You Can’t Fix the Courts Without Winning Elections
Note to Tea Party types:
Once you’re done demanding fiscal discipline by helping to sweep establishment politicians out of Washington, it’s time to turn your attention to the increasingly extra-Constitutional federal courts.
Because until we do that, no legislative pushback is safe — and no freedom is guaranteed should it run up against the whims of our self-styled philosopher kings.
Very true and well said.
Except, I have a hard time reconciling that with this, from Jeff Goldstein:
Here’s my most candid admission: I don’t care if Constitutionalists / classical liberals / fiscal conservatives lose the next 10 elections — provided they stick to their principles. The media and the reality on the ground can only fool the electorate for so long — and a break in the action where conservatives are out of power takes away the left’s ability to lay blame at the feet of the right for every ill it creates and perpetuates.
The way to deal with “the increasingly extra-Constitutional federal courts” is to appoint better judges. Which means electing a president who will appoint them. Which means we have to win elections.
As I pointed out in a post last month:
I’m all for sticking to principles. But my governing principles are rooted in the Constitution. Which is interpreted by a Supreme Court. Whose nominees are chosen by the President.
When we lose elections, the Constitution gets rewritten.
If Constitutionalists lose the next ten elections, we’ll lose the next five presidential elections. We will give away control of the Supreme Court for decades. And the principles of our Constitution will be written out of existence.
Now, some will argue that always supporting “pure” small-government candidates is a winning electoral strategy. This post is not about whether that argument is correct. (Sometimes it will be, and sometimes it won’t.) The issue in this post is whether we should care what the winning strategy is.
You can’t have it both ways. If you care about the Constitution, you can’t say: “I don’t care if Constitutionalists / classical liberals / fiscal conservatives lose the next 10 elections.” If that happens, this country is toast.
Elections matter — not just for the moment, but for the structure of the Republic.
Then perhaps our ultimate objective should be capturing the Presidency, the House, and 67 seats in the Senate — in which case the judicial problem can be repaired in a week.
Steve (ca78d0) — 10/6/2010 @ 6:14 pmSteve:
Sounds like a plan.
To implement it, we have to care about winning elections.
Patterico (9d959c) — 10/6/2010 @ 6:19 pmAgreed.
Losing on principle is still losing. And it’s darned hard to affect policy from a losing position.
Would I want a Congress full of RINOs, or worse, DIRCs (Democrats In Republican Clothing)? Heavens, no. But if tolerating a few RINOs is what it takes to get control of the steering wheel of government, I call it a reasonable trade-off.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
ConservativeWanderer (b8d454) — 10/6/2010 @ 6:23 pmReally care about winning..
EricPWJohnson (5895a8) — 10/6/2010 @ 6:23 pmjust win… anyone
ColonelHaiku (af88f9) — 10/6/2010 @ 6:54 pmwho disagrees take number,
line up, kiss my ass
Expect to see some variation of “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” posted as an excuse for the discrepancy, by someone’s apologists. As if ‘foolish consistency’ was ever meant to condone complete wafflery.
Unless I’ve successfully posted it first in an innoculative spoiler capacity. Like asking my stepdaughter in her pre-teens to repeat after me when we were having a good one-on-one conversation in the car: “You’re not my real dad, you can’t tell me what to do!!” She said, in her youthful innocence, that she’d never think that…and when the day in her non-pre-teens came that she REALLY WANTED to say it (I could practically SEE it written on the inside of her forehead in big angry red caps)…she stopped and took a deep breath instead.
One can hope. 🙂
rtrski (aff650) — 10/6/2010 @ 6:56 pmYou’re right, Pat. All we have to do is put Republicans in the WH and it all gets fixed. We can definitely find enough conservative-minded judges to fill all the benches in the country, and we can futher trust GOP appointments to resist the temptation to legislate from the bench–especially for a conservative cause–and they’ll never ever ever “grow in office.”
Because Lucy?
She has to let you kick the ball SOMETIME, right?
dicentra (16619f) — 10/6/2010 @ 6:59 pmIf a jackass wearing an elephant suit gets elected, is that still a win?
‘Cuz I haven’t been convinced having an R behind your name automatically translates into constitutional governance.
Take McCain-Feingold for instance. Had McCain won, would he have installed a SCJ that would have overturned his signature legislation?
LBascom (8e9f3c) — 10/6/2010 @ 7:27 pmDicentra
Interesting that conservative principles such as self reliance, personal responsibility, governmental restraint, defensive initiatives would be terrible things to be upheld by a conserative court, yea even advocated
Horrible, just horrible
EricPWJohnson (5895a8) — 10/6/2010 @ 7:29 pmdicentra, Justices Roberts and Alito.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/6/2010 @ 7:34 pmThe problem is you end up with the Main Street coalition, and the Gang of 14, that block these
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/6/2010 @ 7:39 pmkind of candidates 9/10, and you can add Thomas and Scalia; which probably couldn’t approved under the current framework
The point, Dicentra, is that if the D’s win the ball never even gets teed up.
Icy Texan (40606d) — 10/6/2010 @ 8:08 pmI don’t care if Constitutionalists / classical liberals / fiscal conservatives lose the next 10 elections — provided they stick to their principles.
Huh?! That sounds so naive and tactically clumsy.
I’m reminded of certain rightists who claimed that McCain and Obama were one and the same. Or that McCain winning the election wouldn’t make much of a difference because one was an ultra-liberal and the other was too squishy. And so some conservatives cluelessly and foolishly overlooked the crucial issue of the American judiciary becoming even more liberal due to its jurists being selected by (bing, bing, bing!) any leftist worming his way into the top job at the White House.
Mark (411533) — 10/6/2010 @ 8:15 pmMark, even though Jeff indicates this is his candid, sincere view, I think it was hyperbole.
And whether it is or not, I’m sure he’d tactically select some hybrid of winning elections / purifying the GOP.
We have to dicker over how much of either winning or purifying we’re willing to do without. Seems like either extreme causes major problems.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/6/2010 @ 8:23 pm“Huh?! That sounds so naive and tactically clumsy.”
It’s a trick. See, if Conservatives stick to their principals, they won’t lose the next ten elections.
Or do you imagine Republicans lost in 2006-08 because they were too principled?
Or that we would have had a resurgence of conservatism on the scale we are if McCain would have been elected?
I believe if McCain was elected, we would have ended in the same place we are now, only it would have taken longer, and there would have been no frog jumping from the pot.
LBascom (58820f) — 10/6/2010 @ 8:24 pmLBascom seems to be part of this “the only way to make the public at-large see how bad the Dems/liberals/leftists are is to let them be in-charge for awhile” crowd. Bullshite to that notion! Letting the nation FAIL in order to set the stage for rebuilding it is a Marxist tactic, and that’s NOT how we roll!!!
Icy Texan (40606d) — 10/6/2010 @ 8:33 pmEisenhower picked Brennan, Nixon picked Blackmun Ford picked Stevens, Reagan ended up picking Kennedy, after Bork was annihilated,Bush picked Souter, you see the problem. As a result, the very nature of constitutional jurisprudence is in jeapardy
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/6/2010 @ 8:33 pm“All we have to do is put Republicans in the WH and it all gets fixed.”
dicentra – That might be one way to interpret the post. A way to blend your comment with Jeff’s post is to suggest that TRUE CONSERVATIVES should gather their strength while losing the next ten elections, biding their time until they can gloriously seize the White House and make what’s left of America safe for democracy once more. Women and minorities hardest hit. But that’s just my interpretation.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/6/2010 @ 8:35 pmWell, what are the odds that Mr. Obama will appoint anyone that will? I can’t honestly say that they’re any better than the odds that McCain would, can you?
