November 19, 2010
— Ace At Hot Air, This time, it's personal.
Murkowski also goes on to say that she is committed to all the people in Alaska. The only thing she was committed to was saving herself a job as senator. Instead of accepting the outcome of the primary, she had to put her own self-interest above those of the party who voted her out. She was on last nightÂ’s PBS Newshour claiming she is the one that best represents AlaskaÂ’s interests since she is no longer affiliated to a party.
Wonderful! And it's amazing that she can keep the straight-face as she claims to be an "outsider," despite being given her Senate seat by daddy and having no greater ambition than to serve as a teller in the favor-bank of Washington, DC, and to be serving Alaska's interests, when no one with an IQ north of 60 can fail to recognize this was all a personal and very personalized feud with Palin for her. She wanted to prove she was an Alpha Grrl; that's all. Playground crap.
What great reform did she promise as her central campaign plank? To keep federal pork flowing to Alaska, that's all. And yet this is a victory for Justice or something.
Now that Joe Miller is clearly done, I will restate that I thought he was a great candidate... on paper. He failed, ultimately, because he ventured outside of the Overton Window in his rhetoric and promises.
This is a problem I keep having with unpolished, neophyte, Tea Party-type candidates. Yes, on one hand it's great that they inject into the debate forbidden ideas.
However, there is often a real lack of of strategic thinking going on here, too, cost-benefit analysis, realistic appraisal of current policy possibilities, that usually costs them in some way. When Joe Miller made his pronouncements about pork, he was showing integrity to his ideology, but he wasn't being particularly smart about what can fly in American, or specifically Alaskan, politics.
Note that I supported Joe Miller unequivocally, so this isn't an "I Told You So" situation. I thought he was a great candidate (based, I have to admit, just on resume and general conservative tendencies, that is, I didn't investigate into specifics of his platform).
So I'm not telling any readers "I Told You So" about supporting him -- I supported him wholeheartedly. But he did make mistakes, similar to the ones other Tea Party type candidates made. And the net result is that he lost the election, and cannot put his agenda into tangible effect. At least not now.
Third rails should probably not be seized with aplomb by candidates with an uphill battle for election.
ABC News' Rick Klein reports: Tea Party-backed Senate candidate Joe Miller today added his voice to those who are critical of Democrats' efforts to expand unemployment insurance, and went even further than most candidates in saying that federally backed compensation to the unemployed isn't "constitutionally authorized."“The unemployment compensation benefits have gotten -- first of all, it's not constitutionally authorized,” Miller, R-Alaska, said on ABC/Washington Post’s “Top Line.” “I think that’s the first thing that's gotta be looked at, so I do not favor their extension.”
Miller also talked up privatization of Social Security, which is admirable and all, but certainly he would be in a better position to advance his ideas in this area if he had... sugar coated it? Been evasive? Been dishonest?
Yes, candor is all well and good but it tends to be punished at the polls.
Why not just take a less-committed position on something that really will have to involve a Great National Debate and say "I'm looking at various reforms?" Not really dishonest, per se, so much as... less forthcoming than he could be.
I don't know his full argument about the unemployment extension not being "constitutionally authorized," but it cost him, I'm sure, to be talking down extending unemployment benefits when so many people are out of work for reasons beyond their control. Whatever someone's ideology, if it's between ideology and feeding their kids, their kids are going to eat.
This is the sort of thing I wish that Tea Party candidates would avoid. They cannot change this situation -- they seem to believe that just by talking about a radical idea, it tends to bring that radical idea closer to pass. I don't think that's accurate -- if an idea seems too radical to too many people, you just might wind up retarding the cause, rather than furthering it, because your suggestion will be repudiated by the ultimate Constitutional arbiter -- the vote.
Or, like Rand Paul and his musings on the unconstitutionality of the Civil Rights Act, you'll be forced to repudiate your own words and claim you never really meant to say that, and in fact would have voted for the Civil Rights Act. How does that advance that particular cause? A cause which I think is completely wrongheaded, but ignore that; even if you do agree with Paul, how does it advance that cause to float the idea and then have to repudiate and recant within days?
These things are outside the Overton Window. They are, currently, not among the policy options available. Why pick fights that can't be won at the cost of fights that can be won? What Rand Paul did was even less necessary -- he was talking about his hypothetical vote on a 50 year old vote. What does it matter, really, which way he would have voted? He doesn't have a time machine. Why stir up a racial hornets' nest on something so hypothetical and moot?
Or, to put it in a slightly different way: These aren't the issues you lead with. You lead on the more popular stuff, or the stuff that isn't popular but still is within the Overton Window of possibilities. You signal, quietly, your willingness to go further than the Overton Window, but you don't go so far as to commit yourself to positions outside that window.
In Alaska, on pork, Miller was outside of that window -- the typical Alaskan, apparently, really likes its pork -- and probably would have helped himself greatly by proposing "reforms" in the earmark process rather than an end to the regime. Or he could have talked up what many Alaskans say -- we want to get the feds' hands off of so much Alaskan land so that we can put it to productive uses, and we're willing to take less pork if we can have that.
Again, if it seems like I'm proposing dishonesty in politics as a way to get elected-- I am. Or, again, the sort of dishonesty by omission. Or the dishonesty of sugar-coating and speaking in terms of hypotheticals.
When Rudy Giuliani said, flatly, "I'm pro-choice," I stopped supporting him actively as a candidate, because I knew he had gone too far outside the Overton Window for the Republican Primary vote. I had no illusions that he'd have the ability to cajole primary voters to his way of thinking. He was done.
This is similar to the thinking that has doomed Obama to a failed presidency. Obama thought that lots of stuff outside the Overton Window could come to pass just due to his pushing for it, assisted, as always, by his general Awesomeness. And certainly any ideological voter, whether on the right or the left, should want a candidate willing to push that Overton Window in the right (or left) direction.
But there is a real cost to rhetoric that puts you too far outside the Window, and that cost is that you wind up moving the Window not at all if the public specifically repudiates your platform.
That, alas, has happened with Joe Miller. He went strong with a lot of positions that had majority (or near majority) support among the most dedicated and ideological members of his party (that is, primary voters), but did not have nearly as much support with the general population.
Too frequently -- as with Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell -- candidates are being rewarded for the ability to win a primary but lose an election. Sharron Angle's mention of "Second Amendment remedies" to overreaching government is the sort of red meat that gins up primary excitement but winds up an albatross around the neck in the general election. Voters really have to be on the lookout for such overtures -- red meat shouldn't come at the expense of a red seat. And if someone is doing just that -- throwing out red meat to win a primary without any eye to the general -- they should be punished for that.
I still think that Joe Miller was worth taking a chance on, and candidates like him are similarly worth rolling the dice on. But -- but -- I hope such candidates with fairly radical ideas about the reordering of government begin to signal such things instead of explicitly stating them. Talk up the stuff that's actually currently achievable, and leave the other stuff, the stuff that will take years of rhetorical persuasion and voter education, for later, once that persuasion and education has actually been undertaken.
I think, as a general impulse, the strongly ideological have a strong bias in favor of what I'd call Gordian Knot solutions. Or "root and branch" solutions -- if the tree is rotten, tear it out root and branch.
This has a lot of ideological and intellectual appeal, too: Why tinker around the edges of a bad policy? Get right to the heart of the matter and change it dramatically, or undo it completely.
The problem with this is that American voters are tinkerers by inclination. They disfavor root-and-branch solutions, at least until they are thoroughly convinced that no amount of trimming can save the tree. Rand Paul's notion that we should cut through the Gordian Knot and cleanly recognize that the Civil Rights Act is an unconstitutional infringement on the right of free association is a disfavored solution -- if the tree is growing poorly, can't we do some trimming to save it, rather than pulling it from the ground and chopping it into firewood?
