. No sweat.
East Coast Chris (ded5f2) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:48 pm–
It’s hard to let go when some people are making idiotic arguments. O’Donnell is a guaranteed loser in the general election. An opportunity like this may never surface again for the GOP for another generation. It must be exploited FULLY. That means squishy RINOS elected in blue states. It means dealing with a new round of George Patakis and Christie Whitmans.
The period 200-2008 for the Republican Party was a spectrum of Center-Right to Center-Left, with Bush being centrist and McCain, the Maine Sisters, Castle being very clearly on the left side of the spectrum.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:49 pmLeviticus:
yes, but we are not Germany. I read that John Adams once said that partisanship would be the greatest threat to the Republic..in other words the system creates parties. Originally, there were no tickets. The number one guy got President and the number 2 guy got Vice President. But rather early on the two party system established itself. We have a winner take all kind of system, we are not a parliamentary system. I think that the two party system will always be there, the only thing that might change is what the two parties might call themselves.
Terrye (9d8507) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:49 pmI guess I could engage you. I directly answered your point, actually. I see this is just going to lead to the thread being ugly. Never mind, Subotai. It’s a shame that every time someone asks you to explain your political views they get this kind of reaction.
It’s a shame that every time you show up on a thread you act the way you do – as if you are the conductor and I’m a member of the orchestra playing in the wrong key. I thought Patterico made it pretty clear that he is willing to tolerate a wide variety of viewpoints. So why don’t you stop trying to act like the thread monitor and start acting like a commenter?
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:50 pmHe doesn’t come across as stupid to me. He just never really explains what it is he’s after, politically. It’s one thing to criticize and poo poo all kinds of problematic stuff out there. We all do that. But what is his idea of this ‘center right’ government he wants? How does he intend to convince voters to get there?
It’s not helpful if he says the GOP is going to be of no consequence in 2011, without saying what consequences he’s basing that on.
I have an idea of what he wants, but there’s no reason to put words in his mouth when he could just explain.
Leviticus, I love the 2 party system. Almost every voter has to compromise some values for other values, prioritizing. Things move slowly, the parties are endlessly scared of going too far (except the recent democrats, who will be paying so dearly for it). It’s not perfect, but there is this concept in American politics that some views are simply beyond sensibility… I believe that concept would die under a PR system.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:54 pmBadIdeaGuy:
I am no supporter of the Waxman cap and trade bill, but the honest truth is that while Castle voted for cap and trade, he also voted against the stimulus bill and against Obamacare….Coons however would have voted for them all. That is something to consider in an election where it is highly unlikely that O’Donnell can win…and if conservatives refuse to support Castle because of something like cap and trade and the Democrat wins, then aren’t they actually supporting the most liberal candidate in the long run? If not, why not?
Terrye (9d8507) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:55 pmyou are better off with half a loaf than starving. If you get half a loaf, you can work for the other half, if you starve you are dead.
You can starve to death on half a loaf as well as on no loaf, it just takes a little longer.
The annoying thing about “pragmatists” like you is that you are not actually being pragmatic at all – you are being self-interested. You want a liberal Republican Party. Fine, but you can hardly then object to me wanting whatever I want.
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:57 pmI am no supporter of the Waxman cap and trade bill, but the honest truth is that while Castle voted for cap and trade, he also voted against the stimulus bill and against Obamacare….Coons however would have voted for them all. That is something to consider in an election where it is highly unlikely that O’Donnell can win…and if conservatives refuse to support Castle because of something like cap and trade and the Democrat wins, then aren’t they actually supporting the most liberal candidate in the long run? If not, why not?
Excellent synopsis!
East Coast Chris (ded5f2) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:59 pmYa know, sub, I have a great deal of respect for Dustin. From my reading here, Dustin and I are not on the same side of this debate. But from my readings of you on other threads, Dustin deserves more respect than do you. You might want to consider that before you mount your next bottle-rocket attack on his castle.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:00 pmSubotai:
Maybe the question you should be asking is if you know what those voters consider to be center right.
terry, I notice that you did not actually answer my question, in a comment you made about my question. And if you go back and read again the question I asked, the question which you are supposedly commenting on, you will see that I agreed with you that the American people are “center-right”. So presumably you have some idea of what the voters consider to be “center-right”.
In any case the question I asked was what the readers of this blog thought. I never claimed that the answer would represent the views of the American people.
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:04 pm“But rather early on the two party system established itself. We have a winner take all kind of system, we are not a parliamentary system. I think that the two party system will always be there, the only thing that might change is what the two parties might call themselves.”
– Terrye
The fact that the system did entrench itself by no means indicates that there aren’t alternatives to it. Indeed, there are – alternatives totally in keeping with the democratic theory of the constitutional framers. Their is very little/nothing in our Constitution that inherently predisposes this country to a two-party system – that’s an artificial construct built up on the foundation of tradition, and little else.
“there is this concept in American politics that some views are simply beyond sensibility… I believe that concept would die under a PR system.”
– Dustin
Is there, really? That’s an interesting point for you to make, and an interesting time for you to make it, given that Patterico spent the past few days raising questions as to whether or not the idea that “some views are simply beyond sensibility” (ala Glenn Reynolds, if he was indeed “kidding on the square”) is really the American way – or, if you want to set that term aside as loaded, a good idea for a free-thinking society.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:04 pm“You can starve to death on half a loaf as well as on no loaf, it just takes a little longer.”
