1 RNC: Is there anything they can't fuck up?

2 Snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? YES WE CAN!

3 Firing him would be horrible optics, even if he richly deserves it.  Steele could do good work as chair if he would put his mind to it, and quit bashing his own party at every goddamn opportunity.  The question now is: who are they going to get that would be an improvement?  The pool of candidates running for that post last winter was a thoroughly unimpressive lot, some of them absolute poster children for everything that is wrong with the GOP.

4 These idiotic twats are starting to make me sympathetic to Steele, which previously I would've thought impossible.  Why don't you get some of the real men like Frumsie to tell him to hit the bricks?  The party is run by imbeciles and eunuchs.

5

Fire all the RNC.

Start over.

6

We should be gearing up to take back the House and turn over some seats in the Senate. But instead what are we doing? Going into a fight over leadership.

I am sure the leadership that is attacking Steele is the very ones he denounced on Hannity; the liberal squishies like McLame and Graham who are in favor of the big tent BS.

The Republicans never lose a chance to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It is no wonder that the Teaparty movement is polling higher than them.

 

7 They better have someone in mind that will do a better job than Steele. 

Of course Steele is mediocre at best, but this is going to cause problems.  They need to have a clear endgame in mind with someone in place who will help win elections, or this is pointless.

8 Wouldn't Mitt Romney be a good choice for chair?

9 This John Edwards style "why didn't you come to me like an f'n' man" stuff...kills me. My ribs still hurt.

10 Why couldn't this wait until after the Reid crap had completely played itself out? Get out damn cigars and fix this in the back room, not in public -- and since your not getting that cash - don't even bother asking.

11 Do you really want a chairman that tells the press Republicans are not ready to lead like he did last week or the week before? He's a total screwup. He says stuff without thinking or without filter. He should have been gone shortly after taking he position when he first started screwing up.

12 Kinda like in big companies.  When you want to get a director to leave.  You take away all his direct reports.  A few weeks of not having anyone under you is a big hint that maybe you should start floating your resume around.  Saves on the big hassle of severance and stuff.

13

demanding he cancel promo events and focus on his job:  okay

demanding all the money he earns from it - not okay, probably not legal. 

14 The story at the top over on the right > has some info on what's going on with his staff at RNC.  He's losing aides left and right over this book decision.  Evidently he didn't even inform the RNC legal department that he was publishing a book and doing a promo tour, accepting 20K a pop in speaker fees.  Supposedly the committee higher ups are urging him to donate all the fees he's received.

Steele also appears to be pretty hard to work for, according to that article.

Regardless of how this turns out, the RNC from top to bottom should be focussed on the message and on getting republicans elected in November.  Not to mention the almost absolute inactivity in MA.

15 This. Is. Fuckin'. Retarded.

16 "Just do it."

17 Wake me up when the Republican Party stops stinking.

18 Hey, I warned him. Drop your linen on me baby and there ain't no goin' back...

19 It ain't the book. It's the fact that Steele is a compromising RINO.

He failed to support Republican candidates, so he needs to go.

20 Instead of writing a book on how to defeat the one that we have to buy, he should be telling this to the base for free.  

21 Promote him into a position where he can't do any more harm.

22 The RNC's lack of action in Massachusetts is a good thing. 

23 The problem with Michael Steele is that he promotes Michael Steele instead of the RNC.

When he bashes the Republican Party he does so to ingratiate himself to the interviewer (see McCain, John S. III).

He asks and receives $20,000 speaking fees to promote his book while Chairman of the RNC.

Full disclosure:  I wanted him to be Chairman.  Steele didn't screw up, I did.

It may become a three day CF is he gets fired chooses to spend more time with his family but the farther away time-wise from November that it happens the better it will be for our candidates.

24 Not to mention the almost absolute inactivity in MA.

Dear God, please don't let the RNC start paying attention to that race. 

25 This is not like firing a football coach, thinking you are only one step away from a national championship (and then find more likely to find yourself in a 2-8 season next year). This is about securing a flank. Regardless of the man's merits, good or bad--of which I do not have the time nor resources to do the inquiries needed for a legitimate opinion--don't open up a second front unless you have to. You don't have to. So don't. 

26 I don't get it.

27 Just tap it in.

28

Do you really want a chairman that tells the press Republicans are not ready to lead like he did last week or the week before?

That is NOT what he said. Watch the thing on Hannity. He was talking about a few of the RINOs who believed in big government spending and who had forgotton their "conservative roots".

29 It's a 3-day story if the RNC has a plan in place for moving forward.  If they don't, it'll drag on, strengthening the notion that the GOP is not fit to govern. 

So they need a plan for after Steele's departure, however it happens and, most importantly, for capitalizing on the Dem's weakness right now.

But I agree that this approach to their HR problem is horrendous.  Come up with a work-plan for the guy, develop some goals of objectives, agree on a time-frame for reaching those goals, and then assess him at that time.  I assume that there is a board or some other person or persons who are ultimately Steele's boss.  They need to act like it. 

Am I the only one who knows how to do HR? 

30  The question now is: who are they going to get that would be an improvement?  The pool of candidates running for that post last winter was a thoroughly unimpressive lot, some of them absolute poster children for everything that is wrong with the GOP.

Posted by: Hatchet Five at January 13, 2010 01:15 PM (n6iqK)

I'm with Hatchet, why Blame Steele for the overall performance of the GOP in that last 5 years or so, isn't this the message they wanted to show, their lack of backing and supporting Bush, not fighting like madmen with our war efforts , because they wouldn't stand for what was right for America , but wanted to reach across the  aisle?

We Send the message to the GOP we are not advocating for wimpiness anymore, we do have standards, smaller gvt, less spending, protect our nation, follow the constitution, and let the American people be free to succeed

31 I'd rather have Remington Steele than Michael Steele as chair. At least then we'd have money coming into the coffers.

32

Yeah, Romney would be great as Chair, his best asset is economics, ie fundraising.

The PR loss from firing a black, an incompetent black? Those who would be insulted have already voted Kommiecrat so wheres the loss? It would demonstrate that PCness is no longer in play though.

Have you noticed that the RNC is unable to support Brown because they spent all their money on Scuzzyflava, Spector & Crist?

33 14   !!!Eleventy!!!   Who cares about the RNC anyhow?  Most every comment you read on conservative sites says folks are giving directly to the candidates or Palin's pac.  Now, if there were a Tea Party chairman, look out. 

34

What up!

Dude needs to go.  Like, now.

35 Michael Steele?

Never heard of him.

36

er and Hatchet, i didn't mean to stomp on your ideas and include mine as being yours.

i just went Off. sorry

37 You know what would be a great evil plan by the Democrats? 

Hire Steele. 

Seriously, Obama should start to visibly court Steele, solicit his opinions, treat him with respect, and offer him a czar slot. 

38 Why would anyone want to read a 12 Steps to Winning Elections type book from someone who hasn't really led a victorious movement through a few election cycles?  If he'd been really smart, he should have focussed like a laser on November 2010, helped the GOP gain back the house and take at least 6 senate seats, and THEN published his 12 Steps book.  He would then have had the election fu behind him.

39 Dear God, please don't let the RNC start paying attention to that race.


Amen, sister.  It isn't just Steele who needs to go, but the rest of the blue-blood walking clusterfucks of the RNC, the congressional campaign committees, and the inbred clusterfuck that is the DC staff and their pet consultants/PR firms who give us disasters like Scozzafava.  Rearranging a couple of deck chairs isn't going to fix diddly-squat there, and if we win big this November it will be in spite of those people, not because of them.

40

That is NOT what he said. Watch the thing on Hannity. He was talking about a few of the RINOs who believed in big government spending and who had forgotton their "conservative roots".