American voters are also small-c conservative in this fashion -- they'd like to see some small-bore reforms put into place and see how they work before committing to a major, dramatic overhaul -- witness their resistance to Comprehensive Immigration Reform and ObamaCare. This small-c conservative inclination benefits ideological conservatives, too, at least when the left attempts its own Gordian Knot "reforms."
This makes the swing, independent voter much different from ideological conservatives, of course. Most of us are in favor of sweeping changes and reforms -- we have an ideology that tells us that such reforms are not all that risky, but in fact rather likely to be successful.
But the voter not grounded firmly in an ideology doesn't have that reassurance; he sees little but big gambles, risk, big changes without sufficient evidence of likelihood of successful reform. And playing too hard to those in favor of big, sweeping changes comes at the unavoidable expense of those more inclined to tinkering and small-beer stuff.
Any candidate really worth a damn is going to have his eye on these sorts of root-and-branch solutions. I concede that a Senate full of the likes of timid tinkerers like Cornyn and McConnell is barely worth having. (Still worth having, considering the alternative -- Democrats -- but not really something to get excited about). I get that part of the Tea Party creed -- let's have candidates we give a crap about.
But Tea Party candidates, to be successful in statewide (or national) elections, are going to have to learn to couch their less-popular, less established positions in terms of small reforms first, reforms that are sensible enough that people will be willing to try them. And then, having gotten some success with those reforms, taking that momentum further and trying for the medium-sized changes, and then, of course, the big changes.
A lot of people say that Reagan succeeded due to the boldness of his idea and rhetoric. That's sort of true, but his success was due mainly to success itself -- tangible results, palpable improvements in the economy, that then gave him political capital to push other elements of his agenda. To have that sort of success-breeds-success effect, we need people in office, putting reforms into actual practice, and hoping that those reforms result in success. Rhetoric and ideology don't convince non-ideological voters; empirical evidence and tangible improvements do.
But we can't have that unless we're actually at the controls of government.
Posted by: Ace at
11:41 AM
| Comments (180)
Post contains 2115 words, total size 13 kb.
and having no greater ambition than to serve as a teller in the favor-bank of Washington, DC,
Hah!
Posted by: rdbrewer at November 19, 2010 11:46 AM (7Jdoq)
Posted by: t-bird at November 19, 2010 11:46 AM (FcR7P)
And despite that, and the flagrant law breaking (changing the rules for name lists, changing the rules for counting write-ins after the election) it was still close.
Posted by: Gaff at November 19, 2010 11:48 AM (CMpbs)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 19, 2010 11:48 AM (B7dyo)
So:
Murkowski is now going to punish the GOP for not having stopped Joe Miller from running in the first place- she is now effectively a Democrat. Good job Alaska. I wish your stupidity wouldn't hurt the rest of us.
Joe Miller did what I wish every politician would do: he said what he meant. Did it hurt him? Yes. To me, that says more about the voting public than it does about the politician.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at November 19, 2010 11:49 AM (8y9MW)
Good, "woody" word, that is. Not tinny at all.
Posted by: Sir Mansfield at November 19, 2010 11:51 AM (nR7pG)
He failed, ultimately, because he ventured outside of the Overton Window in his rhetoric and promises.
Also that pie thing you came up with--tthat long post you wrote about candidates defining themselves and reducing the pool of potential voters, about bad strategy.
That might be worth a re-post or a good robbing.
Posted by: rdbrewer at November 19, 2010 11:51 AM (7Jdoq)
Posted by: buzzion at November 19, 2010 11:51 AM (oVQFe)
What does she mean she's not affiliated with a party?
Please tell me Bitch McConnell got her promise she'd come back into the fold when he didn't remover her from committees?
Posted by: crouching soothsayer, hidden soothsayer at November 19, 2010 11:52 AM (uFokq)
Even if he did, do you think she'd keep that word? Really?
Posted by: crouching soothsayer, hidden soothsayer at November 19, 2010 03:53 PM (uFokq)
Okay, but I usually prefer more honesty...
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at November 19, 2010 11:53 AM (8y9MW)
This is a problem I keep having with unpolished, neophyte, Tea Party-type candidates. Yes, on one hand it's great that they inject into the debate forbidden ideas.
Far, far better to have apparatchiks like Murcowski, than to ever, ever have a chance at changing the course of the country.
Posted by: Zombie Taft at November 19, 2010 11:54 AM (IuKAf)
Yeah, you're right.
So now what are we going to do with Murkowski?
Posted by: crouching soothsayer, hidden soothsayer at November 19, 2010 03:50 PM (uFokq)
I still like my idea for what to do with her. With the number of Senators we have she is less likely to be a 60th vote for cloture on any issue. So, fuck her. She gets the lowest level positions available. Below the Freshmen Senators. That's going to kill her gravy train and also kill any incentive for the Democrats to try and offer her a better deal.
Posted by: buzzion at November 19, 2010 11:54 AM (oVQFe)
Bitching about them will not make them more experienced or better because of the dubious nature of their source.
A lack of quality candidates from the establishment (Murky and others) make the Tea Party candidates a necessary implement for change. I doubt the Republican party would listen to the Tea Party platform much, or at all, if they wouldn't vote democrat, and wouldn't knock establishment types out during primaries.
Bottom line, again bitching about Tea Party candidates again will not make them better, nor make them less necessary as an implement for change. What will make them less necessary is better establishment candidates.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose© at November 19, 2010 11:54 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: fluffy abandoned Alaska in '84 at November 19, 2010 11:54 AM (4Kl5M)
Posted by: mpfs at November 19, 2010 11:55 AM (iYbLN)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff's penis at November 19, 2010 11:55 AM (B7dyo)
Posted by: jjshaka at November 19, 2010 11:56 AM (Bea+r)
I agree 100%, that book was a POS.
And Ace; Miller did not lose because of his campaign or because of his views. Miller lost due to corruption and corrupt judges and leadership in AK.
Posted by: Vic at November 19, 2010 11:56 AM (e4sSD)
I don't agree with dissembling about one's own principles. I think one should be forthright about one's own principles and proposals, and at the same time crystal-clear about why one's opponent's principles and proposals are bound to fail.
If you make the assumption that Alaskan voters want pork, and you promise them pork with the intention not to deliver it, then they will punish you for failing to deliver the pork you promised.
If you tell them that pork is bad for them and bad for the country and ultimately impossible to deliver because of the huge spending hangover from all the pork they received in the past, they may not elect you this time -- but when they see their Pork Mama making everything else worse in the process of seeking pork and then failing to deliver, you have the opportunity to make real change in your next run.
Posted by: stuiec at November 19, 2010 11:57 AM (7AOgy)
She gets the lowest level positions available. Below the Freshmen Senators.
Sounds good to me but if she's no longer a Republican, why give her anything? Except for the fact she has Bitch McConnell by his marbles, why give her anything?
Posted by: crouching soothsayer, hidden soothsayer at November 19, 2010 11:57 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: Vic at November 19, 2010 11:58 AM (e4sSD)
When Rudy Giuliani said, flatly, "I'm pro-choice," I stopped supporting him actively as a candidate, because I knew he had gone too far outside the Overton Window for the Republican Primary vote.
Which is exactly what Castle did in Delaware during the primary, thus creating an opportunity that otherwise did not exist. And note our hero Cornyn whining about challenging incumbents. The establishment has spoken. If you question the rabies shots of the residents in the kennel, don't be surprised if they go for your throat. But give them money and support.
Posted by: Blue Hen at November 19, 2010 11:59 AM (R2fpr)
Holy shit, i can't believe this.