– Subotai
Well said.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:05 pmAt least starving on your own terms preserves your dignity.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:05 pmHe doesn’t come across as stupid to me. He just never really explains what it is he’s after, politically
You come across as both stupid and dishonest to me. There are a multitude of questions I’ve posed to you which you have never even pretend to try to answer. Most recently I asked you describe where you saw the Bush administration on the political spectrum.
But you continue with your strange belief that you get to demand answers of other people and don’t have to give any yourself.
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:09 pmYeah, I was actually thinking about that when I made that observation.
Granted, there is plenty of radical thought in America. And it’s not too hard to show that Obama’s association with some radicals means America as a whole is forgiving, though I think the mechanism of forgiveness was mostly that these radicals were not brought up sufficiently.
Anyway, I do believe that some ideas are so toxic they would terminate some politician’s career in the GOP or Dem party, and would not in a PR system. Isn’t that just another way of stating your point that the two party system does not represent everyone very directly?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:10 pm“Isn’t that just another way of stating your point that the two party system does not represent everyone very directly?”
– Dustin
My point is that the two-party system does not represent a good portion of the country at all.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:13 pmI guess we’re just haggling over the ‘at all’ part.
Today, it seems like you have a good point. Let’s see what happened next year. I don’t think the GOP will be flawless in 2011, but I do think they will be presenting a plan that represents America better then ‘not at all’, and the democrats will be pushed to the center by it.
I’m thinking back to 1995 on this.
The two party system is, by design, suffering from the flaw you cite. Everyone is forced to squirm into a political coalition.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:17 pmYa know, sub, I have a great deal of respect for Dustin.
Ask me if I gave a rats ass.
This is not high school. We’re not engaging some competition to be seen as the most popular kid and be voted Homecoming King and Queen. It’s a marketplace of ideas, where the best are supposed to win out.
But since you bring up the subject, Dustin is one of the more contemptible people commenting here. His default argument is always the vicious ad hom. The first time I disagreed with him on this blog, he insulted my parents for having me. That is you person you have great respect for.
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:18 pmI missed this year’s primary. I lived in Ohio when the Texas primary was held and I lived in Texas when the Ohio primary was held. I was an Ohio resident for over 44 years until I moved to Texas earlier this year. I believe since 1984, this was the second primary that didn’t receive my vote. I have cast more than one primary ballot for a candidate who had already lost the primary because the other option was worthless. And then I ended up voting for the other option in the general. McCain is a case in point. I didn’t actually vote for McCain. I was fully ready to vote third-party. Then McCain selected Palin. I voted for Palin instead of voting third-party. Sometimes an alphabetist vote for your choice of poison is worse than voting third-party.
I strongly believe had McCain become prez, the TEA Parties may have been weak-sauce if they even got off the ground. The groundswell for conservatism and a return to the Constitution would have been severely muted. I would never wish an ObamaNation on any free country. Never. But I believe it took this ObamaNation to actually wake up this free country. The problem is with the RNC more than the DNC. Pragmatism in itself is more evil than is evil in itself.
Let me give a Godwin explanation. Hitler was evil incarnate. But his power rested in the hands of Chamberlain and Quisling. If Churchill were PM instead of Chamberlain, it’s possible WWII wouldn’t have happened like it did. But the Jews would still be just as dead. And Israel still wouldn’t exist. In my mind’s eye, RINOs are Chamberlain and DIABLOs are Quisling. Yes, we could possibly avert some of the disaster with Chamberlain. No, we cannot avert any disaster with Quisling. But, if the choice is between an obvious Hitler or a not-so-obvious Chamberlain/Quisling, I’ll choose the obvious so everyone knows to shoot him down.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:20 pmThis would be a good book for Subotai to read.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671027034#reader_0671027034
JD (8ded14) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:21 pmI didn’t see that question, or I would have answered it. I have answered many, many questions of yours, but sometimes I don’t read your comments because you said you didn’t want arab christians to be allowed to immigration and I took that personally.
Bush was not particularly conservative, aside from social matters. I’d peg him perhaps slightly to the right of the center, but it’s really hard to say what even thought on some things. I believe in his tax cut, but it’s ridiculous when paired with his spending (not to even consider the spending levels of today). I support his war in Iraq on neo-con grounds, so to you, that probably makes him a liberal, right? It’s hard for me to place classic liberalism on the left of the spectrum, though.
That’s a very complicated question, but that’s my answer for it. I’ve answered so many of your questions that I’m surprised you think I refuse to answer them. I note that I’ve gone back and forth with you for quite a while trying to get you to specifically explain yourself on some issues, and you consistently turn that around by demanding I answer some question (as you just did, of course).
And if you’re pressed, you start insulting people and the thread becomes extremely ugly.
I think too many people are trying to have a civil conversation for me to pretend my ego is worth a hearty insult war with you. Who cares? You hate my guts; that no big deal to me.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:21 pmInto one of two political coalitions. People are going to have to join political parties under any system, but there’s a big difference between two parties and, say, ten.
Regarding the end of your #155, I think it’s wrong that a pool of largely politically uninformed and apathetic moderates has the power to dictate the political agenda to people – perhaps “radicals”, perhaps not – who go out of their way to think about politics, political principles, political philosophy, and the moral and ethical dimensions of politics on a regular basis. A two-party system has a systematic tendency to moderate, as you know, and it perpetuates this dynamic.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:22 pmhahahahahahha… #160. I agree with Subotai on some stuff, actually, but that made me laugh.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:25 pmTrust me, sub, I don’t sway with popularity contests. But let’s get to a quote you made.
