1 I am shocked, shocked that Eric Ericson is listed as a sponsor.

2 Ahh the GOP...never missing a chance to blow momentum.

3 Drew M tweeted about it being DeMint's fault...

4 "In fact, Senator Jim DeMintÂ’s unilateral efforts to bring constitutional small government conservatives into the Senate has encouraged many conservatives to stay within the Republican Party, vote for Republican candidates, and even may have staved off formation of a third party and the demise of the Republican Party."


How's that wrong, exactly?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unilateral

Definition of UNILATERAL1 a : done or undertaken by one person or party
b : of, relating to, or affecting one side of a subject : one-sided
c : constituting or relating to a contract or engagement by which an express obligation to do or forbear is imposed on only one party 2 a : having parts arranged on one side <a unilateral raceme>
b : occurring on, performed on, or affecting one side of the body or one of its parts <unilateral exophthalmos> 3 : unilineal 4 : having only one side — uni·lat·er·al·ly adverb .example-sentences ol.collapsed-list li.hidden { display: none; }li.more-sent-link { background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% transparent; }#content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link a.more-link, #content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link a.hide-link { color: rgb(113, 114, 116); font-family: verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-variant: normal; text-decoration: none; }#content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link a.more-link:hover .text, #content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link a.hide-link:hover .text { text-decoration: underline; }.example-sentences ol.expanded-list a.more-link, .example-sentences ol.collapsed-list a.hide-link { display: none; }#content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link span.icon { padding-right: 2px; }Examples of UNILATERALOur country is prepared to take unilateral action.First Known Use of UNILATERAL1802

5 Gabe, you h8ter.

6

Social conservatism had little to do with most of these wins.

C'mon GOP, quit this inside baseball nonsense.

7 I wonder if DeMint is embarrassed by this.  I'd like to think he is.

8 Wasn't Madcowflopski dissing DeMint today for some outrageous outrage or other? He wanted the Senate to be kosher but she wants lots o' fatted pork on the menu?

I'm not surprised that Erickson would sign on to this. Red State is as knee-jerk orthodox about conservatism as Kos is about wacko liberalism and Tepid Air is about squishiness and Boss Emeritus-worship.

9 Also Gabe, conservatism, both social and fiscal, as if they can be separated, is about following the Constitution & Declaration of Independence.  What part of those documents don't you believe in?

10 As usual, Malor, you have very little idea what you're talking about

Who died and make you referee of your paradigm of intra-Party struggles?

( did I spell all them words right, Ma'am? )

11 #8. Should be: knee-jerk orthodox about inside-the Beltway, inside-baseball conservatism.

Erickson is part of the Establishment in his own mind, and no doubt is awaiting his personal call to action from such Glorious Republicans as Mitch McConnell and the never-popular Newtie Gingrich.

12 Jim DeMint started the recession.

13 Jim DeMint Revolution !!! YaYY!

14 Oh, and one more thing Gabe, where did you get the term DeMint Fanboi?

15 I'm not surprised that Erickson would sign on to this. Red State is as knee-jerk orthodox about conservatism as Kos is about wacko liberalism and Tepid Air is about squishiness and Boss Emeritus-worship.

How DARE you say that Erick is KNEE-JERK?  Do you even know what that word means?  What kind of COWARD are you?  WE are here and WE are strong and WE will not be silenced again!  Erick is a GREAT man and has done far more for conservatism than any of you EVER will and if you don't like that you can just GET OUT of Erick's HOUSE!

16

Of course there is backlash. I love how they can criticize others in the GOP, but no one can criticize them. They dump on one side for being  kingmankers and then appoint themselves kingmakers, while exploiting the Tea Party 

I support organic Tea Parties groups. But these outside groups want to jump into races, dump millions, slander the reputations of good people and no one can say boo when they fail.

The DeMint fanbois went on the attack against Dan Coats, Kelly Ayotte, Jane Norton, Sue Lowden, Carly Fiorina, Mark, Kirk, Bill McCollum, Henry McMaster ... and a bunch of other decent candidates. Its a fair process. But accept some responsibility when you lose, expecially after you dump millions into races and often use scurrilous tactics. 

Its going to be real tough to move on and fight in 2012  in DE, CO, and NV after they firebombed those states and left the local pary in shambles.

Jim DeMint dumped $500,000 of national Tea Party money into NH to tear down a winning full spectrum conservative like Kelly Ayotte. And no one can say boo about poor Jim DeMint.

17

Posted by: Neil Stevens at November 17, 2010 09:20 PM (uCjoj)

You are not the real Neil Stevens.  We will not tolerate this kind of trickery here.  G'BYE.

18 Big pot of shit meet shit stirrer.

19 Hey, this is a guy who was duly elected by the people who go to the polls by the hundreds of thousands in order to elect luminaries ranging from Marc Sanford to Lindsay Graham to Alvin Greene.
Give him the benefit of the doubt.

20 Gabe, I'm a TP leader (Missouri Sovereignty Project - mosov.org).  Man you need to ease up a bit.  SoCons are not permeating the TP movement.  Yes, DeMint is developing into an icon among us for his steadfast fiscal positions and his enduring battle against RINO leadership, but that hardly means he's offering himself up for sacrifice at a Christian alter.

The vast majority of the TPers are solidly founded in the understanding that we need to haul this country back from the brink using the fiscal and constitutional methods.

21 I support organic Tea Parties groups. But these outside groups want to jump into races, dump millions, slander the reputations of good people and no one can say boo when they fail.

That's right, you can't!  Now get off the blog!

22 Completely agree with the tone and spirit of the letter, and I don't care who signed it. DeMint has been an exemplary leader during these dark days of hopeandchange. to see him get dumped on by the ruling class rinos is sickening.

23 Posted by: Countrysquire at November 17, 2010 09:09 PM (cF32V)

What is this "it" to which you refer?

24 I love the smell of purity in the evening.  Strike up the fire-pit morons, I'm ready to put some heads on splits and get my purge on.  Who's with me!!!

25  Also Gabe, conservatism, both social and fiscal, as if they can be separated, is about following the Constitution & Declaration of Independence.  What part of those documents don't you believe in?

Posted by: Countrysquire at November 17, 2010 09:13 PM (cF32V)

When did you stop beating your wife?

26 WTF is this "Civil War Wednesday" or something?

27 Please. Do. Not. Eat. DeMint.

28 But accept some responsibility when you lose, expecially after you dump millions into races and often use scurrilous tactics.

They won't.  They're digging their heels in even more after having their asses handed to them all over the country, and rationalizing it by saying they didn't really want to win anyway; they just wanted to cleanse the party and that was good enough.

Like the Left, they believe they're on a crusade against EVIL, and when you're dealing with EVIL anything goes.  It would be nice if they'd focus on the evil in the other party every once in a while, though.

29 It = DeMint hurting the election.

30 Senator DeMint Got Slapped!

31 28 WTF is this "Civil War Wednesday" or something?

Posted by: steevy at November 17, 2010 09:25 PM (MuXpZ)

Oh, you ain't seen nothin' yet. Palin gave an interview in which she said she believes she can beat Obama and is strongly considering a run in 2012. Let the games commence!

32 Ah...It's always the womens' fault. BS

33 Damn. Want to come work at my site? Even we aren't that efficient.

Sorry Cahrles, but you aren't paranoid enough.  G'BYE.

34 wow, thank God I'm an Independent...cause this is as close to a hissy fit on paper that I've ever read.....Masterfully crafted, but a hissy fit, nonetheless....

35

Oh, you ain't seen nothin' yet. Palin gave an interview in which she said she believes she can beat Obama and is strongly considering a run in 2012. Let the games commence!

Posted by: joncelli at November 17, 2010 09:27 PM

I think she meant she's a better dancer and honestly, having seen the Bamster on Ellen, I expect she is.

36 Funny thing, no links to the orgs of the people that signed this.  If you write a petition and try to get "prominent" people to sign it, don't you do the courtesy of linking to their organization's website?

And what's the deal with the Bush hatred in the banner?  Somebody should tell Dick that Bush ain't president anymore.  The "get out" message on the website is so nice and friendly.

37 You know what I didn't see? People saying that it was Jim DeMint's fault.



I saw it, can't remember who it was, possibly fish face Murkowski.

38 30 But accept some responsibility when you lose, expecially after you dump millions into races and often use scurrilous tactics.

They won't.  They're digging their heels in even more after having their asses handed to them all over the country, and rationalizing it by saying they didn't really want to win anyway; they just wanted to cleanse the party and that was good enough.

Tell me about it.

39

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

This is absolute nuts. No one is off limits for criticism and if they want to take their ball and go home, let them. I hope it doesn't come to that. We are living in an economic crisis therefore fiscal conservatism must take the lead. Let's argue about the rest later.

And much as there is to like about DeMint, I criticise him if I choose, when I choose and where.

40 29 Please. Do. Not. Eat. DeMint.

Posted by: De Washroom Attendant at November 17, 2010 09:26 PM (nR7pG)

Early threadwinner. We can all go home now.

41 let it be known that continued attacks, whether indirectly or anonymously, will result in conservativesÂ’ responding in word and deed.

I wish they would do this when Liberals attack.  Sigh.

42 Yeah, here it is.

43 Oh, let me dig up something I said in the last Demint thread:

So where are all the "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" Republicans?  The so-called moderates are all big-spenders.  Huge spenders, as we're finding out.

44 48

Thread winner so far.

45 44 - RINO!  you're first against the wall.

46 And anyway, Gabe only hates Demint because he's one of the few politicians who isn't a lawyer. /obligatory entirely-deserved lawyer-bashing

47

One of those on this list is the disgraced moron former chairman of the VA GOP, Jeff Frederick, who should be in hiding after the massive assfucking the party took under his tenure.

Which tells me all I need to know about this letter.

Holy shit, nice catch there, Chris.  Seriously, Jeff Frederick shouldn't be allowed to leave his house without being chased w/tar & feathers by VA conservatives.  What an incomparable disaster.

48 Lets not forget this bit of genius (http://bit.ly/d2vHcL) from Demint... way to start a civil war on the right mate?

49 Posted by: Countrysquire at November 17, 2010 09:27 PM (cF32V)

No, what I said was his picks hurt us in a couple of states (NV, CO and DE iirc). It was pointed out to me right away he did a lot of good as well which I immediately acknowledged. It was all in reaction to his 'you can't be a conservative if you aren't a social conservative' crap.

My bottom line is if a guy like DeMint is going to get invovled in so many elections (including primaries) it's fair to point out when his choices cost us. His supporters can't say (as they do in this manifesto) you can only praise him for doing good but not criticize when it doesn't pan out for us.

In order to be fair to him, I specifically made it a point to agree with someone today on Twitter who noted you can't blame DeMint for Republicans not winning the Senate this year.

50 This is turning into a GREAT thread, btw.  I love the clowning on RedState's ban-happy mods.

51 It's what Reagan would have done, you RINO douchebag.

Bullshit, Mark.  Reagan would have signed on to a Disney cruise that would magically whisk him around the world so that he could stop off at each of the 53 Freedom Concerts I have lined up this weekend.  Now get that RINO producer of yours to play the Lee Greenwood cover of "When You Wish Upon a Star" again or GTFO.

52 Well, one of those guys I have known personally for twenty plus years and have a great of respect for him. Personally, I would like to know what they are refering to before jumping all over them.

53 his 'you can't be a conservative if you aren't a social conservative' crap.

Read #49 for me.  My argument is that Demint is simply using the scientific method.  Although fiscal conservatives can exist independently of social conservatives, there seems to be no evidence that this has ever actually occurred.

54 I think that this is far less a battle between social and fiscal conservatives and much more an establishment versus the base fight. Don't let others define our engagementw with each other. I am a Tea Partier and I hate what the country clubbers ddo to Palin and Demint. But we can't develop manifestos declaring no dissent allowed!

55 61 I think that this is far less a battle between social and fiscal conservatives and much more an establishment versus the base fight.

I agree.  It's also cultural and class-oriented.

Wal-Mart vs. J.Crew, if you will.

56

Great advice "grow up"

This coming in a post titled Fanbois Unite!

57 62 61 I think that this is far less a battle between social and fiscal conservatives and much more an establishment versus the base fight.

I agree.  It's also cultural and class-oriented.

Wal-Mart vs. J.Crew, if you will.

Whatever it is, some half-witted declaration against those who dare speak ill isn't doing anybody any good. 

58 Posted by: DrewM. at November 17, 2010 09:35 PM (HicGG)

Did DeMint actually endorse Angle and Buck in the primaries?  The only reason I ask is there are people blaming Palin for Angle and Buck too, but she didn't endorse Angle until she won the primary, and she never endorsed Buck at all.

59 wow, Batchelor has these two libs on who have been handicapping the races and now they are revealing themselves to be true California libs....

Carla Marinucci, appears to be thrilled that Meg spent so much money and lost and that she had to pay the illegal money today in court.  Interesting, Carla is insisting there was no "monkey business".....makes you wonder.

And Jeff Bliss is no better....

60 Ehh, I joined the R party only recently and I supported Buck in CO. Yeah turns out that Soros managed to smear Buck and he lost and " no she is the big government one" attacks on Norton would probably have fallen as flat as they did on Gardner. But don't blame Jim DeMint for the GOP establishment in Colorado being a bunch of morons. Look at the governor's race here before saying DeMint and any outsiders had much effect.

61 Coincidentally, are the people who signed this declaration going to be a 3rd party at the Westboro Baptist vs. Dearborn Islamic Center mentioned below.  Would be one hell of a cult throw down.

62

You know what I didn't see? People saying that it was Jim DeMint's fault.

Do you read the fuckin news Gabe?

As reported yesterday by politico, Lisa Murkowski said Jim DeMint cost republicans the senate.

http://tinyurl.com/2vx3ku7

If I bothered to look, I could find another senator saying so much not too long ago - I forget which - and numerous anonymous staffers.

Should have let it go without comment.

63 Sarah Palin sent hired goons to rape my pet chinchilla in '05.

64 Why is this important? Is 'conservativehq.com' somebody?

65 Posted by: AmishDude at November 17, 2010 09:37 PM (T0NGe)

Dick Cheney supports same sex marriage. I'm going to guess that's not on the DeMint approved social-con list. Is Dick Cheney not a conservative?

I'm betting there are lots of conservatives who would disagree with DeMint's notion that sexual active singles are unfit to be teachers.

That's just two off the top of my head but I'm sure there are plenty of others examples.

So no, I think it's perfectly possible to be conservative and not sign on with DeMint's vision of social conservatism.

66 Whatever it is, some half-witted declaration against those who dare speak ill isn't doing anybody any good.

No kidding.  It's little more than a "No Girls Allowed" sign.

I have a suspicion that some people who signed this didn't know exactly what they were signing.  Honestly, I'd never heard of this website, but I have seen Dick Viguerie's name.  Gabe, where did you stumble upon this?

67 The thought of a couple of dicks touching makes me a bit unsettled.

68 73 And of course there are places where you either need a 1) all around squish or 2) someone who is going to nuance the issue or focus on fiscal issues, which is something I don't think the DeMint crowd gets (or they get and simply refuse to accept)

I think they just don't care.  Castle v. CO'D showed that it's more about purgy purgeness and having 40 true-conservative senators then it is having a majority.

69 How come so many NYer's are not owning up to voting for Andy?   Is California the same way? 

70 I agree.  It's also cultural and class-oriented.

Wal-Mart vs. J.Crew, if you will.

Whatever it is, some half-witted declaration against those who dare speak ill isn't doing anybody any good. 

Posted by: Dunkirk at November 17, 2010 09:42 PM (nfaVd)

I think we're agreed on that. See? Progress already.

This social/fiscal thing is stupid anyway. Every conservative I know is fiscally consrevative (low taxes, less regulation, free trade and free markets). The split over social divisions has nothing to do with the first.

We can not take social conservatism out of the mix, but we can conjole, persuade, debate. That's the path to a more perfect union. Not threats.

We need each other and we're good together. Everything has a place and a time and as I pro-life woman I know every day costs lives. But we can't save them if we don't save ourselves. Let's get the Government and economy in order, seal the damned borders, fight to win abroad....then we'll talk marraige and morals.

71 The examples I can think of are probably Judd Gregg & Chris Christie.

I'll buy those, although I don't hear much about Gregg.

72 DEMINT ROCKS.

RNC SUX.

GOP EITHER GOES REAGAN RIGHT, OR WE ON THE RIGHT DUMP THE GOP'ERS WHO STAND IN OUR WAY.

THAT'S DEMOCRACY.

AS DEMINT HAS SAID:

A COHESIVE CONSERVATIVE MINORITY CAN DO MORE GOOD THAN A HODGE-PODGE OF RINOS IN MAJORITY.

73 Yes, I did miss that Murkowski blamed DeMint. Probably because I can't say that I actually care what Murkowski thinks. I also rather doubt that her opinion actually carries a lot of weight with people, but maybe Eric Erickson really cares what she thinks, right?

Oh, as far as the threats go to vote out people who criticize DeMint in GOP primaries: how'd that work out for Murkowski, Entropy?

74 I don't know about the letter, But if I have to choose between DeMint and Muckcowski that's easy.

I wouldn't give her the steam off my piss if it was 40 below.
SHE SUCKS.