Vic,

With all due respect--this is not the guy you want to fall on your sword over. 

41 We need to work on taking back the RNC before we start working on taking back Congress.  Or at least work on them concurrently.  I can't figure out how an organization can be so functionally retarded for so long. 

I mean come on, this is like watching the effing Detroit Lions play.  If they get competent leadership at this point, it won't be because of anything except pure luck.

42 The RNC is broke - in more ways than one.  They are very irrelevant.  Kind of like John McCain.

43 But the demand here is so unacceptable it's pretty clearly, to me at least, a passive-aggressive request that he resign.

I think this is more a bargaining chip to get him to resign than a serious demand.

44 39 Don't sweat it.

45 well shit. While my opinion of Steele's performance of chair is pretty low, the RNC doing this is lame. And of course, if Steele is fired or if he quits, it will be because "republikkkans are racists!!11!! (eleventy!)". It's like no one in the RNC has any sense. AT. ALL.

46 I'll respond to the scurrilous attacks here when you pay my going rate.

47 I liked Steele when he showed up as an analyst on fox. He did a very good job at that. He sucks as RNC chair and should have been tossed out 2 weeks after he got in - as we all saw what a disaster he was going to be. Steele ought to have some integrity and just resign, already. This is beyond pathetic.

48 If Steele gets the heave-ho, who would want to take his place, and I wonder how many Rino chiefs that he has to put up with? The top guys who made up the RNC are no winners themselves.

49 Once again, the way the RNC is handling this demonstrates that if they had just one more testicle, they would have.........one.

50 Have you noticed that the RNC is unable to support Brown because they spent all their money on Scuzzyflava, Spector & Crist?


Umm, yes.  Probably because people who would donate are not about to throw good money after bad by sending them more.  They'll love when they get back their fundraising letter that I just wrote on in Sharpie.  Love it.

51 Perhaps Tom Hagen could pay Michael Steele a visit.

52 Just what did you think RNC stood for?

53 I hate to defend Steele, especially since he likes to say dumb shit, but my mother worked for 30 yrs for the RNC. They have ALWAYS said and done dumb shit. They just usually dont get the media attraction that Steele has. I liked Mehlman from a few yrs back, he could raise funds, but he said his share of dumb shit. The only saving grace was no one knew or cared who his was. Its the same way inside of the DNC. Always has been.

54 #9 The Republicans never lose a chance to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It is no wonder that the Teaparty movement is polling higher than them.

Probably as accurate to say the Teaparty movement exists BECAUSE of them.

Also, not to knock it per se, but its easy for the teaparty movement to poll well because it doesn't have to field any candidates or actually run anything!

55 I can't figure out how an organization can be so functionally retarded for so long.


You get a combination of young political types on ego trips, mixed with loyal Republicans who can't get a job anywhere else.  All of them stepping all over each other in the name of their own egos.  Mix in a bunch of consultants/PR firms who are only in it for the money.  Allow to ferment for a few decades. 
Yes, I've done professional campaign work.  It isn't pretty.

56 If they want him to go they should just say so. I disagree. They need cover against the race card. And based on his pandering insinuations about rank and file Republicans being bigoted, I don't think Steele himself is above playing it.

57

The RNC is trying everything it can to guarantee its irrelevance.  You can see why conservatives are so poorly represented with this entire crowd at the helm.  Certainly, Steele could have done a better job at times but it is also true that he has alternately had his hands tied and been given carte blanche.  Steele has been treated just like Palin was by people in the party structure.  People outside the party look at the RNC and its no wonder that they draw the conclusion that Repubs are assholes.  That's all the RNC is.

That whole bunch should be purged, imo.  Obama would be glad to have them.

58 59 If they want him to go they should just say so.

I disagree. They need cover against the race card. And based on his pandering insinuations about rank and file Republicans being bigoted, I don't think Steele himself is above playing it.

Yes, We risk losing all the minorities that voted R in 2009.

59 I feel it is my duty to go off topic and lament the further rape of my childhood via the new A-Team movie...    

60 It isn't just Steele who needs to go, but the rest of the blue-blood walking clusterfucks of the RNC, the congressional campaign committees, and the inbred clusterfuck that is the DC staff and their pet consultants/PR firms who give us disasters like Scozzafava.

This is so spot on.  The fact that a loser like Skeezerfatass got "nominated" through some backroom deal that didn't produce so much as a mini-bleep of attention from the RNC, who then subsequently gave her money, just shows how out of touch the whole fucking bunch are.  Steele is only the tip of the iceberg, which the lack of knowledge about his book further illustrates.

61 If his skin was lighter. I'd say keep him.

62 Also, not to knock it per se, but its easy for the teaparty movement to poll well because it doesn't have to field any candidates or actually run anything!


Right now the teaparty movement is a concept.  Albeit a very popular one.  When they actually have to field candidates and propose solutions is when it gets messy, because it is inevitable that some people won't like what they hear.

63

With all due respect--this is not the guy you want to fall on your sword over. 

No, I am no big supporter of Steele. He has made some screw-ups. That being said the shit that is being spread now about what he said of RNC leadership and ability to take back the House is simply not accurate.

My feeling is that this is the work of the RINO wing who wants to oust him after he made moves to reduce their power over the Party.

We should NOT be supporting the RINO wing of the party and its efforts to retain control. We should be outing them and not necessaily Steele.

In any case, NOW is not the time to be having this damn fight, particularly in the damn press who has to be laughing their asses off.

 

64 >>>Yes, We risk losing all the minorities that voted R in 2009.


Both of them

65 61 59 If they want him to go they should just say so.

I disagree. They need cover against the race card. And based on his pandering insinuations about rank and file Republicans being bigoted, I don't think Steele himself is above playing it.

Yes, We risk losing all the minorities that voted R in 2009.

Posted by: Barbarian at January 13, 2010 01:53 PM (EL+OC)

All 10 of them?

66 Sorry, Dr. Spank.  It appears we were both thinking the same thing.

67 Jusr another mouth piece/talking head. Conservatives, tea partiers and little R's have already taken back the party.  

68

  What I'd like to know is.....why the hell did anyone pay Michael Steele to write a book on "12 Steps to Winning Elections"?

  Isn't that somewhat like paying Fran Tarkenton & Jim Kelly to colaborate on a book about "12 Steps to Winning a Super Bowl Championship"?

69

64 If his skin was lighter. I'd say keep him.

Yes.  And he talks like a ...  shsssh... NEEEGROW.

70 The fact that a loser like Skeezerfatass got "nominated" through some backroom deal that didn't produce so much as a mini-bleep of attention from the RNC,

No, it's worse than that.  Apparently the RNC staff were the ones who pushed the backroom deal.  Completely and utterly clueless, they are.  The teaparty movement and all of the backlash against huge spending hasn't dented their collective noggins.  Expect to see more tax-and-spend RINOs put forth if they are given a chance.

71

Y'all have it wrong.

It is a twelve step program to give up an addiction to winning.

72 If he had an ounce of decency, or gave a rat's ass about the RNC, he would resign.  Of course, he doesn't . . .  And count me in on the people really pissed off that he took it on his incompetent self to write this particular book.  In secret.

73

Frack the bad PR--who cares? The media will disparage any conservative for any minute reason anyway--does it matter? No. Time to clean house. It's a new year and we have too  much at stake to let this guy flush it down the drain.

74

What I'd like to know is.....why the hell did anyone pay Michael Steele to write a book on "12 Steps to Winning Elections"?

I haven't read the book but from the description given by the talking heads it is pretty much along the same lines that Jim DeMint described in his article in the WSJ last year. He probably got the materioal from DeMint or at least he has shifted over to the DeMint wing of the party.