Try this, since I’m much more of an attack-dog than Dustin (and this is more than is comfortable for me, anyway): The best part of you ran down your mother’s leg, but leg of lamb does taste good with mint jelly.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:26 pmVery well argued, Leviticus.
We’re really just speaking about our different ideas of what’s right and wrong. Anyway, I do consider your view of a massive change in political systems.
I think 2011 is either the beginning of major reform, or it’s the beginning of the end for the GOP or our political system. That’s not meant as hyperbole… a lot of people are approaching giving up on the GOP.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:26 pmThat book was actually required reading for a course I took. Not so coincidentally, it was Dale Carnegie’s Leadership Training Course, where I was a graduate assistant. And yeah, sub should read it.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:28 pmI don’t think that’s true. I’ll apologize if I’m wrong, but don’t believe this without a link.
And also, I’ve gone out of my way to answer this guy so many times, and usually he just never returns to the thread. He asked me what Joe Miller had that JD Hayworth lacked, and I gave him a lengthy explanation… he was gone. He likes to demand answers to questions, which I think it perfectly reasonable of him, but it’s strange how he’s reacted to me.
I actually think we used to get along really well until I mentioned my ethnicity. I don’t think it makes sense for me to keep going on and on about it. I don’t need a bunch of people rallying to defend me, either. I appreciate it, John, and I think you’ve got a point. But this is the point where the thread either turns into a huge pissing match or moves on back to the issues.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:31 pmAnd I posit that the Castles, McCains, Maine Sisters, Grahamnesties of the GOP are the reason people are giving up on the GOP. A great many “independents” used to be GOP but the GOP lurched left to match DNC’s 1995 left-lurch. I honestly thought the DNC was dead with that huge left-lurch but the GOP rescued it from death by lurching leftward itself to fill the void. In my view, the 2008 GOP was close to where the mid-70s DNC was and the 2008 DNC was close to Politburo.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:33 pm“Anyway, I do consider your view of a massive change in political systems.
I think 2011 is either the beginning of major reform, or it’s the beginning of the end for the GOP or our political system. That’s not meant as hyperbole… a lot of people are approaching giving up on the GOP.”
– Dustin
Yep, and yep.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:38 pmThere is a reasonable disagreement, I suppose the fact that there is seemingly more pushback against
ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:39 pmO’Donnell then any real defense of Castle’s illconsidered votes, plus the Murkowski, Specter
and Crist temper tantrums (Don’t even get me started
on who I have as a choice for governor, )
Sigh. We need a new post. Once these comment threads get past a certain number of comments they become like an overpopulated rat’s nest where everybody starts eating each other.
nk (db4a41) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:41 pmAnd if you’re pressed, you start insulting people and the thread becomes extremely ugly.
Self-awareness is not one of your strong points.
Bush was not particularly conservative, aside from social matters. I’d peg him perhaps slightly to the right of the center
Thanks for the response. It illustrates what I said – people who think that the Bush era GOP was center-right or full-blown right are much more likely to be be open to people like Castle.
This really come down to why any individual person thinks the GOP lost power. If you believe that it was because the party was hijacked by right-wing extremists, you’ll support Castle.
If you believe that its losing power has nothing much to do with its policies, you’ll at least be open to candidates like Castle.
And if you believe that the GOP suffered heavy losses because it was offering liberalism-lite (NCLB, amnesty, the bank bailout, etc) you’ll oppose Castle.
I support his war in Iraq on neo-con grounds, so to you, that probably makes him a liberal, right? It’s hard for me to place classic liberalism on the left of the spectrum, though.
Neocons are not classical liberals. They’re hawkish on foreign policy (moreso than classic liberals), liberals on social policy, and statists on other domestic policy questions.
You hate my guts; that no big deal to me.
Self-awareness is not one of your strong points. (It bears repeating)
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:41 pm“Sigh. We need a new post. Once these comment threads get past a certain number of comments they become like an overpopulated rat’s nest where everybody starts eating each other.”
– nk
Yeah. I mighta jinxed it at #114.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:50 pmSubotai, you never answered my questions. You did insult me a lot, though. Can’t you see that I’m attempting to have a civil discussion with you?
I think you’d benefit more from simply having a discussion instead whatever it is that you’re doing. I don’t think a profitable discussion consists entirely of criticizing things. What do you propose, policy wise, and politically, how do we get there? This is a very open question, isn’t it? I’m not being unfair.
I don’t think your understanding of neoconservatism is correct. Perhaps you simply have your own definition for it, based on a desire to find a flaw. My definition is the idea that we should export democracy and individual human rights. The term itself was coined by socialists, like the term ‘capitalism’ was, so I guess I’m making an error to permit ideologues to define their opponents.
Regardless, this completely skips the actual meat of my examination of Bush’s ideas. What I describe is a large part of Bush’s ideas, as are some welfare state crap.
Anyway, when I do read your comments, or anyone’s, I always answer a reasonable question. I think I’ve proven that particularly with you, as I answer your questions respectfully and as directly as I can, even when I would be justified in ignoring you because you’re insulting me.
And for someone who goes on about how important it is that people answer questions: self awareness is not one of your strong suits.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:54 pmI love when Liberals pronounce the impending death of the GOP.
