1 If McCain had ever checked his six in the first place he'd never have made it into Congress...

2 I think a Hayworth victory would be disastrous for several reasons.  First, we would have learned nothing from the Democrats' overreach in 2006 and 2008, wherein they ran many candidates who could win once or twice under perfect conditions but won't be long-term office holders.  The fact that Hayworth lost his last congressional race is evidence enough that his mix of positions and personal "attributes" may not be well suited to keeping the seat R in the long term.  Secondly, a McCain primary loss would give a concrete example to the media's narrative (we know that it's coming) that the 2010 election is a right-wing purge/temper tantrum.  Like it or not, McCain was the standard-bearer in 2008, and a repudiation of him in favor of Hayworth would give the media too much to work their mischief with - he would, of course, become the media darling he was when he wasn't opposing Obumbles, for the usual purpose of blasting Republicans and such.

The way I see it, temper is the difference between Santino's failure and Michael's success - control your emotions, make the smart play, stay alive and kill all your enemies when you have the opportunity. 

3
come on Dems -do it for king Obama.
That's all this is about.  Screw the nation, give Obama a win.

Sick.

4

I clearly understand the need to vote with head, not heart, since I voted for Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in PA's senate primary a few years ago.

And look how that turned out.

5

Eject Eject

I really do hope McCain loses, however does anyone doubt that he won't run as an independent if he loses the primary? He will pull a Joe Liebermann, however unlike connecticut he will end up costing the Republicans the Senate seat.

McCain falls into that list of politicians who represent themselves and not their states, kind of like Arlen Specter.

It is amazing to me that we picked this man to be our candidate for president. I know no one at AoS voted for him in the primaries, but still he fooled enough Republicans in the US to win the primaries. The sooner men like him are out of our political system the better.

 

6

I clearly understand the need to vote with head, not heart, since I voted for Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in PA's senate primary a few years ago.

And look how that turned out.

So you're the douchebag who voted for specter.

I voted Toomey and am voting Toomey again this year. I'm also pulling for Tom Corbett for Gov.

7 Hayworth is a poor choice.

Unless the AZ Republicans can pony up a better one, we'll have to suffer McCain. We need a better candidate there desperately.

Best case scenario: An actual conservative wins, despite Palin's endorsement of McCain, and Palin keeps her RNC/good old boys cred. This ain't that scenario.

8

Alec Leamas

I agree that Hayworth is probably a one or two term senator if he wins, but who else is there in Arizona? Also, Mccain will have to step aside at some point, he is getting very old and the republicans will need to replace him. If not now, when?

9

It's time for a change in Washington.  Go JD!

10 Is it wrong for me to pray that a rattlesnake bites McCain in his groin and he does not make it to the hospital in time?

11 People like McCain and Lindsey Graham are the reason Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008. They demoralize the base by reaching across the isle and making it easy for the democrats to get half steps towards socialism. The war in Iraq was not the reason we were demoralized, it was the freaking spending. No child left behind, drugs for seniors, pushes for comprehensive immigration reform, fighting against tax cuts, not one single dime saved by getting rid of worthless and even destructive government agencies.

McCain remaining in will mean a repeat of 2001 to 2006.

12 Hayworth isn't exactly my ideal candidate given some of his past problems and the fact that he lost his last election.

The damn sad thing is that nobody else has come forward.  But I am of the mind of "anybody but McLame". His sell by date is long overdue.

I don't give a T-Damn how bad this Hayworth is but he can't be as bad as McLame.

As for losing to a Dem, how is that any worse than McCain. Before this year when voters scared him he had reached DIABLO status.

13

6

Yes actually it was my one douchebag vote that put Specter two points ahead of Toomey when the final results were tallied.

I don't get the hostility - if you recall, the general election that year was occurring in an environment that was decidedly unfriendly to conservatives.

 

 

14 I agree that Hayworth is probably a one or two term senator if he wins, but who else is there in Arizona? Also, Mccain will have to step aside at some point, he is getting very old and the republicans will need to replace him. If not now, when?

Maybe Shaddegg?  I don't know, but what I do know is that Senate seats are precious, and need to be treated as such.  You hand it over when you have the Governorship and people get used to an appointee as Senator X, etc.;  primary-ing a Senator is not the way to go about this thing, unless you're trading up for the long term. 

15

Anyone don't think McClown will stab us in the back over immigration as soon as he's re-elected?

Ok... anyone beside rightwingsprakle?

16 Hayworth is a loser in the general. McCain is not. Like it or not, the GOP needs all the seats it can get, and throwing aside McCain for reasons of idealogical purity at this time is foolish. And even if you're a diehard conservative, Hayworth is a shifty choice for you. Unless you find him and his birther views endearing.

17 Yup a McCain loss would feel good, but it would feel even better if the elephant party fixed the broken primary system that nominated him.

18 I agree with Ace about Haywood - McCain has been a disappointment too many times to keep him on. If Haywood screws up, we can get rid of him, too.

19 Is anybody tracking the various state legislature and Governor races? There will be a census to gerrymander this cycle and we are all focused on the top of the ticket.

20

I don't know everything about him but I don't understand why some people don't like Hayworth.