This douche bag hag can now put herself out to the highest bidder. She can vote with the Democrats -- the majority party, or she can use and abuse the sack-less impotent Republicans.
Posted by: crouching soothsayer, hidden soothsayer at November 19, 2010 11:59 AM (uFokq)
So I think the lesson should be more Johnson from Wisconsin type Tea Party candidates.
Or take the lesson from Johnson's campaign: figure out the 2 or 3 things you want to run on and stick to. Johnson was a very disciplined novice candidate. As opposed to others who will go nameless who could not help but opine on anything that crossed their way.
Posted by: Mallamutt at November 19, 2010 03:54 PM (OWjjx)
Yeah that's what I meant. I mean I'm not in Wisconsin so I didn't follow it closely but he obviously must have been doing something right in his method of campaigning to be a complete political unknown and defeated an incumbent senator. That just screams effective campaign strategy to me.
Posted by: buzzion at November 19, 2010 11:59 AM (oVQFe)
Posted by: ace © at November 19, 2010 12:00 PM (nj1bB)
This doesn't exactly leave us with any kind of democratic process.
Posted by: Oldcat at November 19, 2010 12:02 PM (z1N6a)
Is there any way or any possibility McConnell can be taken down?
I don't understand how he got his tobacco-pickin cousin-humpin hooks in the leadership position.
Posted by: crouching soothsayer, hidden soothsayer at November 19, 2010 12:02 PM (uFokq)
From the primary, there was insinuations of some dastardly secret from "a former employer." Miller resisted talking about it or authorizing the release of personnel records to clear it up. He won the primary anyway, but of course it came up again in the general, and he stonewalled as long as he could, finally giving in.
So what was the scandal he was hiding? That he used four different computers at work to vote in an online poll, then dumped the cache so it wouldn't be obvious. That's it.
How many votes did he lose by stonewalling that piddly crap for months? Any half-smart candidate would have got it out in front in the primary, joked about it being his deep dark secret, and had it long behind him.
Miller sucked. Angle sucked. O'Donnell sucked. Maes sucked. Buck sucked. Paul sucked, but his handlers shut him up after the first gaffe, and made him avoid unscripted settings where he would get into his lunatic fringe beliefs.
So we went 1-5, and that only because it was a GOP year and Conway eventually had to go overboard negative to try and come back, and ended up looking like a nasty little bugger.
Lee in Utah won because it's a heavily GOP state. If Bennett had seen the ambush coming and organized before the convention so he made the primary ballot, he would have been renominated comfortably. Rubio was a great candidate, but as former Florida Speaker of the House, he was no neophyte. The only guys who were true newcomers to politics via "Tea Party" support, but ran strong races and won, were Johnson and West.
Posted by: Adjoran at November 19, 2010 12:03 PM (VfmLu)
We deserve representation too, damn it.
Posted by: Mice With Fully Functioning Human Brains at November 19, 2010 12:03 PM (YrhnQ)
Sounds good to me but if she's no longer a Republican, why give her anything? Except for the fact she has Bitch McConnell by his marbles, why give her anything?
Posted by: crouching soothsayer, hidden soothsayer at November 19, 2010 03:57 PM (uFokq)
Well I don't mind throwing her a bone, the dog that she is. Just as long as its the minimum of effort. Really though if we don't have to offer her anything, then don't
Posted by: buzzion at November 19, 2010 12:04 PM (oVQFe)
Posted by: Adjoran at November 19, 2010 04:03 PM (VfmLu)
I'm not sure there are any candidate that can survive a large fraction of his base stabbing him in the back and running as a third party. But I guess blaming the victim is in vogue.
Posted by: Oldcat at November 19, 2010 12:05 PM (z1N6a)
This isn't the worst of it, folks.
Murkowski's win (and to an extent Liberman's win in '06) will embolden Snowe & Graham to do the same thing.
This means we can't primary out any of these hacks.
Posted by: crouching soothsayer, hidden soothsayer at November 19, 2010 12:05 PM (uFokq)
"I get that part of the Tea Party creed -- let's have candidates we give a crap about."
Finishing school for citizens, no doubt.
Unfortunately there's nothing to be done about GOP leadership short of natural causes and primary defeats.
Remedial adolescence for Gabe.
Posted by: gary gulrud at November 19, 2010 12:05 PM (/g2vP)
Posted by: ace © at November 19, 2010 12:06 PM (nj1bB)
Don't forget TEA party stalwarts McMahon and Fiorina. They also sucked.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 19, 2010 12:06 PM (TpXEI)
I say it was a technicality because you're probably right about the rules but let's face it the rules you supported (and I supported too) had the effect of making it harder to vote for the candidate actually desired.
It's hard for me to get all worked up over the idea that "Gee, they made it easier for voters to signal their true favored candidate so it's 'corrupt.'"
Posted by: ace ©
her being able to whistle up the NRSC during the primary was a technicality
her being able to keep her assignments after stabbing the state and national party in the back was a technicality.
Her running ads bragging about keeping them was a technicality.
her ramming through a list that no one else ever got was a technicality.
Her getting free publicity and her name repeated ad nauseum were technicalities.
This guy just suffered the death of a thousand technicalities. Bumping off incumbents is hard. Bumping them off twice in the same Goddamned election cycle is harder. Even Rubio didn't do this; they were fighting for an open seat.
We need coke bear.
Posted by: Blue Hen at November 19, 2010 12:07 PM (R2fpr)
I am from Wisconsin and Johnson ran a brilliant campaign, kind of reminded me of Browns. He stayed off the airwaves till like the last two months and like Mallamutt said, didn't get off message and kept the message simple. He had the wave of discontent to help him but like it or not, distanced himself from the Tea Party.
Posted by: lowandslow at November 19, 2010 12:07 PM (rplS1)
Hard for me to get worked up over supporting Joe.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose© at November 19, 2010 12:07 PM (0q2P7)
This doesn't exactly leave us with any kind of democratic process.
Posted by: Oldcat at November 19, 2010 04:02 PM (z1N6a)
You must have missed some of the commenters on other threads saying how we shouldn't even primary the Senators we are dissatisfied with. You know like the Maine sisters, because a slightly more conservative candidate might not win there. Hey Slublog you around? Can a more conservative candidate win in Maine than the two pathetic Senators you have now?
Posted by: buzzion at November 19, 2010 12:07 PM (oVQFe)
How about we all pool our monies together and purchase a giant "coke bear" billboard ad in downtown DC?
Would that be slander?
Posted by: Serious Cat at November 19, 2010 12:08 PM (bAySe)
Don't forget Whitman. (My state is SO Doomed. HPL The DOOM That Came to California)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose© at November 19, 2010 12:08 PM (0q2P7)
Anyone have the breakdown of the % of Democrat support she received in votes?
Probably had to tally, but...
Posted by: crouching soothsayer, hidden soothsayer at November 19, 2010 12:09 PM (uFokq)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 19, 2010 12:10 PM (B7dyo)
Posted by: ace © at November 19, 2010 12:10 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick at November 19, 2010 12:10 PM (g9neE)
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick
I'm a Republican in Delaware. I am the Gawd of suck
Posted by: Blue Hen at November 19, 2010 12:12 PM (R2fpr)
I considered it corrupt that she was actually able to run as a write-in to begin with. It was clearly a violation of the intent of the law. Then they reinterpreted the laws on the write-in clearly in violation of the law as written.
And according to the AK board of elections it was 39.47 to 39.97 "write in". With 20% of them actually counted she is getting 90% of the "write-ins.
They haven't officially announced the winner yet.
Posted by: Vic at November 19, 2010 12:12 PM (e4sSD)
Posted by: toby928™ at November 19, 2010 12:13 PM (S5YRY)
Since she has announced her "win" has she also announced who she is going to caucus with? Not that it matters anyway.