Listen, I know the Democratic Party ain’t disappearing b/c so long as you can promise certain people free crap and take the money from his neighbor’s pocket — you will get lots of votes and power.
Divide and conquer always works and that is what the modern Democratic Party embodies.
With respect to the GOP fracturing b/c we want it to be truly conservative on financial matter and “moreso libertarian” on social matters … I’ll take that for a Party I vote for than the human refuse which embodies the Democratic Tent.
HeavenSent (e230a5) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:54 pmSub, trust me, you have more issues with true conservatism than does Dustin. You have made pseudo-racist comments and stuck by them. Such comments have zero place in conservatism but are welcome on the left.
So you know, sub, I’m a “mestizo” and my grandson is less than half white (being half black). I “speck” you have less respect for me since I have all that race-mixing in my family, but that doesn’t end it. My sister-in-law is a Czech national, living and working legally in the US.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:55 pmI actually think we used to get along really well until I mentioned my ethnicity.
You mentioned your ethnicity in that thread (it was an RS McCain thread) where you told me that not only should I be ashamed of myself, my parents should be ashamed as well, for having me. Which was the very first thread where we encountered each other.
So to the extent that we got along really well since then it was because I was turning the other cheek and not because I was “unaware” of your “ethnicity”.
He likes to demand answers to questions, which I think it perfectly reasonable of him, but it’s strange how he’s reacted to me.
Yes, it’s really strange that I react in an unfriendly fashion to being called, to pick one example, “absolutely racist”. I mean, it’s just mystifying.
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 2:56 pmOh, this goes back to RSM?
NEVER MIND.
I do not want to dig that up. Maybe I was pretty ugly to him, but I don’t think I’d insult someone’s parents. I might ask someone to consider their family’s reaction to their behavior… I think that way.
I think RSM is one of the best bloggers on the internet, BTW. I’m a huge fan.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 3:00 pmSub, you’re a racist, now go away. Go over to Sadly No where you’ll be accepted. And take your good twin EPWJ with you.
(this is fun)
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 9/8/2010 @ 3:01 pmSubotai,
Dustin is very polite and I have never known him to do personal attacks. Please reconsider. Or just drop it — it’s a big internet and you can find all sorts of places where people are not rude to you or even aware of your existence.
nk (db4a41) — 9/8/2010 @ 3:02 pmI’m sorry if I insulted you. I have no memory of what you’ve said at any point before maybe a couple of weeks ago, though. If I called you a racist, I probably was right. I don’t throw that around lightly.
Why don’t you keep things on topic? In this thread, we aren’t talking about your racism, or lack thereof. You decided to start a discussion with me (not the other way around), and I’d like to know what policies you want adopted for the USA that the GOP isn’t going to adopt (making them of no consequence, as you said), and how you think those policies can politically be achieved. I don’t want an insult match and I don’t care much about grudges on the internet. Let’s let bygones be bygones and talk about THIS topic, instead.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 3:03 pmAy, caramba.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/8/2010 @ 3:05 pmHeh, oopsie. I might have to reconsider. NT and I are on the same side. That’s almost as bad as oil and vinegar… salad? Oh, nemind, we can be on the same side.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 9/8/2010 @ 3:06 pmSubotai, you never answered my questions. You did insult me a lot, though. Can’t you see that I’m attempting to have a civil discussion with you?
I think that you actually do believe this, that’s the thing. In your own mind, you really are convinced that you are a polite and reasonable guy, being subjected to “insults” from me for some completely mysterious reason. Perhaps it’s because of your “ethnicity”? But when you suggest that, you’re not being insulting, in your mind, just being polite and reasonable.
And if I insult you for saying it, you scratch your head in injured astonishment. The notion that other people might, with some merit, consider you to be rude and obnoxious seems to be something you have never even considered.
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 3:09 pmHeh, oopsie. I might have to reconsider. NT and I are on the same side. That’s almost as bad as oil and vinegar
It’s worse than that – you’re on the same side as me!
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 3:11 pmIf I called you a racist, I probably was right.
Sweet Jesus ….
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 3:12 pm” I’d like to know what policies you want adopted for the USA that the GOP isn’t going to adopt (making them of no consequence, as you said), and how you think those policies can politically be achieved.”
– Dustin
I’ll give you a few reasonable things from each side of the aisle – things which true progressives or true conservatives want, which neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will address. The second half of your question is unfair, I think, because under our current system an issue that isn’t adopted by one of the two parties cannot be politically achieved.
A balanced budget, social security privatization/welfare reform, a border fence, english-language requirements, etc. on the conservative end of things.
A single-payer health insurance system, repeal of corporate personhood, significant cuts to the defense budget, etc. on the progressive end of things.
Reformed drug laws, a reigned-in executive branch, and increased U.S. industrial protectionism on both sides, in varying degrees.
All of those are things wanted by large segments of one party or the other, and none of those things will ever pass (I don’t think) so long as we continue to subserve ourselves to the two-party system.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/8/2010 @ 3:16 pmAll that’s at a national level, by the way. I know there are some states that have dabbled in some of those things to varying degrees, and there’s something to that, but I’m talking national level. State-level politicians are still close enough to their constituents to have to preserve a modicum of adaptability.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/8/2010 @ 3:20 pmThere are therapists who can help people get over personal and relationship issues. For the rest of us, going back a ways up-thread before Leviticus admits he jinxed it 🙂 is an example of a much nicer way to spend time and have honest, meaningful, yet still spirited discussion, it seems to me.
elissa (0c0773) — 9/8/2010 @ 3:20 pmWhy don’t you keep things on topic?