He is very anti-amnesty, his opponent beat him in part by running to his RIGHT on amnesty (he blames credibility issues because of McCain, Graham et. al.), and because McCain himself - pissy over amnesty - apparently smeared him with an unwarranted Abrahamoff association.

I've seen video of him speaking on the house floor and I believe I've heard him on the radio as a substitute host for Laura Ingraham, as well as in interviews, and he seems like a tremendous asset. He's very charismatic, intelligent, a good speaker, and a staunch conservative.

21 Is it wrong for me to pray that a rattlesnake bites McCain in his groin and he does not make it to the hospital in time? What do you have against rattlesnakes?

22 I'm not crazy about Hayworth at all but a point needs to be made. McCain should of had the grace to move on and retire. Given his age and his clearly electorate losing positions on so many issues it's time. The party needs to move on from 2008, the same way the Dems moved on from 1988, and it can't do that with John McCain in a prominent position in the party or the Senate.

23 Posted by: Entropy at March 18, 2010 11:15 AM (IsLT6)

Hayworth is a porker. It's the one thing McCain has him cold on.

24

Sorry people, but a Hayworth victory would be awesome!

First, we would have learned nothing from the Democrats' overreach in 2006 and 2008, wherein they ran many candidates who could win once or twice under perfect conditions but won't be long-term office holders. 

There is a big difference between the Commiecrats' thinking that war-wearyness and pork-wearyness meant an endorsement of soviet socialism, and the very justiifable disgust at what incumbents of both parties have done. A Hayworth upset would be a wakeup call to the RINOs and Hispandering fools in the GOP to wise up.

The fact that Hayworth lost his last congressional race is evidence enough that his mix of positions and personal "attributes" may not be well suited to keeping the seat R in the long term. 

Everyone starts off losing. That's how you learn to win. Imagine if they told Reagan to forget it in 1980 because he didn't get any traction in 1968 and 1972, and epic failed in 1976.

Secondly, a McCain primary loss would give a concrete example to the media's narrative (we know that it's coming) that the 2010 election is a right-wing purge/temper tantrum. 

They're only going to say that anyway. Repeat after me: The Left will only hate and slander us anyway. That's how the DemSM rolls. Be prepared for an escalation of the race-baiting too.

Like it or not, McCain was the standard-bearer in 2008, and a repudiation of him in favor of Hayworth would give the media too much to work their mischief with - he would, of course, become the media darling he was when he wasn't opposing Obumbles, for the usual purpose of blasting Republicans and such.

So what? He will be out of office and a retired has-been by then.

25

You hand it over when you have the Governorship and people get used to an appointee as Senator X, etc.; 

Ugh. Lovely.

You're right - by why bother? Some kind of crazy 'becoming the enemy' thing wherein Napoleon must conquer and subjugate all of Europe in order to liberate it.

26

Is it wrong for me to pray that a rattlesnake bites McCain in his groin and he does not make it to the hospital in time?

it is wrong for you to involve john McCain's groin in your prayers in any fashion.

27

it is wrong for you to involve john McCain's groin in your prayers in any fashion.

 

...... unless your RWS

28 Alec Leamas

At the end - Michael was ruined and alone due to his cold, calculating vindictiveness.

29

Maybe Shaddegg?  I don't know, but what I do know is that Senate seats are precious, and need to be treated as such.  You hand it over when you have the Governorship and people get used to an appointee as Senator X, etc.;  primary-ing a Senator is not the way to go about this thing, unless you're trading up for the long term.

Sorry, but by that rationale, we would never try to improve anything.

I am not an absolute purist who sits out the general election if I don't get my way.

However, in the PRIMARY, I am going to push for a better candidate.

If not the primary, then when? Are we supposed to just bend over and let the entrenched incumbent sellouts ream us forever because they are "electable" in the general?

 

30

Yes actually it was my one douchebag vote that put Specter two points ahead of Toomey when the final results were tallied.

I don't get the hostility - if you recall, the general election that year was occurring in an environment that was decidedly unfriendly to conservatives

i recall, do you recall specter switched parties and votes 100 percent democrat? I would think that Joe Hoeffel wouldn't have voted with the dems that much had he beat specter, hell i think Casey doesn't even vote so democratic and specter  I am not blaming you for putting Specter over the top, but a lot of people whose beliefs were in line with Toomey voted for specter because it was the "prudent" thing to do, and look what happened.

31

I am not an absolute purist who sits out the general election if I don't get my way.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

32

McCain needs to lose. Keep in mind the Gang of 14(where did that go?) and Amnesty.

We may like him now as he is against the Healthcare bill, but once the bill passes he will be back into the democrat policy fold. Mark my words, if Healthcare passes, immigration reform will pass before november

33

I don't know everything about him but I don't understand why some people don't like Hayworth.

Jack Abramoff and the K Street Favor Factory. 'Nuff said.

34
At the end - Michael was ruined and alone due to his cold, calculating vindictiveness.

Perhaps, but Sollozzo, Tattaglia, Barzini, Cuneo, Stracci, and Mo Green were all dead - so,  he won.  Nobody ever said winning didn't come with a high price. 