Losing is still losing. And you can’t make any changes when you lose.
ConservativeWanderer (b8d454) — 10/6/2010 @ 8:36 pm“It’s a trick. See, if Conservatives stick to their principals, they won’t lose the next ten elections.”
LBascom – Sorry, gotta go with the way it was teed up, not a changed scenario.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/6/2010 @ 8:38 pmdicentra,
Your characterization of my argument bears only a passing resemblance to my actual argument.
My argument is not that putting Republicans in the White House automatically fixes the problem of extra-Constitutional judging.
My argument is that it gives us a hope of taking some action to fix it.
Whereas losing the next ten elections gives us no hope at all.
If you’d care to discuss my actual argument, as opposed to your rewriting of it, I’ll be right here.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/6/2010 @ 8:40 pmWhen was the last time a true Conservative won a state-wide election in California? Or New York? Or Massachusetts Or Delaware? Or (fill in the blank)
Sometimes you gotta take a little less than you want in order to get more than you have.
Some Chump (e84e27) — 10/6/2010 @ 8:44 pmLee,
As I say in the post:
I would prefer to focus the discussion on that question, which I find more interesting.
You also say:
I believe we lost in 2008 because America was sick of Bush. There is not a Republican candidate on the planet — even Zombie Reagan — who could have won in that environment.
Well, my post is about judges. And if you think McCain would have nominated a Sotomayor and a Kagan — I say, if that is your position — then there’s really no point in discussing this with you.
I don’t think that’s your position, and I understand your more general point that you think a McCain, who was unreliable on many issues, would have been a bad President.
Maybe. But again, this post is about reminding people that elections matter to the nature of the judiciary. And the federal judiciary under John McCain would have been worlds apart from the judiciary under Barack Obama.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/6/2010 @ 8:47 pmPatterico – How much Party payola did you get to write this post? Heh!
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/6/2010 @ 8:48 pmJust a reminder. We’ve had Republican majorities. During one of these majorities, there was a “Gang of 14” who compromised. The compromise scuttled the nominations of several in order to get through several.
Without the RINOs, a “nuclear option” would have brought all the nominations to the floor for a vote.
The point? Merely winning does not fix the problem. Majorities do not fix the problem. What fixes the problem is enough, perhaps not even a majority, of legislators holding the line, forcing the issues. (and a few blue dogs).
John Lynch (7fb472) — 10/6/2010 @ 8:53 pmYes. But Nixon picked Rehnquist, Reagan picked Scalia, and Bush I picked Thomas.
Bush II, roundly denounced as too weak by many conservatives, did the best of any President in memory (after we kicked his ass for trying to foist Miers on us).
Meanwhile, name one good Justice picked by a Democrat since Byron White in the early 1960s.
If you want to argue that Republicans often end up with terrible picks, you’ll get no argument from me.
If you want to argue that Republicans are no different than Democrats when it comes to the justices they pick, you will lose that argument.
Why did you include Reagan in that list anyway? Was he a squish in your view??
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/6/2010 @ 8:54 pmBut McCain was exactly who we were counseled by our betters, to see as the most viable, until they had
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/6/2010 @ 8:54 pmtheir spring fling with Obama. So you’ve written off 2008, throw in 1992, as well, and you have two
fulcrum points
“Sorry, gotta go with the way it was teed up, not a changed scenario.”
The scenario is, if you “win” without the principals, you haven’t really won. What’s the point of winning if all you have done is substituted a R in place of a D in the story?
Take that Cao guy in LA for instance. Was it a win to have someone that calls himself a Republican, even if he votes for Obuma care and cap n’ trade? I’m not seeing it.
LBascom (58820f) — 10/6/2010 @ 8:55 pm“I believe we lost in 2008 because America was sick of Bush. There is not a Republican candidate on the planet — even Zombie Reagan — who could have won in that environment.”
I’m not so sure about that Patterico. In our post-Acorn era, a zombie candidate would have been an excellent way to appeal to the growing legion of undead voters, who seem to vote overwhelmingly Democrat under most circumstances.
Sean P (a82c1f) — 10/6/2010 @ 8:59 pmI was illustrating a a pattern, that is accentuated when unscrupulous, unethical partisans on the other side, slander without consequence, and Specter was one of thosw who joined in the pummeling. Their tactics were rehearsed on Rehnquist, but weren’t implemented till Bork. Meanwhile, their is a premisethat nominees presented by them, are due courtesy,no matter how flawed they are
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/6/2010 @ 9:00 pmA lot less than Dan Riehl admitted he got from the RNC — you know, back when he was defending Steele for saying Afghanistan was Obama’s war of choice, or for saying that blacks had no reason to vote Republican.
In other words, none.
But hey. I’m told there are people who are “willing to bet” I have taken “crazy party money.” (Link included so that people get your reference.)
It used to be people didn’t insinuate stuff like that without evidence of it. All hail the new blogosphere, where baseless insinuations are tossed about with abandon!
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/6/2010 @ 9:01 pmThe discussion’s shift to Specter seems like a bit of a goalpost move (weren’t we talking the importance of winning presidential elections? Yes, we were), but I will go with the flow and note that I was firmly on record against Specter getting the helm of the Judiciary Committee because of the way he treated Bork. He did not redeem himself with his shabby treatment of Roberts. Arlen Specter is a huge asshole and good riddance to him.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/6/2010 @ 9:04 pm30.. Okay, so really how much? 🙂
……
EricPWJohnson (5895a8) — 10/6/2010 @ 9:06 pmYou betcha. It’s a good point — and I was as pissed at the gang of 14 as anyone.
Some people seem to think I’m a big RINO fan. Look: I was against Arnold in the California recall; a gang of 14 critic; a McCain hater; a Specter hater; a Miers opponent; and the list goes on. Give me a good solid conservative I can vote for who might win and I am a happy man.
But to bring us back into focus, I happen to think that it is insanity to talk about being OK with losing the next 10 elections. We will never recover from the blow to our federal judiciary if that happens.
Never.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/6/2010 @ 9:09 pmOK, since you insist: Michael Steele said I could have a $20 Starbucks card if I mocked O’Donnell for two weeks straight.
It felt dirty at first. But you get over it quick. Man, there’s no coffee in the world like free coffee!
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/6/2010 @ 9:11 pmLbascom, that’s right.
And if you lose with the principles, you haven’t really won.
So we got to decide how much losing and principle breaking we are willing to put up with, based on each particular election. Some say a pure conservative will always win, and these people are wrong. We could have been fine without John Mccain, and we should get rid of Lindsey Graham (and doing either would require a very good candidate, because these are very powerful Senators). Scott Brown, Carly Fiorina, dare I say Mike Castle are sometimes the best we can win with that is available. We win with people who don’t share all our principles, and accept that these are better than Coakley, Boxer, Coons.
And then there are the special cases, where someone like Chris Christie or Rubio are simply excellent candidates who can sell our principles. That’s what we really need. We need to identify awesome folks who can win primaries (whether we’re talking Senator, or President, or Governor). And a lot of the time, we will wind up having to support people we do not agree with on everything because they are a major benefit over the alternative.