She'll caucus with the Republicans. They need to pull her committee assignments though- she has no business being anywhere near a committee that doles out pork when we're supposedly trying to reign it in.
Give her nothing more influential than the Underwater Basket Weaving Committee assignment. We shouldn't be rewarding candidates who ran against the Republican nominee with plum committee seats.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 19, 2010 12:13 PM (rf03a)
Posted by: ace © at November 19, 2010 12:14 PM (nj1bB)
Does this mean the republicans will strip her of her postions? Nah.
They'll just let her stab them in the back and ask for more.
In 2012 incumbents who lose will be emboldened to go independent unless they give her a smackdown, but McConnell is too much of a pussy. He needs to go too.
Posted by: TC at November 19, 2010 12:14 PM (BAtLQ)
Probably had to tally, but...
I ran some number the other day and figured around 35%, they won it for her.
Posted by: lowandslow at November 19, 2010 12:15 PM (rplS1)
Posted by: ace © at November 19, 2010 12:15 PM (nj1bB)
She'll caucus with the Republicans. They need to pull her committee assignments though- she has no business being anywhere near a committee that doles out pork when we're supposedly trying to reign it in.
Give her nothing more influential than the Underwater Basket Weaving
Committee assignment. We shouldn't be rewarding candidates who ran
against the Republican nominee with plum committee seats.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 19, 2010 04:13 PM (rf03a)
I wouldn't even do that. Better to try and split a frightened red state senator up for election next time than to award this kind of spitting in the face of the Primary voters.
Posted by: Oldcat at November 19, 2010 12:15 PM (z1N6a)
Yes, this was the reverse Lieberman-Lamont-Schlesinger race in 2006.
A good chunk of loyal Republican voters in CT voted for Lieberman just to keep the moonbat extremist Lamont out of the Senate.
Liebs: 49%
Lamont: 40%
Schlesinger: 10%
Posted by: crouching soothsayer, hidden soothsayer at November 19, 2010 12:16 PM (uFokq)
How about we all pool our monies together and purchase a giant "coke bear" billboard ad in downtown DC?
Would that be slander?
Posted by: Serious Cat at November 19, 2010 04:08 PM (bAySe)
I think that might count as print, so if anything it would be Libel, not slander.
Posted by: buzzion at November 19, 2010 12:16 PM (oVQFe)
Posted by: DelD at November 19, 2010 12:16 PM (LPAuo)
This is a problem I keep having with unpolished, neophyte, Tea Party-type candidates. Yes, on one hand it's great that they inject into the debate forbidden ideas.
...
Posted by: Ace at 03:41 PM
-------
Ace, but lets not overlook Ron Johnson. He was total neophyte and the ultimate Tea-Party candidate. Never ran for anything; got involved after attenting TP meetings. No political exp. yet he went on to cream Rus Feingold. Tottally embarrassed him.
So, I think its important not to draw hard and fast conclusions about political rookies, like Ok for congress.... but not for Senate.
ps. Why does Ron Johnson always get overlooked when talking about TP candidates?
Posted by: Serious Cat at November 19, 2010 12:17 PM (bAySe)
From wiki:
Lieberman received support from 33% of Democrats, 54% of independents and 70% of Republicans.
Posted by: crouching soothsayer, hidden soothsayer at November 19, 2010 12:17 PM (uFokq)
that supported her, She will sell you down the river, for all the media acclaim, Congratulations
Posted by: justin cord at November 19, 2010 12:17 PM (O20xS)
Posted by: ace © at November 19, 2010 04:15 PM (nj1bB)
Yes, I'd have to put it in the legal but immoral category. Immoral from the point of view of the Republican party, since in effect she just said that the primary voters can go to hell.
Posted by: Oldcat at November 19, 2010 12:18 PM (z1N6a)
Posted by: Luca Brasi at November 19, 2010 12:18 PM (YmPwQ)
I ran some number the other day and figured around 35%, they won it for her.
Indeed. I wonder if she feels a little beholden to them?
Posted by: crouching soothsayer, hidden soothsayer at November 19, 2010 12:18 PM (uFokq)
Posted by: Fritz at November 19, 2010 12:18 PM (GwPRU)
I am now annoucing the formation of the Free Shit For Everyone party. We will hold no position whatsoever on social issues. On economic issues, we have but one position: everyone gets free shit. We look to sweep every single elected position that is up for grabs in the US in 2012 and beyond.
Wanna be a candidate? No problem. We simply expect our candidates, once elected to cut the party in on 10% of every dime made while in office. Loot to your heart's content - after all, if you're not smart enough to steal *from* the taxpayers, you're not smart enough to steal *for* them, and thus, we have no use for you.
Thinking about voting for us? Just make up your goody list and submit it. Your free shit is practically in the bag!
Entertainment and an ever-expanding currency supply to come from Zimbabwe Benny & The Ink Jets.
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at November 19, 2010 12:19 PM (xy9wk)
Closeted homosexuals tend to shy away from talking about Johnsons.
Posted by: TC at November 19, 2010 12:19 PM (BAtLQ)
Posted by: Tim the Enchanter at November 19, 2010 12:19 PM (izA2D)
p.s. He shoudl have NEVER agreed to debate her. Stupidest fucking mistake you could make, letting her at table with pary nominees. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Posted by: Serious Cat at November 19, 2010 12:19 PM (bAySe)
This is a victory for democracy or something. Apparently Murky was onto something when she said she had a constituency. I just don't get the hate for this outcome. These are market rules, it's capitalism. Murky offered the product/service that the customers wanted, so they picked her over her competition.
Posted by: arhooley, conflicted Californian at November 19, 2010 12:21 PM (mdxTy)
Posted by: Coke Wombat at November 19, 2010 12:21 PM (4Kl5M)
Was it really up to Miller to exclude her from debates? That decision is usually up to the organization sponsoring the debate.
If Miller refused to go to debates if Murkles was there, he would've got wiped out on election day.
Posted by: crouching soothsayer, hidden soothsayer at November 19, 2010 12:22 PM (uFokq)
Posted by: ace © at November 19, 2010 04:15 PM (nj1bB)
That is another one of those "technicalities" it was legal the way the law was written. But the intent of the "sore loser" laws is that people who run in a Primary and lose do not re-run in the general election. Otherwise, what is the point in having a sore loser law?
Posted by: Vic at November 19, 2010 12:22 PM (e4sSD)
I don't know if you could call him a Tea Party candidate, he started distancing himself from any Tea Party organizations even before the primaries. Toward the end of the general campaign you never even heard the Tea Party associated with him. In a state like Wisconsin not a bad move, turned out alright for him.
Posted by: lowandslow at November 19, 2010 12:23 PM (rplS1)
Here's part of a related post Ace did last September:
Every choice a voter makes is a chance for him to decide against you. Every single time. "I'm pro-life" loses you some votes. Gains you some, but loses you some tool. "I'm pro-life and I am against any abortion even in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother loses you a lot more. Because at each decision point you peel away voters. The more specific you are, the narrower the cohort of voters you are appealing to.
The Democrats have been demanding for a year that the Republicans define themselves in sharp and narrow focus. Why? Because the Democrats already are defined in sharp and narrow focus, by their own actions, and they are insisting that Republicans operate under the same burden.
They are not demanding we define ourselves in order to help us politically. They are making this demand to hurt us politically and help them.
They have a very narrow, and very unpopular, slice of the pie to run on. They cannot escape it -- what they have is worse than bad rhetoric; they have bad facts and bad outcomes.
This is why Obama keeps demanding that Republicans vow to slash Social Security and Medicare in order to prove we're serious about budget discipline. Of course he wants that -- he wants us to make the most unpopular promises imaginable. And I assure you he is not doing so with our best electoral fortunes foremost in his mind.