35

At this point I think it would almost be better to have a Dem in this position rather than McCain. So what if Heyworth looses in the general election, we don't need to take back the senate, we just need to kneecap it.

36

Jack Abramoff and the K Street Favor Factory. 'Nuff said.

If Jack Abramhoff built a border wall, I would grant him clemency, nay, pardon him. Most people have forgotten who he even was.

37 However, in the PRIMARY, I am going to push for a better candidate.

That's the thing - he may be a better Senator according to you, but he won't be a better long-term candidate, and may well turn a safe R Senate seat into a toss up or D seat by the next cycle. 

Chess, not checkers.

38 My heart wants to see Mav kicked to the curb but my head says, suck it up. To me politics should be business, not personal. While personally satisfying, a Hayworth win could be bad for business.

Well, look at it this way.  If McCain finally loses; we can focus on the Feingold side of the equation when talking about laws that have stupidly and offensively violated the First Amendment.

Or we could keep McCain and have him talking about how free speech isn't good in politics and he'd rather try to get money out of poli6ics than follow the Constitution.

I'm not sure he's good for business either is what I'm saying.

39 Fact of the matter is that McCain has been damn solid since O became president.  I'm sure he'll piss us off again when immigration comes back up, but other than that I've got no complaints.  Hayworth would be better, but even in a good republican year he could lose and he's done for sure if he comes up in a bad year.  99% chance of good beats 55% chance of very good. 

40

I am not an absolute purist who sits out the general election if I don't get my way.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Well, yah, it is. Damage control in a general election is reality. But if the primaries aren't the place where purists can "let their freak flags fly", then when?

I am beginning to understand why some people are seduced by the 3rd party siren song of doom--they were told once too often that "No, no, you must vote for the primary candidate who is electable, not the one you really believe in..."

41 At this point I think it would almost be better to have a Dem in this position rather than McCain. So what if Heyworth looses in the general election, we don't need to take back the senate, we just need to kneecap it.

So, you're saying we're better off with Tester, Webb, Warner, etc. - you know, the folks that made passing this time-bomb of Government takeover of Health Care possible?  Switch McCain to a solid D vote in the Senate and the thing probably would be signed into law by Obumbles by now. 

42 That's the thing - he may be a better Senator according to you, but he won't be a better long-term candidate, and may well turn a safe R Senate seat into a toss up or D seat by the next cycle. 

Chess, not checkers.

Posted by: Alec Leamas at March 18, 2010 11:31 AM (IVQSY)

Right, so opposing McCain's idiotic end to free speech via. McCain Feingold and explaining why this jackhole can't comprehend the simple language of the Constitution is bad.

By these "Chess" rules we need to embrace and keep all our "moderates" who keep voting for liberal ideas and trashing the Constitution.

Weird that your "win" for Republicans is also a "win" for big government liberal policies.  I guess that's "win-win" if you're a liberal.

Of course if you're looking for actual conservative policies, it's "lose-lose" but hey; screw the conservatives.  We're looking at the letter after the name and nothing else.  Right chess player?

Checkers, not sticking chess pieces up your nose until they damage your brain and thinking you're clever.

43

That's the thing - he may be a better Senator according to you, but he won't be a better long-term candidate, and may well turn a safe R Senate seat into a toss up or D seat by the next cycle. 

Chess, not checkers.

The problem with this is that you aren't playing Chess, you are playing "Commiecrat Calvinball" (if you remember the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip), where their media sets the rules against you. This is why we have an unsecured border in spite of the public's overwhelming demand for one.

As Uncle Ron proved with the Evil Empire Speech, sometimes you have to break the mental paradigm of the DemSM. And in those days, the farce of "detente" was definitely the mental paradigm.

44 In other words, I'm saying what Gekkobear said, only more nicely.

45 I am beginning to understand why some people are seduced by the 3rd party siren song of doom--they were told once too often that "No, no, you must vote for the primary candidate who is electable, not the one you really believe in..."

Things 'you believe in' are for children - you know, Unicorns and Faeries and such.  You can vote for whomever you 'believe in,' but a calm, reasoned approach must instruct you that doing so yields outcome X instead of outcome Y, where outcome X is diametrically opposed to your desired outcome, and outcome Y is 60% or so in favor of your desired outcome.  Politicians are, by and large, whores.  Whores for votes, and whores for money.  Use them to get your end - don't fall in love with them. 

46 Jack Abramoff and the K Street Favor Factory. 'Nuff said.

Why is Abramoff any worse than the S&L scandal?

As I said, fk Mccain

47

Things 'you believe in' are for children - you know, Unicorns and Faeries and such.  You can vote for whomever you 'believe in,' but a calm, reasoned approach must instruct you that doing so yields outcome X instead of outcome Y, where outcome X is diametrically opposed to your desired outcome, and outcome Y is 60% or so in favor of your desired outcome. 

I am well aware of that, and no one bashes the 3rd party fools who periodically pop up on AOSHQ more than me. But if you will *never* do what is right because you are afraid "what will others think?" then you *never* would have had Uncle Ron facing down the Evil Empire.

Sometimes you have to shift the paradigm rather than be a prisoner of it.