75 My friend said he heard on the news that Bloomberg was thinking of running for president and his running mate would be Joe Scarborough.  Guess when Kasich won, Scarborough thought "ooo, I'll get a second chance".   Reporter said it hasn't been discussed by mayor mike and morning joe, directly but it has been hashed out by their staffs.

I would vote for romney before I'd vote for mayor mike.  heck I'd vote for BO before I'd vote for mayor mike.

76

Fiscal conservative versus social conservative. Establishment versus Tea Party.

My fight is 'Conservatives With Brains' versus 'Wishful Thinking Blockheads'.

Like when "RINO" "establishment" candidate, Chris Christie, fought "real" conservative and "outisder" Steve Lonegan.  And people from places like rural Texas and rural Georgia, whose sole method of activism is surfing the internet all day, convinced themsleves that Lonegan can win and that Christie is giant piece of suck.

Meanwhile, the people who actually would have to suffer and live in  New Jersey under Jim Corzine are called RINOs, squishes, mushes, traitors, losers, and liberals for not engaging in nihilism and for trying to protect their families, fortunes and their livlihoods.

77 Umm, well I voted for Buck because I felt he would be a fiscal conservative and Norton not so much. I'm not a social conservative except in the limited sense of feeling like 'so-cons' don't have power to change policy anytime soon but they are very nearly persecuted in today's world.

78 Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at November 17, 2010 09:44 PM (i+2F9)

You make a great point.

I was wrong, he didn't endorse Angle before the primary.

He did endorse Buck very early and he did endorse O'Donnell.

Truth be told, I don't think these endorsements mean much for the most part. I just don't like the idea that someone is beyond criticism (though it should be legitimate and as I said, I was wrong about DeMint and Angle) or only be open to praise.

79

I seem to remember quite a bit of mud slinging at DeMint from pols, pundits, and Senators after the elections.    Sorry if you don't recall any of that, Gabe.

People can bitch and moan and blame whomever they like for the losses.   There is enough fault to go around, and there is not any one person to blame. 

Love the righteous indignation, though.

80 Amish, it was getting batted around on twitter when I got home from work. Actually they were referring to a "DeMint loyalty oath" and I was all: "wha??"

It turned out to be this instead, which -- to be fair -- isn't anything like a loyalty oath. Still not cool, still a little cult-like, but not what I expected at first.

81

Posted by: Chris in Va at November 17, 2010 09:47 PM (uCjoj)

I never got the point of the whole LaMontaigne thing.  Ayotte is as rock-solid a conservative as anybody out there, and she won big in a purple-ish state that Obozo won in '08.

82 I trust DeMint and Palin only.

83 Posted by: curious at November 17, 2010 09:49 PM (p302b)

Don't look at me. I voted for the Libertarian.

I really should have voted for the former madame. She had a better handle on libertarianism than the Libertarian guys did.

84 Posted by: reliapundit at November 17, 2010 09:50 PM (mxfev)

Let's see, declaration of war against own party; check....  slavish devotion to a single personality; check....  proclamation of indifference toward winning elections; check....  ALL CAPS; check....

You've met all our criteria; welcome home!  Just don't ratchet the anger down and for God's sake don't get out of line or it'll be G'BYE.

85 I give Gabriel's post a solid B+, which means, well, it pretty much sucked.

86 69 Coincidentally, are the people who signed this declaration going to be a 3rd party at the Westboro Baptist vs. Dearborn Islamic Center mentioned below.  Would be one hell of a cult throw down.

Posted by: Dunkirk at November 17, 2010 09:44 PM (nfaVd)

Why, thank you very much. Nothing I like more than seeing a member of my church get referred to as a cult member

87 I don't know, maybe it has to do with being on the West Coast, but all this talk of the impact of DeMint endorsements seems overblown (which unsettles me). My first reaction is "who?", then I remember he's a Senator.

88 Oh & G'bye.

You can't ban ME, mister.  G'BYE.

Unless, of course, you're an imposter masquerading as Neil, in which case my judgment has slipped and I have to ban myself.  G'BYE, ME.

89 Dick Cheney supports same sex marriage. I'm going to guess that's not on the DeMint approved social-con list. Is Dick Cheney not a conservative?

I'm betting there are lots of conservatives who would disagree with DeMint's notion that sexual active singles are unfit to be teachers.

That's just two off the top of my head but I'm sure there are plenty of others examples.

So no, I think it's perfectly possible to be conservative and not sign on with DeMint's vision of social conservatism.

DrewM, it's interesting that you determine social conservatism by sexual morality and almost exclusively sexual morality.  I'm not sure that DeMint was all that specific in his quote on how he defines social conservatism although he's said other things in the past.

Here's what happens: You want abortion?  Fine, how do poor women get them?  Yep.  Taxpayers.  Once you open the door on something like abortion, the liberals charge in with a whole host of

What is the fight over "same-sex marriage"?  It's over whether states should issue marriage licenses.  That's an issue about government.  I don't think DeMint is proposing bursting in on commitment ceremonies or anything of the sort.

Sexually active teachers?  In private schools or in public schools? 

See what I mean?  Social conservatives have a vested interest in fiscal conservatism because the government acts against their interests and so they are more acutely aware of its tentacles.  If you're socially liberal, it takes a lot of extra effort to get worked up about it all.

90 I mean to finish the following paragraph:

Here's what happens: You want abortion?  Fine, how do poor women get them?  Yep.  Taxpayers.  Once you open the door on something like abortion, the liberals charge in with a whole host of programs to pay for it.

91 If you want a truce on social issues, then stop pushing gay marriage and DADT! It is that simple.

92 103 If you want a truce on social issues, then stop pushing gay marriage and DADT! It is that simple.

This is also a good point, the socons are almost exclusively on defense.  They get almost no support when they go on offense (like the teacher thing).

93 Why do you want to beat up on Senator DeMint when we should by trying to send the message to the McLames and Grahamnesties et al to move right, quit kissing progressives rears and take back the Senate in 2 years.  Reid lost to Angle for more than one reason, fraud being number one & Murkokey using political Daddy clout in AK to steal the election from Miller. Yeah, they all need to answer to the left more aggressively, but scum RINOs are the problem here, not Conservatives.  Get over it.  Do you think Murky got McConnell to join DeMint on the NoPork issue?  I think not.  Murky is demanding DeMint apologize to her!! Jeeze people - we are eating our own.
And wtf is it w/calling DeMint dear leader? 

94

There are no imagined slights to Demint - the hostility is toward him is very out in the open.  And it is of the same nature as the hostility toward Palin among the elitist Republicans.  They want to be rid of this troublesome priest. 

Net-net Palin and Demint endorsees were positives to the party.  Demint isn't a rockstar, but he helped get money places.  And if you recall the indictment of Steele, money didn't get places it could have worked.  Like RSMcCain constantly points out - like Cornyn getting $10M into Crist's hot little hands. That was good money after bad. 

Recall, Rubio couldn't win, either, and he was a too conservative upstart combatting an establishment candidate who was a shoe-in. 

The Republican circular firing squad is NOT the Demint "fanbois" who take offense to the ire raised at Demint, it is the people in the Republican leadership who are actively trying to get Demint out of the Republican leadership.  The same kind of folks who think their most important mission is keeping Palin out of the Presidential race. 

 

 

 

 

95 For the record, I do not believe in nagging outside of marriage.

96

Yes, I did miss that Murkowski blamed DeMint. Probably because I can't say that I actually care what Murkowski thinks. I also rather doubt that her opinion actually carries a lot of weight with people, but maybe Eric Erickson really cares what she thinks, right?

Blah blah blah blah the whole post is bitching about a flase premise. You want more examples of others I can get them too.... but I might as well go read the NYT if I want to have to argue with the wall about glaring factual errors.

Siezing victimhood? Imaginary slights? The whole tone of the post is set upon a plain falsehood. You're free to your own opinion, but not your facts - and you can't help interlacing your snark on that point throughout the whole thing, coloring the perspective, despite the fact that the kickoff premise is total bullshit on a stick.

And that's precisely the reason I don't read NYT op-eds.

Oh, as far as the threats go to vote out people who criticize DeMint in GOP primaries: how'd that work out for Murkowski, Entropy?

Oh, threats shmeats. I can't really threaten them with that. I plan to do that no matter what they do. I was pretty much already planning that last Tuesday before they spoke up.

I don't really care what the Alaskan Mafia pulled off either. If you try you might not win, but if you don't try, you'll never win.

97 WE are purely fiscal conservatives. So death panels are fine. We need to reduce spending in any case.

98 Posted by: AmishDude at November 17, 2010 10:00 PM (T0NGe)

Nah, there's more to it. It's late and I'm not writing a long post on it. Those were just two off the top of my head.

You write, "Sexually active teachers?  In private schools or in public schools?"

What possible difference could it possibly make? Assume he's talking about public school teachers, you can be an economic conservative and not give a shit what teachers do in their private lives. If DeMint thinks the public shouldn't be employing people who live their private lives in a way he doesn't approve of and the government should sanction them by not hiring them, then I'd say that's beyond the pale.

Am I not a conservative because I don't give a shit what public employees do in their off hours and not using public funds?

99 I would vote for romney before I'd vote for mayor mike.  heck I'd vote for BO before I'd vote for mayor mike.

Let's not crazy now. Steady.

100 Gay marriage and DADT is obviously so self-righteous that only a "conservative" fascist like Demint can oppose it.

101 Still not cool, still a little cult-like, ...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 17, 2010 09:54 PM (XVaFd)

More than a little.  These purity tests guys are really pissing me off.  That "go away" sign on the banner is infuriating.

I hope tea party leaders learned some lessons.  Good candidates lost and bad candidates won because they were too eager for purity.  I'm not talking about CO'D.  That primary was a sine qua non of sorts.

Candidates matter, especially for the Senate and Governor.  In some states, you need a good candidate to sell conservatism to the skeptical.  Chris Christie can really change New Jersey.

But if you pick somebody out of obscurity who can't do the business of politics, a whole bunch of negative ads can wear down the electorate.

102

Meanwhile, the people who actually would have to suffer and live in  New Jersey under Jim Corzine are called RINOs, squishes, mushes, traitors, losers, and liberals for not engaging in nihilism and for trying to protect their families, fortunes and their livlihoods.

Posted by: Swamp_Yankee at November 17, 2010 09:52 PM (3DIBw)

You all should have taken it on the chin for True Conservatism. Now the GOP Brand is forever tarnished with the taint of RINO-ism. Sure you and your family would have been impoverished and less free, but just think, 90% of all bloggers would agree that it was the Democrats' fault. And really, isn't that more important?

103 In short, grow up. The GOP just made massive gains in the House and Senate. Instead of pulling together to kick the shit out of Obama and the Democrats during the lame duck, you want to beat up your fellow conservatives and Republicans for imaginary slights to your Senator Dear Leader.
Yeah. Save that for shitting on COD as costing the election like we rationalist libertarian types did/do.

104 How come "moderates" never accept any blame when they flame out?

105 Posted by: DrewM. at November 17, 2010 09:54 PM (HicGG)

Thanks.

I have a couple more points to make on CO and NV: 

-As shitty a candidate as Buck was (granted, Bennett is even shittier), he probably could have pulled it off had it not been for that clusterfuck of a Governor's race depressing R turnout.  But he didn't do himself any favors by repeatedly insulting Republican women and throwing a temper-tantrum because Dennis Prager, Hugh Hewitt, and Sarah Palin did an event in CO on the night of his coronation. (Inside scoopage on the primary:  Palin was going to endorse Norton and had one of her staffers leak some rumors to that effect on Twitter and Facebook to test the waters.  There was such an immediate and massive backlash amongst her supporters and Tea Party types that she decided to stay out of it.)

-In NV, I'll grant you that Angle was a horseshit candidate (ANYBODY that can't beat a POS like Reid is, by definition, a horseshit candidate).  But I have a hard time believing that Lowden was any less gaffe-prone, given the fact that she suggested on two separate occasions, without any hint of sarcasm, that we should barter chickens for health care.  Sorry, but the idea of live poultry (shitting all over, infested with lice, and potentially disease-carrying) being brought to a health-care facility in exchange for services rendered is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard (and you would need cart along a hundred chickens to pay for the most trivial procedure).  Tarkanian was probably the most grounded of the three, but he was seen as a vanity-candidate that never had a chance.

106

Gay marriage and DADT are such minor unimportant things right now.

I constantly debate this with liberal queers. You are willing to burn down Rome for the right to change the definition of a centuries old social/religous tradition designed to provide the best foundation to rear healthy happy children and the offer by many for civil unions is an insult? That's bullshit. It's rich kids fighting for the toys. We can share lives, buy homes, work and be accepted in our communities because this is the greatest nation on earth and our people are generally good people. Try being queer in 'Palistine" and then talk to me about gay marriage.

DADT? Also stupid. You can and do serve. Most people around you already know but you cant stand up and say I'm queer. What's the big deal? The military is about conformity. Want to be flamboyant? Be a dancer not a soldier.

Let's lay this aside right now and do the heavy lifting we need to do to complete the fundamental transformation of the elitist government we live under.

 

107 113 I would vote for romney before I'd vote for mayor mike.  heck I'd vote for BO before I'd vote for mayor mike.

Let's not crazy now. Steady.

No, I can almost see her point.  Almost.  Bloomberg is *that* bad. 

108 Gay marriage and DADT are such minor unimportant things right now.

But they are super important to the purely fiscal conservatives!

109 Gabe, I think I love you. But I don't know for sure.....wild thing.

110 Assume he's talking about public school teachers, you can be an economic conservative and not give a shit what teachers do in their private lives.

Do you remember the story about the high school girls who had a "pregnancy pact"? http://tinyurl.com/4pz6my

Now, if you're raising a teenage girl, do you want a role model like a teacher happily enjoying the pleasures of motherhood?  In the case of Gloucester High, the role model was an 18-year-old senior.

I'm not saying it's the right solution to that particular problem, but surely you can see the connection.

If DeMint thinks the public shouldn't be employing people who live their private lives in a way he doesn't approve of and the government should sanction them by not hiring them, then I'd say that's beyond the pale.

Note he isn't saying that social workers can't be sexually promiscuous or that the 911 operators can't be or, frankly, anyone else on the government payroll.  You see him as exercising a judgment and attempting to impose his will against behavior he doesn't like because of some kind of desire for control.

(I contend that most people who speculate on motivations of others are engaging in psychological projection, BTW.)

In any case, the focus on school teachers is one of his rights as a parent to raise his children as he sees fit.  And the difference between public school and private school is all the difference in the world.

Public schools are funded by Sen. DeMint, against his will, and in a way in which his values are ignored, preventing him from exercising his ability to raise his children according to those values.

Hence, he has an interest in vouchers or the like.  But the squishy "fiscal con" simply accepts the public school as-is and merely fights over how it is run.

111
If Jim DeMint had been alive at the Alamo, would he have been Jim Bowie, William Travis, Davey Crockett-

or Pat Caddell?

112 Every fucking month there is a new conservative for the Fanboys. Christie, Ryan, Pawlenty, DeMint, Thune, etc.
Quit looking for a freakin' Messiah and you might find a decent President.

113 It's obvious the 'Good Old Boys' in the Republican Party have it out for Demint, who they see as a threat to the 'business as usual' gravy train.  If you don't see that, you're a moron - and not the good kind.

114 Quit looking for a freakin' Messiah and you might find a decent President.

I don't want DeMint to be president. I want a fiscally conservative president who  has the moral certitude to support gay marriage and to repeal DADT. This is so obviously righteous that we can't oppose it.

115 It's obvious the 'Good Old Boys' in the Republican Party have it out for Demint, who they see as a threat to the 'business as usual' gravy train. If you don't see that, you're a moron - and not the good kind. ^^^ This.

116

I think there is also some backlash because Demint said something to the effect that you can't really be a fiscal conservative without being a social conservative.  And a lot of people who like boobies are all like, oh, Hell no! 

Except that this isn't an outlandish point of view.  I recall it being fairly standard fare in 1994.  Now, to some extent that is passe in that TARP blows away "welfare" in its scope but I think that the point still holds.  I went to the Beck rally and it was highly Tea Party and it was very religious in its tone.  There seemed to be a lot of "family values" there. 

If you reduce so-con to simply anti-abortion and anti-gay-marriage, I think you miss the point.  No, that isn't what the Tea Parties are about.  But neither is that what social conservativism is.   It doesn't mean you have to be part of the no-fun brigade.  I think Beck is a prime example - he represents, I think, where social conservatism is today.  

 

 

 

117

Here's a perfect example of hypocrisy from the purists regarding Ken Buck.

When it looked like Palin was going to back Norton (She gave Norton high praise and Palin did take viability and was much more reasonable with her early endorsements of  Fiorina and Ayotte to the lament of DeVore and Ovide fans),

Ken Buck attacked Palin for the intrusion. He called her appearence in Colorado "rude" and his campaign talked about respecting the local grass roots, which was utterly ridiculous.

Buck had been trailing Norton badly all year until Redstate, Jim DeMint and some national talk show hosts decided to put Ken Buck on their backs. Buck's campaign was not driven by the local grass roots. The local activists invovled early were behind Norton. Buck was the product of outside interference. But when Sarah Palin looked like she was going to back Norton, they all started to whine about outisde interference. Only they get to be kingmakers.