Posted by: rdbrewer at November 19, 2010 12:23 PM (7Jdoq)
Posted by: arhooley, conflicted Californian at November 19, 2010 04:21 PM (mdxTy)
Sure she has a constituency. If that constituency is good for the Republican party is a better question. The primary voters said no.
Posted by: Oldcat at November 19, 2010 12:23 PM (z1N6a)
First, what will keep liberal republicans like Snowe from running 3rd party write ins if the party she is in doesn't punish those that do so?
Second, lets give Palin credit for not going out side the window and pushing extreme stuff often. Despite being very conservative and very involved the last two years. The most extreme positions she has held was death panels and as time moves forward, it doesn't look very extreme.
She has not pushed social issues in peoples faces. Her Beck rally helped tone down the extremist-racist mantra by the media. She was for numerous more moderate canidates[Ayotte-Fiorina]. Other then the Odonnell endorsement and death panels, has she done or said anything extreme? A fairly impressive tight rope walk if you ask me.
Posted by: Keven at November 19, 2010 12:24 PM (yO+uQ)
Posted by: Vic at November 19, 2010 04:22 PM (e4sSD)
How do you write a sore loser law that allows what Murkowski did to pass through?
Posted by: Oldcat at November 19, 2010 12:25 PM (z1N6a)
If Miller refused to go to debates if Murkles was there, he would've got wiped out on election day.
Posted by: crouching soothsayer
---
What? No. Party candidates do this all the time, agreeing not to show if some also-ran is there at the debate. He'd have a very good point to make that she lost her primary and is only representing herself. Plus, no one would care about a debate with just her and McAdams.
Posted by: Serious Cat at November 19, 2010 12:25 PM (bAySe)
And yes I'm all lit up again
Cough up love, and touch up
Your mama said packing lines is sin
And yes I'm all lit up again
On the couch, in my bed
And yes I'm all, lit up again, flying
I love the cocaine, I love the cocaine
Mama can you wait, mama can you wait, yeah
I'm on a train, and ride on
You know the train is staying off the track
I'm in touch love, from this crutch
Well you're on ten, but honey I'm on eleven
And yes I'm all lit up again
On the couch, in my bed
And yes I'm all, lit up again, flying
I love the cocaine, I love the cocaine
Mama can you wait, mama can you wait
I love the cocaine, I love the cocaine
Mama can you wait, oh can you wait long?
Well crack the door for the curious girl cause she's been waiting, she's been waiting
Chop a line for the fending man cause he wants one
You know, you know you got to, can you feel it can you feel it tonight, are you high love, tell me are you fucking high?
In the moment you are just so right
You're right love, are you right love?
And yes I'm all lit up again
On the couch, in my bed
And yes I'm all, lit up again, flying
I love the cocaine, I love the cocaine
Mama can you wait, mama can you wait
I love the cocaine, I love the cocaine
Mama can you wait, oh can you wait long?
Posted by: Buckcherry at November 19, 2010 12:26 PM (s8N54)
Posted by: OCBill at November 19, 2010 12:27 PM (YJvVE)
Posted by: the Russians at November 19, 2010 12:28 PM (AZGON)
Since I'm once again late to a thread, has anyone pointed out to Ace yet that Rand Paul won? And so did numerous other "neophyte" TP candidates. I'm not buying into Ace's premise at all. It's typical east/west coast mindset. Squishy. We're not going to change the direction we're heading with squish.
Posted by: Soona at November 19, 2010 12:28 PM (xW9AH)
Posted by: LAI at November 19, 2010 12:29 PM (DH9np)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 19, 2010 12:29 PM (B7dyo)
Dan Sullivan is the man for 2014 to take out Begich. He is currently the State Attorney General (appointed by Palin), but just got named to be the State Director of Natural Resources. Formerly he served as a Bush appointee to the State Department, and is a military veteran. His only negative is that he's not a long time Alaskan, but his wife is Native American, and comes from a well respected and powerful Fairbanks family. He's also a Harvard graduate and Georgetown grad.
Posted by: Master of None at November 19, 2010 12:30 PM (gyNYk)
Posted by: Mallamutt
May you be assaulted by a rogue block of scrapple; you and your fonts.
Posted by: Blue Hen at November 19, 2010 12:31 PM (R2fpr)
He shouldn't have debated her again, tell the debate hosts he already debated her in the primaries now he want's to debate the Democrat challenger.
Posted by: lowandslow at November 19, 2010 12:31 PM (rplS1)
Posted by: George Orwell, Ltd. at November 19, 2010 12:32 PM (AZGON)
Since I'm once again late to a thread, has anyone pointed out to Ace yet that Rand Paul won? And so did numerous other "neophyte" TP candidates. I'm not buying into Ace's premise at all. It's typical east/west coast mindset. Squishy. We're not going to change the direction we're heading with squish.
Posted by: Soona at November 19, 2010 04:28 PM (xW9AH)
The real answer to the neophyte issue is for the party to begin to integrate the outsiders into the regular apparatus, in proportion to their electoral strength. Its a sign of the need for reform when you have to pull people off the street to run for high offices, not a reason to delay reform.
Posted by: Oldcat at November 19, 2010 12:33 PM (z1N6a)
Good read, Ace. Many good points. But ...
>>> ... they seem to believe that just by talking about a radical idea, it tends to bring that radical idea closer to pass. I don't think that's accurate ...
It's very much accurate. Persuasion begins with awareness.
>>> ... if an idea seems too radical to too many people, you just might wind up retarding the cause, rather than furthering it, because your suggestion will be repudiated by the ultimate Constitutional arbiter -- the vote.
Democrats have made no secret that they support the illegalization of white artificial light in residences because the use of the things that make close-to-white light are melting Greenland and the ensuing rise in sea level will wash away entire inhabited islands. This is now policy. Before it became policy, where was this notion on the Overton continuum?
Posted by: FireHorse at November 19, 2010 12:33 PM (sWynj)
Posted by: kevlarchick at November 19, 2010 12:35 PM (TNuqz)
Posted by: ace © at November 19, 2010 04:15 PM (nj1bB)
It was corrupt to let a candidate who fucked over the state AND national party to keep money and her assignments, which many here predicted would help her in this campaign. She certainly agreed with us. She bought ads claiming exactly that. She should have been sued to run as an independent. And now we get to hear Cornyn intimating 'I told you so'?
If nothing else, does anyone here believe that this guy is more interested in expanding the party than he is in protecting the membership list?
Posted by: Blue Hen at November 19, 2010 12:37 PM (R2fpr)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at November 19, 2010 12:37 PM (NITzp)
This is similar to the thinking that has doomed Obama to a failed presidency. Obama thought that lots of stuff outside the Overton Window could come to pass just due to his pushing for it, assisted, as always, by his general Awesomeness. And certainly any ideological voter, whether on the right or the left, should want a candidate willing to push that Overton Window in the right (or left) direction.
Yet Obama ran as a candidate right in the middle of the Overton window. He lied the same way you advocate our side to lie. How's that working out for Obama, Ace?
If there really is an Overton window, you're advocating putting bars on it.
Posted by: U at November 19, 2010 12:38 PM (QQn2V)
Posted by: Starboardhelm at November 19, 2010 12:38 PM (ctMcG)
Miller was actually polling pretty well until he equivocated on Palin. That seems to mark the beginnig of his downward spiral.
You beat me to this. Give the voting populace a little more time to wallow in the shit pit that Dear Leader and his regime have created for this nation and most (except, of course, Califuckme) will start listening to anything that seems out of the box. All I heard from the repub candidates was conservative values. And guess what? We won one of the biggest landslide elections in modern history.