Politicians are, by and large, whores.  Whores for votes, and whores for money.  Use them to get your end - don't fall in love with them. 

The problem with that is, that McCain has been using *us* to get his end, rather than the other way around. Like Specter and Jeffords, there comes a point where the sellout incumbent must be told to get lost.

48

If Jack Abramhoff built a border wall, I would grant him clemency, nay, pardon him. Most people have forgotten who he even was.

OK, then please quit complaining about the "illegal" aspect of illegal immigration, because you really don't give a damn about the law.

49

The problem with this is that you aren't playing Chess, you are playing "Commiecrat Calvinball" (if you remember the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip), where their media sets the rules against you. This is why we have an unsecured border in spite of the public's overwhelming demand for one.

As Uncle Ron proved with the Evil Empire Speech, sometimes you have to break the mental paradigm of the DemSM. And in those days, the farce of "detente" was definitely the mental paradigm.

Martyrdom gets us nowhere closer to the goal.  The Democrats went through a pure and small party stage a while back and were stuck in the bog for three cycles, thumbs up their asses, not knowing how to get out.  It's only until they got real and ran candidates that their hierarchy/base finds repulsive that they won majorities.  Of course, now they're having trouble herding them, but that's the way it goes.

Pretending that the Leftist Media doesn't control the narrative - rather than managing this FACT - is a recipe for disaster.

The way that you win in American politics is to win the Center and move the Center to your side - if you look at what Reagan actually did, rather than the conservative mythology, you will find that this was his plan.  (and, the opposite plan is how Obumbles fell the farthest, fastest in history)

50 Posted by: Alec Leamas at March 18, 2010 11:42 AM (IVQSY)

You do realize your "chess game" has one outcome every time.  Liberal "Republicans" pushing liberal ideas as "moderates" moving the country more liberal and no conservative ideas getting any traction.

Yes a liberal running as a Republican gets a lot of traction.  They've got crossover appeal.  They also vote to spend a trillion dollars on pork, to let illegals enter the country unobstructed and to make them citizens, to allow the health care bill to move as far as it has, etc.  If we continue your "chess game" we push for this sort of candidate across the nation; it's easier to have them win, right?

Weird that your version of "winning" looks almost exactly like a conservative's version of losing... in that liberal policies get passed, and conservative policies do not.

If this is the "correct" strategy... the only winning move is not to play.  How about a nice game of pay some goddamn attention and realize you're not helping actual conservative ideas instead of chess?

51

Why is Abramoff any worse than the S&L scandal?

Because McCain was the token (R) called out by the ethics commitee to make it a "bipartisan" charlie-fox, not a significant player in covering Keating's ass like the other four (D)irtbags were.

52

@Ben

<i>i recall, do you recall specter switched parties and votes 100 percent democrat? </i>

Those of us who hail from Philadelphia are well aware of Arlen's history of switching parties to advance himself politically. He started out as a Democrat, but when the Dem machine was backing another candidate and telling him to wait his turn, Republican Hugh Scott extended his hand to Specter, and there began his political ascent - as a Republican.

Yes my beliefs were more in line with Toomey, and yet in the interest of keeping the seat Republican I voted for Specter.  AZ republicans now face the same decision-making calculation.

From Drew's post:

"I'm just not convinced that taking a safe seat and turning it into a potential toss up is a smart move strategically" This is the same thought process many PA conservative-leaning Republicans experienced.  At the end of my initial post, I added the caveat: "and look how that turned out".

 And I don't know where Casey is voting less Democrat than Specter, Casey enthusiastically campaigned for That One and is rubber-stamping all of 0bama's agenda. We PA Republicans have shit for brains Senators at the moment.

53

OK, then please quit complaining about the "illegal" aspect of illegal immigration, because you really don't give a damn about the law.

You haven't been paying attention, have you? I have argued that we have too much *legal* immigration, and certain categories should be eliminated entirely. Like the "diversity lottery" that treats citizenship like a lotto prize to be won, rather than something to be carefully awarded to those who will enrich the nation, rather than rob it or Balkanize it.

As for Abramhoff shenanigans, they pale compared to the Fannie and Freddie Affirmative Action Mortgage fiasco. I am sick and tired of Demunists getting away with murder (sometimes literally), while Republicans get tarred and feathered for minor pecadilloes.

54 You do realize your "chess game" has one outcome every time.  Liberal "Republicans" pushing liberal ideas as "moderates" moving the country more liberal and no conservative ideas getting any traction.

Yes a liberal running as a Republican gets a lot of traction.  They've got crossover appeal.  They also vote to spend a trillion dollars on pork, to let illegals enter the country unobstructed and to make them citizens, to allow the health care bill to move as far as it has, etc.  If we continue your "chess game" we push for this sort of candidate across the nation; it's easier to have them win, right?

Weird that your version of "winning" looks almost exactly like a conservative's version of losing... in that liberal policies get passed, and conservative policies do not.

So - how many 'liberal Republicans' are voting for HC?  Not a single one, it seems, yet you'd be more satisfied if we had even less votes, but if all elected Republicans met each and every of your litmus tests?  Now, of course, I don't fit your litmus test regarding how to win, so I'm also a Librul in sheep's clothing - correct?  Listen to Glenn Beck a slight bit less.