 

118 I think there is also some backlash because Demint said something to the effect that you can't really be a fiscal conservative without being a social conservative.

Who cares about social values? We are in a big hole financially right now. We need to cut spending drastically. So what is wrong with death panels?

119  
"Several social conservatives..."

-Gabe

Nowhere in that declaration is anything mentioned about social conservatism as having anything to do with this. None of the undersigned identified themselves as social conservatives and several of those who signed would not be considered social conservatives.

Project much Gayb? You've got "gay" on the brain.

"Instead of pulling together to kick the shit out of Obama and the Democrats during the lame duck, you want to beat up your fellow conservatives..."

-Gabe

No boi, it's Rinos we're going after. You drew the lines, set the rules and took the first shot with Delaware- now we answer back. Fuck the Pedocrats- they can wait till we've worked this out. You Rinos started this fight and we're going to finish it.

120 Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at November 17, 2010 10:18 PM (i+2F9)

Maybe but I think Buck's problem was women. He got killed there. It's a purple state and running a guy who says not only that he opposes abortion but won't include a rape or incest exception is asking for trouble. It may well be a defensible position but it's going to hurt in a place like Colorado.

He also wanted to criminalize abortion but couldn't say who would go to jail.

Add that to his shot at Norton about wearing high heels, the 'buyers remorse' crack about a rape victim and you get a guy who lost his race by like 2% while winning men by 14 and losing women by 16.

You have to think all of that added up to more than 2pts on the women's side.

As for Lowdon, yeah. Angle was awful but I didn't say anything because after the 'chicken' thing, how can you defend Lowdon?

121

79 How come so many NYer's are not owning up to voting for Andy?

Because the rent is too damn high!

122 But when Sarah Palin looked like she was going to back Norton, they all started to whine about outisde interference. Only they get to be kingmakers.

Sounds like politics.

123 Hence, he has an interest in vouchers or the like.  But the squishy "fiscal con" simply accepts the public school as-is and merely fights over how it is run.

Posted by: AmishDude at November 17, 2010 10:25 PM (T0NGe)

Sorry but I have to call bullshit on that.

There are tons of fiscal cons (probably like all of them) who favor school vouchers but it has nothing to do with who teachers are sleeping with.

124 Posted by: sartana at November 17, 2010 10:38 PM (abtaM)

Not cool.

125 No boi, it's Rinos we're going after.

Well, thank heaven.  For a while there we were afraid you electoral monoliths might be interested in going after Democrats.

126 There are tons of fiscal cons (probably like all of them) who favor school vouchers but it has nothing to do with who teachers are sleeping with.

Oh, but they'll be receptive to the argument that vouchers can't go to religious schools for 1st amendment reasons.

And they aren't as eagerly motivated as someone who sees the schools undermining his values.  The fiscons like vouchers, the socons need vouchers.

127 For a while there we were afraid you electoral monoliths might be interested in going after Democrats.

No we need to purge the Rep party of the backward SoCons who are opposing gay marriage, DADT, and death panels. We need to reach out the moderates out there.

128 damn.  dan riehl blocked me on twitter for calling him the goebbels of the right for hating on gabe.  i'm so dissapointed!

129

Posted by: AmishDude at November 17, 2010 10:45 PM (T0NGe)

Jim Demint the Lionheart is too true, pure and principled for raw politics and all the compromise, pragmatism, and pandering it entails. He should be emulated and worshipped by all true and real conservatives.

Only RINOS engage in politics. Slimey bastards.

130 Posted by: AmishDude at November 17, 2010 10:51 PM (T0NGe)

I love this line of argument. It's not enough that we agree with you on the policy but we don't agree for the right reasons, so we are squishes and you guys are the pure ones.

Why not just focus on the agreement (and those we both disagree with) instead of trying to set up some hierarchy of who is right for the best motives?

131 Finally a conservative blog that gets it.

132 AOSHQ once again carrying water for the GOP establishment. You on board with Lisa Murkowski yet?

133

I don't know if the LAI is a fricken sockpuppet or a parody or what. Death panels? Pro-Death Panel?

Ridiculous.

For one, that might actually be less popular than gay marriage with the electorate... Odd how the 'practical' ones want to compromise on issues in ways that 70%+ of the public don't support.

Purge anyone not for death panels? And I'm radical?? Hahahaha.

He's got to be a parody.

Fuck bankrupcy and fuck the schools and fuck the gays. I'm out for liberty. This guy may as well be Stalin.

He's advocating for the government to be allowed to kill people because it's financially expedient.

Whether or not they get to wear crowns is small potatos in comparison.

134
"Angle was awful..."

-DrewM.

You go ahead and fly that freak flag brother. Never any criticism of the Rinos Fiorina or Whitman, you save your vitriol only for the Tea Party candidates- and now you're supporting Murkowski.

What are the long-term prospects of a blog that's gone the Full Rino, yet whose readership seems overwhelmingly Tea Party? Ace, Drew, Gabe? Whatever Rino bigwigs who banked on you bois sure bet badly- big time.

135 BS I'll take DeMint and Palin over Castle Snortcokesky McConnell and the rest of the mods rinos and whinos in a heartbeat.

136  
"Not cool"
-Amish Dude

What are you talking about?

137 This guy may as well be Stalin.

He's advocating for the government to be allowed to kill people because it's financially expedient.

But it is fiscally conservative, man. It helped us save money. What 's wrong with that?

138 He's advocating for the government to be allowed to kill people because it's financially expedient.

Oh, it is better to give people the freedom to do the fiscally conservative thing. If you have a handicapped child (born or unborn), why not allow the parents to make the decision to free the child from their sorry existence? The same for old grandpa and grandma. We are in a big hole financially right now!

139 LAI is Paul Krugman.. Who knew?

140 You all do realize God will roast your stomachs in hell at the hands of Richard Viguerie, right?

141 Posted by: sartana at November 17, 2010 11:02 PM (abtaM)

Fiorina and Whitman? They were fucking running in California and they still lost. Do you honestly think the answer there were candidates that were more conservative?

Tell you what...why don't you purity types get rid of Lindsay Graham in SOUTH CAROLINA, Thad Chochran in MISSISSIPPI and Kay Bailey Hutchison in TEXAS before you lecture the rest of us about the importance of running pure blood conservatives in blue and purple states.

And yeah, Angle was a crappy candidate.

I love how you conveniently forget all the tea party House candidates we promoted here. Or people like Joe Miller, Ron Johnson and Marco Rubio (from the start, long before it was obvious he'd win).

142 The genocide of white Americans and Europeans continues.  Everyone at AOSHQ and other lamestream "conservative" websites are complicit in this genocide.

143

Most overused allegation that no longer has any social relevance – Racist.

Second most – RINO.

<sniff> How quickly they forget.

144 LAI is Paul Krugman.. Who knew?

A dead clock is right at least twice a day! Anyway, fiscal conservatism is the most important thing right now. So what 's wrong with death panels? From a fiscal conservative point of view, there is nothing wrong with it. We may not want to advocate it maybe because of political reasons - we don't want to antagonize the senior citizens. Otherwise, death panels especially by their own families are perfectly libertarian and fiscally conservative.

145 Based on #158, I'm guessing Stormfront is down for maintenance or something.

146 DrewM at #162 proves my point.

147

If you have a handicapped child (born or unborn), why not allow the parents to make the decision to free the child from their sorry existence?

Up to the age of 45, why not.

And if someone is mentally handicapped, (an idiot, or a moron), why not allow me to make the decision to free them from their sorry existence - and save everyone from their inevitable incompitence too?

We are in a financial hole you know.

But hey, seriously, if we are in a financial hole - and you know we are - you know what might be more profitable?

Rather then off them, sell them. Dead, their organs are no good. But there sure is a scarcity of slaves these days. Quality really doesn't even matter.

Imagine how much a pedo would pay for no-holds-barred live-in access to your cripple kid, taxed at 50%, not only would you not have to pay upkeep on it, you could take a vacation and we could balance the budget!

Plus we could get rid of huge welfare burdens. If a mother on welfare has a child or 15, just have her sell it and then she can get the hell of welfare.

148 For years, the RINOs have been losing slowly, and so its time for the deathgrip of the crony captitalists, the McCainiacs, and all the other losers to be broken from the steering wheel. Preferably with a five pound sledgehammer. Time to let the socons run this Party, and steer us back to virtue (which includes balancing your checkbook you squishy 'let's spend less than the Dems' fiscons). Of course the Establishment hates this but seeing as their only moral principle seems to be "Its good to be the King", I don't care what they think. And yes, we're coming for them. So you'd think they should fight no matter what, after all even a cornered Rat fights....but hey, the victors write the history books. If they want, we can write the history books so they go down as well-meaning, but corrupt scum....or we can tell the truth. They really don't want that.

149 What are the long-term prospects of a blog that's gone the Full Rino, yet whose readership seems overwhelmingly Tea Party?

Sartana, you're a crank who, several threads up, made peace with the Democrat Party in order to declare war on the Republicans.  You inject gay-baiting bullshit into your comments, apparently in the belief that you're posting at Free Republic.  You were one of the more prominent assclowns among the O'Donnell Purity Gestapo that considered her primary win a victory in itself, and now you bitch and whine about that race as though you didn't get what you want.

You don't have any business speaking for conservatives, let alone the Tea Party, and you sure as hell aren't representative of a majority of thought here.  You and your kind just like to think that if you bully other people loud and long enough you can get them to stand down and agree with you.

Ain't happenin'.

150

But hey, seriously, if we are in a financial hole - and you know we are - you know what might be more profitable?

Rather then off them, sell them. Dead, their organs are no good. But there sure is a scarcity of slaves these days. Quality really doesn't even matter.

This is an excellent point. From a libertarian and fiscally conservative point of view, we should give the people freedom to do what they want. It is their body in abortion. So this is their families they have to take care of. So they should have the freedom to do it. Also it is fiscally conservative too.

151
Hey WarBtheUnStates-

Are you still raping puppies?

Make peace with the Pedocrats? No, I said they'll be dealt with once we take care of more pressing business. It was you and yours that started this fight when you trashed the GOP nominee from Delaware in your attempt to throw the race to the Dems.

Stop whining, boi

152 Bottom line is that if there was a war between those who believe in strong property rights and limited government (our white founders and their descendants) and those who believe in social justice and unlimited government (frankfurters and most America-hating post-1965 immigrants), DrewM would side with the latter because he's been heavily brainwashed.  I pity him, because he's utterly incapable of figuring out why America was once a great country.

153

I wonder if DeMint is embarrassed by this.  I'd like to think he is.

Oh, I doubt that.

DeMint is quickly becoming utterly despised by me.  Just shut up and fade back into the background, Jim.  I don't give a damn about your social con horseshit, and I don't want YOU as my eventual Senate majority leader (or, god help us - no pun intended - a potential presidential candidate).

154 Ya know for many years I have donated money, knocked on doors, made calls, done everything I am suppose to. I am one of those "purist" conservatives whatever that is. When my guy won the primary, I worked hard in the general. When my guy lost the primary, I worked just as hard in the general. And yet, it seems almost always the conservative base gets the blame for being whatever when there is a loss. I don't think I have ever heard the moderates accept blame for ANYTHING. They expect me every 2 years to donate my money, make the calls, knock on doors, drive people to the polls, go to my church and get people involved, and I do that happily as many others do because we want the country to be better, but then we always get the blame for demanding "purity." I do not see a million moderates out there doing the grunt work during the campaigns. Let's put the cards on the table. Does anyone actually think that a republican can win a national election without a motivated pro-life base? You have to get those people to the polls. Their reach is huge. They have a built in organization through their churches where they meet and socialize. Forget the issue of abortion itself for a moment. From a pure strategic standpoint, how do you replace these voters and their money and their groundwork? You think there are enough "moderates" to do the groundwork for you? We have to cobble it all together. It is tough, real tough, but it has to be done. But I can assure you that blaming the social conservatives and pissing them off is not a recipe for success because there are more of them that will be lost(staying home) than any moderates you would gain by doing so.

155 It was you and yours that started this fight when you trashed the GOP nominee from Delaware in your attempt to throw the race to the Dems.

You stupid fucking whore.  YOU gave the race to the Dems, you know it, and this is your way of dealing with it.

OWN your failure, bitch. 

156 Oh, and I have one other request:  can we PLEASE stop beating each other up over Christine O'Donnell?  I supported her, but I can understand the argument of those who didn't, and I would hope they would understand my argument for supporting her (namely, that now is not the time to add another Arlen Specter to our ranks and suck all the energy out of the movement).  To my fellow peeps who supported COD, do you think she would have won even if the RINO establishment backed her?  I don't.  Partly because Bob Dole and Pete DuPont both offered to campaign for her, and she didn't take them up on the offer.  Even if she did she still would have lost, although probably by a much smaller margin (and I'm not convinced Castle would have won).  Let's be honest about this, she never had much of a chance, and this was about stopping Castle.  I have no regrets, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking she would have won IF ONLY KARL ROVE HAD CAMPAIGNED FOR HER.

157 The telling thing about this little jeremiad is that people generally don't adopt a siege mentality when they think they're winning.

158 DeMint is quickly becoming utterly despised by me.  Just shut up and fade back into the background, Jim.  I don't give a damn about your social con horseshit, and I don't want YOU as my eventual Senate majority leader (or, god help us - no pun intended - a potential presidential candidate).

Excellent point. We have to rid the Rep party of these backward SoCons. We need to give people the freedom to make the libertarian and fiscally conservative decision wrt their own families.

159

160  
"Do you honestly think the answer there were candidates that were more conservative?"

-Drew

I'm a Californian and followed the race closely. Both Fiorina and Whitman lost in large part because neither stood for anything. There were no bold statements, no real vision- they both  ran campaigns premised upon offending as few voters as possible. Both should have won and both lost, sucking up tens of millions of valuable campaign cash with them. A strong positive reaction to the AZ law and against sanctuary cities would have put both over the top.

O'Donnell stood on principal and offered voters a choice between two vastly different ideologies- and she got from you what you gave her. The path ahead for the GOP should be to stand on core conservative principles clearly enunciated- win or lose. I'd rather stand for something and lose than win for no reason at all- with no mandate in that victory.

And maybe you should focus on the obvious massive vote fraud and illegal electioneering that went of in Nevada rather than continually dumping on Angle.

161 Excellent point. We have to rid the Rep party of these backward SoCons. We need to give people the freedom to make the libertarian and fiscally conservative decision wrt their own families.

Posted by: LAI at November 17, 2010 11:33 PM (DH9np)

This is just as retarted as the TC Purity Police. It's math, people. We need SoCons. We need FisCons. We need True Conservatives, and yes, we need moderate conservatives. If one of these is missing from our tent, we dip under 50% and the forces of statism and socialism win. And if the forces of statism and socialism win, the SoCons lose, the FisCons lose, the True conservatives lose, and the moderate conservatives lose.

So what do we do? Well, we can either hoot and holler about how God Dammit if only we got rid of Group X we would dominate politics for the next century. Alternatively we could each learn to accept that getting 75% of our platform is better than getting the 0% we would get if the Democrats ran things, and compromise and stay together. This is called politics in grown-up land.

162 The thing about the pro-life base (of which I consider myself a part) that I don't understand is, what more do you need to motivate you than the prospect of more dead babies as a consequence of your inaction?

163 COD is a marker to the losers, the RINOs but I repeat myself, and all the rest of the corrupt Establishment. Enough. Yes, we are crazier than you. You're playing chicken against a bunch of Southern good ol' boys hopped up on meth, and loaded for bear, and they've just about had enough of your condescension, and your lack of competence. A lot of us realize that this is the Republican Party's last chance. Get it right now, or get dumped in 2012 for a third party. And before you screech 'but then the Dems will win', ask me if I care. You didn't want morality, you didn't want logic, now you get the boot. When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend.

164

All this infighting for squat.  Democrats are loving this.  Most so-cons are fiscal conservatives.  We spend an inordinate amount of the budget on social issues.  Take away the government daddy, and it is amazing how moral people become when they have to rely on themselves. 

For most of us if you leave us alone we are fine. Don't make us pay for your crap, especially social issues we disagree with & when we decide something on a local and state level don't use the judicial system to overrule us.  Most of our "social issues" have been shoved on us by the courts, education system or the federal government- Not the other way around. 

165  
Hey, you're a nasty piece of work WarBoi.

And no, O'Donnell did not throw that race to the Dems. They had a lock on that race with Castle. O'Donnell sent him packing and gave the GOP a fighting chance.

And no, the DE race is not going away. The lines that were drawn over that race are where two great armies are now lining up for the next and last fight. And it ends with :

We win -you lose.

166 Can we please get peanut gallery and the sidekick of his choice a steel cage match with those poll watching Black Panthers?

167  
"Both Fiorina and Whitman lost in large part because neither stood for anything."

-Sartana

BTW, I voted for both Fiorina and Whitman in the general election. I voted for their conservative opponents in the primary and despite not being inspired by one and actually detesting the other, I sucked it up and voted for both in the general.

But nevermore.

I'm playing by RinoRules now- the rules as laid down in Delaware. If the Rino wins the primary over my preferred conservative, then I vote for the Dem in the general. Push me, shove you.

168 Peanut Gallery...Good bye.

169  
Hey Mallamut, genius, you glossed over my point completely.

Castle was not a conservative nor even a Rebublican. The lesson the GOP needs to learn from Delaware is to stop nominating Democrats.