Posted by: Soona at November 19, 2010 12:38 PM (xW9AH)
High on Cocaine
Lisa Murkoswki better, watch your speed
Wait, did we say Lisa Murkowski? Sorry, we totally meant Casey Jones. Otherwise, it might imply that Lisa Murkowski is a coke fiend, and we certainly don't want to do that. So, no, really, we really meant Casey Jones. Pinky swear.
Posted by: The Grateful Dead at November 19, 2010 12:39 PM (s8N54)
Great post. I agree with it all. Except maybe the part about Rudy. I hated that he was "pro-choice" (actually, I think his position is more nuanced than that..) but I loved that he was just going to be himself. He wasn't going to be masquerading as something he wasn't. Adore that about Rudy.
Anyway, a lot of lessons to learn from this past election. Growing pains, mostly.
Posted by: Darcy at November 19, 2010 12:39 PM (+Z6FM)
Is there any way or any possibility McConnell can be taken down?
I don't understand how he got his tobacco-pickin cousin-humpin hooks in the leadership position.<<<<Soothsayer
"Picking" tobacco. lol
No, I don't get it either. Never trust a guy with a receding chin.
Posted by: Kerry at November 19, 2010 12:43 PM (a/VXa)
Posted by: Jeff at November 19, 2010 12:46 PM (IRzx9)
And witness its perfect futility.
We have Obamacare. And it will not go away, ever. And it'll get bigger and shittier, forever.
We'll have some kind of insanely unpopular effectively-"amnesty" kind of immigration deal, too, sometime soon, and then later we'll have it again, and again, whenever the replacement of the citizenry is deemed necessary to sustain the monstrousness of the state. Forever.
Non-lefties, if they believe what they say they believe (which I don't believe they do), knowing (because it's true) that all moves socialism-ward are irrevocable, unless everything changes at once, have to run on "Fuck all this, right now, today"—and lose, if that's a losing message. Or win, maybe. Because it's "everything goes," or nothing ever will.
Pragmatically speaking.
Posted by: oblig. at November 19, 2010 12:47 PM (x7Ao8)
Have to disagree with Ace and some of the posters here.
If you do not articulate those "positions", then you allow the media pundits and opposition to set the terms and limitations on the debate.
When somone on the National Stage starts talking about shutting down the Education Department... yes, they will at first be labled as "RADICAL"... but then people start to look at it... and see what a crappy Non needed Dept. it is...
We have for too long allowed the enemy to set the field of battle... which is why the Reps and Dems of the past argued over HOW to grow the Government (ie which parts) over whether to grow it or CUT it... which SHOULD be the true debate.
Posted by: Romeo13 at November 19, 2010 12:50 PM (AdK6a)
Posted by: ejo at November 19, 2010 12:53 PM (Urhve)
Miller was and is a very viable conservative candidate. Whoever was giving him advice sucked. Maybe because of his lifestyle (rugged outdoorsy ) he was in that particular bubble and forgot about the villages, unions and businesses that pray to the alter of the fed dollar. You either say that you're gonna keep bringing it ( like Lisa ) , or you somehow explain it in a way that gives people nothings going to change. Don't go around telling folks that this or that is not the in Constitution, most people haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about , they just hear no, no, no.
And really, one senator is not going to make much of a difference and for the most part I think that things wouldn't have changed too much. We still have a huge military and federal presence here. That money would still be coming up here but because of his communication on the subject and Murkys proven track record stupid people got the impression that if Miller won the spigot would be turned off.
He's a good man, just not much of a "politician".
Oh yeah..and that independant Alaskan spirit? Go blow a goat. That's a fallicy that went out in the 70's.
Posted by: Bosk at November 19, 2010 12:54 PM (pUO5u)
Good to know. Now strip her of all her Republican committee memberships and any other party-affiliated positions.
If that old fart McConnell's been waiting for the right time, now has got to be it.
Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at November 19, 2010 12:56 PM (fxACH)
I guess the next step is long, long rants about giving away half your shit, stockpiling food, finding God, 40 days and 40 nights to some sort of "redemption" and endless diatribes about "Spooky Dude."
This is even dumber than the recent popularity of "Cloward-Piven." Some people got it right, but too many started parroting it like myna birds: everything from commuter-train delays to the war in Afghanistan to our economic meltdown has been greeted with shrill cries of "Cloward-Piven!" from the peanut gallery.
Sheesh.
Posted by: MrScribbler© at November 19, 2010 12:56 PM (Ulu3i)
As previously noted, at the Senate level, of the 11 races where the GOP won (that is, no incumbent GOP Senator or a GOP candidate beat a Democrat), 9 of the winners had experience at eithe rhte Congressional or Statewide level. So, no, its not a coastal thing....its a math thing.
The House was a good start. I knew going into this election that we weren't going to win all the marbles this time. You speak of math, and I remember many people, even Ace, if I'm not mistaken, point out that we had a repub/dem ratio in the senate that was more advantagious to dems since we had to concentrate much of our efforts on keeping seats. 2012 may be different because of the greater number of dems up for re-election.
Posted by: Soona at November 19, 2010 12:57 PM (xW9AH)
Joe Overton didn't claim that the Overton Window doesn't move, but politicians generally aren't the ones to move it. The window itself isn't something real, it simply defines the freedom of movement of a politician on a given issue.
The window gets moved by people who can push the envelope - like bloggers, think tanks, pundits, and the rest. AGW is one example, gay marriage is another. The mistake Miller may have made here was trying to move the window as a candidate.
Posted by: pmm at November 19, 2010 12:59 PM (0AX8H)
Posted by: Tim the Enchanter at November 19, 2010 01:03 PM (izA2D)
Posted by: Bosk at November 19, 2010 01:04 PM (pUO5u)
The establishment sabotages them instead of helping them. They do this to keep their exclusive club exclusive.
Posted by: Taint Painter at November 19, 2010 01:04 PM (E7i+5)
Posted by: archie bunker at November 19, 2010 01:06 PM (0YS61)
Fighting corruption aint cheap. Unless you give up and just let it run, and run, and run.
Posted by: Bosk at November 19, 2010 01:08 PM (pUO5u)
office
Posted by: justin cord at November 19, 2010 01:15 PM (O20xS)
On the other hand, Ellmers ran one of the best races I've seen. She did "attack" Etheridge in a video but it was not over the top and told the absolute truth that could be verified. On the other hand, some of the "attacks" Etheridge threw her way simply added to his new brand as bully boy. Etheridge was considered fairly safe at one time and got substantial outside help when it became apparent he was in trouble. It ended a very close race, something we need to ponder for 2012 with regard to GOTV efforts. Steele's efforts in that area are abysmal and I hope he will do the wise thing and step down. If we go into 2012 with Steele still at chair, we'll be laboring under a major handicap from the start.
Ellmers is eloquent, confident, and coherent. She's also what I consider a bonafide conservative and could be a future force in the making.
Posted by: Full Moon at November 19, 2010 01:31 PM (DtbEv)
Posted by: arhooley, conflicted Californian at November 19, 2010 04:21 PM (mdxTy)
You fail to take into account the fraud machine and the extra help from the judiciary and unions.
Posted by: Taint Painter at November 19, 2010 01:32 PM (E7i+5)
Yes, candor is all well and good but it tends to be punished at the polls.
Then we really are well and truly borked, and America really has become a nation of infants that will not escape the nanny state. We demand honesty and integrity while asking that those candidates solve real problems, yet it's all superficial rhetoric... on the voters' part. Turns out we're worse than the politicians and really do get the government "we" deserve.
I reject this behavior and rhetorical gamesmanship but guess I have to acknowledge that I'll be in the losing camp while those who wish to fool themselves reward the bigger of evils.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at November 19, 2010 01:34 PM (swuwV)
Posted by: Jerry at November 19, 2010 01:34 PM (QF8uk)
GOP Leaders better get with the program and delete her membership from Republican committee positions now.