I didn’t like the Gang of 14 at all, however I note that these machinations are working powerfully in our favor right now. And I realize that the situation could have been much worse.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/6/2010 @ 9:14 pmI was trying to work on Dan Reihl. Did not realize he was a paid shill like Markos. Oh well, I was sucking at it anyway.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/6/2010 @ 9:16 pmWith all this talk of principles (or “principals”), I think it’s important that we make clear that we are NOT surrendering our principles if we take pragmatic actions based on a long-term strategy that includes keeping the judiciary filled with judicial conservatives.
It’s easy to say “I prefer x to giving up my principles” but it’s harder to put such statements in more concrete terms. What, precisely, does sticking to your principles mean? If it only means you will vote only for “pure” candidates, that’s not necessarily a “principle” that everyone agrees with.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/6/2010 @ 9:20 pmWell. To be clear, he did not take money for delivering viewpoints. He took money to work on some consulting thing for the RNC, and didn’t tell readers about it, and miraculously defended Steele when Steele said indefensible things. Is what he did.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/6/2010 @ 9:22 pmSo, we’re talking strategy, not purism. I think the strategy needs to include forcing establishment GOP into putting up “good solid conservatives” even if we might lose (occasionally) pour encourager les autres.
John Lynch (7fb472) — 10/6/2010 @ 9:27 pmSo we come back to Specter, and Toomey, should the latter have been more supported back in 2004
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/6/2010 @ 9:27 pmOK, that’s a good clarification.
I suppose Steele emailed you to spit that out, though. I don’t know who to trust!
/shivers
BTW, Spector is campaigning for Sestak now. It’s something to behold when he appears to be selfless, and you can bet your last penny he is not being selfless. I’m sure he has a job lined up in the Administration. When’s the last time we won PA? 2000?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/6/2010 @ 9:27 pm“The scenario is, if you “win” without the principals, you haven’t really won.”
Lbascom – Do you think Democrats make different judicial picks than Republicans? I do. So losing is really losing. Winning according to your comments is an all or nothing test based on the purity of cadidates’ ideology. It would be great if the real world worked that way. LITMUS TESTS FOR EVERYONE!!!!! Execute the backsliders!!!!!
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/6/2010 @ 9:28 pmJohn Lynch,
That is a defensible strategery.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/6/2010 @ 9:30 pmSure.
Understand: I have a visceral dislike for Specter.
I care a LOT about the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court. I will never forgive Specter for what he did to Bork.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/6/2010 @ 9:32 pm“Do you think Democrats make different judicial picks than Republicans?I do. So losing is really losing.”
Do you think principled conservatives make different judicial picks than RINO’s? I do. So sometimes winnings only reward is blame.
LBascom (58820f) — 10/6/2010 @ 9:41 pm“What, precisely, does sticking to your principles mean?”
LBascom/Patterico – You said above it would not really be ten elections as Jeff wrote in his post, but how long would you be willing to be absolutely “pure” ideologically and remain out of power? Would you be willing to be pragmatic in pursuit of your longer term goal as was suggested above?
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/6/2010 @ 9:43 pm“Do you think principled conservatives make different judicial picks than RINO’s? I do.”
LBascom – Not always, but probably more often than not.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/6/2010 @ 9:45 pmThe problem has always been where to draw the line. Everyone on the right wants to win elections, but no one wants to elect another Arlen Specter or Jim Jeffords. I’d rather lose a few seats than have a one seat majority in the Senate with six or seven RINOs holding the balance of power. Does anyone really believe a 51 seat majority that included Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Mike Castle would have held up or defeated any more left wing judges than 48 or 49 without them?
I want to win every seat with the most conservative candidate who can do that but there is a limit on how far I’d go to win. You have to stand for something. Even if you get slaughtered, you can pave the way for a future victory. Without Goldwater, it is doubtful there would have been a Reagan. The GOP right only took control of the Party after 1964 because we saw what the establishment did to Barry. And without those county and precinct chairmen We would have gotten GHW Bush or Gerald Ford in 1980.
It comes down to where you draw the line.
Ken Hahn (74f81a) — 10/6/2010 @ 9:46 pmThat’s just plain irrational.
In no way does the first sentence explain the third, so the “so” doesn’t make any sense at all.
RINOs+bona fide Republicans pick much, much better judges than do democrats.
Winning has obvious rewards. Mike Castle may have been blamed for the stimulus and Obamacare, but he voted against that crap. Not good enough? Fair enough. But better than nothing.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/6/2010 @ 9:47 pmI’d rather have a principled conservative than a RINO in office. That said, I think G.W. Bush’s picks were better than Reagan’s, respite Reagan being (in my view) the more solid conservative.
As I said above, ANY Republican is liable to pick a dud on occasion. Even Bush 43 did (with Miers) — but in the Internet age, we were able to talk back to him, and I think that made the difference.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/6/2010 @ 9:48 pmLet me put it this way, the republican majority we had in 2005 didn’t govern with republican principals. So even though it wasn’t republican principals that failed, republicanism got the blame for failure. Which ultimately resulted in us ending up with Kagen.
LBascom (58820f) — 10/6/2010 @ 9:51 pm“Let me put it this way, the republican majority we had in 2005 didn’t govern with republican principals.”
LBascom – Agreed, but you’re dodging the questions.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/6/2010 @ 9:56 pm“Does anyone really believe a 51 seat majority that included Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Mike Castle would have held up or defeated any more left wing judges than 48 or 49 without them?”
Without a doubt, Mccain would have appointed better judges than Obama as president.
The topic shifted from Prez to Senator.
Also, yes, I believe that a US Senate where the Judiciary Committee is not led by Pat Leahy would yield better results. How much better? Not better enough for me either, so I agree we have to hunt down some of these RINOs. And sometimes that will lead to a democrat and sometimes it will lead to a republican, depending on how good our nominee is.
But I think the point still stands that a lot of people were saying they didn’t mind if we lost a Senate majority, in their quest to teach a lesson to the GOP. I think they should mind a lot.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/6/2010 @ 9:57 pmLBascom,
The question that interests me is whether you (and others) would be willing to live with the consequences of losing 10 straight elections if that was to be the result of voting only for candidates pure enough to gain your approval.
My point in this post is that those consequences are far, FAR too dire.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/6/2010 @ 10:03 pmGood point.
Things are improving a lot in how political information gets out there, and how people involve themselves in politics. I think even RINOs are going to be a lot better in the next few years than they have been in the past.
But democrats will resurge in a few years. We need moderates in blue states, but we also need these moderates to hold the line on a couple of core principles. I think we’re just working out exactly who and what.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/6/2010 @ 10:03 pm“Agreed, but you’re dodging the questions.”
And you’re missing the point.
OK, I gotta go to bed, later days…
LBascom (58820f) — 10/6/2010 @ 10:05 pmI think we all understand your point. It’s just that it doesn’t really address the questions raised in the post.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/6/2010 @ 10:07 pmI’m thinking you missed the point when you took Hyperbole for strategy.
Losing ten elections, I’m pretty sure, was a rhetorical device meant to help illustrate the importance of fidelity to principle rather than party. The game both parties have been playing for the last few generations has been driving us further and further to the left, and unless we return to our founding principals, from the bottom up, we will end up a European clone within 20 years, regardless the R or D label the presidents nameplate sports.
Pragmatism got us where we are. Maybe, hopefully, the Tea Party will get us where we should be.
LBascom (58820f) — 10/6/2010 @ 10:41 pmIt didn’t seem like hyperbole when I read it in context. But who knows? Maybe it was.
As a rhetorical device, I think it backfires because the second you take it halfway seriously, you see what a disaster it would be.
I think daleyrocks asked you how many elections you would be willing to lose to retain your ability to say: I have voted only for ideologically pure candidates. If not 10, then how many? 8? 5? 3? 1?