In otherwords, it is a return to fiscal conservatism and small government. Are all of ya'll against that?

 

75   Whoops, looks like my comment at #71 is just a rehash of what Intrepid already said at #41.

76 I am not a Romney fan but I think he would stay on message and be organized. Steele has to go. Today would not be too soon.

77 "Isn't that somewhat like paying Fran Tarkenton & Jim Kelly to colaborate on a book about "12 Steps to Winning a Super Bowl Championship"?"

That's what I am wondering too, Russ.  I'm not going to take advice from someone who hasn't put his own plan in affect and actually experienced results from it.

Like taking weight loss tips from Rosie O'Donnell.  Or long-term weight loss tips from Oprah.

78

Mr. Steele may be articulate and clean, but he's obviously not a light-skinned Negro and, therefore, cannot be trusted. 

79 I disagree. They need cover against the race card.

Posted by: Warden at January 13, 2010 01:51 PM (lEqfY)

The GOP needs to ignore the race card and just do what's, obviously, right. Playing by the left's "PC rules for the right" is one of the biggest problems the GOP has.

People respect honesty and integrity more than slavish devotion to the untruths of political correctness.

80 Posted by: Hatchet Five at January 13, 2010 02:04 PM (n6iqK)

Thanks for the insight and correction; I won't err on the side of giving them credit again.

81 Oh, yeah, the MSM is champing at the bit for the RNC to fire Steele. The narrative is already written.

82 In otherwords, it is a return to fiscal conservatism and small government. Are all of ya'll against that?

The fact that nobody, including the RNC, knew about it until the publisher starting promoting it does not pass the smell test.

83

Yo, what's up?? Bought my book yet?

84

  No, Vic.  I'm not against that strategy.  What makes me wonder is why you pay someone who hasn't demonstrated ANY ability to do this himself to lay out the strategy in a book?

  It would be different if he was taking other people's ideas and putting his own rhetorical flourishes on it, or maybe even tweaking the details a little bit - but from where I'm sitting, the only real successful campaign Michael Steele's ever run on the national stage is the one that got him elected to the head of the RNC.  So maybe he should spend a little more time in the trenches before he starts giving lectures about how to get things done.

85

Personally, I think they are concerned with his robust support of the Tea Party movement.  There are a lot of RINOS controlling the Republican Party.  The RINOS fear the Tea Party movement like a rat fears a cat.   I am a Libertarian with strong fiscal conservative beliefs.  Sadly the Republican Party abandoned true fiscal conservative policies many years ago.  Embracing the Tea Party where they can bring victory to the party is very important.  They are fired up and will arrive at the polls on Election Day in droves.  If the republicans ignore them they may attempt to establish a third party. 

 

I am personally in favor of a third party, just not in 2010 (fiscally conservative of course).

 

FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT CONTROL!!!!!!!!!!    

86

 So maybe he should spend a little more time in the trenches before he starts giving lectures about how to get things done

That is true, but we shouldn't be allowing the MSM to once again determine what is going to go down in the Republican Party. My major point here is that now is not the time to be having this fight, particularly out in the open.

 

87

Wow!  Didn't see this coming!

http://tinyurl.com/yabnayu

Could take weeks to seat MA winner.

They don't even care anymore about how corrupt they are seen to be.

88 Steele did stumble coming out of the gate, but my feeling is that lately he's done a good job especially calling out the squishy RINO's.  The "good old boys" don't like what he's doing, people like Newt. That's what this is all about.

89 In otherwords, it is a return to fiscal conservatism and small government. Are all of ya'll against that?

NO but, he's tripped over his dick too many times.

90

Fire the man.  No Democrats liked him anyway, so who's gonna cry racism?

91 88 Any GOP'er with a lick of sense would be embracing, hell, they'd be trying ot co-opt the whole teaparty movement.  "Lower taxes?  Limited Government?  That's US!"  The fact that some in the GOP brain trust in DC are against this should speak volumes about what we are dealing with here; they haven't yet recognized that their failures are the reason there even is a teaparty movement.

92 I don't get Vic and Darkwolf. A half year ago, they were thirsting for Steele's blood because he called Limbaugh an entertainer. Now he says the GOP isn't ready to lead, and all of a sudden he's a hero?

93

The fact that nobody, including the RNC, knew about it until the publisher starting promoting it does not pass the smell test.

No it doesn't pass the smell test. In fact, it sounds an awful lot like all the lies that the McCain and Romney staffers have been spreading about Sarah Palin.

He stayed from the big tent squishie reservation therefore he must be slapped down.

 

94 Polynikes, I agree.  However, I got an email yesterday from the NRSC asking me to go on their website and sign a petition to "condemn Harry Reid's racially insensitive remarks."  I was so disgusted!  Emailed them back and told them I thought that was really stupid, asking if they didn't have more important things to do and suggesting they read Ward Connelly's excellent opinion piece in the WSJ.  They've got their heads up their asses in a big way on this race bullshit.

95 Who is the enemy here? The Democrats or the RINOs? Because if the RINOs (and the GOP) are the real enemy, we aren't in any kind of political alliance.

96 "We didn't fire him. We just 'fixed the glitch'".

97 The problem with getting rid of Steel is that the RNC is so nutless and clueless they don't have anyone to replace him who would be any more effective. If they can't replace him with someone effective, they will do more harm than good if they run him off. The party seems to be run by big tent RINO's who lack the fortitude to do the things that are required by leadership. They are afraid to act, and have no act to follow. Incompetent is the word. So how do we purge the party of their stupidity and cowardice?

98 Whenever or however Steele goes, I anticipate him doing a lot of Republican bashing afterwards.  There's money to be made by doing so.

99 >>>Personally, I think they are concerned with his robust support of the Tea Party movement. There are a lot of RINOS controlling the Republican Party. The RINOS fear the Tea Party movement like a rat fears a cat. Oh, God.

100 Fire his black ass.  Color is the only thing keeping him employed.  If you don't see it, you are the fucking racist, and part of the problem.

101

I don't get Vic and Darkwolf. A half year ago, they were thirsting for Steele's blood because he called Limbaugh an entertainer. Now he says the GOP isn't ready to lead, and all of a sudden he's a hero?

Did you read what I said to Russ? No, I don't like Steele and a year ago he was wrong AND we should have got rid of him then.  Then wasn't in the middle of an election year in which the R's stood to make significant gains.

His overall record is not good, but this latest round of attacks on him is all fabricated BS. These attacks are the result of him moving more to the right and i DO support that.

And no I do not think he is a HERO.

102 Meanwhile, they are working on another "contract"

To me this is the biggest insult. The last contract worked out really weel, didn't it? for about two months.

103 "In otherwords, it is a return to fiscal conservatism and small government. Are all of ya'll against that?"

Oh heck no, I'm all for these core principles!  There's just something in this whole mess that is poking me in the side, in addition to his book writing/speaker fees.  Who are the ones in the RNC that are wanting him out and what is their agenda?  Who is opposing him in his plans to clean out the RNC? 

There appears to be scenes going on behind the scenes, even.  

104 Fuck the RNC, I give my money straight to Palin and Brown.

105

In otherwords, it is a return to fiscal conservatism and small government. Are all of ya'll against that?

 Posted by: Vic

Oh yeah, man. We don't want Steele around because he's wrecking all of our grand RINO plans.

Yep, you caught us.

106 Steve Schmidt's Mccain campaign is a good example of the problem we face.  (BTW, this isn't about the Palin fights)

It was Schmidt's campaign that decided not to attack Obama for his strange life story, his tolerance of domestic terrorism (his friendship even), his secrecy, his socialist credentials, his nutjob church of 20 years.