Sweet Jesus ….. again .
I was on topic, until you wandered in here and started going on with your commentary about how I conduct myself on these threads and supposedly fail to answer you in the detail which you demand.
This was the first thing you said to me on this thread.
Lay out the actual political steps you want, and the actual policies you want.
If I answer that, I’m off topic, and you in your self-appointed role as thread monitor will reprimand me for it. And if I don’t answer it, you respond with:
It’s a shame that every time someone asks you to explain your political views they get this kind of reaction.
Let me just observe that you have yet to explain your political views to the degree of detail which you incessantly demand from me.
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 3:25 pmDustin is very polite and I have never known him to do personal attacks.
He just suggested, right before your eyes, that I disagree with him because of his ethnicity. Perhaps you are not the most acute judge of these things.
it’s a big internet and you can find all sorts of places where people are not rude to you or even aware of your existence.
If it’s a big internet, why don’t you leave if you’re unhappy here?
As for people being “rude” to me, you just got through assuring me that Dustin is the very soul of decorum, so I can’t imagine what you mean there.
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 3:35 pmCastle takes rook(ie).
Elliott (e37919) — 9/8/2010 @ 3:37 pmA.W. — Been there, had that done to me. Best wishes for a prompt and speedy recovery.
J.D. — I’ll alter it, but won’t that make me into what I’m claiming not to be? Oh, still not paid. OK.
htom, not a professional p-o/l\i-t/i|c\o- (412a17) — 9/8/2010 @ 3:44 pmHuh. Backslashes disappear in names.
htom, not a professional p-o/l\i-t/i|c\o- (412a17) — 9/8/2010 @ 3:45 pmAnd here\too?
htom, not a professional (412a17) — 9/8/2010 @ 3:46 pmWhen Patterico had that thread about commenter amnesty, in discussing the issue of dogpiling, I got a little irritated and wanted to ‘set the record straight’ on a particular commenter (who hasn’t been in this thread). I thought a few extra points would help explain some of the dogpile.
Before I clicked ‘Submit thread’, I let it sit in the preview for a few minutes and came to the impression that my comment would derail the thread just to serve my ego. Did it matter much that I make my point known? Not really.
My point is: I had a similar inkling when Subotai quoted me and I decided to reply at all. It’s been impossible to have a back and forth with him without it getting personal, even if I go out of my way to say ‘Here is my answer to your question, here is my question, let’s talk about that’. It just doesn’t work out, and I knew before I replied the first time that it would be surprising if it worked out this time. Even in that thread about amnesty, Subotai was digging up some old stuff about a lefty who came out of no-where, to ‘prove’ (!!!111!!!) he was a lefty (which he was being open enough about, saying he disagreed with conservatives 90% of the time).
It seems reasonable enough of me to consider if Subotai’s relentless negativity towards the GOP or this country (I take great pride in this country) or even my race are based on ideas that can be discussed. Leviticus shows that a list of ideas, and even a very difficult reform idea (changing our political system) is not all that hard to type up. My only answer to Leviticus is that he sounds pretty reasonable, and so does his plan (I don’t agree with it, but it’s perfectly sane), but let’s see what happens with the 2011 congress, and if that leads us in a direction that implies reform over the next decade. I understand what problem he has and what he wants to do about it.
I wish Subotai would be less bashful about his views, and perhaps more bashful about me and others he doesn’t agree with (or like). I think holding a grudge from last Christmas is not healthy. But I knew (to some extent… I didn’t even know this rivalry went back that far, and I guess I’m wrong about its origin) what I was dealing with and made a snap decision to go ahead and hit ‘submit comment’ in this thread. That was a mistake.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 3:50 pmwho is Cap’n Trade
ColonelHaiku (3ec9fa) — 9/8/2010 @ 3:51 pmand why do the people hate
the dang guy so much?
Really? Do you really not know what my political views are? You’ve characterized them many times, though, as too liberal. Are you suggesting you didn’t understand what they were?
I believe in a sustainable budget, exporting liberalism to other countries, and a much more austere safety net than what we have now. I believe that our ‘honor’, to steal Glenn Beck’s word for it, is a reason for much of our society’s acceptance of corruption or governmental stupidity and short-sightedness. I think politics extends far beyond elections, into culture, and this is the real problem with our country.
On immigration, I believe in tall, tall walls, and wide gates, allowing any sort of person who can meet some basic rules to immigrate here (those rules including speaking English, being totally law-abiding to include immigration law, devotion to our constitution and civil liberties, and *ability to earn a living*).
But my main political axe that I grind is federalism. I don’t want Texans or Californians to have much control over the others’s lives, and for each state to have different safety nets, welfare levels, taxation and service levels, marriage laws, etc.
I’m not going to worry about your views anymore Subotai. It’s too much work trying to get you to even acknowledge that you have any. But I don’t want to give anyone else the impression I’m hiding my views. Federalism is my pet issue.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 4:01 pmhee hee hee… good one, Colonel.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/8/2010 @ 4:02 pmMy point is that the two-party system does not represent a good portion of the country at all.