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/6/2010 @ 10:45 pmI think that’s debatable. However, you and I would both like to see a return to our founding principles. I just think we don’t see eye to eye about how to get there — or about the consequences of losing elections in the meantime.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/6/2010 @ 10:48 pmLBascom,
Why is it hyperbole to consider losing 10 elections? Obviously the President picks Supreme Court nominees but the Senate confirms them, and there are House and some Senate elections every 2 years. Democrats controlled Congress from 1954-1994. Are you sure it couldn’t happen again?
DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/6/2010 @ 10:51 pmideologically pure candidate is your construct, not mine, but I’ll say I will never again vote for a John McCain.
In the post you linked, Jeff concluded: “Own who you are. And make them own who they are.”
Now, let me direct you to this comment made tonight in a totally different thread that drives home the point, I think.
LBascom (58820f) — 10/6/2010 @ 10:56 pm“I’m thinking you missed the point when you took Hyperbole for strategy.”
Oh man, we’re not going to go back to that clown nose stuff are we? The questions on strategy were pretty simple to address instead of dodging.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/6/2010 @ 10:59 pm“ideologically pure candidate is your construct, not mine,”
LBascom – That’s sort of hard say when you never explained what you meant by the following:
“See, if Conservatives stick to their principals, they won’t lose the next ten elections.”
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/6/2010 @ 11:13 pm“we’re not going to go back to that clown nose stuff are we? ”
God forbid…
LBascom (58820f) — 10/6/2010 @ 11:17 pm“That’s sort of hard say when you never explained what you meant by the following:
“See, if Conservatives stick to their principals, they won’t lose the next ten elections.””
Well, let’s go back to the linked post and read again what Jeff wrote:
If you need more than that, I can’t help you.
Now, I really need to turn in. Adios.
LBascom (58820f) — 10/6/2010 @ 11:30 pmLbascom, I find it interesting that you reject a plain reading of Jeff’s comments, and then post quotes that seem to bolster Patterico’s interpretation.
Your ‘we won’t lose if’ and ‘it’s ok if we lose ten times’ and ‘we should, long term, be willing to lose ten times’ are not coherent at all.
It sounds like you want to say it’s OK to lose ten times, if that’s what it takes to get the GOP to the principles that you say shouldn’t lose ten times.
If you actually stop worrying about what Jeff means or didn’t mean, we can just ask: is it OK to lose ten times, if that’s what it takes to weed out RINOs?
the fact that people instantly reject that question leads me to believe they know they have the wrong answer to it.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/6/2010 @ 11:40 pm“we can just ask: is it OK to lose ten times, if that’s what it takes to weed out RINOs?”
Dustin, read #62 again. If you concentrate really, really hard, you will find your answer.
LBascom (58820f) — 10/6/2010 @ 11:54 pmI’d like to think that if American voters were confronted with a “clear choice between the competing ideologies” that they would choose conservative leaders. However, I don’t think that’s true in many of America’s cities and states. I suspect a divided government is the best we can hope for, at least for now.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/6/2010 @ 11:57 pmI read the comment you linked, LBascom. It’s convincing if your goal is to win a debate contest but otherwise it strikes me as a very hollow victory. So the GOP wins because the Democrats have completely mucked everything up? Where is the principle in that victory?
DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/7/2010 @ 12:03 amI’ll be frank, you’re from a website were people act like trash, and I totally expected you to refuse to answer my question and insult me.
It pleases me, a bit.
I asked a yes or no question. You quoted it just to make really, really clear that you know you can’t answer it.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/7/2010 @ 12:04 amThe linked comment appears to reinforce the argument that goes something like this: I don’t have to answer whether I would be OK with losing 10 elections in a row because I believe we won’t.
I foresaw such a response when I wrote the post, which is why I specified that this post is not about whether conservatives have a winning strategy, but whether they should care.
The second block quote in the post asserts they should not care. I say we should. We are interested to know which side you come down on. You don’t appear eager to say.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/7/2010 @ 12:21 amThe left seized the Democrats since 1972, and we have gone progressively worse Presidents since then, Carter, Clinton, Obama. They also have progressed through media, academia, and the legal
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/7/2010 @ 4:53 amprofession, this is why a Specter, a Chaffee, even
a Graham won’t do, to hold the constitutional line
“Take McCain-Feingold for instance. Had McCain won, would he have installed a SCJ that would have overturned his signature legislation?”
I don’t think he would have checked for that.
imdw (a544ba) — 10/7/2010 @ 5:03 amSo, if we’ve decided that what is wanted is enough legislators with backbone arguing, defending, and holding the line on conservative issues (nominations, fiscal, small government); and we’ve decided that we’re not talking about blind purist litmus tests but about strategy to reach our goal, is it incorrect to state: “I don’t care about winning elections”?
What I care about is getting enough conservative legislators to exhibit backbone. Merely winning elections is insufficient.
Stated in a rhetorically bombastic way: I don’t care about winning elections, I care about gaining sufficiency in numbers of those who are elected in acting out their conservative principles, or failing actually having conservative principles – scared of primary challenges enough that they act on key conservative issues with sufficient unity.
What effect on Graham, Collins, Snow, . . . have the primaries had? What reaction might they have to continued belief that the electorate will challenge them in primaries, and be willing to risk a lesser likelihood of winning the election in order to put more conservative candidates on the slate?
A slate of say seven or so primary challenges (Senatorial), with say five or so primary victories, with say three to four of those turning to general election wins – what effect does that have on the others who are not currently up for election, but will be?
Which way is the net gain in the actual thing we want – the body of people calling themselves Republicans acting in occasional principled stands?
John Lynch (7fb472) — 10/7/2010 @ 8:01 amAnd what drives the OUTLAW to write such John Calhoun-esque drivel? Amicus briefs!
“Oh noes, someone wrote an opinion and that person is a ferneigner!” How dare other humans file their opinions on American law, which can then be ignored if farcical or mentioned if consistent with American jurisprudence! It’s the end of freedom if a foreign country wants to write an opinion on US laws. If the budding legal scholar would like to write an OUTLAW post where he could show an amicus briefs EVER became determinative precedent, then I would eat his hat.
As far as the rest of the discussion goes, I’m all for Goldstein. Keep booting people from your party, keep nominating Christine O’Donnell and Carl Paladino. Keep making the republican party more of a party which appeals only to white Southern/Western folks (and billionaires, you got to have billionaires).
Best news I ever heard was that the Republicans went more to the Goldstein wing than the thoughtful wing.
Enjoy the last general election win this Republican coalition will ever have.
timb (449046) — 10/7/2010 @ 8:30 am“We are interested to know which side you come down on. You don’t appear eager to say.”
Good grief, let me put this in a sippy cup for ya’ll.
#62-(humm…#63 now. *shrug*) “ideologically pure candidate is your construct, not mine, but I’ll say I will never again vote for a John McCain. ”
Not in the next 10 elections, nor the next 100 if I live that long.
If you you oh so superior not trash folk want to continue the slide to socialism by blindly pulling the lever for party, not principle, have at it. But just so you know, the landscape is changing. The Tea Party is pissing off Karl Rove. Which side are you on?
LBascom (96474e) — 10/7/2010 @ 8:47 am“I’m all for sticking to principles. But my governing principles are rooted in the Constitution. Which is interpreted by a Supreme Court. Whose nominees are chosen by the President”
You continue, Sir, to mischaracterize your adversaries positions setting up simplistic and tendentious arguments obvious to all-and then wave your hands like the illusionist-“proven to my complete satisfaction”.