55 you'd be more satisfied if we had even less votes, but if all elected Republicans met each and every of your litmus tests?

And you're happy with more votes, even if they turn around and propose and work for things like amnesty, or Campaign Finance Reform, or another Stimulus bill.

Did having these "more" votes from "moderates" make for more conservative goals getting traction?  Weird, it looks like it helped liberal goals get traction instead.

I don't like liberal ideas being the ones that get proposed and passed, so I'm a "Glenn Beck" listener style lunatic who doesn't want to win.

Have we got our sides sorted out now?

56 I'm just not convinced that taking a safe seat and turning it into a potential toss up is a smart move strategically" This is the same thought process many PA conservative-leaning Republicans experienced.  At the end of my initial post, I added the caveat: "and look how that turned out".

I'm from Philadelphia as well, so I'm aware of the facts and circumstances surrounding Arlen - but you would have to convince me that we wouldn't have had Senator Hoeffel or Senator Schwartz etc. for the last few cycles.  As likely as Pennsylvania is to elect a Santorum, it is just as likely to elect one of the former.

57

Martyrdom gets us nowhere closer to the goal. 

And *no one* is less of a martyr than me. For example, abortion. I am a realist, and I cringe when I watch otherwise good California state Republicans thump their pro-life chests only to go down in flames. Some battles are winnable here, and some are not.

However, when the overwhelming majority of Americans are disgusted with Scamnesty and want a border wall, border controls, no illegal immigration and frankly a lot less *legal* immigration until the country unites again and stops Balkanizing, why are they not listened to??? The answer is that too many are prisoners of the DemSM narrative.

The way that you win in American politics is to win the Center and move the Center to your side - if you look at what Reagan actually did, rather than the conservative mythology, you will find that this was his plan.  (and, the opposite plan is how Obumbles fell the farthest, fastest in history)

You are absolutely right. The problem is, you don't seem to realize where the Center actually *is*, rather than where the DemSM is misleading you.

58 And you're happy with more votes, even if they turn around and propose and work for things like amnesty, or Campaign Finance Reform, or another Stimulus bill.

Did having these "more" votes from "moderates" make for more conservative goals getting traction?  Weird, it looks like it helped liberal goals get traction instead.

I don't like liberal ideas being the ones that get proposed and passed, so I'm a "Glenn Beck" listener style lunatic who doesn't want to win.

Have we got our sides sorted out now?


I think so - you're clearly on the imbecile side.  It doesn't matter whether an R or a D votes for bad legislation if it gets passed, but you can be assured that that a D is more likely to do so than an R, which is the whole fucking point.  You'd rather have Senator Coakely, because Scott Brown voted for a Dem Jobs bill? 

If so, you are demonstrably an ass.

59 You are absolutely right. The problem is, you don't seem to realize where the Center actually *is*, rather than where the DemSM is misleading you.

There is a 'center' in every state, and 400+ 'centers' across the country, so it's a matter of calibrating the candidate for the electorate - and I really don't think that Hayworth is that candidate.  Most people here want to get rid of McCain for what they express as largely personal offenses, allowing for the distinct possibility of a Senator Napolitano or similar as his replacement - because Napolitano wouldn't sully our immaculate, homogeneous party.

60 It doesn't matter whether an R or a D votes for bad legislation if it gets passed, but you can be assured that that a D is more likely to do so than an R, which is the whole fucking point.

So if we have an "R" that consistently votes for say Amnesty, or CFR, or the Stimulus, etc. we should keep them and not give anyone a chance to replace them.  We must keep our moderates secure and never ever replace them if they've got the magic "R" after their names.  Just claim Democrats would be worse, and never offer a different Republican ever under any circumstances.

And if we lose a Conservative seat, that means we need to run more moderate canddiates in the future, right?  Push that area to the left... never to the right.

I'm not sure how this moves the equation to "more conservative" since clearly we end up pushing for candidates who are "less conservative" to win primaries in every seat.  Is there some point at which we get more conservative candidates?  Does this happen by magic, or do we actually have to have primaries where we support the more conservative candidate?  When does that happen?

Now you might claim that Arizona is so liberal that only McCain can possibly win with that "R" dragging him down.  Or that having a better conservative there for 6 years isn't enough help if we can keep McCain until he retires (even if that's only 6 years either way).  But I'll doubt that either of those are the "best choice" regardless of your claims of intelligence, your claims that you're "playing chess", or your calling me an ass.

Explain to me (simply I guess, since I need it) how pushing candidates who are less and less conservative works out to get more conservatives bills proposed.  Do you think Snowe or Collins is going to write and propose anything conservative, sure you might get 60% of the squishes to vote for it, but don't they have to have bills written before they vote?

Oh, and if you have 60% support for Conservative ideas on your side, and 10% support on the other side (Blue Dogs or whatever); what sort of majority do you need to hit 61 votes in the Senate?  I'm having trouble sorting out how a 60% strategy ever gets 61 votes.