It certainly does a bad job of representing me – but I figure that’s because I’m an extreme minority (I want gay marriage, drug legalization, open immigration with no welfare rights for non-citizens, stricter environmental law, a balanced budget, a streamlined process for bureaucratic decision-making, more money for the court system, a legal system comprehensible by reasonably educated people without years of specialized training, a substantially larger legislature, and more direct democracy. I also want a pony. Can I have a pony?)
But the thing which troubles me the most about our system is that it tends to encourage politics as tribalism – support or opposition for a particular political position or a particular candidate not because of the merits of the position or of the candidate, but because the other position/candidate is supported by that group of people over there who we don’t like.
I suspect that a multiparty system would deepen and worsen that tendency.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/8/2010 @ 4:16 pmDustin, at the risk of thread-jacking: if Californians pass Proposition 19 (legalizing the possession and, under certain circumstances, sale of marijuana in California), what do you think the appropriate federal response should be?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/8/2010 @ 4:19 pmNo, that’s not what I suggested. I suggested you are uglier to me because of it. You need to accept the distinction between disagreeing with people and being ugly to them. The former is no big deal.
I explained where I got the idea to ask you about this. It was a reasonable question. Except that just asking you something derails threads.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 4:23 pmaphrael – I don’t see how adding more parties to the mix could make that tribalism worse than it is now. In a very real sense, the only reason people support either party in this country is because “Those darn Democrats/Republicans are the worst.” I mean, that’s what this whole thread is about: the only reason left to support the two parties is tribalism, and people are wondering how best to deal with that.
Multiple parties would, to my mind, at least force people to specify some ideological preferences (via association). I mean, what does it even mean to be a Democrat or a Republican anymore?
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/8/2010 @ 4:25 pmYou kidding? It’s a relief of a thread jacking, but I think it’s a great test of my federalism.
I think the federal government should drop the issue of criminalizing the sorts of things states can prosecute. Even crimes like murder should be state issues. The proper response to this proposition should be simply to allow California’s legal system to be California’s.
This opens me up to many problems. I’m Texan, and can recall how 19 year olds would drive to Shreveport to get drunk (it used to be legal in Louisiana) and then drive home, drunk. When different jurisdictions have different standards on drug sales, dumb kids are going to flock from strict to lax. I don’t posit a solution to this problem.
I would wish all places would do exactly what I want. But I have a greater interest in states coming up with the solutions and policies that work for its citizens. This probably would lead California to being a trainwreck for a while, but I have great faith that this is actually the best solution for California, because it would bring policy differences directly into the bullseye, when people ask what’s different about Texas and California.
Right now, excessive meddling makes it difficult for the best approaches to be proven. Maybe a pot selling California is much safer, maybe it’s much less safe.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 4:37 pmCan I order one of those bumperstickers that say “Vote for the Wuss” ??
Kaisersoze (25a652) — 9/8/2010 @ 4:38 pmThe Fed’s cannot allow California to become a sanctuary for marijuana production and distribution into other states. Accordingly, I don’t think that the Feds will alter anything of their enforcement.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/8/2010 @ 5:04 pmYou’re being too logical for him. He doesn’t understand simple arithmetic. He also seems to live in a parallel universe where Republicans voted for Obamacare etc.
Gerald A (2b94cf) — 9/8/2010 @ 5:04 pmSPQR: that’s a prediction about what they will do. My question was about what they should do.
Basically, Dustin had it pegged: it’s a test of commitment to federalism. Does federalism include the ability of a state to legalize the production, sale, and possession of drugs which are illegal in other states?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/8/2010 @ 5:06 pmaphrael, I think that the Feds should not allow California to become a production and distribution center for other states. Accordingly, I think that they should prosecute any operation that produces or distributes marijuana in amounts greater than personal use.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/8/2010 @ 5:12 pmSPQR: Fair enough.
I take it, then, that you concede the principal that, if the federal need is great enough, the federal government can ban entirely the market in a given good. The question isn’t whether the government has the power, it’s whether the need is great enough.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/8/2010 @ 5:13 pmA.W.,
Also my best wishes for a speedy recovery. Been there too. Morphine and Vicodin are bad for your poopoo. First chance you get switch to Advil and whiesky. 😉
nk (db4a41) — 9/8/2010 @ 5:29 pmI do not see how it is fair to draw that conclusion from what SPQR wrote. That may be his ultimate position, but it took quite a leap to get there.
JD (8ded14) — 9/8/2010 @ 5:34 pmI was on IV Demerol for 3+ days when those evil little gallstones, all 57 of them, ruptured my gall bladder. Bliss.
JD (8ded14) — 9/8/2010 @ 5:35 pmaphrael, I’m not an advocate of the broad version of the commerce power that we have. I don’t think I’d adopt your description.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/8/2010 @ 5:36 pmOK, I have read over the whole thread. Subotai, I think some of the regulars have — in some cases gently, and in others far from gently — tried to suggest that you are the reason the thread got off track. I agree with them.
I simply don’t see how a comment like this:
justifies a response like this:
And it just went downhill from there. I could give several examples, but something like this:
is something I don’t want to see on this blog. (To be fair, I feel the same way about one of John Hitchcock’s responses. I’m not a believer in the “he did it first” defense because that’s how things go downhill fast.)
If I had seen many of your comments in real time I would simply have deleted them.
As it is, I will leave them, but I am telling you that I am taking action to ensure a certain minimal level of civility, for the benefit of the groupo as a whole.