Silly fringe apparatchik. Today we find TARP2, sponsored by Castle in the House, has reached the desk of Il Douche. One RINO on the Judiciary Committee and the President’s pleasure reaches the floor for consideration.
Orrin Hatch(no ones RINO outside UT): “It would be underhanded to filibuster a nominee”.
With a TEA party caucus to balance the RINO-BlueDog gang your point is moot, empty posturing, self-serving and in sum a waste of your time.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/7/2010 @ 9:12 am@31
Typical Frey. Forgot to include this link. And I was speaking more of those with a bigger stick than Frey — other blogging lawyers who have his back.
Twitter buddies, if you will.
As for the post proper, it’s a false dichotomy. There’s no reason people who represent conservative interests have to lose, nor is it a given that a RINO message necessarily sells better to the electorate. That’s merely the establishment position, presented as a truism.
Not at all difficult to reconcile my two posts. In fact, I suspect it was more difficult to come up with a rationale for pretending they are at odds.
JeffG (4026d4) — 10/7/2010 @ 10:09 amBut just to play Frey’s game, sure, let’s lose the next ten elections, if to win them means to elect Republicans who vote with the Democrats on a majority of issues, or who will lend “bi-partisan” support to abominations like cap-and-trade.
Force Democrats to move to the right in local elections in order to win in the first place by pitting them against actual conservatives.
A Dem like JFK is preferable to a Republican like Castle. We are a center-right country. And yet our “conservatives” in Congress are moderates, while our “liberals” are leftist-progressives.
You can accept that as the state of nature, or you can work to change it by insisting that the right represent the interests of the right.
JeffG (4026d4) — 10/7/2010 @ 10:31 am10? think how much more powerful you’ll be if you lose 15 elections!
imdw (7b0243) — 10/7/2010 @ 10:49 am“10? think how much more powerful you’ll be if you lose 15 elections!”
Probably about as powerful as I feel now, sitting here in California after two terms of a “Republican” governor, wondering if I should vote for Arnold II who bought herself a sweet nomination, or the Tea Party backed candidate Ms Nightengale.
I’m going with Nightengale.
Kinda like when I passed on “the electable” Schwartzenegger in favor of McClintock during the recall.
Boy was I wrong! We won big!
LBascom (96474e) — 10/7/2010 @ 11:13 amWhitman is willing to defend Proposition 8.
Michael Ejercito (249c90) — 10/7/2010 @ 11:14 amAh yes, the crazy party money cabal.
I need to get me some of that sweet crazy cash, Jeff.
At any rate, who cares who you were talking to? It’s not about you. It’s about the idea of not compromising principles in order to win elections, and how far to take that.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/7/2010 @ 11:17 amYOU CRAZY RACIST XENOPHOBIC HOMOPHOBIC RETHUGLIKKKANS WILL NEVER WIN ANOTHER ELECTION AT LEAST NOT UNTIL AFTER YOU SLAUGHTER THE LIBS IN THIS ONE AND YOU ARE ALL SO BAD FOR THE COUNTRY AND YOU DO NOT RECOGNIZE THE BRILLIANCE OF TEH TIMMAH BECAUSE YOU ARE STUPID DUM.
JD (cafe67) — 10/7/2010 @ 11:24 amDustin – What principles are you willing to compromise?
JD (cafe67) — 10/7/2010 @ 11:25 am81.But just to play Frey’s game, sure, let’s lose the next ten elections, if to win them means to elect Republicans who vote with the Democrats on a majority of issues, or who will lend “bi-partisan” support to abominations like cap-and-trade.
Strawman cometh – the only way to justify positions that are factually incorrect
EricPWJohnson (5895a8) — 10/7/2010 @ 11:26 amI suspect a divided government is the best we can hope for, at least for now
Comment by DRJ — 10/6/2010 @ 11:57 pm
The more divided, the more grid-lock, the less that gets done, and the more Liberty & Freedom is preserved!
AD-RtR/OS! (a18d8e) — 10/7/2010 @ 11:28 amJD, that’s a great question.
And I’m sure you know that the answer is going to be some kind of variable test.
It’s not like I want to elect Team R in every single election. I do not want to elect people who show ethical problems, or are severely embarrassing or harmful to the movement. Different people calculate just who is harmful to the movement.
I’m willing to compromise on most policies to some extent in places where no one better (and electable) has shown up. This is the O’Donnell issue. She’s not a compromise on policy for me, but she’s unelectable in Delaware. Castle is a compromise on many policies for me, and is electable. Somewhere in between these two lies a candidate who is electable and less of a compromise… the sweet spot.
I’m not answering your question directly because I am unsure of how much compromise we really need in various places in the country. It’s easier to reject a hypo where a rigid stance on this leads to losing many elections.
I don’t want to compromise on my neocon foreign policy. I don’t want to compromise on the fair tax, or my own brand of election reform, or immigration. But I can keep my ego in check. I know I have to work with a lot of smart people who have their own specific views on lots of things. Even if the world was 100% conservative, we would have to compromise simply to have a functional government.
We’re many steps from that, with a GOP that has to work with Massachusetts and California and Texas and New York. The margin between a blue state democrat and a moderate republican is massive, and I’m willing to compromise on most issues to realize those gains.
When Jeff isn’t sharing his suspicions and accusations and making reference to Good Man stories he knows he’s interpreted badly, he notes that the GOP brand is incoherent if we do not present a stark alternative to democrats. I think that indeed is Patterico’s POV too, though I won’t speak for him. It’s mine. We have to be realistic about how to present this alternative.
Sorry this is lengthy, but one more point: we do not have complete control over this stark contrast we should seek. The democrats are populists, which is why many appear to oppose their own Obamacare and stimulus and House Speaker. While I’d love to push both parties from the center and have this stark contrast, it’s impossible to maintain.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/7/2010 @ 11:48 amThe desperation among the GOP regulars is palpable. Gallup(gallup.com) is currently estimating likely voters in preparation for crunch time.
In recent weeks updated party affliations put the Republicans at 25%, the TEAs at 29%. An even contest one might suppose…
But for the fact that 73% of Republicans consider the leadership “unresponsive to their concerns” and as “having lost their way”.
Re-treading old snares like “just win, baby” aren’t set merely on the hope of snagging the odd reactionary, they are as much an attempt to staunch the bleeding.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/7/2010 @ 11:52 am“But just to play Frey’s game, sure, let’s lose the next ten elections”
JeffG – Whoa Nellie. That’s not Frey’s game. Those were your words.
If you didn’t mean them, Frey’s post here is asking if people are willing to lose elections in order to support ideologically purer members of Congress who will eventually will win and be in a position to help a conservative president secure more conservatives in the federal judiciary. The meaning is not tough to suss out.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/7/2010 @ 11:53 am“As for the post proper, it’s a false dichotomy. There’s no reason people who represent conservative interests have to lose, nor is it a given that a RINO message necessarily sells better to the electorate.”
JeffG – I see no false dichotomy. You wrote two different posts. There is no presumption that conservatives will lose ten elections, only that you would be willing to according to the words in your own post. Let’s get back to their plain meaning. If you have a hard time reconciling them after the fact, that is not Frey’s fault. He is not twisting any words here.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/7/2010 @ 12:10 pm“While I’d love to push both parties from the center and have this stark contrast.”