170  @ 191  -- I'm playing by RinoRules now- the rules as laid down in Delaware. If the Rino wins the primary over my preferred conservative, then I vote for the Dem in the general. Push me, shove you.

"Oh please, Brer Genius, whatever you do, please don't throw me into the briar patch!" -- Brer RINO

171
I see white people.

172

Well, we can either hoot and holler about how God Dammit if only we got rid of Group X we would dominate politics for the next century. Alternatively we could each learn to accept that getting 75% of our platform is better than getting the 0% we would get if the Democrats ran things, and compromise and stay together. This is called politics in grown-up land.

The problem with your math is that it relies on jobs "saved or created".

Or maybe it doesn't. Maybe you want different things than me.

You seem like the kind of guy who walks into a store, sees a 50% off sign on something you weren't going to buy, and tells himself he just saved $200.

One way or the other - when you take away the credit for NOT doing things the democrats hypothetically WOULD have done, they aren't offering 75% of my agenda.

They aren't offering 25% of my agenda.

They're offering me 25% of the democrats agenda and you want me to believe this is somehow 75% of what I want.

I want total federal expenditure reduced to no more than 10% of GDP.

Have they given me 10% of that? Taken the budget from 20% to 19%? Or have they just given me less growth than a hypothetical, in the entirely wrong direction, from 20% to 21% (instead of 23%) and called it a cut?

I want the 10th ammendment followed, and the federal government to regulate nothing that doesn't obstruct interstate commerce or get mentioned in the constitution.

I want the 14th ammendment to incorporate the bill of rights totally, with a federal government that intervenes in local issues only to ensure that they do not violate those protections, like New London and the 5th, like Chicago and the 2nd, like the TSA and the 4th.

WTF did republicans do for me between 2002 and 2006?

Please outline "75% of what I want" that I recieved in that period.

Was I supposed to WANT to invade and occupy Iraq?

173 Posted by: sartana at November 17, 2010 11:42 PM (abtaM)

Explain to me how O'Donnell or any conservative that would pass a purity test would fare in a state like Delaware where the electorate broke down as follows in 3 of the last 4 elections....

04- 41D/33R/26I
08- 48D/31R/21I
10- 50D/30R/19I

(they didn't exit poll DE in '06)

And no, I'm not going to focus on voter fraud allegations when she lost so big and there are clear ways to explain Angle's defeat.

174 The thing about the pro-life base (of which I consider myself a part) that I don't understand is, what more do you need to motivate you than the prospect of more dead babies as a consequence of your inaction?

So you want them to be more vocal about dead babies?
As pure fiscal conservatives, we need to tell them to accept gay marriage anDADT since this is so obviously righteous. They are motivated about dead babies and dead grandpa/grandma. From a libertarian and fiscally conservative point of view, this is a waste of time. Moreover, it doesn't help our fiscal situation in any case.

175 Ya know, if the SoCons are gonna get all pissy whiny right off the bat cause their boy opened his mouth and said something galacticaly schtoopid, and several folks merely point this out, the next two years (at least) are going to be as nausea inducing as . . .well, seems like for fucking ever at this point.

I could really give a crap if Jimmy D plays to his base with this happy horseshit - but I do reserve the right to have a less than worshipful attitude when he gets Mr. Crotch grabber in charge in front of him to field questions about why potentially being sexually molested has now become a fixture of American air travel, and the best he can come up with is some whiny crap about the number of irate calls his office staff is having to field over the issue.

NOBODY came even close to asking Pistole if he'd lost his freakin mind thinking it was ok to put in place a procedure that is both deeply disturbing on so many levels AND probably useless to boot, and if the well being of possibly the most nervous nellie imaginable being oh so cozy as they sat down to take a flight as his final answer as to justification on the issue.

Hell, the ONLY person that even mentioned a possible alternative - i.e. the Israeli method of behavior analysis - was Pistole himself, almost like he was BEGGING someone to bring it up. But, did the fucking clue light come on? OH HELL NO. Helluva time to 'think green' and save a few sheckels on some electricity there, boneheads!

DeMint is a tool. Just like the rest of them. Get your panties untangled from a knot before some TSA goon mistakes it for a bomb, Francis.

176 DeMint is a tool. Just like the rest of them. Get your panties untangled from a knot before some TSA goon mistakes it for a bomb, Francis.

Definitely man. We need more people like Murkowski or Castle.

177 Posted by: Mallamutt at November 18, 2010 12:03 AM (OWjjx)

Trust me, my pleasure.

BTW-not to nitpick but O'Donnell lost by 16 not 13.

178 Again, as I mentioned, we pure fiscal conservatives want a fiscally conservative presidential candidate who has the moral certitude to support gay marriage and DADT and not to get hung up on dead babies or dead grandpa/grandma.

179

I love this line of argument. It's not enough that we agree with you on the policy but we don't agree for the right reasons, so we are squishes and you guys are the pure ones.

Why not just focus on the agreement (and those we both disagree with) instead of trying to set up some hierarchy of who is right for the best motives?

Evidence.  Like I said, who are the non-socon fiscons?  You can come up with a handful but for every one of them, there are 5 free-spending moderate squishes.

Also, reliability.  I know that a social conservative will fight for these things.  A non-socon might, but experience dictates that, unless he has a good record to go on, he'll go squishy.

Ultimately, social conservatism is about personal responsibility and acceptance of the consequences of same.  So if you want to reform social security and medicare, not to mention the elaborate social safety net, you end up being a social conservative.

180 BTW-not to nitpick but O'Donnell lost by 16 not 13.

NO problem, we need more people like Castle and Murkowski.

181

Hey malamutt, Castle was a Democrat, deal with it.

182
Okay Drew, forget the allegations and focus on the fraud itself.

183 Hey malamutt, Castle was a Democrat, deal with it.

Hey Castle is not perfect, but he is probably better for the cause than DeMint.

184

>Evidence.  Like I said, who are the non-socon fiscons?  You can come up with a handful but for every one of them, there are 5 free-spending moderate squishes.

Exactly the Maine sisters are great examples!

185

Candidates matter, especially for the Senate and Governor.  In some states, you need a good candidate to sell conservatism to the skeptical.  Chris Christie can really change New Jersey.

But if you pick somebody out of obscurity who can't do the business of politics, a whole bunch of negative ads can wear down the electorate.

*Sighs*

Preach it brother!

I still cannot believe that that Malicious Scrunt, Gabby Giffords is gonna get a 3rd term in fucking Congress.

186 Posted by: sartana at November 18, 2010 12:21 AM (abtaM)

It's funny how you and other true believers want to focus on everything, hell, anything other than the fact that some (not all, not even most) of your favorite candidates sucked.

I get not every candidate is going to be Marco Rubio or Ron Johnson. Why can't you guys just admit that Angle, O'Donnell and Buck were bad candidates that were mismatched with their electorate? Instead you are talking some of your worst mistakes and holding them up as the ideal moving forward. It's insane.

By the way...fraud can get you so far. What it can't do is get you a 5 point win. She lost the old fashion way...she didn't get enough votes. Deal with it.

187 Posted by: AmishDude at November 18, 2010 12:18 AM (BvBKY)

Ok, you win. Go start your pure social conservative party, I'll go start my pure fiscal-con party and then we can sit back and watch Democrats win.

That'll be awesome.

188

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 17, 2010 11:39 PM (OWjjx)

Yeah, Dole wrote an endorsement from his hospital bed and said he'd come to DE to help her in a any way he could as soon as he was back on his feet.  She didn't even acknowledge DuPont's endorsement for nearly a week after he endorsed her.  So yeah, her campaign fucked up big-time.  Had she embraced the DuPont endorsement it could have gotten her another 5%, and had Dole campaigned for her it probably would have been good for another 2-3.  She could have come within single digits, I think.  But she still would have lost.  Karl Rove could have publicly chowed her box and she would have lost.  My point is, the goal was stopping Castle and we succeeded. Let's count our blessings and be glad we don't have another Arlen Specter to bolster the fellow RINO's and make them think their existence actually means anything.  There's no reason to tear the Moron Nation apart over this.

189

COD got the Independent vote, but not so much the Republican vote. So yeah, RINOs betrayed her. If the Establishment had not knifed her, she might have won. If they hadn't done that, if they had gone all out for her, and then she lost, they'd have a point worth listening too. But they didn't and they don't.

==========

Castle was a RINO. Not much point arguing with someone who doesn't see that. He got a 20 something, I hear, from the ACU. You can argue we'd be better off with a RINO than a Dem, but you can't argue that Castle was a RINO.

==========

Sartana, don't vote Dem. Vote third party, or write in the real conservative.

==========

Melle, the fiscon and the RINOs started it. They're not interested in logic. So we gotta do this the hard way. I understand their logic....they have undeserved power. If they play fair, they lose to people they've sneered at for years. Sneering has worked before, maybe it will this time.

The Pope thought he could squish that Luther fellow, and the RCC thought they could keep on selling indulgences. Didn't work out too well.  The Republican Bishops face the same choice. Reform or Revolution.  Their preferred choice...keep on playing the corrupt game won't work, I think.

190 Why can't you guys just admit that Angle, O'Donnell and Buck were bad candidates that were mismatched with their electorate?

Sure they sucked. That 's why we didn't need to support them. In fact, I am glad we helped defeat them to teach the SoCons a lesson.

191

>Why can't you guys

Who is "you guys?"  Alot of us have admitted that they weren't great candidates, but live by the meme that when they win the primary- no friendly fire.   That certainly didn't help those candidates that people within their own party was doubting them.  Would O'Donnell have lost anyways-sure.. Maybe not Angle or Buck..

BTW, it only seems to be a select few who wanting to relive those elections. 

192  
And Drew, please drop the "purity test" bullshit. I told you already that I voted both Fiorina and Whitman. If I had any kind of purity test, they most surely wouldn't have passed it. I'm a loyal soldier.

If I lived in Delaware I would have voted for Castle- had he not voted for Cap'N Trade and if he weren't a FUCKING DEMOCRAT. There's a limit to my loyalty.

The logic of some seems to be that if there's a state too liberal for a Republican to win, the Repubics should just run a Dem with an "R" by his name and hope that no one smells the jazz.

193 COD got the Independent vote,
Posted by: Tennwriter at November 18, 2010 12:29 AM (9IhTj)

No, she didn't. Coons won them 54-46

194 Ok, you win. Go start your pure social conservative party, I'll go start my pure fiscal-con party and then we can sit back and watch Democrats win.

That'll be awesome.

That 's why we need to teach the SoConns a lesson. And we need to tell them to stuff their backwards "values". Why can't they just accept abortion, gay marriage, and DADT?

195
Go start your pure social conservative party, I'll go start my pure fiscal-con party and then we can sit back and watch Democrats win.

-Drew

The difference here, is that I never ever hear so-called SoCons telling fiscal conservatives to pound sand. It's you and your side constantly attempting to sideline social concerns and ordering SoCons to the back of the bus- just give up the vote when you demand it.

And then you would have them blow you.

196

that they weren't great candidates,

Who was?

Lesser evil. 'Member that?

The tea partiers cannot order a candidate to spec from the custom shop. You have to choose between who runs.

Blah blah, 'lousy candidates'. The other candidates weren't lousy? Castle was great? Were the dem candidates really great? If they're so great, vote for them.

Angle lost because she was a "bad candidate" for Senate?

Oh, but Harry Reid isn't? Didn't seem to stop him winning. I happen to think she's a better candidate than he is.

But then, see, I vote on different criteria then you. I think the best candidate is the guy who would do the best job.

You seem overly concerned with what your neighbor thinks.

197 but live by the meme that when they win the primary- no friendly fire.
Posted by: melle1228 at November 18, 2010 12:31 AM (o3WEK)

There were zero posts here attacking Angle or Buck during the campaign. As for O'Donnell, I don't think there were posts attacking her leading up to the election. I know I did the witch one but it wasn't attacking her, just reporting the story. Ace did a couple taking her to task about her 1st Amendment answer but then came around to defend her. Sort of. It was jumbled.

I don't get this idea that there were people (at least here) attacking her before the election.

198

>Melle, the fiscon and the RINOs started it

(sigh) I realize that. It also makes me laugh when an organization like GOProud (whose very existence is based on a social issue) decides to tell the so-cons to "focus" on fiscal issues.  You first okay GOProud!  And it disheartens me that those within my own party/allies don't even realize where most so-cons are coming from. 

That being said; it seems to me that this infighting is not helping at all.   It seems to be a good way for the Democrats to win by fracturing our party, and another Democratic Congress & Democratic President isn't good for any of us.   

199 I don't get this idea that there were people (at least here) attacking her before the election.

There were plenty of comments to the effect that COD needs to lose to teach the SoCons a lesson. That 's true. These SoCons need to go win the election themselves. At least McCain was a somewhat fiscal conservative. Everyone cares about money. Who cares about dead babies or dead grandma/grandpa.

200

>I don't get this idea that there were people (at least here) attacking her before the election.

I was replying more to the party establishment that were miffed that she won the primary.  Plus I think one of the NRCC's job is to get house member's elected, and if they thought O'Donnell was hurting the brand-then someone they could have offered someone experienced to help her campaign. She begged them enough for help. It would have helped  at least with the ads, and we wouldn't have gotten " I am not a witch."

201 The difference here, is that I never ever hear so-called SoCons telling fiscal conservatives to pound sand.
Posted by: sartana at November 18, 2010 12:38 AM (abtaM)

That's a joke right?

Consider this thread got started because criticism of a leading social-con has been ruled out of order by some of the leading social-cons in the country (there's like 3 on that list).

Also, DeMint himself has said, you either or a social-con or you not a conservative at all.

And let me ask you this...what are the odds a Republican who isn't pro-life is going to be nominated by the GOP for President anytime soon?  Social-cons have an absolute veto over who gets nominated for President by the party and you're going to say you've never told other wings of the coalition to pound sand? Please.

202
It also makes me laugh when an organization like GOProud (whose very existence is based on a social issue) decides to tell the so-cons to "focus" on fiscal issues.

-Melle

Hah! You're exactly right!

203 Plus I think one of the NRCC's job is to get house member's elected, and if they thought O'Donnell was hurting the brand-then someone they could have offered someone experienced to help her campaign.

Hey NRCC seemed to be more interested in helping Murkowski and Crist. These people are not pure fiscal conservatives, but at least these people don't get hung up on dead babies. They are more open to gay marriage/DADT.

204

So, what lesson can we draw from this: that in addition to actually being able to sit in a room of 30 or 40 conservatives and talk conservative, maybe we need to ask a few other questions, like can this person campaign? Can this person stay on message? Do they posses the political skills necessary to actually win?

 

Sure, but why do need to show some respect to the backward SoCons?

205 Plus I think one of the NRCC's job is to get house member's elected, and if they thought O'Donnell was hurting the brand-then someone they could have offered someone experienced to help her campaign.
Posted by: melle1228 at November 18, 2010 12:42 AM (o3WEK)

This is something I take real issue with. The NRSC's job is to use their limited resources where they will make a difference. They didn't spend money in NY or HI or VT because no matter how much they would have spent, it would be wasted. DE was in that category once O'Donnell got the nomination.

Some folks, myself included, said take the easy but imperfect win with Castle. Given the state, it's a gift. Take it and move on. Others said no, we want to fight on this hill. Ok,, you won. You don't then have the right to demand that the people who didn't want to go your way subsidize your quixotic fight.

You have a right to gamble at a casino, you don't have a right to demand that I stake you or make your losses good. Especially not after I warned you the game was rigged and you couldn't win.

206

>So, what lesson can we draw from this: that in addition to actually being able to sit in a room of 30 or 40 conservatives and talk conservative, maybe we need to ask a few other questions, like can this person campaign? Can this person stay on message? Do they posses the political skills necessary to actually win?

Well on that we can agree.  I mean take Obama- he is living proof that a lot of the electorate is hypotized by shiny things! Too many stumblers in the RNC party.   I also thing social issues should be sold on the local/state level.  It gets us back to the states rights issue, and local communities. 

207

That's a joke right?

Consider this thread got started because criticism of a leading social-con has been ruled out of order by some of the leading social-cons in the country (there's like 3 on that list).

So you're saying that Murkowski et. al. are "fiscal conservatives".

I'm not a social conservative.

I (and probably most of those on that letter too) sure as HELL AM trying to purge these people. You're damn straight.

But you go saying anyone is trying to purge "fiscal conservatives" I think you're just gonna prove Amish's argument for him.

208 The NRSC's job is to use their limited resources where they will make a difference. They didn't spend money in NY or HI or VT because no matter how much they would have spent, it would be wasted

They did spend a lot of money in CA. It is wasted money, but at least we can show that we support pure fiscal conservatives like Whitman. Fioriona probably lost because of her backward view on dead babies.

209

>You have a right to gamble at a casino, you don't have a right to demand that I stake you or make your losses good. Especially not after I warned you the game was rigged and you couldn't win.

I understand your point, but there are also a lot of people blaming O'Donnell for other loses.  If they believe that to be the case; then for the interest of the party you offer help to get her to stay on message etc..  You don't have to do that just monetarily.  (I believe O'Donnell had no problem raising money).  