Posted by: maverick muse at November 19, 2010 01:35 PM (H+LJc)
Posted by: A.G. at November 19, 2010 01:36 PM (oAVyq)
Posted by: KG at November 19, 2010 01:36 PM (2pDBV)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at November 19, 2010 01:37 PM (NITzp)
It wouldn't matter what party affiliation or ideology an unpolished neophyte candidate has. That problem of inexperience would exist.
As Fred Thompson said early on when supporting Sharon Angle, regardless of the quality of a candidate, speaking from his own experience, as a rule the campaign manager makes all the difference between victory or loss. So get the right campaign manager.
Posted by: maverick muse at November 19, 2010 01:39 PM (H+LJc)
If McConnell pulls her committee assignments, she will caucus with the democrats. She obviously is in this for herself, and has no party loyalty.
When McConnell gives her her seats back, just remember that I told you he would have to, and forget about attacking him. He will have no choice, unless you guys want to see one more added to the D column.
And she will ALSO get her way on pork, because who is going to tell her "no?"
By the way, I thought we were told she couldn't win as a write-in? I believe I read that right here.
Posted by: Miss Marple at November 19, 2010 01:39 PM (Fo83G)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at November 19, 2010 05:37 PM (NITzp)
I think you forgot something in there 
But yea, the thing is, I have absolutely no confidence that the GOP can, as a whole, effectively articulate conservative principles the way Reagan could. They have never shown this ability and I see no reason they will be able to start now. The incoming freshmen are a good start, but only a start, and even they have a gradient in how articulate they are....
Posted by: KG at November 19, 2010 01:43 PM (2pDBV)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at November 19, 2010 01:47 PM (NITzp)
Posted by: JEA at November 19, 2010 01:48 PM (Deni3)
And to prove the point of having the right campaign manager, Obama began his campaign by spilling all the beans in his initial video. "I want a personal army just as big, well trained and well funded as the US Military."
Given the cooperation of the Democrat Media AND THE WEENIE REPUBLICANS, Obama never had to defend that video manifesto he produced before the party machine dropped Hillary for him.
Beginners make mistakes. No surprise. Some make mistakes out of foolhardy conviction on principle in public debate. But that's just one way to leave yourself open for criticism which is particularly magnified out of proportion given the Democrat Media. Live and learn. The media would have just as viciously slashed Miller as a hypocrite and the Tea Party as a fraud movement had he not stated his views as he did.
Posted by: maverick muse at November 19, 2010 01:48 PM (H+LJc)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at November 19, 2010 01:49 PM (NITzp)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at November 19, 2010 01:52 PM (NITzp)
I still believe that the best thing for the party would be term limits. Forcing a turnover in candidates may hurt us with seniority, but it will force the party to start looking for and developing talent, and would push more experienced members to take an active role in multiple levels of government, instead of planting themselves in a house or senate seat and staying there for the next 20 years.
Posted by: Alex at November 19, 2010 01:57 PM (yY28H)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at November 19, 2010 02:02 PM (NITzp)
Posted by: Miss Marple at November 19, 2010 05:39 PM (Fo83G)
I say strip her of her power in congress. She's a lib anyway. Let her show her true colors. Her little teat-sucking friends in AK will learn that just because she won an election, doesn't mean she can keep that pork coming.
Posted by: Soona at November 19, 2010 02:06 PM (xW9AH)
It also helps one's candidacy if both eyes track normally and you don't have crazy hair.
But face it, all the hollywood types are on the left. That means the left has a lot of men, especially, who use "mangroomers", get facial surgery, and fake teeth that sparkle like Tony Curtis' in The Great Race. We didn't have that in Sharon Angle and Joe Miller. These were regular people with many rough edges left unchipped.
I don't mind some wishful thinking about candidates, and I don't mind cold, clear (non-personal) analysis about their campaigns. But too many supposed conservatives fall for the memes of the MFM when providing this analysis. So instead of posts helpfully advising future candidates, we have a bunch of jerks acting like Olbermann and joining the leftist loons at laughing at the candidates who failed. Own goals. Stupid.
I suspect normal people were sad about Alvin Greene's candidacy, and the laugh-riot that ensued when the alcohol began flowing liberaly. I hope the more sober analysis about candidates is the one used going forward. Unfortunately, the right-o-sphere's more drunken moments will be the ones brought forth as examples of conservatives' tardigrade motion by clever leftists in the next round of elections.
Meanwhile, the movement that inspired the Tea Party isn't gone, nor is it over. Get used to more regular folks with rough edges in the mix. Let's hope the RNC, et al, don't go wobbly again when these regular folks win primaries.
THAT was a huge problem.
Posted by: K~Bob at November 19, 2010 02:06 PM (a6cF8)
Posted by: George Richardson at November 19, 2010 02:08 PM (/zVBg)
Thr biggest problem with Joe's campaign was allowing the huckster's people to be so involved in it. There were a lot of things, email leaks, etc. that should never have happened. He definitely didn't get the best advice, and they worked to try and distance him from Palin. That was stupid. By the time he tried to fix it, it was too late.
Plus, I think it's huckster's people that are pushing him to challenge the results.
Posted by: Steph at November 19, 2010 02:17 PM (DReGA)
Just like Obama said: hide your agenda until you are into office. Might not be ethical -- but then you are in!!! and can execute your agenda. The left does it all the time --- example : Gillibrand NY
Posted by: John B at November 19, 2010 02:19 PM (KU+Ye)
Posted by: George Richardson at November 19, 2010 06:08 PM (/zVBg)
It's AK. It's not freakin' white bread, USA.
Posted by: Steph at November 19, 2010 02:19 PM (DReGA)
I fully expect even more in 2012 unless the Republicans go back to their evil 2006/2008 strategy.
Posted by: Vic at November 19, 2010 02:19 PM (e4sSD)
Meanwhile, the movement that inspired the Tea Party isn't gone, nor is it over. Get used to more regular folks with rough edges in the mix. Let's hope the RNC, et al, don't go wobbly again when these regular folks win primaries.
THAT was a huge problem.
Thas' right!
Posted by: Soona at November 19, 2010 02:22 PM (xW9AH)
Posted by: Vic at November 19, 2010 06:19 PM (e4sSD)
It's quaint notions like yours that are holding back Our Party from the success we deserve.
Posted by: Smart, Beltway Conservatives at November 19, 2010 02:23 PM (a6cF8)
How is that all the bloggers here love outspoken Christie while blaming Miller's outspokeness for losing in a Red State???
They also say he is a Tea Party favorite which I don't believe.
(this in their 12 in 2012 series)
Posted by: Vic at November 19, 2010 02:28 PM (e4sSD)
Posted by: Where's The Outrage? at November 19, 2010 02:34 PM (a6cF8)
Remember, the Tea party only had about 18 months from inception to election day. Not a lot of time to get candidates and message together. We won some, we lost some. Overall, we did pretty good.
Look at Ron Johnson. He took down a liberal icon by running a smooth, focused campaign without wandering into idealogical sideroads. Don't let the enemy define you.
Miller should have dropped the constitutional bit about unemployment and just said if the federal gov. would get out of our way, Alaska could use it's rich store of resources, oil, minerals, timber, etc, and not need "charity" from Washington. The same with other states. It is hard to explain nuance to people who don't even know who the Vice-President is.
And Lisa. Leave her there until the end of this session, she is still the sitting senator. If she wins, then tell her she has to earn her way back come Jan.