Note the deft ploy-characterize the dilemma so as to minimize the opposition’s complaint. Move both parties off center. Admit, like yielding a pawn en passant “there ain’t a dime’s worth of difference” and pass the notion that the abyss doesn’t lie in the breach.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/7/2010 @ 12:18 pmExactly, Daleyrocks.
If someone doesn’t think the RINO message ever sells better to the public (which is so out of touch with reality in places like Delaware) that’s fine, but the original proposition, that if you have to lose ten elections to get X, is not some kind of distortion.
Why did Patterico quote Jeff on this? No doubt it was going to lead to personal attacks and refusals to simply deal with the propositions. Jeff didn’t mean what he said about losing ten elections. Or he did. He said it was candid and he said it’s a false dichotomy.
I wish we could just divorce this from Jeff. The actual issue of compromise is a lot more interesting than watching Jeff play sophist and anti-intentionalist while posing as the opposite. We get the jist that everyone else is an evil lawyer involved in backroom party negotiations about how to oppress Jeff. Maybe we should ask if it’s antisemitic and start threatening eachother? I can read PW if I want that. I’m glad that option is out there because it’s a catharsis for disturbed people.
But I think the issue is the tension between winning elections and ideological purity. And of course the great ways to minimize this problem, such as convincing leftists in Delaware to agree with bona fide conservatism.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/7/2010 @ 12:27 pm“I see no false dichotomy.”
No one is willing to lose 10 elections. It’s a subjunctive conditional. Reality is post-2012 we have control or bust up the china.
Anklebiter.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/7/2010 @ 12:28 pmI’m not being deft.
I really would like this stark contrast, and believe that politicians will move to the center so often that it’s a difficult thing to maintain.
I didn’t understand some of your comment, but you rephrasing my point as ‘there ain’t a dime’s worth of difference’ is inaccurate. In fact, it’s … kinda what you are complaining about me doing.
There are major differences between political parties. The difference between a RINO like Castle and Coons is stark (this was a major issue I disagree with OUTLAW! types on).
However, I cited two examples of how democrats are moving right up to the center as quickly as they can, and you refute it with … ?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/7/2010 @ 12:31 pmI don’t think it is — until somebody can explain to me how we can lose the next ten elections and still somehow do something about a federal judiciary that is rewriting the Constitution.
I’m trying to get people to see that losing the next ten elections — a scenario that you yourself raised — would actually have a long-lasting and disastrous effect on how the Constitution is interpreted by our federal courts.
Patterico (b0e12d) — 10/7/2010 @ 12:31 pmGood. Because that position is so unreasonable only an idiot would agree to it.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/7/2010 @ 12:32 pm“Typical Frey. Forgot to include this link.”
“there’s a little back channel club o’ lawyers on the right side of the blogosphere, some of who have picked up enough influence that they’re getting some of that crazy party money, I’d be willing to bet.”
“I wasn’t talking about payola. I was talking about perks and insidery-ness.”
JeffG – Typical Goldstein, with your word choice being so similar, it’s easy to see how people might have been confused.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/7/2010 @ 12:36 pm“Anklebiter.”
gary – You are so going to OWN the intertubes with comments like that. I bow to your unintelligible greatness.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/7/2010 @ 12:45 pmNo, he was talking about payola.
How many times has Jeff handled a stupid comment this way, anyway? I agree with Jeff on an awful lot of issues, and I agree with O’Donnell on practically every issue, but this kind of sophistry is off putting in two ways. You know you can’t trust future comments or have a real debate, and your intelligence was insulted by the terrible excuses.
People want to avoid the choice between compromise and losing. One way to do it is to persuade. One way to go the other direction is nominating weasels.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/7/2010 @ 12:46 pm“I see no false dichotomy. You wrote two different posts. There is no presumption that conservatives will lose ten elections, only that you would be willing to according to the words in your own post”
The presumption is, if we stop voting for RINO’s, what will be left is real Republicans, and Democrats.
By voting for RINO’s, because they seem more electable and give you better odds at getting some of what you want, you are pushing the R party further and further left, into space the democrats vacated when they moved further left trying get out of your way.
In the long run (let me just throw 20 years out there, as a hypothetical) the country will better off for having a clear choice, forcing the establishment back to the representative center-right country we are.
Also, presumption that future SCJ nominees will be rubber stamped through congress is RINO thinking, stop it.
LBascom (ccf858) — 10/7/2010 @ 12:47 pmHe meant what he meant, daleyrocks. Stop trying to subvert his intentions with your ridiculous activist hijackings.
Leviticus (68eff1) — 10/7/2010 @ 12:52 pmSeen today’s WSJ guesses about what’s going on in the FL senate race?
Doesn’t seem like the left balks at “DINOs”.
rtrski (336865) — 10/7/2010 @ 12:56 pm“I bow to your unintelligible greatness.”
And I curtsey in return.
The point is the TEAs get that life pre-2008 for anyone now breathing(and not very wealthy) is gone. Currently we are undergoing asset deflation, well into 2011. Thereafter, once purchase-parity with Asia is reached we’ll see some, few hopefully, years of severe inflation.
The Republicans really only have a couple/three to manage their brand change or go the way of the Whigs.
Events are in control, one can only roll with them.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/7/2010 @ 12:57 pmThis is how I feel about it.
However, sometimes we they don’t just ‘seem more electable’, such as in Delaware, where someone with no chance of winning, and likely a liability to the entire movement, was picked over a RINO.
We have to get a step beyond this party pushing left and right, and realize that we’re talking about voter opinions. The reason the GOP never tracks too far right is because those who do are often not elected and cease to exist on the landscape.
The truth is that we really MUST compromise in some elections, or we will lose more elections. People should consider how much losing they are willing to tolerate, and how much compromise, rather than pretending this is a false choice.
Losing an election here or there is actually helpful. I believe Castle losing, especially to a weak candidate, will pay dividends. If this kind of thing was repeated in too many places, we would wind up with too many powerful democrats. Is Coons going to be a fixture in the Senate for decades, with tremendously bad policies? Probably. RINO hunters (who aren’t merely unserious gasbags) should exercise moderation.
Rather than pretending the issue of this choice doesn’t exist, we should look at how to minimize it with awesome candidates.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/7/2010 @ 1:04 pmThe key is indeed winning elections but there are times when it is strategically necessary in primaries to vote against RINO’s to encourage them to move back to the right in terms of ideology.
Pour encourager les autres.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/7/2010 @ 1:09 pmIt really depends on their confidence level. They elected some real freaking liberals in 2008 and 2006. I’m still pretty surprised they trusted their party to Obama, who predictably has gone way too far in government growth and has cost the dems scores of elections.
Now, they are more pragmatic because they have are faced with the inevitable ‘step too far from the center and you lose power’ rule.
I think this is easier for the democrats because they are more populist and less principled, but that may just be my bias talking.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/7/2010 @ 1:09 pmLeviticus – My bad.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/7/2010 @ 1:23 pmLBascom – That finally sounds like a vote for the no false dichotomy, screw it if we have to lose a bunch of elections and wind up with more pinko commie one worlders in the judiciary, we ain’t making no compromises, camp.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/7/2010 @ 1:31 pmPolls, events, turnout are all breaking against the Dims. Il Douche is bolting the country Nov. 5, 4, 3? Need.to.be.gone.while.knives.unsheathed.
The problem for the Rethuglican guard, especially in the Senate, is Ogabe-his veto and executive subterfuge.
First up is a shutdown of government-how to manage the fact that they will be miles apart on allocations. It’ll get worse from there-EPA.