210 Posted by: Mallamutt at November 18, 2010 12:44 AM (OWjjx)

That's a great point. Novices can win House districts because for the most part they are relatively compact and like minded people are grouped together with the idea of supporting a generic candidate of one party or another.

When you go into states, you have to build coalitions. You have to appeal to different groups that have different agendas. You need to convince some people who are at best skeptical and at worst hostile to you to vote for you.

That takes some skills, some ability to present yourself in some different ways. This is especially true in blue or purple states where you can't run conservative base elections and expect to win.

This isn't opinion, it's fact. Ignoring it isn't sticking to the RINOs, it's simply wishful thinking.

211  
You're making shit up, Drew.

That Declaration, as I pointed out many comments above, is not predicated in any way upon social conservatism and not mentioned or even implied in the text. Dan Riehl is a prominent signatory and most definitely not a so-called SoCon. You and Gabe simply injected that into the story in an attempt to make this a fight about something else.

And you know damn well that DeMint was saying that both social and fiscal Conservatism go together and each is for naught without the other. Far from attempting to exclude anyone, he's trying to point out the necessity of building a platform where both are included.

And yes, I'm pretty comfortable with a strong Pro-Life stance as a prerequisite to carrying the Republican banner on a national level. As should a low tax, small government stance be part of the same "purity test."

What's the problem with that? Who gets left out?

212 Actually, the NRSC gave the OÂ’Donnell campaign the maximum allowed, $42,000, after the primary.

Sure after the SoCons raised hell about it. NRSC dumping millions into CA which is a bigger state  for a better cause.

213 That takes some skills, some ability to present yourself in some different ways. This is especially true in blue or purple states where you can't run conservative base elections and expect to win.

True and good. But it would be better if we can use this as an excuse  to continue offering people like Castle and Murkowski.

214

>That takes some skills, some ability to present yourself in some different ways. This is especially true in blue or purple states where you can't run conservative base elections and expect to win. 
 

Yeah and I don't understand why we lack people who have that skill.  Obama won claiming to be a moderate. Most of us politically astute people knew he wasn't, but why can't our conservative candidates sound reasonable.  Heck I am  social con, but I could make the case for moderation on the issues.

215  @ 233 -- It's not SoCons, per se, so much as oafs like Mark Levin who feel it's perfectly fine to trash lifelong conservatives who devote their valuable time in the trenches every day to the cause of advancing conservatism in favor of some hasbeen/never-was-been candidate he'd never heard of a year ago.  Most SoCons don't behave that shabbily.  But the few who do inflict a lot of damage on the movement as a whole.

216 I understand your point, but there are also a lot of people blaming O'Donnell for other loses

Yeah, Ace said that. I don't really agree with him. I think she hurt Toomey in PA a bit considering they share a media market and that race did close as O'Donnell became a bigger deal but it's hard to prove.

217 The difference here, is that I never ever hear so-called SoCons telling fiscal conservatives to pound sand.

I have a Tee-Vee show on FOX News now. 

You should check it out!

We talk to all kinds of celebrities and I play the guitar at the end of every show.

It's a hoot!

218

Those elections not only knocked out a bunch of incumbents, but  decimated the Republican bench, the state legislatures where congressmen and women come from, the lower state wide offices like Attorney General or Treasurer where the next governors come from and, of course, congressmen and women, where the next Senators come from

And thank god for that.

219

Clears the boards for the TP year candidates in those positions.

So, yeah, it is. Especially when you look what that source was producing.

220 RINO's of the world unite.  Gone the way of Paterico and LGFs?

221

And then people whine because Mike Castle is the best a state party can do.

So obtuse.

Mike Castles are a product of the local party. You look at republican parties in every state, all over the country, they're not much better off on average than they are in IL, where they're not any better than they are nationally.

And you look at the legislative output of most of those places and it matches right up, too. There aren't many libertine or conservative state governments either.

222

That's not "logic" that's rhetoric. Plain as that.

You're gonna act like the DE party is totally innocent and just had no options except Castle, argue with your own damned self. Dishonest or a fool I don't know. I'm not gonna waste time shouting past people.

 

223

>they're not much better off on average than they are in IL, where they're not any better than they are nationally.

Yeah the brilliant people who gave us Mark Kirk. The only reason he won is that the other guy had ties to the mafia...

224

Drew,

OK. But lower on your poll, we had 30% of self-proclaimed Conservatives voting for Coons. Now, that looks like a RINO knife to me.  Maybe if the Conservatives had voted at the same percentage at the Liberals (96% for Coons), then it would have been closer at least.

Melle,

I think we can beat them, and either get Independents to join us, or force them to take the back of the bus, or both.  OTOH, we can let them win, and get McCain and 06 and 08. Socons have been repeatedly over the years told to pound sand. I'm now in favor of telling the fiscons to do the same.  I used to be somewhat like you. Now I think the best solution is to smoke the RINOs out.  Sorry about that.

225

I 'spose that's how we got Scozzafava too.

And uh... yeah, Olympia Snow. That's the ticket.

Look if we're just going to say preposterous shit I'd like the change my answer.

We had to support O'Donnell because COONS AND CASTLE WERE BOTH TRAINED BY THE VENEZUELAN INTELLIGENCE AGENCY TO INFILTRATE OUR SENATE!

226
People always make the charge that the so-called SoCons want to invade our bedrooms, but it wasn't a SoCon that just groped your grandmother at the airport.

227 And then people whine because Mike Castle is the best a state party can do.

You make it sound as if they wanted to do better. Remember Castle did have a 30 year record of winning statewide office in Delaware. It's not like parties generally go looking to replace folks like that.

Now, enough voters in the party decided they want someone more conservative and they go it. They also lost by 17 points. Life is full of trade offs.

I don't get why it's so hard to recognize the simple fact that in some states a candidate that excites the conservative base will simply never win.

Nobody took a look at the numbers I laid out in post 200 and explain to me how an increasingly Democratic electorate is supposedly really yearning to vote for a red meat conservative.

Sometimes, the math rules.

228

>I'm now in favor of telling the fiscons to do the same.  I used to be somewhat like you. Now I think the best solution is to smoke the RINOs out.  Sorry about that.

No I understand your frustratiton, but I also think that fiscal & social goes hand in hand.  If you ACTUALLY are fiscal con in all areas(we don't fund stem cells, abortion, planned parenthood etc.)  then social cons will win too.  Things like abortion will be taken care of on a local level(if we get rid of judicial activism).   Studies already show that the youth are turning against it. I also think that as technology progresses you will find that this will rise.

I truly think that people who have to be self-reliant suddenly become pretty "moral."

229 Allahpundit is a candyass RINO lover.

230 OK. But lower on your poll, we had 30% of self-proclaimed Conservatives voting for Coons. Now, that looks like a RINO knife to me.
Posted by: Tennwriter at November 18, 2010 01:18 AM (9IhTj)

I think your average Delaware Republican is more moderate or liberal than in a lot of places, hence Castle's long record in the state.

A Republican in TX simply isn't the same as one in DE or NY or even a place like FL.

I'm always pretty wary of self-IDing on ideology in a poll like that with no action or history to back it up. A lot of people say they are 'conservative' and they probably think they are but it's just to vague. In a nation where a majority identify as conservatives, a guy like Barack Obama should never become President.

231 VIGILANCE.

232

> So, since it is clear you know nothing about Illinois politics, how about giving it a rest

Elgin, Illinois here! I do know about Illinois politics.  Mark Kirk didn't embelish his service record?  Just because his policies were good doesn't make him a good "candidate."  He screwed up a lot in his campaign. He should have resoundingly beat Giannoulias even barring the liberal bastion of Cook County.

>And please….we tried the “run a purity GOP” stuff here. Anyone heard from Senator Alan Keyes recently

 LOL- You are sticking me with Alan Keyes?  Who is purifying the party.. I think ALL of my post have been against the infighting.

233  @ 271 -- Take heart.  You raised the intellectual bar for The Dozens to dizzying heights.

234
I don't get why it's so hard to recognize the simple fact that in some states a candidate that excites the conservative base will simply never win.

I don't get why it's so hard to recognize the simple fact that Mike Castle was a FUCKING DEMOCRAT.

235

BTW, Kirk also has backtracked on repeal of the healthcare bill.

In March, he was gung-ho for the repeal stating specific reasons why.  In July, he had to study the "issue."

236

In Massachusetts, Republicans make up 11.6% of the electorate. Democrats are about 38%. The rest are independents, most of whom lean left.

But just run real conservatives, they win every time!!!! We need "bold colors". Peopel vote Dem because they dont have a "real" option. Given a chance between a "real Dem" and "Dem-lite", the voters will just vote for "real Dems".  

Its the new rage; using sloganeering and jingoism to determine candidates. 

You, see people can't tell Scott Brown from Deval Patrick, so they will vote for Deval Patrick every time. The only reason Democrats win in Mass is because there are no options. All the GOP candidates, including Sean Bielat, must be  Dem-lites.  

All the real conservatives are being supressed by an evil conspiracy of establishment republicans and RINOS. Its not that there are far more radicals, liberals, moderates then there are conservatives. Its a conspiracy dammit.

237

>It is just the nature of the state. The days of the 80s (where Edgar could roll up massive wins) are gone – way too many straight D votes out of the City/Cook County to ever give a Republican more than a 3 or 4% win.

 

And that is why when my husband retires from the military; I will be getting rid of my out-of-state residency in Illinois.   I hate that Cook County controls the rest of the state.

238 I don't get why it's so hard to recognize the simple fact that Mike Castle was a FUCKING DEMOCRAT.

I like the cut of your ALL CAPS BOLDFACE jib and would like you to subscribe to my newsletter.  Right up until the time you show signs of wanting to win elections and THEN IT'S G'BYE.

239 Maine Senators Key to Advancing Pay Discrimination Bill 11/17/2010 Reported By: Keith Shortall As Congress returns to work for what's been called a "lame duck" session, one issue that's expected to come up for a vote is the Paycheck Fairness Act. Supporters say it's needed to close a loophole in existing law that prevents true equal pay for equal work for women and minorities. Both Snowe and Collins supported last year's Lilly Ledbetter Act, which removed the statute of limitations on wage discrimination cases. --- Enjoy!

240

>My irritation with people who get on Kirk comes from the campaign. About 3 or 4 times a day I run into a conservative who wasn’t voting for Kirk because “he is a RINO”.

I still voted for him.. He may be a RINO, but he is my RINO and much better than a Democrat.  Guilo would have been ten times worse.

241
Don't believe about Castle what his critics on the right portrayed him as?

In an interview conducted by David Broder for the WaPo this last summer, Castle said the following about how he planned to vote if he should become Senator for Delaware-

 "I don't plan to be part of the opposition. I think I can do more than oppose."

He's stating flat out that he's a rubber stamp for Obama and Reid. Anyone still think a Castle win would have been a win for Republicans? Repubics, maybe.

Here's the article:

http://tinyurl.com/296fk73

242 >Both Snowe and Collins supported last year's Lilly Ledbetter Act, which removed the statute of limitations on wage discrimination cases.

These two HAVE got to go.. They are not even fiscal Conservatives.   Can we at least agree with that?

243

Ummm. Mark Kirk had a primary challenger embraced by many of the same folks who embrace "real and true" conservatives. Patrick Hughes lost.

The primary was early and the Tea Party Express and the DeMint fund didnt drop much, if any money, into the race. I suspect if the race were in September, they would have beaten Kirk to death and we would have lost that seat too.

244 VIGILANCE, FRIENDS.

Republicans who can win elections are FUCKING DEMOCRATS.  You know it and I know it.  Electability is a sure sign of being PLUGGED INTO THE MACHINE and that's what we're going to do away from here on out.

The only REAL CONSERVATIVES are the ones without a chance in hell of winning office.  UNelectability is a sure sign that we've got a GRASSROOTS WARRIOR on our hands.  Forget the Democrats, we're not INTERESTED in them.  Going forward we're going to CLEANSE THIS FUCKING PARTY of all you candy-ass RINOs who can WIN.  Only THEN can we start REALLY MOVING AHEAD.

OF COURSE YOU KNOW THIS MEANS WAR!

245

> I suspect if the race were in September, they would have beaten Kirk to death and we would have lost that seat too.

It's idiotic.  No friendly fire during the election period!

246 Night Mallamutt

247 Posted by: Mallamutt, owner of the 128 pt. megafont bomb at November 18, 2010 01:45 AM (OWjjx)

WHO ARE YOU???!!!  This is Erick's HOUSE and you come in here and INSULT him??  Don't you recognize the TRUE LEADER of our conservative movement when you SEE him?!  If it weren't for Erick I would NEVER have seen the LIGHT!  Leon, DEAL with this INGRATE!!!

248 Leon, I didn't give you permission to get rid of Moe!  He was busy prepping a new column for me about this hot new Constitutional Conservative Candidate who can knock off Jim McDermott in '12!

G'bye!

249

Yea – that’s brilliant. Lets wipe out all the folks at the state levels because we hate the guys in Washington.

 

There is some brilliant political strategy.

3 very appealing candidates in our primary this year.

One of them just never stayed on my RADAR (and I tried but honestly, ZZZZzzzzz).  Another a known name from even the earliest TEA parties in my home town.  Another a state Senator who jumped in (kinda late, IMHO) just last January.

One of the reasons I went with the former state Senator over the "grassroots" candidate?

The fact that his web-site didn't have numerous posts and press releases written with very unfortunate grammar and apparently without the benefit of spell-check.

That in itself didn't bother me too much but I am cognizant of living in a University town and also a town with a butt-load of retirees from Chicago and New Jersey.

I didn't see the "grassroots" TEA party candidate making much of an effort to do more than preach to the choir.

And he did that well and won the primary and got beat by the incumbent Democrat in the general.

I don't care if the state is red, this district is ;">purplish.

Although outspoken, he just was not terribly articulate about his small-government conservative principles a good bit of the time.

Which invariably led to opportunities for the opposition to run clips of him calling Soc.S. a Ponzi scheme, a kind of half thought through endorsement of "The Fair Tax" etc. in attack ads.

I mean, I've hated the incumbent with the burning hatred of 10,000 hot suns since February 19th, 2009 and would have voted for Alvin Green if it meant booting her ass but I honestly don't blame some of the persuadable voters out here for "sticking with the devil they know".

I never saw any real effort from that campaign to go after anything other than the TEA party / Republican vote.

Sure it was a close race.  And that says a lot about the strength of the TEA party movement in my area.

But you wanna know what coming in a close 2nd in electoral politics gets you?

Jack fucking squat!

250

It's obtuse shit. Some of you are so wrapped up in your dweeby numbers and your short term politics. It's more than just a few plebicites at stake here. You can't see the forest through the trees.

I'm not entirely sure myself, despite all the shit they take for it, Palin and DeMint even intended to endorse O'Donnell. But they had to - because they're not blind to what some people here are. Blaim Hannity. But on second thought, don't hate the player.

That's the game. If nothing else it's good practice. Drew's raging about the money... it's not about the money. The chick had plenty of cash. That's not to say if someone who supports her can get her some more cash by forcing teh NRSC's hand into donating for the messaging aspect, they won't do it. That's the way it works.

But you think at the end of the day most people upset about the RNC hanging O'Donnell out to dry actually know how much money she did or didn't get?

They're watching Bristol on Dancing with the Stars. They haven't a fuckin clue.

All they see is the message. They see Karl Rove. Since when is Karl Rove a disinterested player with no dog in the game? Since when does he think he's John Fuckin Stossel who just reports the news straight? Did that guy want her to win or not? I don't know - but if you deny that claiming a candidate can't win has a negative effect on their campaign you're either lying to me or yourself. He sabotaged her.

Not that it cost her the election - she'd lose anyway. Not that it had ANY effect at all neccessarily. But people saw it still. Guy had no game face on. What was his game? Since when is he some disinterested observer just opining on the facts? Who the hell in politics can't at least equivocate to the media when there's an election afoot?

What would YOU do with a campaign manager who came out and said "yeah.. well we probably can't actually win but y'know we'll try." Fire his ass for gross incompitence.

Rove doesn't work for O'Donnell, he's not her campaign manager... but futility aside did he WANT her to win or what. Beyond that (and more astutely - because I really don't know off hand what he thinks he gained by doing it that way) does he want her supporters to think he wants her to win.

But that's them... as for me?

You folks are doing the same shit you've always been doing. The same politics. You think you can just do it 'better'. Well it hasn't worked in 100 years, not well enough for me.

I'm out for something different. I'm radical. I'm out to see shit change. The nutjobs are useful and I'd just as soon see you (and all the other voters) desensitized to them by repeated exposure, even if takes a few more losses... or a hundred.

251 Ick!

Off, damned sock!!!

Ahhh! I can feel the matching stripey shirts with the weird patches burning into my soul.

252
Republicans who can win elections don't vote for Cap'N Trade and promise to be a rubber stamp for the Obama White House-

...because they can't win their primary.

253 Deety, I'm going to take a wild guess that this is you and you're referring to Jonathan Paton vs. Jesse Kelly in the AZ-08 congressional race.

And yes, you're absolutely right.  It's inexcusable that Gabby Giffords survived in that district in a year like this.  And it's a brilliant example of what this entire thread is about.

254 Good


Good

255 And to win your favor Erick I randomly banned four commentors today.

Oooooh....

*fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap*

_{...carry on, Neil.}

256  
Mike Castle was also a major advocate for federal funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research:

http://tinyurl.com/2eoydhm

Can someone tell one thing positive about this guy?

257

Posted by: sartana at November 18, 2010 02:08 AM (abtaM)

I'll give you three:

He voted against ObamaCare

He voted against Stimulus

He's not a bearded Marxist

 

258 Can someone tell one thing positive about this guy?

He could even win office.  And Lord knows, that's the biggest NEGATIVE there is.

VIGILANCE, sartana!

259  @ 312 -- I hate to break this to you, but you're not going to get Christine O'Donnell elected.  It's too late.  The election happened over two weeks ago, and she lost by a considerable margin, just like a lot of people said she would.

Now, you can go on and on about how bad Mike Castle was, and try to convince everyone that it really was a good idea to nominate O'Donnell and put Chris Coons in office.  But, minds are largely made up on that at this point.  So, essentially, you're left with trying to convince yourself ... which, I suspect, is really what's going on here.

260 I'm playing by RinoRules now- the rules as laid down in Delaware. If the Rino wins the primary over my preferred conservative, then I vote for the Dem in the general. Push me, shove you.

Posted by: sartana at November 17, 2010 11:57 PM (abtaM)

Anyone who, if given a choice between two general election candidates, votes for the more liberal of them -- has no business calling himself a conservative.  That criticism applies just as much to you as to any voter who crossed the line for Coons in DE.

261
If you think Castle would have voted to repeal Obamacare, you're deluding yourself. Please read the Broder piece I linked to above. He stated flat out that he would not be in opposition to the White House in the upcoming session.

True, he voted against the Stimulus Bill, but that's only because "History" didn't call. If history had called Mike Castle, and history needed Castle's vote- then you can be damn sure Castle would have voted for the Stimulus.

Bearded Marxist? Maybe not, but he was a Democrat with an "R" by his name- and now he's gone.

Swamp Yankee, do you support the creation of a human life for the express purpose of taking something from it and then destroying it?

How could you support such a man?

262 I don't know - but if you deny that claiming a candidate can't win has a negative effect on their campaign you're either lying to me or yourself. He sabotaged her.

Posted by: Entropy at November 18, 2010 02:00 AM (eL+YD)

Sabotaged?  Sure he did.  In much the same way that the first passenger who felt the Titanic hit the iceberg and muttered to himself, "Maybe we're not so unsinkable after all," sabotaged the ship's chances of staying afloat.

Rove clearly did not go all-in for O'Donnell.  He didn't go half-in.  He didn't even dip a toe in the water to see what the temperature was.  I don't dispute any of that.  You want to hate him for that, go ahead.  But almost by definition -- you can't sabotage something or someone that is headed for failure.

263 Bearded Marxist? Maybe not, but he was a Democrat with an "R" by his name- and now he's gone.

Posted by: sartana at November 18, 2010 02:23 AM (abtaM)

A Democrat who opposed the Obamanation of a health care bill.  A democrat who opposed the stimulus.  A Democrat who, if the cards had broken our way, would have given chairmanships to conservatives.

If that Democrat was from South Carolina or Utah, then I would have opposed him down the line even so.  But he was from Delaware.  God grant that blue states should send us more such Democrats -- they sure beat the ones we'd get otherwise.

264 I'm playing by RinoRules now- the rules as laid down in Delaware. If the Rino wins the primary over my preferred conservative, then I vote for the Dem in the general. Push me, shove you.
Posted by: sartana at November 17, 2010 11:57 PM (abtaM)

Hahaha, I missed this.  This is fuckin' rich.  We're getting lectures about conservatism from a functional liberal.  Even Mike Castle was more of a conservative than this clown, and was certainly a hell of a lot more useful.

Apparently sartana's idea of "shoving you" is putting a gun in his own mouth and pulling the trigger. 

265

I swear we give O'Donnell much more credit than she deserves.   She was a bad candidate.  

@Demosthenes  completely agree with you that the primaries are the time to knock someone off, but then you vote for who wins over a Democrat.  That being said in regards to Rove.. Geez can't we agree no friendly fire during elections?  

266 And yes, you're absolutely right.  It's inexcusable that Gabby Giffords survived in that district in a year like this.  And it's a brilliant example of what this entire thread is about.

I just posted that again because I'll probably never again in my life hear /read the phrase "And yes, you're absolutely right." ever again.

Says nothing my wisdom or probity...

Just means that everyone wants to slap Cassandra. ;D

267  
I'm making a point Demosthenes. These are the rules that they established with Delaware. I already pointed out upthread that I'm a Conservative that voted both Fiorina and Whitman in general election after I had opposed them in the primary. I'm a team player. The way they went after O'Donnell once she won the nomination changes the game entirely. There's a fight to be had here and it needs to get settled before we think about taking back the White House.Now this is much bigger than Delaware or any other single race- this is about dragging the Republican Party to the Right and grounding it in solid Conservative principals. Yes, both fiscal and Social.

They pulled out the brass knuckles over Delaware, now I pull out my fucking Shillealagh and we see who's left standing.

268  
Demosthenes, please read the Broder piece I linked above:

http://tinyurl.com/296fk73

269 melle -- Yes, we can.  And Rove should be taken to task somewhat for his comments.  Saying something like "Well, Castle would have been a shoo-in, so the race just got harder" would have been enough to make his point.  And it certainly would have been the truth, albeit a bit understated.

Instead, he went above and beyond -- or below and beneath, if you'd rather -- and actually contributed to O'Donnell's usefulness as a weapon against us nationally.  As one of my less liberal colleagues said the next day (and I mean less liberal in the sense that he thinks Obama has so far been merely a disappointment, rather than an outright traitor to the Left), "Even Rove hates her."  That's some pretty powerful ammunition there...because though the Left hates Rove, they at least consider him sane.

So I'm not saying we can't, or shouldn't, dogpile on Rove a little bit, or even a not-so-little bit.  But there is no way in hell he sabotaged her.  There is no way in hell he could have.  That's all I meant to say.

270  @ 323 -- Funny thing is, you're in California.  Who exactly are you planning to teach a lesson by voting Democrat in California? 

http://tinypic.com/r/28bqujs/7

271 How could you support such a man?

Posted by: sartana at November 18, 2010 02:23 AM (abtaM)

I dont support Castle. I dont support O' Donnell. Not every person who surfs the internet has to support a candidate in every race.

The fact is that the people of Delaware loved him. They kept voting for him election after election after election.. for 30 years. And when he was engaged and the election was being dictated by the citizens of Delaware, he trounced all opponents so badly that he scared Beau Biden out of the race. Chris Coons was a second tier candidate and he still crushed COD. All polls showed Castle crushing Coons before outsiders decided to carpet bomb Delaware and dupe a bunch of naive Tea Party activists.

Its not about me. Its not about you. I still believe in our Constitutional Republic and think that all people deserve representation. If the electorate tilts left, then too bad. Its your job to change their minds. Its not Mike Castle's job to betray the trust of the people he swore to represent. Its a fucking liberal state.

I suspect the voters of Delaware either dont care about stem cell research or support it anyway 

272

>But there is no way in hell he sabotaged her.  There is no way in hell he could have.  That's all I meant to say.

No agreed.  I think she got somewhat of a bad rap that all conservative candidates get in the MSM, but I also think her campaign was kind of a joke.  I liked her too, and was routing for her, but c'mon on the "I'm not a witch" campaign ad was cringe worthy.

273  
The point has also been made, both in the comments on this blog and by many familiar with Delaware politics, that the GOP and the Dems had an arrangement in regard to that Senate seat- that Castle would take this seat till the next election at which time he would vacate and Beau Biden would take it from there.

In no way would a Castle victory have been a victory for Republicans.

274 routing= rooting... I guess I should go to bed now..

275 In no way would a Castle victory have been a victory for Republicans.

Since you've sworn several times in this thread to vote against Republican nominees Just Because, why do you even care?

Why are we even listening to you at this point?

276  @ 329 -- The point has also been made ... that Castle would take this seat till the next election at which time he would vacate and Beau Biden would take it from there.

Should have saved Big Guns O'Donnell for that matchup!

VIGILANCE!

277 Statement #1:  I'm a team player.

Statement #2:  They pulled out the brass knuckles over Delaware, now I pull out my fucking Shillealagh and we see who's left standing.

Contradiction:  Obvious.

Dude, if you're a team player, then you have to actually commit to being on the fucking team.  I could say the same thing about the people from DE who you're on about right now, and I will when I talk to one of them.  But right now I'm talking to you.

So you don't like the way O'Donnell was treated in DE.  Fine.  You've got some justification for that.  But I want you to look around at the political map of this country.  Just about every single place a Tea Party candidate could win the general election -- and even some places they couldn't -- they got the party nod.  They may have got it over the kicking and screaming bodies of the GOP establishment in some of those cases, but they got it.  Shorter message:

YOU.  ALREADY.  WON.  So put the shillealagh away.

Even the big races where the Tea Party candidate lost aren't so bad, and don't reflect on the movement as a whole, I think.  Buck lost in Colorado for a variety of reasons, but he could have won -- and he would have been a better Senator than Norton.  Angle was not a great candidate in Nevada (I would have wanted Tarkanian in an ideal world), but she still could have won the race.  I gave money to both, and I'm still happy I did.

But then there's Delaware.  This is the ONE race where the establishment was indisputably right in their analysis of everything.  Castle would have won that seat in a walk.  O'Donnell never had a chance.  The choice was between Castle and Coons.  And people like you in DE chose to disregard them.  Result:  Senator Coons.  I know you don't trust the establishment, and frankly, I think that's wise in the long run.  But sometimes "prudence" is indeed the password, not "fuck you assholes, even if we lose the seat."

278  
 If the electorate tilts left, then too bad. Its your job to change their minds. Its not Mike Castle's job to betray the trust of the people he swore to represent. Its a fucking liberal state.

-Swamp Yankee

I think you just made my point for me. If Delaware is a state that is overwhelmingly Liberal and Democrat, then they should be represented by a Liberal Democrat. They have that now in Chris Coons. They would have had that with Mike Castle, only his votes would have been blamed of Republicans- he would have tarnished the "R" brand  and would have teamed up with Murkowki and other Rinos to stab Republicans in the back. Good riddance.

The last two years have proven that there are no conservative Democrats. Now lets go about the business of booting liberal Republicans. When the public identifies the Democrats as the Liberal Party and Republicans as the Conservative Party then our work will be complete.

Then, in light of  the simple fact that Americans who identify as Conservative vastly outnumber Americans identifying as Liberal, the Republican Party will be assured of future dominance.

279 ...the GOP and the Dems had an arrangement in regard to that Senate seat- that Castle would take this seat till the next election at which time he would vacate and Beau Biden would take it from there.

In no way would a Castle victory have been a victory for Republicans.

Posted by: sartana at November 18, 2010 02:43 AM (abtaM)

Yes, of course.  You're right.  I see it now.  There is simply no way that keeping a left-of-liberal Democrat out of an otherwise unwinnable Senate seat for four years, even with a moderate, could POSSIBLY be any sort of a win for us.

:::rolls eyes:::

As for the Castle-Biden accusations, I've heard them before.  But I've never seen any proof of them.  And so I'll say to you what I said to them -- if you make accusations without proof in hand, and they turn out to be untrue, you're no different from a liar.

280 The fact is that the people of Delaware loved him. They kept voting for him election after election after election.. for 30 years. And when he was engaged and the election was being dictated by the citizens of Delaware, he trounced all opponents so badly that he scared Beau Biden out of the race.

That's a damned good point.  I had forgotten about that entirely.  Mostly because for most of my sentient life I've tried not to give more than 10 second's worth of thought to fucking Delaware every calendar year.

Hereditary Senate Seats.  Like they are Earls or something...

Scott Brown may be a RINO but he served at least one noble purpose.  "Kennedy Seat", my ass!"

I'm not sure why but a "Biden Seat" would somehow be even more obscene.

(Full disclosure. One time, in the 90's, there was a trivia contest in a bar for some $$ and I thought I'd do well to mentally run through my state capitols, so I might have run over my annual budget that year but I'm not sure that ever thought about fucking Delaware for even one second at any other point in that year.)

281  
This is the ONE race where the establishment was indisputably right in their analysis of everything.  Castle would have won that seat in a walk.

-Demosthenes

I'll ask again that you read the Broder piece I linked to. Castle states very clearly that he would not be in opposition to the White House should he win the Senate race. The chief order of business for the new Congress is to lay the groundwork for repeal of Obamacare, which is the signature legislation of this White House. Castle would have been in oppositon to this next Congress. Having Castle as the Republican Senator from Delaware would have been no victory for the GOP. If we can't establish this as fact, and you actually think that having a prominent GOP Senator in vocal opposition to repeal of Obamacare is a plus for the GOP, then we're just arguing past each other.

282 "... you're no different from a liar."
-Demosthenes

Please take that back or I have nothing further to say to you.

The allegations of a deal between the GOP and the White House were all over the internet- repeated here at AOSHQ in the comments threads by residents of Delaware and surroundings, at Stacy McCain's and Dan Riehl's blogs and many other places.

Remember how the White House inserted themselves into process of filling Obama's vacated seat- why would you possibly think they would be so laissez-faire in regard to Biden's? If Castle was sailing to victory in that race it's because the White House was fine with that.

I don't have to provide irrefutable proof for an allegation that I make on some online discussion- especially one that's been well-tossed around on the blogosphere and that I'm simply repeating.  We were having a friendly back and forth on an issue that still divides many people- or so I thought till you called me a liar. Care to take that back?

283

The last two years have proven that there are no conservative Democrats. Now lets go about the business of booting liberal Republicans. When the public identifies the Democrats as the Liberal Party and Republicans as the Conservative Party then our work will be complete.

Then, in light of  the simple fact that Americans who identify as Conservative vastly outnumber Americans identifying as Liberal, the Republican Party will be assured of future dominance.

What a fantasy. Anyway, the only reason there is no more "Blue Dogs" is because of Obama and Pelosi marched so far to the Left, they pushed independents and moderates into the Republican column.

Now you want to do the same things as Kos and Pelosi did and march them right out of the GOP. They said the same exact things as you. Just exchange "conservative" for "progressive" and you have a Michael Moore rant.

Let Jim DeMint pick candidates and dictate the platform for the entire country and the pendulum and the momentum will swing right back to the Democrats.

It took liberals over 50 years to get where they are and they did little of it through the political process. Yet, a band of newly minted Tea Party activists want to undue everything in a couple of election cycles by imposing candidates on electorates that dont share their values. Brilliant. These so-called "real" conservatives look like delusional, petulant adolscents to me.

There are tons of things one can do to advance the conservative cause without sticking their noses into other people's states and fucking things up for the hard working, tax paying patriots who live there.

284 The allegations of a deal between the GOP and the White House were all over the internet- repeated here at AOSHQ in the comments threads by residents of Delaware and surroundings, at Stacy McCain's and Dan Riehl's blogs and many other places.

There was never anything that came out to back that up and you provide nothing to back it up here.  It was something that foaming warriors of virtue such as yourself repeated to one another over and over as part of your own validation.

So basically, you're a fucking liar.

285 sartana, unless you have a quote from Castle that says he would be against repeal of Obamacare, then your case falls flat.  And you won't find one of those, considering that a) he voted against the bill, and b) he co-sponsored a repeal-and-replace effort.

"Non-opposition" does not equal "support."  I call your attention to the full context of the quote:

"I don't go there with any notion of just building up seniority, but I think I can make a contribution there in the fields I've worked in. I don't plan to be part of the opposition. I think I can do more than oppose."

The only thing you take away from that is non-opposition?!  Castle clearly means to signal to the DE electorate that he won't just be a member of the "Party of No," that he'll work for them on issues that matter.  What he's trying to say is, "I know you don't agree with me on every last thing, but I promise I'll work hard for you and I'll listen to what you have to say."  That's how Republicans of ANY kind get elected in true-blue states.

But because Castle not being a member of the Party of No was not enough for people like you, now we have an avid member of the Party of Yes.  I understand being suspicious of squishes, I really do.  But I'd still rather a squish than a true believer for the other side.  And I can understand people who take legitimate issue with that idea, and think that it's better to have someone whom you can honestly oppose.  But O'Donnell was not the candidate to draw that line for.  She was too easily made a figure of fun, and that just makes conservatives look bad.

286  @ 338 -- You're not a strong reader.  There's not a thing in that Broder piece you've been hawking that says Castle would have been a vocal opponent of the repeal of Obamacare.  What Castle was clearly saying (to a group of people whose previous senator is now the vice president) is that he's not seeking election for the sole purpose of serving as the opposition to the administration ... that he intended to go to the Senate to represent the people of Delaware.  That's the sort of thing successful politicians say, as opposed to talking about mice with fully functioning human brains.

But, hey -- I'd expect that sort of interpretation of his remarks from people who tried to claim that he supported the impeachment of George W. Bush based on a committee vote that resulted in the resolution's demise.

287 "... you're no different from a liar."
-Demosthenes

Please take that back or I have nothing further to say to you.

Posted by: sartana at November 18, 2010 03:18 AM (abtaM)

I did not call you a liar.  You really seem to have a problem quoting things in context.  Here's the full quote, which I stand by wholeheartedly:

"...if you make accusations without proof in hand, and they turn out to be untrue, you're no different from a liar."