Posted by: bigred at November 19, 2010 02:45 PM (cX9pO)
You know how a lot of people on the left and in the media complain that Sarah Palin doesn't articulate detailed positions on all topics.... she repeats a lot of her talking points in a theme rather than super detailed explanations.... and the left and liberal media has nothing to attack.... except her personally. Ever hear a good argument against any of Sarah Palin's main themes? Don't forget, this is an ideological battle, not a detail battle. Not yet.
Posted by: PhilipJames at November 19, 2010 02:51 PM (X/9bv)
The long knives are coming out. Good luck with that, party insiders.
Posted by: K~Bob at November 19, 2010 02:51 PM (a6cF8)
Zombie Buckley is squidgily rotating in his mausoleum.
Posted by: K~Bob at November 19, 2010 02:53 PM (a6cF8)
Dude. That would be your guy coming in a distant third.
Carter, Tim NA 922 0.36%
Gianoutsos, Ted NA 456 0.18%
Haase, Fredrick LIB 1454 0.57%
McAdams, Scott T. DEM 60007 23.46%
Miller, Joe REP 90740 35.47%
Write-in Votes 102252 39.97%
Posted by: toby928™ at November 19, 2010 03:33 PM (S5YRY)
Posted by: sexypig at November 19, 2010 05:09 PM (5SXPU)
So the Republicans now have to give in to what's basically blackmail? Tsk tsk.
Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at November 19, 2010 05:13 PM (fxACH)
Posted by: Lolcano at November 19, 2010 07:09 PM (qE9Su)
Sunday evening before the election, I got a call from the "Alaska Democrat committee", asking ALL DEMOCRATS and INDEPENDENTS to WRITE in Murcokesucker to keep Miller from being elected and keep the government pork money coming in to Alaska.
Just like the DEMOCRATS in Florida crossing over in the last primary, giving us McAmnesty, the DEMOCRATS in Alaska have crossed over to CUT THEIR LOSSES! Liar MurCowscud is one of the best democrats in the senate, when they need help!
This election is not over, help Miller and give another $25 contribution so he can see that the law of Alaska is followed, and there are "irregularities" possible voter fraud that needs to be exposed without the establishment making "excuses"! If the recount is done correctly, and by the existing law, HE MAY WIN. If the corruptocrats are allowed to continue to rig the game as they have been, he has no chance.....
Posted by: Chilly in Alaska at November 19, 2010 08:39 PM (8xplH)
Posted by: Tonawanda at November 20, 2010 05:26 AM (fgysf)
Posted by: ed at November 20, 2010 07:15 AM (Tp3ar)
Posted by: ed at November 20, 2010 07:18 AM (Tp3ar)
It was the fashion of an Image-Identity Movement, which was embarrassed yet again in Alaska.
Delaware was a true fiasco, enabling the opposite. A foolish mistake.
Conservative isn't a blind fashionable denial - it is strength empowered by facts, reason, objectivity, honesty, etc.
The entire effort was really embarrassing from the beginning. I remember the ugly emails from the Palin Franchise, and the Tea Party Express - (the organization, not the protest movement I participated in), and they were so overt, irresponsible, divisive, etc. They only encouraged the disaster which was to be expected.
And Miller's flop, reveals again just how weak the fashion actually is today. Miller was revealed predictably to be flawed, a contradiction who abused his governmental gig - a weak candidate who could not even beat a "write in". Murkowski, a weak Fatherly appointed Moderate with a 70% ACU rating was maligned so terribly by the fashion during that Primary - I don't blame her for her INDY run. The hostility was so over the top, the Palin Franchise seemed so engaged in a personal vendetta. It was all predictably just growing opposition and begging unnecessarily for another political enemy.
The best amongst us, can be honest about their mistakes, and learn from the facts. Sound politics grows others to join with the good Side, and this folly in Alaska, Delaware, etc., is only pushing folks away - and is exploited by the opposition to debase the best Conservative interests. Constructive, attractive efforts are essential, and the Races in Alaska, Delaware, even Nevada, reveal the poorest efforts we have seen.
Running O'Donnell in Delaware was about as wise as nominating John McCain for the Presidential Race.
Some are stuck on a 'echo' fan fare, which is only enabling the opposite. We just cannot afford to enable the disastrous Democratic Party any further. We are all for encouraging sound policy and better Conservative Candidates, but suicidal self destruction is utterly a waste.
Posted by: OLD FAN at November 20, 2010 10:42 AM (Q12g3)
Sort of begs the question.
What to do with true-blue (true-red?) inarticulately conservative candidates?
Not saying this about Miller, making the more general case...
What good is winning a primary if your incumbent Democrat opponent can win the general by painting you as a possible kook, (mostly with ammunition you supplied yourself in an effort to energize your already existing base) to the potentially persuadable voters out there?
You know, the type that don't even vote in primaries, at all?
To go back to Miller and Morecokesky, I'm in no way convinced that the only way she wins is through fraud, graft and shady dealings.
I'm willing to stipulate that it appears that the electorate wanted to keep her pampered princess ass in the seat that Daddy gave her.
(They must have really, really wanted it. Write- in candidate? Are you shitting me?!?)
Must be a reason why, no?
In this and in every other defeat wouldn't we do better to examine the campaigns and even the candidates themselves for the reasons why the result obtained?
Bitching about having the deck stacked against you, with the MFM, Academia, Voter Fraud, ACORN etc. is only going to get you so far...
And not very far at all, if you persist in the childish belief that if it weren't for all of those unfair obstacles, your guy would have won handily and so it really is like he did win (except he didn't)!
Shoulda, woulda, coulda...
Maybe next time, the conservative candidate would do well to make a better case for getting rid of pork-barrel spending to the citizens of Alaska.
I don't know, maybe that wasn't his problem at all but something was and it wasn't Mitch McConnell or the RNSC (even though they weren't exactly helpful).
Posted by: Deety© at November 20, 2010 03:50 PM (Jb3+B)
You know, the type that don't even vote in primaries, at all?
Hmm...
I know I can get voter numbers for the primary and general elections in my county, and I know we had a huge turnout of Republicans over Democrats in the primary but they had incumbents on the two tickets for House Reps. in my county and surrounding effected ones.
I wonder if it is possible to break that down by Congressional district?
To whit, how many more people ended up voting for the Republican in a specific House race in the general than voted in the Republican primary overall?
(We have closed primaries.)
I'm not saying that it's a given that everyone who was so super-motivated to vote Republican in the primary this year was necessarily a lock for the candidate nominated but I'd like to know, where this tops out.
How does this trend historically?
Is this a useful datum to pursue?
Posted by: Deety© at November 20, 2010 04:12 PM (Jb3+B)
Uhm, yeah...
Because they fucking lost!
I don't know how to explain this to you but I will try...
The most super-duper, most conservative EVAR, candidate to lose an election is by definition not a part of a "conservative government".
They are not part of "government" at all.
What the hell is this?
The "A for Effort Club", the "It's your conservative instincts and intentions which count more than the results!" group hug?
I thought we were a bit different.
Fine.
Every conservative candidate who lost their race this season gets a participation ribbon and automatic nomination for whatever primary they participate in, next time...
Only fair, it's their turn after all.
Posted by: Deety© at November 20, 2010 04:40 PM (Jb3+B)
It is still the people's seat. Never did belong to her Dad or any of those old Repubs. I am rooting for Joe!! May the best man win!
Posted by: Marylou at November 20, 2010 10:52 PM (xAv+2)
Posted by: oxpdf at February 24, 2011 05:33 PM (ko8AC)
Posted by: iPad Video Converter at March 22, 2011 06:01 PM (TbE7f)
Posted by: chrissie1980 at March 28, 2011 04:25 AM (3/ENF)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2726 seconds, 308 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: garrett at November 19, 2010 11:44 AM (HA7+Z)