In 2012 Republicans could be as lowly esteemed as now.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/7/2010 @ 1:37 pmHow about:
screw it if we
LBascom (ccf858) — 10/7/2010 @ 1:37 pmhave to lose “win” a bunch of elections and wind up with more pinko commie one worlders in the judiciary,we ain’t making nothat’s what you get for compromises, camp.Crap…
screw it if we
LBascom (ccf858) — 10/7/2010 @ 1:39 pmhave to lose“win” a bunch of elections and wind up with more pinko commie one worlders in the judiciary,we ain’t making nothat’s what you get for compromises, camp.#108, Danke
Javert_is_alive! (artist formerly known as Heavensent, Sycophanthateme, DaShiznit, Robert, and a bunch of other names I can't remember but Daley and PF have cataloged) (4f78d0) — 10/7/2010 @ 2:05 pmWTF?
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/7/2010 @ 2:08 pmWhen I think about compromise, I think about men like Paul Ryan and Chris Christie. Christie has pissed off a few outlaw types recently, and he’s taken the more productive path on many issues.
Paul Ryan’s roadmap is a huge comprimise pact. If we were to adopt it (and we should), we would keep many entitlements in the name of making government sustainable.
These men get stuff done, in the real world, instead of sitting on the sidelines and being pure.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/7/2010 @ 2:09 pmI wouldn’t call the Tea parties sitting on the sidelines, but whatever.
Maybe it would be better if those people would just shut up and vote for whom the establishment GOP tell them to.
For justice.
LBascom (ccf858) — 10/7/2010 @ 2:21 pmhttp://www.mied.uscourts.gov/judges/guidelines/topic.cfm?topic_id=240
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/7/2010 @ 3:09 pmAlright, I know you guys have had problems getting your heads around ‘false dichotomy’ but here’s another:
The Repugnacans loss is not the Dims gain, it despite integer math, is not a zero sum gambit.
10% of affiliates in the TEA Party are disaffected Donks.
We are not half thru the recession induced bank closures, the foreclosures, the personal bancruptcies. Hundreds of cities will unincorporate over the next few years, municipal bonds will be rated junk and exact usurious tolls,…
Yes the Donks will survive as they have since Hamilton, but fractured having leaked the working class out of pensions, out of jobs, out of healthcare(save the euphemism of Medicaid).
Mark.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/7/2010 @ 4:33 pmWould you like to be the first to explain how we lose ten elections in a row and still retain power to fix the federal judiciary?
Please note that I am not the one who brought up the concept of losing ten elections.
I’m the guy explaining to the guy who *did* bring it up that losing ten elections would be inconsistent with the reform of the federal judiciary that he says he wants to occur.
Patterico (b0e12d) — 10/7/2010 @ 5:20 pmFor the record we’ve lost 4/11 in the last 40 years,
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/7/2010 @ 5:31 pmthe decision today, with the ruling by Steeh, points out the problem
The Tea Party has some people who are extremely productive and active and realistic, yes, LBascom. And of course, it’s grassroots and has some people who aren’t like that.
Karl Rove, for example, is just about the most productive Tea Partier I’m aware of.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/7/2010 @ 5:33 pmWhat are you kidding me?
Then why is it the Tea Party is bent on changing the the Constitution? They want to change the 14th amendment, the 17th amendment, they want to reject the supremacy clause Article VI, Clause 2, and federal taxataion Article I, Section 8, clause 2…. and if it were up to them, they’d have a religious (Christian) test for political office which violates Article VI, paragraph 3. Now that’s respect for the Constitution.
http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/slideshows/12-ways-republicans-want-to-change-the-constitution
The same type of hypocrisy where they blame Obama for unemployment yet support outsourcing American jobs. You didn’t see anything about outsourcing in the latest GOP ‘pledge’ … did you?
Now the same countries that are taking American jobs are funding attack ads against Democrats that are trying to bring them back. You should be proud.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/28/gop-blocks-democrats-jobs-outsourcing-bill/
w (9df40f) — 10/7/2010 @ 5:43 pm“Would you like to be the first to explain how we lose ten elections in a row and still retain power to fix the federal judiciary?”
I think we might be having a problem identifying “we”.
Tell you what, you guys go ahead and keep doing what got us here, and “we” will be over here doing what we need to do to get us back where we should be.
It’s OK, I don’t hate on you for being stogy…
LBascom (8b6bc2) — 10/7/2010 @ 5:52 pmw #124 – at least those GOP folk are being upfront and honest about wanting to change the US Constitution …
Would you prefer them to instruct the DOJ to ignore inconvenient parts, instead ? (Like “Don’t prosecute Black-on-White Voter Intimidation Cases”)
Would you prefer them to do an end-run by appointing “Czars” rather than have appointees answerable to Congress ? (Like “Czar Kenneth Feinberg has the authority to set the pay scale for executives at any company receiving government money”)
Alasdair (6c03a9) — 10/7/2010 @ 6:01 pm“Don’t prosecute Black-on-White Voter Intimidation Cases”
— That is your brain on Fox News.
w (9df40f) — 10/7/2010 @ 6:07 pmOne could point out the 14th Amendment issue, arises from a unrelated footnote in a 1982 case by Brennan, but that is an inconvenient fact. The SC
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/7/2010 @ 6:11 pmin particular, has resorted to amendment by decision, rather than the formal processw
Actually, I was thinking our roles are the opposite. Interesting. I don’t hate you either, though. In fact, I don’t really associate politics with ego, mine or yours.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/7/2010 @ 6:16 pm“I was thinking our roles are the opposite. ”
Yeah, ‘cuz the Tea Party people are all about voting for the RINO.
You did see the link, right?
LBascom (8b6bc2) — 10/7/2010 @ 6:26 pmHas any party lost 10 elections in a row?
Javert_is_alive! (AKA ...) (4f78d0) — 10/7/2010 @ 6:50 pmSee, LBascom, you’re wrong on the facts.
Scott Brown, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, and a long list beyond, are accused of being RINOs and establishment.
Believe it or not, a lot of them still wish Mike Castle was the nominee. I realize a ton of propaganda has made Castle out to be to the left of Arlen Specter and Lindsey Graham, but he’s actually a fiscal conservative who ran a very efficient state government that was low taxes, business friendly, ethically clean, and balanced the budget for 8 years. A lot of Tea Partiers looked at his deplorable Cap and Tax vote and decided to compromise. It’s a bridge too far for me, and I’m glad Castle’s out, but even in this case, considered extreme by some, many Tea Partiers were indeed supporting a RINO.
The list is practically endless. I have proposed a way for you to get what you want, and you haven’t noticed it because you are quite busy blaming and labeling and separating a perfectly good coalition.
No worries. I bet you’re going to work your ass off in November for a candidate you believe in, and more power to you.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/7/2010 @ 7:16 pmMy 133 was a response to 131
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/7/2010 @ 7:23 pmw, do you use the “Fox News” line every time something occurs in reality that you cannot explain? It is not a sign that you actually are “reality-based” – to the contrary.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/7/2010 @ 7:30 pm____________________________________________
Or do you imagine Republicans lost in 2006-08 because they were too principled? Comment by LBascom — 10/6/2010 @ 8:24 pm
I recall listening to an election night show on KABC radio back in Nov 2008 and the 3 hosts were generally of the right or, in one case, a libertarian who could easily be a squish. 2 of the 3 had voted for Obama.