Now, I see that you are smarting over a past comment by Dustin that called you “absolutely racist.” He doesn’t remember that comment, but through the magic of my search engine I can find it. It is here, and it refers to this comment of yours:
You keep bringing up Dustin’s characterization of that comment as “absolutely racist,” so if that is going to be a recurring sore spot that you can’t let go, let’s just hash it out here. It’s not like this thread is going to get any less pleasant.
Care to explain and defend that comment? Go nuts.
I have to leave again, so I am counting on others to police your comments. If you can’t refrain from personal attacks I’ll just start deleting each one that contains a personal attack when I see it. Starting now.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/8/2010 @ 5:57 pmEven in that thread about amnesty, Subotai was digging up some old stuff about a lefty who came out of no-where, to ‘prove’ (!!!111!!!) he was a lefty (which he was being open enough about, saying he disagreed with conservatives 90% of the time).
Actually, Russell Miller was saying that he was NOT a lefty, that he had problems with both sides. Which was why I dug up his old statement where he said that he considered the Democrats to be right-wing. Yes, he has problems with both sides, but it’s not because he’s a centerist. That was the point I tried to make there.
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 5:57 pmTo be clear: my amnesty was never a “hey, let’s permit assholish comments!” type decision.
It was a “I’m not permitting assholish comments period, so why not unban the banned?” type decision.
See the difference?
Obviously I can’t prevent every assholish comment. But when I see a pattern I can get proactive.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/8/2010 @ 5:59 pmNo good deed goes unpunished, Patterico.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 9/8/2010 @ 6:11 pm“In one corner: Christine O’Donnell.”
Sounds to me like she’s constantly in a corner because she can’t hold a job or pay her bills.
Dave Surls (202d94) — 9/8/2010 @ 6:11 pmDustin_1 – “I actually think we used to get along really well until I mentioned my ethnicity.”
Me – “He just suggested, right before your eyes, that I disagree with him because of his ethnicity.
Dustin_2 – “No, that’s not what I suggested. I suggested you are uglier to me because of it.”
As with many charges of racism, this is just about impossible to prove or disprove. But I think the timeline indicates that my being “ugly” to you occurred not long after, and only after, you started suggesting I’m a racist. If you stop doing that, I’m sure we will once again get along really well.
Subotai (3e466b) — 9/8/2010 @ 6:15 pm“But I think the timeline indicates that my being “ugly” to you occurred not long after, and only after,”
That’s true, actually. I had no idea we’d even chatted more than 2 weeks ago, and you mentioned something that happened over Christmas.
My idea of what this animosity was about is completely wrong. However, strangely enough, it’s the same sort of issue I guess. And I don’t really think it’s all that important. These threads are better when people aren’t calling eachother racist or stupid. It’s completely pointless.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 6:26 pmSPQR: under what constitutional clause do you find the federal power to punish people distributing marijuana, within a state, to citizens of the state, in larger than personal use quantities?
aphrael (9f157e) — 9/8/2010 @ 6:28 pmI also don’t recall this recent truce. To be honest, I don’t read everything subotai has typed, and didn’t read the comment about this truce ending until Patterico quoted it.
It’s wrong of me to engage someone that I’m half skipping over.
I’m not innocent of being a jerk. nk said he doesn’t recall me insulting… truth is, I recall insulting nk specifically (and I wish I hadn’t, but oh well).
If Sub wants to justify some of these remarks, I’ll discuss it. I just assume he won’t want to, or that he won’t make it very pleasant. As I said earlier, I was thinking I’d be surprised if this didn’t make a mess when I clicked ‘submit comment’ way above.
Patterico doesn’t want this kind of crap… that I’m partly to blame for. I’ll hash it out, or I’ll just let it go. It’s not worth ruining my day over.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 6:32 pmJust add my name to the list of people who deem the comment “absolutely racist”. Nuff said.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 9/8/2010 @ 7:18 pm#67. But Illinois is such a target-rich environment.
Seriously, Elissa, can’t y’all elect a governor who can stay out of prison?
furious (71af32) — 9/8/2010 @ 7:19 pmNice dig there furious, but the thread topic today is about Republican primaries and purity vs. pragmatism for 2010. Our sad, continuing tale of convicted governors in Illinois involves mostly Dems. But, speaking of “target rich”, do keep an eye on the Chicago mayoral extravaganza coming soon to a theatre near you. There will be vicious infighting, political intrigue and bloody battle scenes–guaranteed. The rest of the nation will likely be agog and transfixed at the spectacle.
elissa (0c0773) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:19 pmIn Douglas Adams’ novel So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish, an enormous spaceship lands in London (well, on London, actually) and a huge silver robot steps out of the craft:
Mike G in Corvallis (fd5fcd) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:30 pm#67. But Illinois is such a target-rich environment.
Seriously, Elissa, can’t y’all elect a governor who can stay out of prison?
Comment by furious — 9/8/2010 @ 7:19 pm
If other states got the same attention from the FBI, I don’t know why but we have twelve times as many FBI agents stationed here than any other district, Illinois might not be front and center in corruption. Lousiana and New Orleans come to mind.
nk (db4a41) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:38 pmI’d love to rag on Chicago, but every single one of Harris County’s (Houston, Texas) voting machines was destroyed just after a major voting registration scam was exposed.
I wonder if we’d be better or worse off with more FBI (and DOJ) intrusion.