Some Republicans think that we have to avoid any possible chance of irritating Al Sharpton.  These people actually run the RNC.  Why did we pick Steele?  It was transparently to attempt to prove we're tolerant of blacks as we criticized Obama's administration.  The people who made that decision completely misread the country.  Everyone is criticizing Obama, and Steele's skin color makes no difference.  It never could have made a difference.

We need to stop attempting to make hard core democrats happy with our party.  It makes us look fake and weak.  We can't even fire an incompetent Chairman who is showing little interest in his job because it might offend someone WHO IS NEVER GOING TO VOTE GOP.  Would anyone who thought firing Steele is racism ever vote against Obama?

But Steele isn't the problem.  Steele would be replaced with someone just like Steele.  The Beltway would insist that we keep playing this bizarre game where we call Obama a family man when grandma says his background is scary.

We AREN'T above it all.  Mccain's campaign (Schmidt) tried to have a tightly controlled message that he was above it all.  It was bla bla boring 'country first' nonsense that got nowhere.  Mccain is above pointing out that Obama is happy with a domestic terrorist and G D America?  This stuff matters, and there's nothing wrong with digging into the heart of what's wrong with democrats and democrat race baiting and 60s radicals who tried to kill our troops. 

You can't trust a man who won't look you in the eye and say what he thinks.  Mccain's probably more conservative than W.  In many ways, this is obvious, and yet, you can't really trust Mccain because he's 'above it all'.

Fire Steele.  Fine.  But you better have a better replacement in mind.

107

 There are a lot of RINOS controlling the Republican Party. The RINOS fear the Tea Party movement like a rat fears a cat.

Oh, God.

I happen to believe that is exactly the case.  I could be wrong, but as I said, the good old boys in the repubican party can't stand the fact that the tea party movement has gotten so big.  Scares them shitless.

108

103 >>>Personally, I think they are concerned with his robust support of the Tea Party movement. There are a lot of RINOS controlling the Republican Party. The RINOS fear the Tea Party movement like a rat fears a cat.

Oh, God.

Exactly!

And don't effing start that effing 'party purity' bs again!  Please?

109 >>> These attacks are the result of him moving more to the right and i DO support that. No, these attacks are NOT the result of him moving more to the right. You need to have a couple of more dimensions in your analyses. Every single thing isn't the battle of RINOism vs. Conservativism. Jeepers.

110 These attacks are the result of him moving more to the right and i DO support that.

Posted by: Vic at January 13, 2010 02:17 PM (QrA9E)

You lost me. When did Steele move to the right? After Scuzzyfuzzy?

I like Steele and think he is a good debater for a good number of conservative issues, but he totally sucks as RNC chair and still hasn't figured out what is really going on - like most of the rest of the GOP leadership.

111 Who is the enemy here? The Democrats or the RINOs? Because if the RINOs (and the GOP) are the real enemy, we aren't in any kind of political alliance.

Ace, to use a WWII analogy:  The real enemy is the Germans.  The RNC are like the French: always getting in the way of victory.

112

Also, the PR fallout they think they'd get -- the first black RNC chair fired storyline -- is like a three day story.

You really think so?

113 I fear the Tea Party movement is more interested in inchoate, ineffectual rage against "elites" than actually winning real world political contests. I fear a lot of people are far more interested in "moral victories" than actual victories. So yeah -- to that extent, I fear the Tea Party movement, or rather many adherents of it, those who seem to have no more tangible goal in politics than "sending a message," and so should anyone else who actually wants to defeat socialism.

114
Sorry for the O/T, but we're off to Parris Island for Family Day tomorrow and  graduation Friday!  Ooh rah!  Later, peeps.

115 I'd rather have Remington Steele than Michael Steele as chair. At least then we'd have money coming into the coffers. Why do we need to send money to the RNC? Send the money directly to the candidates. Everybody won't raise $54,000+ in an hour like Scott Brown did, but we can figure out which races we think are important.

116

Shouldn't Concern Trolls leave "concerned" out of their posts?  Just a tip.

117 If some of you want to marginalize yourselves as part of a pure protest movement, be my guests, but then do not question me and other people actually involved in actual elective politics when we make decisions on your behalves. If you want to take yourself out of The System and leave your political fate to others, that's fine, but don't question those still in The System when we make tactical decisions you've elected yourself out of.

118 this supports our historic contention that we look at all people as equals and judge them on their merits and not their skin color.  Steele was elected because his past merits supported it and was fired because his present actions required it.

Works for me.

119 Oh, Jane, that's great!  So glad you'll be seeing that fine young man and congratulations to him on this accomplishment!!

120 Since Steele is now a tea-partier, do you fear him?

121 118 I fear the Tea Party movement is more interested in inchoate, ineffectual rage against "elites" than actually winning real world political contests.

I fear a lot of people are far more interested in "moral victories" than actual victories.

That right there.  Ace nails it.  Again.

122

 those who seem to have no more tangible goal in politics than "sending a message," and so should anyone else who actually wants to defeat socialism.

But that IS the message we are sending ace.  We are fighting Obama and the dems tooth and nail against his socialist agenda.  We are fighting the only way we know how.  At the ballot box.

123 I already feared him as he was a brown person.

124 The damage caused by the GOP firing a black chairman could be minimized if it could quickly find another black person to serve, preferably with light skin and no Negro dialect, except when he wants to have one.

125 At least he's not Asian.

126 Fire Steele.  Fine.  But you better have a better replacement in mind.


It's pretty clear there won't be a better replacement.

127 118 I fear the Tea Party movement is more interested in inchoate, ineffectual rage against "elites" than actually winning real world political contests.

I fear a lot of people are far more interested in "moral victories" than actual victories.

Posted by: ace at January 13, 2010 02:23 PM (Fue76)

The overriding concern of the Tea Party movement is the idea of limited federal government, as Constitutionally defined and traditionally understood. For instance, when Tom Harkin says that Congress just moved health care from a privilege to a right, Tea Partiers say that everyone knows that Congress cannot create rights, as one of the most basic principles of our Constitution. This is more important than whether a piece of legislation makes or costs money to the federal government.

I think that stuff like this is all the Tea Party movement is about, really.

128 FOCUS, GOP.

The enemy is OBAMA and the DEMOCRATS.

Not Steele.

129 That was a joke by the way.

130 IIRC, the primary reason Steele got the position is that the frontrunner had at some time belonged to a country club that at some time did not admit black members.  Am I remembering this right?

131

You lost me. When did Steele move to the right? After Scuzzyfuzzy?

It is obvious to me that a lot of you did not actually watch that interview on Hannity.  The quotes being given about him saying the Republicans are not ready to lead and that we will not take back either house are simply WRONG!  You are taking someone else's word for what went down.

What he did in that Hannity interview was imply that "some" Republicans who are pushing the big spending programs are not ready to lead because they have forgotten their roots in Conservatism. On the issue of taking back the congress he did not amkke a call either way, he hedged. That is what any smart politician would do as aprt of the election spin. What he said was that he had not yet looked at the individual races. That is probably a lie but that is something they all do when discussing stuff like that.

And contrary to what some people are saying above about NY-23 Steele had NOTHING to do with the choosing of that RINO. It was done by the local Party apparatus and mostly one individual from the NY legislature.

I consider that he HAS moved to the right based on what he was pushing after the McCain loss (big tent town hall meetings) and what he has been pushing lately (return to small government).

It wasn't until he started pushing the return to conservative roots that these internal Party attacks started happening AND from that I smell the work of the McCain and Romney machine.

So ACE; yes it continues to be the battle of the real conservatives vs the RINOs for who is going to control the party.