My sense is that a percentage of non-liberals — either centrists or facade-only conservatives — throughout America were similar to them. They are people whose ideology is easily swayed by the weather vane of public opinion and a flickering (yet strong enough) sense that being liberal and voting liberal means one is compassionate, humane, sophisticated, friendly, charming and generous. IOW, I think a good percentage of people — here and elsewhere — can very easily be closeted liberals on occasion.
Mark (3e3a7c) — 10/7/2010 @ 7:55 pm__________________________________
It’s a bridge too far for me, and I’m glad Castle’s out, but even in this case, considered extreme by some, many Tea Partiers were indeed supporting a RINO.
And the “RINO” is Christine McDonnell? How people in Delaware could have put faith in her is beyond me. Her record — which Delawareans certainly must have been aware of — does not reflect that of a dyed-in-the-wool conservative—eg, her ambulance-chasing type of anti-discrimination lawsuit against a former employer, much less her glomming onto campaign funds for personal use. She appears to be flaky, and flakes tend to be — and often are — of leftist persuasion.
Mark (3e3a7c) — 10/7/2010 @ 8:02 pmI meant Castle was the RINO. But your take is interesting.
I don’t want to go off on another one of my O’donnell tangents, though. I agree with you that she easily could vote very similarly to how Castle did.
But whether you trust her or not, her low level of GOP support is lower than GOP support in that state for the Tea Party, and I believe some Tea Partiers indeed were willing to compromise with Castle. You’re smart to note I’m thus claiming they had a more conservative option in O’Donnell. It’s debatable.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/7/2010 @ 8:11 pmI like Mark’s list: “compassionate, humane, sophisticated, friendly, charming and generous.” Would that we all were.
Angeleno (196ff8) — 10/7/2010 @ 8:12 pmThe Democrat variant of this phrase:
“You can’t fix elections without winning the courts.”
That’s been a motto of theirs for years now.
Taqiyyotomist (0e137b) — 10/7/2010 @ 8:12 pmYes, Angelino, I wish we all were “compassionate, humane, sophisticated, friendly, charming and generous, too. However, some people feel insecure about those things, and find politics to be an easy to to compensate for their actual character defects.
Cheap with charity, less happy, less educated, less friendly to religion (tolerant)? Certainly not all lefties are like that, but some are. A lot are, particularly of the extremely active democrats.
No one, right or left, should think their political stance somehow compensates for what they do for people around them. You do more for saving this great country by being a great parent, spouse, and neighbor, than any political activity.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/7/2010 @ 8:21 pmOne more thought about Castle: the state GOP in Delaware has been quite lame for a long time, and this primary hopefully leads to the party itself being fixed. Not necessarily going to happen, but it should. If O’Donnell goes down too hard, it may actually cement the old RINOs.
What would be truly awesome would be if Palin or someone like her were to make a large show of turning a state’s party on its heels. Promoting local precinct leaders all the way up to the state’s party leaders, replacing knuckleheads with Tea Party folks devoted to limited government.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/7/2010 @ 8:30 pmActually not that surprising, piranha’s behave better than the Delaware GOP, they haven’t bothered to really challenge Biden or Carper, they have let
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/7/2010 @ 8:33 pmtheir enrollment figures, linger. This does seem to be a pattern whether here in Florida, Alaska, certainly California, has lost any real sense of a party apparatus
She has certainly tried, but the old guard in the state, headed by Ruedrich, has pushed back hard, the Miller campaign is certainly emblematic of her fight against the oligarchy that stands behind Lisa, and she is really worth all the contempt you have heaped upon Christine, Carney in the Washington Examiner has the diagram
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/7/2010 @ 8:39 pmhttp://www.gliffy.com/publish/2266883/
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/7/2010 @ 8:41 pm__________________________________
Would that we all were.
The following has done more to turn me off of liberalism and liberals than almost anything else. That and, of course, the left’s often absurd, gut-wrenching lack of common sense.
Keep in mind that “progressive” sentiment tends to be strongest when people are young and particularly foolish and naive. So liberalism, in effect, is born BAD. In essence, it’s kind of like a bad seed.
^ If George W Bush truly were aware of this facet of reality — of human nature and liberal versus conservative sentiment — he wouldn’t have fallen for the lame stereotype that “lefties” love to perpetuate. Namely, he wouldn’t have gone out of his way back in 2000 to dig up the phrase “compassionate conservatism,” as sort of a back-handed, qualified compliment of non-liberal people.
Mark (3e3a7c) — 10/7/2010 @ 9:02 pm_________________________________________
One more thought about Castle: the state GOP in Delaware has been quite lame for a long time
Dustin, I don’t disagree one iota about your preferences when it comes to policy and philosophy in general. However, you have to realize that Delaware is a state full of liberals. Therefore, the Republican Party and non-liberal people in Delaware (I won’t even say conservatives) have to be placed in that context. So such places need to be treated as though they’re a School for the Learning Disabled or an Academy of the Blind and Handicapped—-or I guess in today’s lingo that should be “Academy of the Sight Impaired and Physically Challenged.”
Mark (3e3a7c) — 10/7/2010 @ 9:11 pmIs that why the ‘blue liberal states’ generally pay more tax than they receive in federal support while ‘red conservative states’ where most of the bitchy teabaggers live, are get more federal money than they pay in taxes?
Must be born bad.
w (9df40f) — 10/7/2010 @ 9:13 pmI don’t mean to heap contempt upon Christine. Her character is crap and I think we can’t win tough fights with folks like that these days. Her gen election campaign is DOA. If it weren’t, I would be hoping she won, of course, despite the potential for a scandal in a few years, or squish voting like Castle’s.
Her actual scandals are just petty things that make her unelectable.
The scorn I have to Murkowski is 1000X greater. We could do better in that state than Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski. We could do better in SC than Graham. Or AZ than Mccain. These are examples of compromises that are stupid to make.
When I talk about compromises we have to swallow, I’m referring to Fiorina or Brown. And even then, if an electable and more conservative challenger shows up, I’m ready for an upgrade.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/7/2010 @ 9:15 pmLOL. Too true.
I still hope to see state parties completely overhauled by Tea Party folks. It won’t be seamless or perfect, but I think it will lead to a cleaner party that over time is more appealing.
You cite the core problem. The state is full of idiot liberals. We’ve got to broaden the number of people with faith in the GOP.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/7/2010 @ 9:30 pmThe troll non sequitur hits just keep on coming.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/7/2010 @ 9:33 pmw – How are those blue state budget deficits coming along? How about those nice big urban environments managed by democrat machines for decades? Are you proud of them?
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/7/2010 @ 9:43 pm“One more thought about Castle: the state GOP in Delaware has been quite lame for a long time”
Look who they nominated to challenge Biden in 08!
imdw (0275b8) — 10/8/2010 @ 5:10 amhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2SNzk0NKVQ
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/8/2010 @ 5:55 amSPQR and daley – “w” is the Professor of Plagiarism, William Yelverton. That whole wignut welfare nonsense is one of his common talking points, based on a flawed and skewed “study”.
JD (6ca166) — 10/8/2010 @ 6:55 amJD – Thanks for the heads up. Not up to speed on Yelverton. He was last seen here as Pam.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/8/2010 @ 7:03 amThe key to winning elections & rebuilding the courts is having the Tea Party members to continue to believe in the mission. The Rino-sores need to buy a vowel. You expect the TP to bend to your logic; instead you should consider what you can do to feed the wave. This includes figuring out why the GOP let the Perot voters go back to sleep after Bush 41 broke his oath. You are correct, some folks need to revise their thinking — find a mirror & take a long look.
wizard61 (5244ce) — 10/8/2010 @ 12:31 pm