61

It doesn't matter whether an R or a D votes for bad legislation if it gets passed, but you can be assured that that a D is more likely to do so than an R, which is the whole fucking point.  You'd rather have Senator Coakely, because Scott Brown voted for a Dem Jobs bill? 

OK, I think Gekkobear was a little too belligerent in his posts, so let me defuse this a bit.

There comes a point--call it a Specter Point, call it a Jeffords Point--where frankly you are better off with a Democrat in the seat than the RINO who sells you out and stabs you in the back again and again. This is especially true when the Democrat is a "Boll Weevil" or "Blue Dog" rather than a Commiecrat.

You believe that McLame is still salvageable, while Gekkobear and I believe that he has passed the Jeffords/Specter Point.

I realize that point varies from state to state, as you pointed out in #61. Scott Brown is still a big plus, and the RINO Doublemint twins of Maine are a smaller plus, given a political climate of those areas. But Lindsay Graham of SC and McCain of AZ? If you can't get better Republicans elected *there*, then what is the point of damage control at all? Why even try?

To paraphrase Churchill, we have already established what McCain is, we're just dickering over price. You think he is still salvageable, and you may be right. But many of us have our doubts.

62

(and, the opposite plan is how Obumbles fell the farthest, fastest in history)

And yet, if the Obamunists get socialized medicine through and it never gets undone, have they *really* lost, even if they all get un-elected in 2010 and 2012?

It's a little frustrating that it seems to be a "ratchet" wrench, which only tightens and never loosens.

Now I know that it *does* loosen, after all, we don't have wage and price controls anymore.

But there has to be a better situation than this.

63 Anybody who's upset with McCain for being a RINO is going to have a rude awakening if Hayworth wins.  Hayworth voted for the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, the largest entitlement spending increase since Medicare was created.  He lost his house race because he's a RINO himself, and a worse one than McCain.

64 What in heaven's name are some people thinking?  I agree that J.D. may not be the perfect candidate, but we are talking about possibly kicking out of office the one Republican senator (along with his pal Gramnesty) that has been a thorn in the side of conservative Republicans for many years.  I have not forgotten what he has done to undermine the conservative movement in this country, almost at every turn (and before his presidency bid being aided by his pals in the media)- except on national defense (and in that area not always taking a conservative position ).   He is a backstabbing, condescending RINO that wants to open our borders and allow all of the illegals in the country to become citizens!!!, and only courts the beneath him conservative crowd around election time.  Do I respect him for his military service?  Absolutely.   Do I respect him for the Republican senator he has become - absolutely NOT!!  Many times in my life I have had to vote for the candidate  I simply deemed the better of the two, not being thrilled with either choice (my vote for McCain for President comes to mind).  If he were to go down in defeat to a conservative Republican--well - I guess that would just about make my year!!! (maybe even my decade).  Yes, if I were from Arizona, I would cast my vote for Hayworth.  (Hey - I had to vote for Rick Perry instead of Kay Bailey in the primary - again - one always doesn't have the perfect candidate for which to vote).

65 the RINO Doublemint twins of Maine are a smaller plus

I have to disagree there. Their ratings are actually lower than a lot of the Dems. They are DIABLOs and we need to bounce them as well.

Keep in mind that these assholes do more damage than voting with the Dems a lot. They also sit on committees and help get the Dem crap out of the committee.

if McCain was salvageable he would have been salvaged long ago.

And who is this leemas anyway.  New Mccain astro-turf-troll?

66

Anybody who's upset with McCain for being a RINO is going to have a rude awakening if Hayworth wins.  Hayworth voted for the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, the largest entitlement spending increase since Medicare was created. 

And how small that is now, relative to Porkulus, let alone the rest of what the Obamunists want.

He lost his house race because he's a RINO himself, and a worse one than McCain.

Pork is one thing; Borders and freedom of political expression are something else. Is *any* GOP guy a saint? No. Even Jesse Helms always came through on the farm subsidies for NC. But pork, even entitlements, although bad, are smaller than destroying borders, importing a new Demunist underclass, and muzzling the ability to speak up about it. McCain did all that.

67

I have to disagree there. Their ratings are actually lower than a lot of the Dems. They are DIABLOs and we need to bounce them as well.

Vic: I realize this is a judgement call. I am saying relative to Maine, they may be the best we can do. (I am *more* than happy to be wrong about this).

But we *can* do better than McCain in Arizona and Grahamnesty in South Carolina. That we all know.

68 What's the biggest problem facing our country right now?

Out of control spending?

Or illegal amnesty?

I think this is the key to the AZ race.

If you think illegal amnesty is, then you'll go with JD.

If you think it's out of control spending, then to be intellectually honest, you'd have to go with McCain. JD is a BIG spender.

We need to get the spending under control, then we can tackle illegal immigration. IMO.

69 Sorry, that should be illegal immigration, not amnesty. Subconscious slip, there.

70 OK, I think Gekkobear was a little too belligerent in his posts, so let me defuse this a bit.

Fine, I can tone it down; if you don't tell me "you're playing chess" indicating you think you're the only one here thinking.

Mathematically and logically, the 60% strategy isn't a winner if you apply it everywhere; or even apply it broadly.