 

132 Isn't Dick Cheney available?

133 #125  NO. I do not fear any real tea partier. This is the only thing that will shake the dust out of the hair of the RHINO's. They still pine for the good old days when they were in control, and did the very same thing that the Dem's are now doing. Change is upon us, and the Rhino's do not understand this. At least Steele does.

134 The beatings will continue until morale improves.

135

Fire all the RNC.

Start over.

Yep, All 168 Members should comit ritulistic sucide.

136 When Steele dons a Confederate Army uniform and runs the Hispanics out of Texas, then I'll support him.

137 Who on the Republican bandwagon would make a good RNC chairman...

Dick Morris. 

Sorry to put it out there, but he has no blinkers on and gives better than the dems can dish.  He lives and breathes this shit.  He knows how the other side works.  He has worked with the other side and knows their tendencies, knows how to push  their buttons.

I'd rather have him licking the toes of our gals than most of the others licking Obama's balls...

138

Think of Tea Partiers as insurgents within the GOP.

All parties benefit from the occasional purge.

139 Vic, why do you think the Hannity interview is relevant?

Steele has failed to do his job, whether or not that quote is accurate.  And really, he has said this stuff many times.  His fucking book is characterizing the right as needing a 12 step program.

OK, you know, he actually is probably right about some of this stuff.  But he's supposed to be our cheerleader... our salesman.  He's not.  He's criticizing us PUBLICLY and getting rich doing it, in classic Maverick style.  That is breach of the basics of chairing the party.

I do suspect a lot of the flack he's getting is from people who aren't interested in seeing the GOP move right.  That is the core problem.  If we get rid of Steele, who replaces him?

140 >>>>I think that stuff like this is all the Tea Party movement is about, really. How are ideas actually implemented? A movement is not a political party. You need the apparatus of a party to actually put people into office. Ideas do not self-execute. They are executed by people. I do not like all this constant ragging on a necessary apparatus (a party structure; privileged place on ballot, etc.) in favor of an inchoate movement. They are two different animals, entirely. This is like saying you prefer Ford Trucks over Chinese food. Well, yeah... but they are two entirely separate product categories. The Tea Party is not, as some of you seem to imagine, some party structure ready to take power in 2010. It is a movement, which can be coopted and brought into either party, but without a party embracing it/coopting it, it does nothing but make a lot of noise. Political disputes are settled in America by actual elections, not by demonstrations or protests. I cannot take this constant boosterism of the Tea Party as if it's a *real* political party. It's NOT a political party. It's a political MOVEMENT. To the extent this movement actually achieves tangible political goals, it will do so through the vehicle of real-world party politics.

141

BTW, in light of today's happenings I am wondering if that attack he made on Rush last year wasn't also at the behest of the RINO wing.

Why is it that none of the party leadership said anything to him then? Why is it that when he starts talking about return to conservative roots that all of a sudden he has to go?

  

142 The Republican party reminds me of the old joke about the group of missionaries captured by cannibals. and they are given o choice of death or uga-buga.

143 Vic:

BODY,.aolmailheader {font-size:10pt; color:black; font-family:Arial;} a.aolmailheader:link {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; font-weight:normal;} a.aolmailheader:visited {color:magenta; text-decoration:underline; font-weight:normal;} a.aolmailheader:active {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; font-weight:normal;} a.aolmailheader:hover {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; font-weight:normal;} Here's the transcript:

STEELE: I think overall -- given what we know so far and what this administration's proclivities are -- we're going to see, I think, nice pick-ups in the House. I think we're gonna see...

HANNITY: [interrupting] ... woah, more specific.

STEELE: Well, I can't give a number yet, because like I said, we're just now beginning to look at the races, and we have races...

HANNITY: [interrupting] Do you think you can take-over the House? Do you think Republicans...

STEELE: [interrupting] ... not this year, and Sean, I'll say...

HANNITY: [interrupting] ... you don't think so?

STEELE: Well, I don't know yet, because I don't know all the candidates yet. We still have some vacancies that need to get filled, but then the question we need to ask ourselves is: if we do that, are we ready?

HANNITY: Are you?

[cross-talk]

STEELE: I don't know. And that's what I'm assessing and evaluating right now. Those candidates who are looking to run have to be anchored in these principles.... because if they don't, then they'll get to Washington, and they'll start drinking that Potomac River water, and they'll get drunk with power and throw the steps out the window.

144 Ace, you seem to be saying "No party?  Then no country."

I rather like the inalienable party of one, myself.

Party does not come before country.  THAT is the message of the Tea Party movement.  The Republican Party should adopt it, in which case, I might rejoin it.

145 So ACE; yes it continues to be the battle of the real conservatives vs the RINOs for who is going to control the party.

Vic, the party's actions lately are greasing the skids to their own irrelevance.  Where are they on Scott Brown?  [crickets]  Rubio vs. Crist?  [on the wrong side]  It's not just Scozzafava.  For me, until they dial it back to 1) smaller federal government, 2) lower taxes, 3) strong defense, including our borders, I won't hate on 'em but I'm not going to help them in any way. 

146

Oh come on.

How do we have someone, as the face of the party, say "If we do that (filling vacancies), are we ready?"

I don't care what the hell the motivations are for saying it--how are you chairman of the party if you have no ability to instill any confidence?

Seriously, he needs to go.

147 Right, Vic. You keep on with that Dan Brown/Illuminati/Wheels Within Wheels style of analysis.

148

@99 Posted by: ace at January 13, 2010 02:15 PM (Fue76)

Okay ace, serious question.  What really is the difference between a RINO and a Dem.?  And if RINOs are pretty much in control of the GOP where does that leave us?  This is not sarc.  I'm not knowledgable about the party insider stuff so put me on some would ya?

149 The Tea Party movement, to me at least, is about personal freedom. It's about getting the government out of our lives to a great extant. Not so much about making a statement as inciting some action in that direction. In other words, whatever Zero is for, they are against, as I am for the most part.

150 >>>Ace, you seem to be saying "No party? Then no country." >>>I rather like the inalienable party of one, myself. >>>Party does not come before country. THAT is the message of the Tea Party movement. The Republican Party should adopt it, in which case, I might rejoin it. You know what I love? Self-righteous meaningless cant and blather.

151

Vic, why do you think the Hannity interview is relevant?

Because that is the place where he "suipposedly" said "Republicans are not ready to lead" and the other things that the attackers are bashing him for.

152 There is a fine line between supporting the party because it is the lessor of evils or because it is a necessary comprise of principles, and enabling more of the same.

I say proudly that I did not vote in 08. I could not vote for McCain.
Maybe that was bad, since surely Barry is worse, but maybe the Republicans get the message that they can't be socialist-lite.

153 Sarah Palin is going to keynote their convention.  I think we're going to see the TEA movement turn into something more than a pure protest.  Most of the time, the TEA folks are right, and there's certainly plenty to complain about.

But when it hits the real world, it is about making a few compromises to win political contests in a divided country.  Some politicians are lucky enough to not have to face that reality.  The RNC is not so lucky, I guess.  That's why we need a protest movement that is separate from the political party.

154

If this comes to be, it will not end well.  Consider it the cause of a "double-dip recession" in GOP prestige and appeal.

The "stop your book tour" mandate I could *maybe* get behind.  He needs to be Chair first, and an author second.

The mandate for handing over his profits is bad.  Bad bad bad bad.  I appreciate that the rationale for this is that Steele is selling the book while profiting from the GOP "brand."  Riding the back of the elephant to personal prosperity is an underhanded thing for him to be doing right now.

Asking for all the loot he's made is worse.  Doing so will only undermine the Republican Party's stance as being against socialism, and for capitalism.  It will be spun as hypocritical, as we have crinkled our noses at Democratic grabs for "windfall profits taxes," but now we are effectively doing something very similar within our own party's ranks.  And we will hear about it for as long as the left is willing to talk about it (it's not like the people watching Maddow aren't tuning in with the expectation of hearing the same thing she talked about last night...).