And Chicago’s pretty. Daley’s got low approval. Things could be worse.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:44 pmnk— the FBI special agents like to be posted in the Chicago area because the pizza is so darn good. If the pizza was lousy they’d be demanding to live somewhere else and would be investigatin’ those politicians.
elissa (0c0773) — 9/8/2010 @ 8:49 pmelissa, the “party of no” did not uniformly and completely vote against Obamacare.
Thomas (4f3421) — 9/9/2010 @ 8:05 am”
And there’s the problem: loyalty to a party whose only goal is to gain and keep power rather than loyalty to principle.
Thomas (4f3421) — 9/9/2010 @ 8:07 amWell this time, Blago stays out, technically, and Edgar and Thompson never went in, Then again, some times they just concoct the indictment
ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/9/2010 @ 9:09 amDustin: “I wonder if a problem with your thinking is”
Dusty, quarterwittery earns you no regard. I justified dispatching a RINO which ended Beelzebub’s Butt Buddy was given the victory and you’re complaining a student loan defaulter and fibber is a bad person?
Sorry, conservatives don’t carry man cards.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 9/9/2010 @ 1:00 pmI think I said several times that I’m more concerned with the way she reacted to these issues being brought up. Sure, the scandals on their own make it clear she is not going to make smart fiscal decisions or be responsible, but her reaction makes me wonder if anything she says is accurate at all.
Remember, the easy path for a lying politician in Delaware would be to skew to the left on all sorts of things, when the going gets tough, as it will in 2011 against the MSM and Obama. Will O’Donnell have the integrity needed? I don’t think so.
She should respect society enough to explain herself a lot more honestly than she does in the link I posted way above. And that she was dishonest is no opinion, but rather simply a fact. Listen to the interview before you tell me I’m wrong. She lies about piddly little things so quickly that she gets tangled in only a few minutes.
This is the kind of person who shouldn’t have tons of power. Her lack of financial common sense is probably a more common problem, these days, but I also don’t like people who don’t pay their debts.
I’m hearing Sarah Palin is endorsing her. If that’s the case I hope she can explain these issues, instead of ignoring them. It really turns my view of the Palin endorsement completely on its ear. The public is tired of the kind of politician who doesn’t follow the rules everyone else has to. This isn’t some silly triffling stupid issue to bring up.
In particular, the idea that it’s OK to lie in an interview, finally admit many of the ‘allegations’ are accurate (they are… listen to the interview), and then accuse the interviewer who asked about truthful problems of being ‘paid off’, like some drunk paranoid harridan.
And that’s not even to cite the ridiculous and endless class warfare rhetoric from O’Donnell. How anyone can look at this RINO, Castle, and decide that the big talking point about him is his wealth, doesn’t impress me as ‘getting it’. The problem is intrusive government. I won’t cry any tears if Castle is out, but this has nothing to do with how big his house is or what kind of car he drives.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/9/2010 @ 1:38 pmOK, the article about Palin endorsing O’Donnell has disappeared.
Castle’s bad, and I don’t begrudge people making the best of this awful set of choices, even that means supporting O’Donnell, but I’d like to know if Palin has made an endorsement.
O’Donnell’s twitter seems to indicate it happened. But it’s referring to a retweet of someone else’s endorsement (kinda cheap, IMO, but I’m obviously pretty biased).
The Atlantic claims the endorsement was made, but the article is light on sourcing and … it’s The Atlantic (terrible source of information, especially when Palin’s involved). Not even worth a link.
If Palin’s behind her, I bet O’Donnell wins the primary. I hate to be the next fool to underestimate these endorsements, but I think Palin can’t push her anywhere near victory in the general.
And maybe that’s OK. Maybe killing off a RINO like Castle, even if a similar democrat should take his place, isn’t the end of the world. I think RINOs can be some of the toughest and most politically powerful candidates to beat, and the Tea Party takeover of the GOP seems like a many years long project.
If the GOP can come up with a coherent brand, even if that means losing some of the incoherent and having a more narrow majority, I think there is some long term benefit. Right now, a lot of voters don’t really know what the GOP is all about, thanks to folks like Castle.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/9/2010 @ 2:00 pmYes, if as Chris says Donks outnumber Rethuglicans 3 to 1, the outcome for a conservative is a forgone conclusion. I can live with moderates like Brown but career ticks need to know we’re gunning for them with live ammo. This is a primary for God’s sake, land a punch!
gary gulrud (790d43) — 9/9/2010 @ 9:23 pmMike Castle represents the type of politician who the country cannot afford to keep in Washington in any capacity. The finances of the country are crumbling (yesterday another probleim debt auction) and Castle hasn’t the capability to deal with such financial problems. Any one who voted for Cap and Trade in the House should be quickly shown the door.
Bill Bigelow (c4fc16) — 9/10/2010 @ 6:51 pmI have to admit, there’s nothing wrong with this attitude. I think this is actually the very best sort of Tea Partier. Land a punch in the primary, fight the donkeys in the general.
I just happen to have a problem with this one lady, but if we all do our best to follow Gary’s plan, I think over the years things are going to turn around.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/10/2010 @ 7:07 pmCan Castle stick with the GOP? Or will he eventually join the party he’s more closely aligned with?
If the people of Delaware want a candidate who votes with Harry Reid and Barack Obama most of the time, the the Democratic Party supply the candidate.
Are we serious about rolling back statism or aren’t we?
RightKlik (20fc6c) — 9/10/2010 @ 8:08 pm