Consider if we push a 60% strategy everywhere and get a serious supermajority.  70 Republicans who are 60% conservative, and 30 Democrats who we can pull 10% of the time.

That's um... (70 * .6) + (30 * .1) = 45 votes on a conservative bill... 5 votes short of a majority, much less anything that could clear a filibuster.  And 70 seats is a pipe dream.

 But lets increase the drugs and keep dreaming that we somehow magically get 90 of these 60% Republicans and only 10 Democrats.

(90 * .6) + (10 * .1) = 55 votes... only 5 more needed to end debate and vote on a conservative bill... so basically no conservative bills move with the 60% strategy broadly applied.

If 60% is all you can possibly get in one seat, because the state is very liberal and can't possibly move further; so be it.  But is that a description of Arizona?

McCain carried Arizona by 8.5% in 2008, but it was his home state; so that might not apply. Bush Carried Arizona in 2004 by more than 10 points, beating the 6.3 spread he had in 2000... that seems like a pretty solid place to have a Conservative Republican Senator.

A 60% candidate in Taxachusetts?  Yeah, I get that.  Even getting an "R" there, regardless how squishy was a win (for numbers, committee seats, etc if nothing else; and health care isn't "nothing else").  But a 60% candidate in Arizona, or any other solid red state seems like a waste of a seat that could be doing something better.

Now Hayworth might not be "something better", I'm not in Arizona, so I haven't researched him.  Maybe we've got a choice of two losers in that primary and we're just stuck this election cycle.  But to claim that we have to keep McCain or any 60%er in a red state that's held a good Republican margin for over a decade seems like bad math.

If we can't do better than a 60% candidate in a consistent 6-10 point lead state; how do we ever clear 60 votes for anything?

71 I don't think it will make any difference. Arizona is now infested with so many turtle-lovers and leftist refugees from California, Oregon, Washington, Michigan, Minnesota, and Mexico that I fear any clown with a D. behind their name will win.

I think enough people hate both McCain and Hayworth to put even Rodney Glassman, the douchebag trust-fund baby worm who is the presumptive D challenger (currently illegally raising funds in an "exploratory" campaign), into the Senate.  

72 Mathematically and logically, the 60% strategy isn't a winner if you apply it everywhere; or even apply it broadly.

How does it compare, mathematically and logically, when you have 0% applied everywhere and broadly,  Einstein? 

You still think you can have 100% and everything, huh?

73

McCain is the reason the tax cuts expire next year.

McCain is the reason so few Conservative justices were appointed via the gang of 14

McCain is the guy responsible for closed oil field to drilling

McCain is a nasty POS and getting rid of this guy will show reelected rinos they are on a short leash.

JD maynot be what you want but the elimination of McNasty should be the goal

74

You still think you can have 100% and everything, huh?

We CAN do better in AZ. There aren't enough illegals voting there *just yet*.

75 Why the hell do people want a long-term senator?  We need term limits - 3 and you're out.  Sure, maybe people want to keep a hold on the good ones, but we need some kind of protection against all the bad ones.  Plus, even the good ones get corrupted after a while in the cesspool of congress.

As far as I can tell, Hayworth is not a birther.  It's come to the point that if you even mention iWon's birth certificate, you're suddenly a birther.  That's just bullshit.

76 Mathematically and logically, the 60% strategy isn't a winner if you apply it everywhere; or even apply it broadly.

How does it compare, mathematically and logically, when you have 0% applied everywhere and broadly,  Einstein? 

You still think you can have 100% and everything, huh?

Posted by: Alec Leamas at March 18, 2010 01:44 PM (IVQSY)

I think we can do better in AZ (see the numbers from the 2000, 2004 and 2008 presidential elections that I handed you), and I think maybe getting to the point where a conservative bill can mathematically get a majority is a good thing.  I'm sorry that you disagree that trying to get to the point where it's mathematically possible to pass conservative legislation is a worthwhile goal.

I kind of thought passing conservative legislation at some point would be a good thing; and I mathematically showed that your plan, applied broadly, can never get us there.

So clearly I've got the wrong goal.  But I'm not sure how I went wrong.  I see three options:
There's something in my math that was wrong? 
Or the 60% rule shouldn't be applied broadly?
Or we shouldn't ever want conservative bills to pass? 

I'm pretty sure my math is solid, and you attacked my concept of not applying your "60% rule" broadly... is there a 4th option, or are you ok with never being able to pass any conservative legislation?

77 JD maynot be what you want but the elimination of McNasty should be the goal

Thing is, how sure are you that eliminating McCain means Hayworth wins the general?

Eliminating McCain and getting a Democrat is not a good trade. Anyone who thinks that is acting out of personal malice (which I share) and not looking at this as simply business.

78 I kind of thought passing conservative legislation at some point would be a good thing; and I mathematically showed that your plan, applied broadly, can never get us there.

The way to get to proper conservative ends is to elect as many Republicans, each as conservative as can reliably and consistently win a seat - so that you don't always need every one of your elected Republicans to vote for any given Bill. 

79 Eliminating McCain and getting a Democrat is not a good trade. Anyone who thinks that is acting out of personal malice (which I share) and not looking at this as simply business.