Worse yet, this will have impact on conservatives not associated with the GOP.  It has been difficult for the Tea Party to distinguish itself from the Republican Party.  The media has lumped the two together, and not bothered to give the Tea Party a chance to explain its differences and disassociate itself where needed.  Fallout from this bad idea will have an impact on conservative innocent bystanders (and possibly even Hostages!  *rimshot*).

The GOP needs to be very delicate with this.  They need to handle it from a very austere, legalistic standpoint.  If they can find wrongdoing in what Steele is doing (conflict of interest, etc...), then they should consider pursuing those angles if they want to take something out on Steele.  But they should by no means do anything that could look like they are just being meany-mean-means who want to turn Steele upside-down and shake him by the ankles 'til his lunch money falls out.

Michael Steele is enjoying some free-market capitalism.  Make sure your message is never aginst that.  Keep your message against the ethical implications of his actions, and if they exist, contractual breaches.

155 137 Isn't Dick Cheney available?

Posted by: OokOok at January 13, 2010 02:32 PM (dQdrY)

 

Best idea of the whole damn thread......

156 Posted by: Vic at January 13, 2010 02:30 PM (QrA9E)

Change is upon us, and the Rhino's do not understand this. At least Steele does.

Posted by: mystry at January 13, 2010 02:32 PM (kmgIE)

I don't get what you guys are saying. Steele is no Tea Partier. He's always understood the Tea Party argument (Steele was one of the few commentators who hit the CRA and Fannie/Freddie really hard during the credit crisis - which is a good part of why I liked his initial election to RNC chair) but his actions as chair have not been in concert with that attitude and he has not done much of anything to take the GOP right, and I still don't see any indication that he is going to help in that. And that's on top of the fact that he's just been incompetent and silly.

157 "Steele was elected because his past merits supported it"

Which merits would those be?  Are you referring to this:

"During his time as Lieutenant Governor, he chaired the Minority Business Enterprise taskforce, actively promoting an expansion of affirmative action in the corporate world."

 He's an fucking race hustler, and one of the more egregious ones in existence.  He promotes policies that are extremely harmful to the people who make up the GOP's base and therefore does not belong anywhere near the GOP.

OK seriously, I don't follow politics as much as some but how the fuck did a guy who made his living "actively promoting an expansion of affirmative action in the corporate world" become GOP chair?  Haha, I'm joking, the reason is obvious:  he was elected because he is black, period, fullstop, end of story.

Is opposing race quotas now off the table for most Republicans?  It really shouldn't be.  It's no wonder China and India are kicking America's ass in the hightech world because they don't force their companies to hire inferior employees based on their skin color, as American companies are forced to do.

158

So yeah -- to that extent, I fear the Tea Party movement, or rather many adherents of it, those who seem to have no more tangible goal in politics than "sending a message," and so should anyone else who actually wants to defeat socialism.

I kinda don't agree.  Of the probably many times in U.S. history when it was time for "sending a message", this is one, imo.  Even at the risk of losing. 

American, or rather Washington, politics has become a profession instead of a calling.  Politics is enriching to those who learn to play the game, and the game is dishonorable.  It has institutionalized deceit and dishonesty and rewards the best players at the expense of the most decieved. 

The Republicans by-in-large, could give a shit less about socialism or the insidious vacuum that is sucking this country to the left.  They could give a shit less about the fact that eventually, the piper will demand payment.  They want theirs and as long as they get it, the country be damned. 

It won't happen unfortunately, the the very best thing that could happen to this country would be if the very large majority of elected officials in Washington on both sides of the isles in the next couple of election cycles would lose their jobs.

And the message?  Becoming a congressperson is no longer a permanent, or near permanent position.  That would be a good thing, imo, and an extremely needed message that is required in these times.

159

Peaches;

My understanding is that they are supplying some support to Brown but they have to maintain a low profile there because they could do more harm than good.

 

160 I really have trouble with people whose view of the world is so entirely theoretical. I don't know what the hell to say to such people.

161

Not that I am a big fan of the RNC at the moment BUT...

This type of action is actually not that unusual in the real world. If you are a contract employee with 7x24 responsibility you are usually prohibited from doing things "on the side" since it puts you in a conflict of interest. The only way to remove this conflict of interest is to give your side project to the company or leave.

There was a case not that long ago about a toy designer who designed something "on his own time" and then went to work for a competitor. The old employer took the guy to court and won. It's now their toy.

There is the same issue here. You cannot have this conflict of interest between Steele's book/speaking fees versus what he is supposed to be doing for the RNC. This offer would at least gives Steel an option if he wants to stay. In my opinion, a reasonable offer given the situation. Given the book deal and speaking fees I am sure he will decide to move on. I hope he does. We need some new leadership at the RNC... badly.

I have a neighbor who has decades of experience in politics and is a huge Tea Party support who applied for a job with the RNC. Steele gave the job to some young idiot because his parents cut a big check. This is the type of stuff that just has to stop and Steele is part of the problem.

162

Because that is the place where he "suipposedly" said "Republicans are not ready to lead" and the other things that the attackers are bashing him for.

Posted by: Vic

No it isn't.  It's one example.  There are a lot of other examples.

It's pretty clear that Steele is not much of a cheerleader for the GOP.  He thinks we have problems that need to be fixed, and we're like an addict.  It's not that he's wrong, it's that he's simply the wrong man for the job. 

You ignored my point about his book.  Read it, or just look at the cover.  That does not make you want to vote for Republicans.

163

The GOP needs to ignore the race card and just do what's, obviously, right. Playing by the left's "PC rules for the right" is one of the biggest problems the GOP has.

It's not playing by their playbook. It's just dealing with reality. Before you go and fire the guy, you need to make sure that he's not able to play the victim. It creates PR problems.

They're just getting their ducks in a row. No big deal. It's prudent and has nothing to do with being PC.

Imagine you had to fire a black employee that you suspect might play the race card against you if you do.

Is it slavish devotion to political correctness to make sure your case is as strong as possible before proceeding? Or do you just say, "Fuck this PC shit! Let him sue!" and risk being tied up in expensive litigation for years?

It doesn't cost the RNC much of anything to lay some groundwork first.

164

You keep on with that Dan Brown/Illuminati/Wheels Within Wheels style of analysis.

Ace, ridicule is not a logical argument and we have ample evidence of the McCain/Romney wing attacking conservatives.

165 I say proudly that I did not vote in 08.

Thanks so much for that. 

Please continue that trend.  I'm not sure the Republic is ready for your crushing logic. 

166 Self-righteous meaningless cant and blather: party before country.

167 The Tea Party people are reaching out to anyone, Republican or Democrat who is willing to listen. They need a strong leader, like Reagan who will mold them and direct then to their idea of victory.  The Dem's decry them and try to bury them.  The Republican Party tries to ignore them. At least the Rino's do. They are reaching out for better government. Neither party wants to listen. They do not want a third party now. Perhaps if everyone continues to ignore them?  Who knows.

168

"Also, the PR fallout they think they'd get -- the first black RNC chair fired storyline -- is like a three day story."

Paging Ken Blackwell....Paging Ken Blackwell, please come to the RNC courtesy desk....

169 Umm, he didn't "supposedly" say it. He did actually did say it.

170 Ace, I mostly agree with you about the dangers of "purist" thinking and I guess the tea party movement did sort of give birth to that.  But, on the positive side, I think the energy and visibility of the tea partiers has opened a lot of people's eyes to the fact that they can donate directly to any candidate of whom they approve.  It does not have to go through the party structure. 