As to the first branch of that conditional, you don't have proof.  You have a bunch of stories, sourced to blogs.  I can allege a lot of things, too.  I could allege that Barack Obama was personally involved in electoral shenanigans in Illinois in 2010.  It might even be true.  But I have no proof of it, or even a decent suspicion, and so I would never say something like that.  And if you picked up my assertion and ran with it, with no proof except my word, that would be -- how shall I say this? -- unwise.

As to the second branch, I'm not saying the allegations aren't true.  I'm also not saying they're false.  Because I don't know.  And neither do you.  If there was no Castle/Biden deal, then yes, you are a liar.  If there was a deal, then you are not a liar.  You would still have unwisely (in my view) repeated some very suspicious claims without adequate proof in hand, but even good people do that from time to time when they get very excited.  I've done it myself, and I'm the best person there is.  Except for most of the others.

All kidding aside, I will say this to you, though:  You need to actually READ WHAT PEOPLE SAY BEFORE YOU RESPOND.  Saying "If x, then you're a liar" is NOT the same thing as saying "You're a liar."

288 "As to the second branch, I'm not saying the allegations aren't true.  I'm also not saying they ARE true."  That's what I meant to say in #344.  Sorry.  We need an edit feature for things like that.

289 "...foaming warriors of virtue..."

My God, what a beautiful phrase.  I could make love to that phrase.

290 States I almost never think about:

1.) Rhode Island

2.) Fucking Delaware

3.) Idaho

4.) Alabama

5.) Vermont

6.) South Dakota (the fact that there is a North Dakota makes me wonder though.)

7.) Kentucky

8.) Minnesota

9.) Kansas

10.) One other that I'm totally forgetting but just can't think of right now.


Everyone's list is going to be different of course. 

But I'd be damned surprised if fucking Delaware weren't in 85% of Americans' top 3.

291  
Here's a spot  the Miller campaign ran exposing Murkowski's doublespeak regarding her support of Obamacare:

http://tinyurl.com/2ehoztl

Obviously she's a vote against repeal, and if anyone thinks Castle would have been a vote to repeal then they're seriously deluding themselves.

The GOP voters of Delaware knew what Castle would have done, which is why they primaried  his ass.

292 So...let me get this straight:

1)  Castle votes against Obamacare in the House.
2)  Castle co-sponsors repeal-and-replace legislation in the House.
3)  THEREFORE, Castle would not vote to repeal in the Senate.

Ummmm.  Yeah.  Logic fail.

And what does Murky have to do with this, anyway?  Don't change the subject.  I suspect that on the issue of Murkowski vs. Miller, there really wouldn't BE a debate between us, or between most people here.

293  @ 348 -- The GOP voters of Delaware knew what Castle would have done, which is why they primaried  his ass.

Whelp!  They got their wish.  And a guaran-damn-teed vote against repeal, along with everything else they purportedly believe in, for a generation.

294  
Demosthenes, you stated that I made "accusations" that a backroom deal had been made over Castle, yet nowhere did I state as fact that the GOP and the White House had struck a deal on that. Here's what I originally wrote:

"The point has also been made, both in the comments on this blog and by many familiar with Delaware politics, that the GOP and the Dems had an arrangement in regard to that Senate seat- that Castle would take this seat till the next election at which time he would vacate and Beau Biden would take it from there."

I'm not presenting this as fact, so there's no need that I provide proof. I'm simply repeating a rumor that was going around in the weeks before and after the DE primary.  If one were required to provide irrefutable proof for every musing or proposition one made in an internet discussion, there wouldn't be much to talk about.

Furthermore, if now is the first time you've been made aware of these supposed shenanigans then you haven't been paying attention or you've been badly served by the political  sites that you visit. You might want to take that up with the main bloggers here who were too busy trying to bury O'Donnell than to investigate or at least make light of very credible allegations of corruption surrounding that race.

295 I'm not presenting this as fact, so there's no need that I provide proof. I'm simply repeating a rumor that was going around in the weeks before and after the DE primary. If one were required to provide irrefutable proof for every musing or proposition one made in an internet discussion, there wouldn't be much to talk about. _ Oh Bull Shit. That "rumor" ended up coming from the mouth of Mr. Erick "VIGILANCE!" Erickson himself, and was fed to him by one of O'Donnell's staffers. This was known before the primary.

296
Dipshit, that rumor was repeated as being not only highly likely but as most probably true by Delaware residents on these very threads.

297 Why SoCons should STFU for a while: 1: The economy is shit. I would guess a whole lot of votes for the GOP were not even about cutting spending, but about wanting a better economy. Let's work on that FIRST and not make the Dem mistake. BTW, this also applies to FiCons...cutting the DOE is nice, but if it doesn't jump start growth, it won't get us re-elected either. 2: You are winning the abortion war, perhaps not to your 100% liking, but you have something to work with. If you decide to drag gay marriage into this and then prayer in school, or whatever your next idea is, you might lose those gains. BTW, what is your next goal? If you get abortion banned, no gays allowed in various careers, and no gay marriage, would that be enough? C'mon and admit it...you'd want prayer in school, right? Maybe a little creationism? Just messin' with you... 3: Keeping the Democrats out of your business is the next best thing to your true goal of having religious police everywhere monitoring people. I keeed, I keeed, but the point is that fiscal conservative, socially liberal does not equal 'progressive, let's teach kids about fisting.' FiCon/SoLib means, if the next door neighbors are gay, uhhhh, let's not do anything at all. 4. You guys do know you cost votes, too, right? We love you and all, and I sympathise with family values, but when COD is talking about masturbation, well, a whole bunch of independents who might vote GOP head over to the Dem side. Yes, I hate those assholes, too, who blow with the wind, but they exist. The Dems totally exploit this too. You can find message board pundits who constantly equate GOP = Baptist Preacher banning books. Its annoying, but maybe, just maybe, if you kept your mouth shut for a while on the masturbation, we could all get elected and have a wonderful big tent. 5. MOST CRITICAL: FiconSolib would still be appointing the kind of judges you want, like Scalia or Roberts. Frankly, if you were completely silent for a while, we could get the court set up to not have to worry about additional insult to injury happening. Think of this as a Field Goal situation - yeah 6 points is more than 3, but sometimes you need to just take a FG. Especially when we are the GOP, which is not too good on offense and needs whatever points we can get. p.s. I wrote this intentionally to be inflammatory. Flame me back for fun!

298
Demosthenes, it was Joe Miller's campaign who ran that spot slamming Murkowski for being a "no" on repeal. Apparently there's a significant number of people out there who don't such faith in the integrity of Rinos as you do. If you think that Joe Miller is full of shit for attacking Murky, then maybe you could take that up with some of his supporters here on this blog. I'm assuming there are some left.

You ask what Murkowksi has to do with this? There is no light between Murk and Castle. If you defend Castle on the one hand and reject Murky on the other, then you have serious cognitive issues.

299 Swamp_Yankee...self-appointed TP leaders, because I would be a whole lot of TP people are not SoCons.

300  @ 353 -- Dipshit, that rumor was repeated as being not only highly likely but as most probably true by Delaware residents on these very threads.

Highly likely AND most probably true?  And by Delaware residents no less?

Reconvene the Warren Commission!

301 Hey, did you hear? Mike Castle loves the cock. Outrageous, I know. Tell a friend.

302 You didn't say "The rumor went around," which certainly would have been true.  You said "The point has been made."  Saying that a point has been made, in this context, IS a presentation of alleged truth -- it carries with its usage connotations of a central issue, an important fact.  If you don't understand the difference between what you actually said, and what you are now trying to say you said, then this is a pretty hopeless conversation.

If one were required to provide irrefutable proof for every musing or proposition one made in an internet discussion, there wouldn't be much to talk about.

Granted, happily.  But I don't believe I asked for "irrefutable proof."  I asked for "proof."  Perhaps I should have said "evidence" instead.  Mea culpa.  But the fact remains, you have provided neither proof nor evidence.  The people you cited never provided any, either.  Which means you're a rumormonger, repeating the words of other more widely-known rumormongers, all of whom were widely known to detest the candidate who was the subject of the rumors.  Pardon me if I react with intense, burning skepticism.

And why should the bloggers here "...investigate or at least make light of...allegations of corruption surrounding that race"?*  They weren't the ones spreading the rumor.  It's not their job to prove its truth, or to uncover evidence in its favor.  The burden of proof, in debate as in law, is always on the accuser.  Why didn't Riehl and Erickson and everyone else whom I saw make these charges give us something more than their unsubstantiated word?  Why didn't any of these DE insiders who knew about the deal step forward themselves and blow the whistle?

* (I refuse to print the phrase "very credible" in this context, because very credible things usually have some evidence in their favor.)

And congratulations on another subject change, by the way.  You have no evidence for your charges about Castle and Obamacare, whereas I have some evidence against them.  So, you switch subjects back to the supposed "deal," which would be fine, except that you also have no evidence for your charges here.  What are you going to do next, say that Mike Castle sank the Titanic?  You have about as much proof for that as you do for the others.

303 Here's why SoCons should occasionally consider supporting libertarians FiConSoLib candidates... Scenario A: The progressives win. They pass laws in favor of gay marriage, and then make it a hate crime to even speak out against homosexuality. Churches are forced to accept gay members, marry them, or they will be fined. Preachers who preach against homosexuality will be arrested, like in Canada. Scenario B: The GOP wins, but with many "socially liberal" i.e. libertarian types helping out. Social issues are put on hold. That means gay marriage is not being considered, except in liberal states. DADT might be passed but probably not either as there is a national spending crisis. Feel free to fight on this as a separate issues. Your preachers are free to speak against gays, masturbation,or whatever. The libertarians will not expand hate speech laws and will work against them. Oh, and judges are appointed that interpret the Constitution strictly and don't come up with penumbras. Federalism is rejuvenated, allowing you to be more conservative in your own state. Which do you want?

304 Mike Castle is a gay who likes to masturbate, too. Pass it on.

305 Mike Castle is a lesbian, who likes to masturbate, but one Halloween, he went to a party and hooked up with this guy, but like, didn't do anything.

306 If you think that Joe Miller is full of shit for attacking Murky, then maybe you could take that up with some of his supporters here on this blog. I'm assuming there are some left.

I NEVER SAID MILLER WAS FULL OF SHIT.  I never said anything about Miller at all.  I liked Miller.  I wanted him to win.  Further, give that I haven't said anything about Miller, this comment is apropos of nothing.  If you're going to start spinning hypotheticals like this one, when I have given you no grounds even to SUSPECT that I might feel that way, then I will waste no further time on you.

If you defend Castle on the one hand and reject Murky on the other, then you have serious cognitive issues.

I'm torn between two responses here.  I think I'll give both.  First off, I "defend" Mike Castle insofar as he was the most conservative person (not very conservative at that, I'll admit) who could have won in DE.  I reject Lisa Murkowski because that statement did not, and does not, apply to her in AK.  This is not rocket science, and if I haven't outright said that before, I've certainly said enough in that general vein to make my point plain.

Second, given your idiotic accusations about Castle and Obamacare, and given your inability to read FULL quotes and extract the FULL meaning from them, forgive me if I say that you're not qualified, in all your (ahem) glory, to discuss any cognitive issues I may have.

307 @361:  Spot on, sexypig.  I'll happily take the most socially conservative candidate we can get who is capable of winning -- but in blue states, that won't be saying a lot.  We forgive Scott Brown and Chris Christie some of their departures on this score.  If only Castle had been someone more like them, it would have been easier to unite FisCons and SoCons behind his (winning) candidacy.

308
Demosthenes,  would you have been happy if I had prefaced my reference to the Delaware shenanigans with the phrase: "unnamed sources say..."?

How much of political reporting and commentary is based strictly on speculation. Have you not read any posts by Ace? It's telling that you seem more concerned  with how I phrased my reference to shady back room deals than you are with the shady deals themselves. It just seems too many people would like "Delaware" to just go away.

I NEVER SAID MILLER WAS FULL OF SHIT.

True. I never said you did. I said:  "If you think Miller's full of shit..." You mocked me for asserting that Castle would be against repeal, and my point was that you could mock Miller for making the same charge against Murkowski without actual proof.  There would be no politcs if assertion were required to be backed up with fact. But you know that.  Let me put it this way-

Crist, Murkowski, Spector, Scozzafava

Any name reall seem out of place there? They're all of a piece. We can attempt to know one better through understanding the others. So no, I have no proof the assertion that Castle would be against repeal.' Yet neither did the Miller campaign have proof that Murk would against either. However, that did not stop Miller from presenting a string of statements by Murkowski that portray her as a lying snake that will most likely balk when it comes to advancing repeal. You mocked me and questioned my logic for asserting that Castle, like Murkowski would obstruct repeal. Murkowski initially opposed Obamacar, yet now has been speaking tweaking it. If you go to Castle's webpage, and look under "On the Issues" you'll see his section on healthcare which is entitled " Strengthening Healthcare". Care to surmise what that might mean? Keep looking- you'll find nothing on Repeal.

If you hear Castle say that he "won't be in opposition" to the White House and you can still think that he would vote to repeal Obama's signature legislation, then you're either easily fooled or simply being obtuse.

309 Gabe;

Sorry, you missed the boat on this one so bad you never made it too the damn wharf. This isn't about petty sniping on who "caused the loss of the Senate" although there is a lot of that going on. This started almost before the damn election was over.

You could see it in some of the articles posted here as well. There is a major power struggle going on in the Party right now for who is going to control the direction of the Party. The ruling elites who seem to always back the RINOs (no matter what damn State it is in) or the DeMint conservative wing.

We have seen it in the responses opinion pieces DeMint has posted in the WSJ and other papers, we have seen it in the responses by some of the leadership to the press. I mentioned this once before on an article last week in which the leadership was taking at stand on some issue (may have been earmarks) but it was directly against the stand of the Tea Party and DeMint.

As usual we had our fair number of "this isn't worth fighting over" crowd but I remarked then as well. The issue wasn't earmarks or what ever. The leadership was letting it be known that DeMint even though most of his supported candidates won, he was getting no support for them.

They have always hated DeMint and a lot of them have trashed him openly in the past. They don't do so openly anymore, their staff and them do it in the halls and corridors letting it be known that the conservatives will get nothing in the congress.

As for the social cons, hell I only recognize one on that list but I don't track them and I say this really has NOTHING to do with social cons.

Since you are in DC now just watch and see how many of the "leadership" positions go to real conservative and forget about the "social" word. I have always hated that modifier anyway. Social issues have nothing to do with "conservative".

310 Posted by: sexypig at November 18, 2010 04:50 AM (xppWR)

In your scenario, I would go with B.)

But I'm a socially liberal, social and financial conservative.

(Parse, that!)

Which do you want?

I'm not so sure anymore, that B.) is really an option anymore though.

I can't believe that the next time I fly somewhere, I should expect, not only to, take off my shoes, empty my pockets, unwind my belt, purchase most or all of my toiletries at my destination for a few days and toss them as being useless before flying back, pass through a radiation gun which is allows for an ersatz strip search, the photographic evidence of which neccessarily "must be" recorded, logged and packaged for distribution at some later date (why the hell even do it, otherwise?) or have some Unionized Burger King reject check out my ass, boobs and crotch.

If we won't say NO to this.

We can't say NO to anything.

Not if it has to do with safety...

311
this really has NOTHING to do with social cons.
-Vic

You're absolutely right, it doesn't at all. Here's the Declaration that was the subject Gabe's post:

http://tinyurl.com/2czmfxo

Nowhere in the text does it refer to SoCons, or social issues or even imply that the attacks on DeMint were attacks on him as a Social Conservative -and none of the signatories identify themselves on the document as SoCons, or even motivated to sign out of social concerns. Yet how does Gabe begin his diatribe?

"Several social conservatives (I'm assuming; I only recognize a handful of names on the list) are peeved at what they think is unfair criticism of Senator DeMint in the wake of the election."

It seems that Gabe invented the SoCon angle to this episode out of whole cloth. Then, in a comment upthread, Drew chimes in with this:

"Consider this thread got started because criticism of a leading social-con has been ruled out of order by some of the leading social-cons in the country..."

He tries to further the notion of this Declaration as being some kind of SoCan Manifesto, or if you will, a

SoKampf Manifesto

It's one thing to sidetrack a discussion by engaging in a fight over an unrelated issue - it's another thing entirely to blatantly misrepresent the facts in doing so.

It seems they're attempting to portray this as being a SoCon plot due to the fact that several of the signatories are prominent traditional Christians. I really think there's a deeply entrenched hatred for Christians among some circles on the Right. This might go some way in explaining the over the top vitriol directed at Rand Paul, CO'D and Sharon Angle that we've witnessed on these threads and elsewhere.

312
And now Dan Riehl has responded most forcefully to Gabe's scurrilous attack:

http://tinyurl.com/2dowywl

313 this really has NOTHING to do with social cons.
-Vic

I wrote: "Several social conservatives (I'm assuming; I only recognize a handful of names on the list) are peeved at what they think is unfair criticism of Senator DeMint in the wake of the election."

Look at the names on the list: YAF, Eric Erickson, Life Issues Institute, Christian Film & Television Comms'n.

You want to pretend that these aren't social conservatives? Wait, you are pretending that, Vic for reasons I assume are genuine, since you're an upstanding guy.