Posted by: DrewM. at March 18, 2010 02:18 PM (9B5OK)

The way I'm looking, it boils down to three things.

1) Is Hayworth more Conservative than McCain?   And I'll admit I don't know this.  I'm not in Arizona, so I' not voting in their primary and I haven't researched it as thoroughly as I would have in that situation.

2) Could a more conservative candidate win Arizona?  I'd say based on the poll and election numbers, yes.  Arizona is a pretty solid Red state; Kyl in 2006 won by about 10 points; and he's not a "Maverick". 

National Journal ratings (for what they're worth) show Kyl in 2006 (McCain's last number, he didn't have 2007 rating) at a 90.8.  2007 has him down in the 80's... very solid.

McCain is at a 56.7 in 2006 and not rated in 2007 (too few votes). 

http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings

In 2008 from the ACU, Kyl got a 96, McCain got a 63.

So the state has supported a candidate who was a solid consistent 80-90; a more conservative candidate can win

http://www.acuratings.org/2008all.htm#AZ

3) Could Hayworth win Arizona?  I'd assume he could, based on the Republican/Democrat voting patterns in the state.  But I don't know him well enough to know if he's got something in his past that would sink him beyond the party advantage he should have in an election.

If I were voting in Arizona, and I were persuaded on these three points; I'd support Hayworth (and I'm pretty much sold on #2; less so on 1 & 3).

If, I were persuaded #1 or #3 fail; I'd hold my nose, drink heavily before yet another election, and support McCain (and go looking for a better candidate next time around).  But I'm not impressed with McCain, and I think Arizona can do better (whether Hayworth is "better", I don't know).

80 The way to get to proper conservative ends is to elect as many Republicans, each as conservative as can reliably and consistently win a seat - so that you don't always need every one of your elected Republicans to vote for any given Bill. 

Posted by: Alec Leamas at March 18, 2010 02:51 PM (IVQSY)

I agree.  By ACU/National Journal ratings for 2006-2008 McCain is a 55-65% Conservative senator.  Arizona's other Senator, Kyl,  is an 80-90% conservative senator.  Kyl has won 2 elections so far, by 10 points in his last election; so we can do better in Arizona than McCain.

If Hayworth is that "better/more conservative" candidate; I think he's a good call for the primary.  Kyl's two elections in the past decade show a solid conservative can and does win reliably in Arizona.

81 It makes me sick that so many morons blame McCain for Obama winning...you almost sound like Liblight...when they blame everything on BUSH.. McCain is not perfect, but Jesus himself could not beat Obama, and the MSM...with a little affirmative action mixed in. People got hoodwinked but iit wasn't because of John McCain, if anything he was a stand in for Bush.

82 Posted by: ford at March 18, 2010 03:41 PM (Ki7fm)

And the fact that he spent more time attacking those who criticized Obama than going after Obama himself? And his praising Obama as a good man, not a socialist, and not someone we need to worry about? And his not using Obama's past, nor allowing anyone else to do so? And his tantrum at people using Obama's middle name, but now of course it's fine?

BS

83

Lol, we can't lose here people!

Point #1.  McCain is a vindictive little politician.  The reason he was such an annoyance was because he lost to Bush.  He took every oppurtunity to make his platform difficult.  He will do the same with Obama, especially after Obama embarassed him with that bit about the campaign being over.

Point #2.  If Hayworth wins, we can all laugh at McCain the two time loser and thank the lord he is gone.  Hopefully he and his idiot daughter will be caught in a timewarp during their plane trip and be sent back to 12 BC.  Yes, that is a wishful cheesy 1970's movie plot thrown in.  Land of the lost, staring the McCains!

84 My heart wants to see Mav kicked to the curb but my head says, suck it up.

The only thing that would result from a McCain win is that somewhere along the line, conservatives will end up getting shafted. Again.

85 My thoughts (FWIW):

It's true that if McCain wins the primary, he's pretty much a lock to win the general election, while Hayworth could conceivably lose.

HOWEVER, if McCain wins reelection, he will almost certainly immediately revert to form. That means six more years of a high-profile senior Republican acting all mavericky and praising Democrats nearly as often as he praises his fellow Republicans. And I don't want to see him on TV every week for the next six years talking about the importance of "bipartisanship" in dealing with corrupt Marxist scum.

Trust me: If he wins, McCain will be gently applying Preparation H to Obama's rectum with his tongue 49% of the time by November 3rd.

86 McCain win is good for the GOP?
Why, so another vote giving amnesty to illegals/cap & trade & enrichalgore have an R after the name?
No thanks.

87 For me it was personal; and, personally McCain needs to go so I contributed now, 2X to Hayworth's campaign; first in the beginning when he announced so there wouldn't be a second thought later and now when I'm sure he needs the money for the stretch run into home run.  Since I cannot vote in Arizona my little donation will have to be my help.  I hope McCain becomes the memory of (R) poolitcs even Palin is paying back to McCain. 

Finished business.

88 Japanese cute girls Yajima Maimi first joined Hello! maimi yajima height Project in 2002 as one of the fifteen children chosen from the Hello! Project Kids auditions after performing ¡°Momoiro Kataomoi¡± by Aya Matsuura.