I agree that it will take a strong and organized effort to win the war.  But winning battles and skirmishes outside of that structure has woken a lot of people up.  And I think, on balance, that's a very good thing.

171 I cannot take this constant boosterism of the Tea Party as if it's a *real* political party. It's NOT a political party.


It is in Florida, where I'm sure it has about as much influence as the SpongeBob fan club.

(The guy who registered it appears to be a tax-cheating Democrat, from a brief Google...)

172

Ace, ridicule is not a logical argument and we have ample evidence of the McCain/Romney wing attacking conservatives.

Posted by: Vic

Are you sure the conservatives aren't actually being attacked by Commies? Or are you covering up for them?

173 I don't care about the racial angle, he sucks at his job.

174

I don't get what you guys are saying. Steele is no Tea Partier.

I never said he was a Tea party pusher.

175

Are you sure the conservatives aren't actually being attacked by Commies? Or are you covering up for them?

What is your point? Are McCain and Romney Communists? Do I think they are Communists? No I don't but they are socialists and do not mind crossing the aisle to work with the Communinsts on the other side.

176 The RNC does not have to incorporate the Tea Party movement, but if they can't ride that wave to victory they have wasted a golden opportunity.

177

I get it.

Sort of like how the Austrian King demanded of the Serbian Government, that the latter allow in an unspecified number of Austrian agents to "help" the country ferret out and extradite every single Serb who ever said anything unkind about the Austrians. (That would be item #5, link on my name.)

The Serbs' response to that - also on that page - was pretty much, please tell us you don't really mean that.

178 166 I really have trouble with people whose view of the world is so entirely theoretical.

I don't know what the hell to say to such people.

Posted by: ace at January 13, 2010 02:41 PM (Fue76)

You mean as opposed to the definitive outcomes of just winning?  However that is defined?  No less theoretical me thinks.  It does have the advantage of hope, however. 

179

"JusT another mouth piece/talking head. Conservatives, tea partiers and little R's have already taken back the party."

Oh really? Yes, we have the votes, but if the "Scuzzyflava" incident proved anything, it is that these RNC people can shoot us in the foot.

180 I am puzzled.

How can Steele quit?

He has never started anything but a book.

Who has he gotten elected?

181 Are you sure the conservatives aren't actually being attacked by Commies? Or are you covering up for them? What is your point? Are McCain and Romney Communists? Do I think they are Communists? No I don't but they are socialists and do not mind crossing the aisle to work with the Communinsts on the other side. Vic, it's possible that Iskandar is playing with your head a bit.

182

My God! Don't you people have jobs?? Bickering in these chat rooms all days is not productive!!    

Eh...Nevermind.

183 O/T but Brown just got endorsements from 2 police unions in Worcester (liberal area), Doug Flutie, and Curt Schilling.  Heh!

184 Fire the whole RNC?  An idea with possibilities but there are hazmat implications.

Why not just open a new party office with a catchy name like "Coffee Club" or something.

185 How are ideas actually implemented? A movement is not a political party. You need the apparatus of a party to actually put people into office. Ideas do not self-execute. They are executed by people.

First of all, this is the difference between tribal parties, as the Euro-style parliamentary systems that the rest of the of the world uses have and political parties formed by those of like mind deciding to bind in an extra-Constitutional structure. Our parties are ideologically backed, not tribally - though the Dems form themselves as a tribalist system championing the Euro-style of governance and culture.

Now, we need parties to help fill the infrastructure behind the offices, but not to get into office. I don't understand your view on this point, since the GOP cannot dictate who is going to vote for what. They need to understand who will vote for what. This ideological map is something that the GOP needs to pay attention, to WIN elections.

I do not like all this constant ragging on a necessary apparatus (a party structure; privileged place on ballot, etc.) in favor of an inchoate movement.

You really like "inchoate", don't you? Yeah, it's a cool word. It even looks cool.

But I don't get this idea that anyone is ragging on the necessary appartus of the political party. The fact is that with the internet, many of the mechanisms of that apparatus are now open to individual players. I must have missed some arguments upthread.

The Tea Party is not, as some of you seem to imagine, some party structure ready to take power in 2010. It is a movement, which can be coopted and brought into either party, but without a party embracing it/coopting it, it does nothing but make a lot of noise.

Not my argument. The Tea Party movement is a large bloc of votes that will move on the ideological bent of the candidates (as demonstrated by their talk and their actions). There's no chance, whatsoever, that the Tea Party could ally with the Democrats, as they stand for two diametrically opposed ideas. The Tea Partiers are for a Constitutional Republic and the Democrats are for a Euro-style Democracy. The two are wholly incompatible.

Political disputes are settled in America by actual elections, not by demonstrations or protests.

And the Tea Party people represent a bloc of votes that will probably be pretty easy to identify.

I cannot take this constant boosterism of the Tea Party as if it's a *real* political party. It's NOT a political party. It's a political MOVEMENT. To the extent this movement actually achieves tangible political goals, it will do so through the vehicle of real-world party politics.

Posted by: ace at January 13, 2010 02:35 PM (Fue76)

The Tea Party will wield as much political power as the bloc of votes demands. It will develop as much structure as is needed, if the GOP refuses to listen. It all appears very natural to me.

186

You know, I've gone back and forth wondering if this is a site run by conservative first bloggers or party first bloggers.  Old sailor nailed it @150 and gets hammered. 

Anybody know of a good conservative, America first, not party first site?

 

187 Don't you people have jobs?

Sadly, no.

188 The fundamental problem that we face now is that the voting public doesn't trust the GOP to do the right things for them in DC; the 2000-2006 Congress is largely to blame for that.  Steele and the various party organs show no sign of having learned anything from that or of actually fixing the problems.  In truth, the decisions made by the party organs under Steele's leadership are proof positive that they haven't.  Unfortunately, I don't see anybody at the current RNC putting forth a replacement that would be better, or of getting rid of the incompetents in the DC headquarters.  Heads should have rolled after the Scozzafava debacle, and they didn't. 

189 Peaches, I agree with the energy and vitality, and I also appreciate their calls for more purity. I don't mind a bit more purity. We could use it. What bothers me is that there seems to be very little appreciation that ideas are translated into actual tangible action THROUGH the political process; they do not self-execute. And when we talk about actual elective politics, and the compromises and strategy (and occasional dirty dealing) needed to win such contests, a lot of people seem to just want to exult in how untainted they are by actual intercourse with the real world. The Tea Party protests scared the hell out of Democrats for one reason: The implied threat to vote them out of office. See? Real world consequences. NOT just the demonstrations themselves, but the threat of actual real world consequences. If those guys catch wind of what is really going on here -- that many Tea Partiers are NOT very interested in delivering on that threat at all, and in fact would rather punish the GOP than the Democrats -- then those Democrats will NOT be scared any loner of the Tea Party movement, for they will realize it's just about shouting and resentment and NOT real-world consequences. And I do fear for many in the Tea Party movement that is what the game is about. There are a lot of disaffected fringey-types, people who used to shout a lot in tiny Libertarian Party meetings, people who have always opted out entirely of actual poltics in favor of fantasy-politics philosophizing. I don't fear them -- they have ALWAYS been outside the political process. What I fear is these sorts of people are convinving people who formerly were part of the political process to opt out of it and join them in their untainted-by-reality philosophizing, convincing them to sideline themselves and not vote for anyone who has a shot at winning. Again, if the Democrats realize that's what this movement is really all about, game over. Then they realize it's a paper tiger with no interest in actually punishing them at all.