Sartana, though, goes on and on about the gay thing, like he does every freakin' time he disagrees with something I write. Just can't get it it off your mind, can you, old boy?

To both of you: yes, there are "several social conservatives (I'm assuming; I only recognize a handful of names on the list)" signed on to this letter, just as I wrote. If you can't make your point without lying, perhaps you need to reevaluate your point.

314

Lisa Murkowski, social conservative.

Ace is a friggen Einstein by comparison.

315 >>Lisa Murkowski, social conservative. >>Ace is a friggen Einstein by comparison. Ace can't do math, he's a cursed lawyer!!! I just thought I'd save AmishDude the trouble. This is all so silly and you could see it coming the entire election. Both parties, Republican and Democrat, are made of coalitions and they need the entire coalition to win on a national level. After the far left of the Dem party took over upon Obama's win they decided on an extreme agenda which they successfully rammed through at the cost of power, the Blue Dogs and moderates got annihilated. If the Republican party wants to do the same infighting and purging we can expect a couple good years and then hand the reins of power back to the donks. Crazy So-Cons and Squishy RINOs need to co-exist. That's just the way it is.

316

Posted by: JackStraw at November 18, 2010 08:26 AM (TMB3S)

At least they waited until the obtained power to eattheir own. Its absurd. We have one chamber and people are talking about repealing ObamaCare and purging RINOS at the same time. Its extreme cognitive dissonance.

317
You're the one engaging in blatant distortion of the the truth here Gabe.

Reread my response to Vic just above. I'll repeat what I wrote there:

Nowhere in the text does it refer to SoCons, or social issues or even imply that the attacks on DeMint were attacks on him as a Social Conservative -and none of the signatories identify themselves on the document as SoCons, or even motivated to sign out of social concerns.


From among the dozens of signatories to that document, you singled the SoCon ie. Christians as the target of your ire. Why?
There was no angle to this story that relates to social issues or SoCons, yet first you and then Drew make this attempt to portray this episode in such a way. What are you two cooking up? Will we have to wait for the emails to be posted on the Daily Caller?

As to the "gay" thing, I made reference to you having "gay on the brain" in my very first comment waaay upthread, and have posted many comments since that make no reference whatsoever to "gay". And to reiterate the point I was making- yes, you seem to display a hostility to the so-called SoCons; as is evidenced by this uncalled for swipe that you've taken at them. And it seems to stem from your enmity over their opposition to the GayCon agenda. Kapeesh? You infected a  SoCon angle into this when there was none- which Vic also pointed out, as did Dan Riehl in his response to you- I merely speculated as to why.

If your going to represent your beliefs, then go ahead. But don't hate me for having the temerity to oppose you.

318
I'm still waiting to see if the Cocktail Party groks their situation. To paraphrase Marco Rubio, this isn't a mandate, it's a probation.

319
You infected a  SoCon angle into this when there was none...

Of course, I meant to type injected.

320  
Can someone please tell me what is a SoCon  anyway?

It appears that these would be people who are concerned about social issues to the exclusion of all else.  Which would seem to describe Huckabee supporters or the so-called Evangelicals. Although I don't see what's socially conservative about pardoning dangerous cop-killers. This SoCon label is a misnomer, as many people who voice concern about abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage and  the like are not doing so primarily from dogmagic religious motivation or to the exclusion of other issues.  The use of this terms merely muddies the waters and stifles open debate.

I'm a Conservative with the ALL OF THE ABOVE bubble checked in. But I'm pretty fucking large that way.

321 59:

Apparently you've never heard of libertarians.

322
I thought Libertarians were just dope-smoking Conservatives.

323 I  am not a spammer!

324

Grow up? Take your own advice, you condescending little twerp.

I think we are all "social conservatives" now...Conservatism isn't a philosophy of law, or a political movement, it's a fundraising pool and an anthropological clique.  It's a social movement, like Goth, or joggers.

Some of us Neanderthals actually OPPOSE every item of Clinton's 1992 agenda.  That's right, we dont' want a weaker military, the homosexual agenda, abortion safe legal & rare, judicial activism, soak the rich tax schemes, bigger entitlements, control & reduction of energy production, or federal responsibility for health care.  Anybody who opposes ONE of those things is considered "extreme" in today's Republican Party, because today's GOP is not "conservative", as it used to be used.  I call myself "independent reactionary". 

You are not our "fellow conservatives". You are allies of convenience who also oppose Democrats.  You have every intention of defeating our policy agenda.  You are, really, another set of opponents to be wrecked.  So your snide demand for a truce is as out of place as if it were addressed to Democrats.  Peddle your papers, bud, and good luck to you.

325 Threads about Bolton's moustache notwithstanding, I'm growing very wary of the way cons are all looking for 'heros' to emerge and lead us out of Obamaland. It's a dangerous impulse, IMO.

Politicians are not heros. We support the treacherous scumbags who best pursue our desires. That descriptor goes for all of them.

The only hero I'm looking for right now is one who can restore the coalition and end all this black-on-black bullshit that we can't afford to indulge in.

Threatening to silence criticism within your own party is retarded; we need criticism. We aren't populated with perfect angels who always make the right choice. Criticism is often the sincerest offer of assistance we ever get from our friends. Plus, this is America. You tell people to shut up, you're going to get some flak and pushback.

Having said that, I thought this post was just intentionally inflammatory for no good reason. It takes two to tango, and if you want to disagree in good faith with a member of our coalition, how about canning the bitchy snark? Fanbois, Gabe? Come on.

I'm really getting fucking sick of this shit.

326 It's obtuse shit. Some of you are so wrapped up in your dweeby numbers and your short term politics. It's more than just a few plebicites at stake here. You can't see the forest through the trees. --- Poster on this Thread Indeed. The loss in 72 for McGovern was a short term loss. However the radical Leftist movement which took control of the Democrat party and now dominates it, and chased out the Reagan Democrats, has been extremely successful. One has to look not only at electoral politics and the issues that the Radical New Left has put front and center, as well as the huge success in stacking the courts with extreme Left activist judges, but the march through all the institutions. This is what Conservatives have to counter, and they arent going to do it with wishy washy-ness ideas and RINOs.....I guarantee you that. We have to adopt the successful tactics of a determined and motivated enemy, to win the war. You might not like it, but the alternative is far worse. The US didnt enjoy nuking Japan or carpet bombing German cities, but we did what was necessary, so that our values and the world that we envisioned became the status quo. Im afraid that Radical 60s New Leftism is the zeitgeist, and it;s going to take more than RINOs to change it.

327 The only real alternative to government as a source of assistance, authority and a functioning civil society remains the "little platoons" described by Edmund Burke -- families and communities shaped by attitudes that count as both economically and culturally conservative. --- Medved

328  @ 384 -- This is what Conservatives have to counter, and they arent going to do it with wishy washy-ness ideas and RINOs.....I guarantee you that.

One, two ... many O'Donnells!

329 Damn. This post was whinier than the one it criticized.

330 OK hands up, anyone here surprised that Gabriel thinks the demon here is social conservatives? Anyone?

Yeah didn't think so.

331 There was no angle to this story that relates to social issues or SoCons, yet first you and then Drew make this attempt to portray this episode in such a way.

Because of O'Donnell. She was some true conservative who had never held a job except also-ran and masturbation foe. Republicans were warned not to nominate her, yet Huckabee's TPE, Palin and DeMint made sure the freepers got to the polls and attacked anyone who criticized her pitiful resume. Mike Castle supported cap-and-trade in the House, but he also authored legislation to overturn Obamacare. SoCons preferred Coons, because he was "honest about being a Democrat." That's some real fucked up logic, and now after getting throttled at the polls, the DeMint faction wants to take it to the next level in 2012. Seriously, he said he would take 30 lunatics over 60 moderates. He threatened to leave the party, if he didn't get his way. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Because this bickering is too destructive.

332 Jesus.  Man up, pussies.

333 You and your kind just like to think that if you bully other people loud and long enough you can get them to stand down and agree with you.

But it usually works, kind of like bombarding the polls for DWTS.  Plus, Ace doesn't read most of his own comments. Find your enemies, inform your pals and start writing complaining emails. Look at all the recent bans; Ace said the only intentional one was "Greg." This insurrection should have been handled like the Ron Paul Re"EVOL"ution in 2008. But even RedState is drunk on the tea party koolaid.

334

Indeed. The loss in 72 for McGovern was a short term loss. However the radical Leftist movement which took control of the Democrat party and now dominates it, and chased out the Reagan Democrats, has been extremely successful.

Absolutely.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and it is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of predicting the future save but by looking at the past.

Round about 70 BC or so, the populare leaders (Gaius Julius Caesar and Marcus Licinius Crassus) supported a fellow for Consul by the name of Lucius Sergius Catilina.

He was radical and his policies were stupid (cancellation of debts, mainly - something Caesar knows is a poor idea and later on would resist greatly during his dictatorship), but he was supported by a certain faction of populist supporters, an ally, and would be useful in a position of authority.

Ultimately he couldn't hack it. Guy was a kook. Caesar and Crassus hedged their support and pulled back, but they still had to support the guy because they were associated with him whether they liked it or not, unless they WANTED fractious splits in their own faction. Marcus Carlius Rovus types could not be reached for comment.

Catilina lost to Marcus Tullius Cicero. He can't do anybody any good if he can't get elected, and so he was largely hung out. But Caesar also practiced a very personal politics, and was a profoundly loyal man. He did try repeatedly to reign in Catilina for his own good (and later, almost got killed on the floor of the senate trying to get Catilina a fair trial).

Catilina NOT ONLY LOSES, he goes loose cannon. He develops a persecution complex. He launches a pathetic and retarded (but quite serious, and quite desperately immoral) attempt at a coup, overthrowing the senate and killing the Pro-Consul Cicero so that he can declare himself Dictator.

Cicero (the Optimate) squashes it, kills Catilina and many of his supporters of some influence, including I believe an office-holding Tribune or two, and a former Consul, and in doing so "saves the republic" and becomes a hero of popular opinion. Failed election -> failed coup -> publicity windfall for optimates. The lurid details come out that out of desperation, Catilina had encouraged (with the promise of freedom) slaves to join his revolt and take up arms against Romans! A massive taboo among all sane Romans! And this, not a decade or two removed from Spartacus's Slave Revolt (which was put down by the aforementioned Marcus Licinius Crassus).

Catilina's reputation at large is tarnished, many marginally influential populares are dead, Caesar and his ilk are tarnished by the association. The Optimate pro-consul is the hero of the day. The "final ultimatum", the power of the senate to do whatever the fuck it wanted without any restraint so long as it cried "Crisis!", (which usually meant killing populares who were too successful and managed to succeed within the rules designed to supress them, neccessitating a suspension of the rules - though not in Catilina's case) was validated by precedent and for the moment, by popular opinion.

Was Catilina not a COLLOSAL failure for the populare faction?

Cicero was at the height of his career. But Caesar was brilliant. He bid his time and played a long game, sticking to his rhetoric. He can't defend Catilina, be he can defend the right to a trial and expose (and agitate against) the Final Ultimatum interpretation of the constitution that effectively gave an escape clause that said the Senate's powers were limited by the Constitution, except when the Senate said they weren't.

By the end of Cicero's year term, the great general Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus was returning triumphant from war and siezed the "death without trial" issue as his door into populare politics, demagoguing Cicero. Caesar and Crassus were one thing, but against Magnus, Pompei the Great, Cato and the optimates cut their losses and hung poor Tully out to dry. (politically, they were a short-sighted and quite reactionary lot).

A couple years later, around the time of the rise of the First Triumvirate, Cicero becomes an effective advocate against the Triumvirate. Crassus and Caesar unleash a Tribunate named Publius Clodius Pulcher, a personal enemy of Cicero's. He retroactively makes the execution of Roman citizens without a trial a crime with a mandatory sentance of exile, and fearing conviction, having lost popular and political support under the Consulship of Crassus and Pompei, Cicero bolts in the night and flees to Greece.

The most effective opposition to the Populare leaders is neutralized. Not only neutralized, co-opted. Cicero falls into a deep depression and is desperate to end his exile. He strikes a deal with Pompei and Caesar and effectively becomes their rhetorical hatchet-man and lap dog for the next decade or so, with the fear of Catilina's ghost coming back through Pulcher keeping him politically neutered by Pulcher's masters among the populares - Crassus and Caesar. Not until Crassus's death and the split between Caesar and Pompei which led to the Civil War, would Cicero dare to try to take down Caesar and the Populares.

Now... Was Catilina a bane or a boon for the populare faction?

Ultimately, (and as Caesar quite keenly saw ahead of time, when he tried to bring Cicero into it) once Cicero was neutralized no one could oppose the First Triumvirate. The Catilinian conspiracy was at first detrimental but ultimately essential.

After the end of the Triumvirate, Cicero would support Pompei, and lose again to Caesar, who became Dictator.

So when the loose cannon Catilina (supported by Caesar) failed to be electable, and furthermore self destructed with a bizarre, hopeless and vile attempt at a coup, Caesar was driven from the floor of the Senate at the point of sword for trying to fillibuster the executions and the conspirators were killed anyway, and Caesar dared not show his face in the senate again for a whole year, and Cicero was decreed to be "Father of the Republic" by Cato and the Senate, who actually won that scuffle, and who made a tactical mistake?

335 The Ace of Spades HQ Comments Section:  Your source for incoherent pedantry since 2010.

336 Sometimes I get the feeling that there some people out there who do not get the fact that other people have a right to their opinions. You do not have to like those opinions, but constantly threatening for crimes against the thought police will not tend to draw people to your side..just the opposite.

337 lus I think one of the NRCC's job is to get house member's elected, and if they thought O'Donnell was hurting the brand-then someone they could have offered someone experienced to help her campaign.

Hey NRCC seemed to be more interested in helping Murkowski and Crist. These people are not pure fiscal conservatives, but at least these people don't get hung up on dead babies. They are more open to gay marriage/DADT.

Posted by: LAI at November 18, 2010 12:44 AM (DH9np)

This is not true. The NRCC supported the GOP nominee in both of these races, that would be Miller and Rubio and in regards to O'Donnell, they gave her financial support. A lot of people put out what ended up to an untrue rumor that they refused to give her money, but in fact she got that check immediately. It is not their fault if the candidate has major baggage. People knew that when they nominated her.

338

The Ace of Spades HQ Comments Section:  Your source for incoherent pedantry since 2010.

Well Walt, there isn't much for commentary in that. It's mostly just history.

If you find history to be pedantic, that's your problem. It's not exactly obscure, a pretty significant happening. As for incoherancy... again - I'm not sure that's my fault.

A lot of people put out what ended up to an untrue rumor that they refused to give her money, but in fact she got that check immediately.

Well, I think the way it actually happened was, they weren't going to give her money, but people started shouting about it and they had to, to keep face.

And the rationale for not giving her money isn't idiotic. A legit argument can be made about limited resources.

But ultimately, as they plainly saw, the message mattered more than the moolah.

339 "Unilateral" may not have been the best word choice, but it does actually work there.

340

Personally, I found Entropy's bit of history-telling to be fairly fascinating, and a useful point.  Walt's ignoring that point, brings up another point.

A lot of the RINO's are not going to be convinced by logic or charm. They're smart enough, or unscrupulous enough to find an excuse to continue being a loser aka RINO.

Chris Ballsz, well done. Sartana, you're more patient than me. Others have done well too.

Keep in mind the ground fact: They NEED us, we can USE their help, but we do not NEED them. If in the end, all the RINOs flee to the Dems, we'll probably be paving the road to a twenty year dominance in politics, and a likely win in the year the RINOs purge themselves.

341 Tell you what...why don't you purity types get rid of Lindsay Graham in SOUTH CAROLINA --- Drew M. Working on it. He was primaried in 2008, after the famous Grahamnesty move in 2007 by Buddy Witherspoon, who got 33% of the vote. Then Conley switched from the Republican to the Democrat party to run against Grahamnesty in the general and got 42% of the vote. Lindsey Graham isnt long for representing SC in the US Senate.

342 Additionally, we just booted Jim Spratt(D) out of Congress. 5 of 6 districts are GOP now. We still have the racist 6th District, mandated by the Voting Rights Act, which King Clyburn rules (my district). Joe "You Lie" Wilson is back in Congress. Tim Scott, beat 2 political dynasties in the primaries (Strom Thurmond's and Carroll Campbell's progeny) to take Henry Brown's seat (Henry retired). First Black Republican to represent SC in Congress since Reconstruction. Then there is the Palin effect Nikki Haley winning Governor, backed by our Libertarian SoCon current Governor Mark Sanford. And to top it all off, we will be getting another seat in Congress in 2012!

343 "Apparent Cult Following"?  Have you SEEN the Palinistas lately? Don't forget to call DWTS and vote for a Palin. No one DARE criticize a Palin without a verbal smackdown by these cult like folks. Methinks you doth protest WAY too much!

344 Oops, that would be : "Methinks THOU doth protest WAY too much". Lest I get a red mark for improper English! Additionally,  Palin herself plays the victim card quite well. No one is perfect, and I seriously doubt DeMint signed on to this. Let it go! xoxo The DeMint cult club...

345

Asics Running Shoes are your best sport shoe at Asicsrunningshop,Inc..