190 Don't you people have jobs? Yeah. What's your point?

191 Vic, I am making fun of you for your unquenchable thirst for reductivism, to reduce everything to a single-dimensional analysis that has the advantage of being conceptually clean and simple and the great disadvantage of not modeling anything close to reality.

192

Here's a quote from Steele: I'm the guy that they're afraid of because, guess what? I'm a Tea Partier, I'm a town haller. I'm a grass-rooter.

Back on Earth, the Tea Party guys hate Steele's guts. That's because he nodded his head while Hughley said the GOP convention "looked like Nazi Germany". If this sentiment applies to the GOP, then it must apply to any group more ideologically Right than the GOP like your local Tea Party.

I do agree with Steele that he thinks of himself as speaking for a capital-M Movement; because he's the hero of his own production of Braveheart.

193 Don't know if this got mentioned, over on the Campaign Spot (NRO) Geraghty has reprinted part of an email from Massachussets "Tea Party activists" Carla Howell and Michael Cloud attacking Scott Brown as fake conservative.  Any of us here knows that a vote for Kennedy is a vote for Coakley.  These two may be "extreme", I don't really know (I only did a quick wikipedia search on them), but I think the point stands.
--------------------------------------------
I think this speaks to Ace's (and others') points about the line between moving your party to your side vs. abandoning it/demolishing it.  I'll take the defeat of Obamacare right now vs. the "moral victory" of voting for a pure conservative. This could be a big year for Republicans (and Conservatives).  The Tea Party movement is great; let's use it to fight the Democrats.

194 My God! Don't you people have jobs??

As of yesterday, no.

195 What I fear is these sorts of people are convinving people who formerly were part of the political process to opt out of it and join them in their untainted-by-reality philosophizing, convincing them to sideline themselves and not vote for anyone who has a shot at winning.

Jeez, that's a scary thought.  My assumption has always been that anyone fired up by the tea party thing would never fail to vote when they had a chance.  I've always lived by the credo that if you don't vote, you forfeit your bitching rights.  I do hope you are wrong about this being a widespread consequence of the tea party thing, because it's a very frightening thought.

196

Don't you people have jobs?

Thanks to a government that has promoted the active export of manufacturing jobs, no.

197 >>> It will develop as much structure as is needed, if the GOP refuses to listen. It all appears very natural to me. Uh-huh. And this is the sort of silly thinking that scares the shit out of me. Dude, in the real world, which I am interested in, what do you think is the TIME FRAME for such a movement to "naturally" develop such structures? Five years? Maybe ten? You guys blow this practical world shit off as if IT IS ENTIRELY IMMATERIAL, because all you seem to care about is THEORY. For you a five-to-ten year plunge into socialism unchecked by any seriously-contending rightist party is apparently of no consequence. For a lot of it is. You have to stop blowing off real-world concerns and real-world practicalities as if they are teeny-tiny nits that will easily take care of themselves and so are entirely immaterial. I assure you such concerns are material. You might just as well say "we'll get a bunch of good athletes together and form a football team, and the New Upstart League will just take care of itself, all of the legalities and financing and business models and securing stadium rights and television contracts and etc." Yeah, right, a huge institution just "naturally" wills itself into existence.

198 RNC?  RNC?  That vaguely rings a bell, but I really can't place it.

199 What I fear is these sorts of people are convinving people who formerly were part of the political process to opt out of it and join them in their untainted-by-reality philosophizing, convincing them to sideline themselves and not vote for anyone who has a shot at winning.

Posted by: ace at January 13, 2010 03:03 PM (Fue76)

"untainted-by-reality philosophizing"

The Tea Party movement grew out of reality. It started with the opposition to the Shamnesty, gained ground with the TARP and related bailouts, and went over the top with national socialist health care, ignoring the Constitutional requirements for eligibility, turning war into a domestic legal function, ...

The fact that many in the GOP participated in some of this, or just allowed it to happen (like when Grahamnesty granted the vote allowing the empathetic, adjective denying retard, Sotomayor, out of committee to a floor vote) and tea partiers get furious.

The ones who are not recognizing reality are those who do not understand the real danger that this nation faces if its direction is not changed and the limits of federal governance restored.

200 The Tea Party movement is great; let's use it to fight the Democrats.

Okay, that read cynical.  I don't mean "use" the Tea Party in the sense of the way the Dems treat minorities.  I mean let's direct our anger at fighting the Dems (and moving our party rightward).

201 Here's a quote from Steele: I'm the guy that they're afraid of because, guess what? I'm a Tea Partier, I'm a town haller. I'm a grass-rooter.

That is no more believable to me than when he went on that black guy's program (sorry, can't remember the name) and rolled out that ghetto jive talk. 

202 Seriously, Steele doesn't seem any better or worse than any of the recent NOP's that chaired the RNC. 

203 Vic, Are you a Bircher by any chance? Or at least read their stuff? It's just a lot of conspiracy stuff with you.

204 Ace is right. Vote GOP, early and often.  It's the only way to be sure.

205

O/T Phew! Thank God, the good folks in Hollywood gave us the A-oK to help the people of Haiti.

Makes you wanna bash their friggin heads in, Don't it!  

 

 NEW YORK (AP) - Paris Hilton, Ben Stiller and Lindsay Lohan are among the celebrities and artists urging support for victims of the earthquake in Haiti.

Stiller tweeted late Tuesday that "people in Haiti need our help and attention right now." Similar tweets are showing up from the likes of Lohan, Hilton, Adam Lambert and Ryan Leslie.

Coldplay singer Chris Martin urges people to donate to a Haiti appeal set up by the charity Oxfam.

Martin says that when he visited Haiti with the charity a few years ago he found a country "of extreme poverty and brutal living conditions."

206 I don't understand how the entirely theoretical world where electing Republicans does anything like "defeat socialism" can be made less theoretical by acting like this world is that world already. Roughly half our elected officials since socialism-as-we-know-it made the scene have been Republicans, and socialism is undefeated.

To "defeat socialism," the Party has to be replaced with something—maybe that has the same name—that at least occasionally tries to, y'know, defeat socialism. Shuffling chairmen, blowing millions on close-calling a string of losses, and rallying around the same assholes who've already sold us out isn't going to work.

The "tea party" stuff probably won't, either. But at least it hasn't already decisively proven that it won't.

207 As of yesterday, no. Whoa, sorry to hear that Hatchet. Any new prospects out there?

208 This is my day off.

209

ace 199: Here's an example for you - the Vietnam War protests from 1968 to '72. Nixon realised that the protesters were pissing off the Silent Majority more than they were convincing it. He made his two elections about the protestors and their threat to the rule of law.

(And then he fucked up and made the 1974 election about Nixon. But we were on the topic of to what extent protests help swing elections.)

This is, by the way, why I've said that we should approach the Tea Parties like the civil rights movement (although I got pilloried here for that). Can you find footage of any "kill whitey" signs at the I Have A Dream speech? I sure can't. Martin Luther King made it about justice, and convinced the national majority to support him.

210 146 Ace:

The same forces that created the tea party protest movement (dissatisfaction with expansile big gov't, high taxes, disconnected Beltway politicians, etc) are the same forces that are pushing people out of the Dem party into independents, and independents into Republicans right now.

While I agree that by ITSELF the tea party movement isn't changing bodies in the seats, its all sort of the same package of the political pendulum swinging rightwards.

So to the extent that the tea parties create and encourage actual candidates to step forward espousing small gov't, low taxes, etc they're good.    To the extent that they increase awareness of these essentially Conservative principles, causing voters to actually consider them in making electoral choices, I'd say they are also good.

I think this IS happening, with one obvious example being the ascendancy of Scott Brown.  As a former long-term MA resident, the mind simply boggles that the race to replace Ted Kennedy's (excuse me "the peoples") Senate seat could even be competitive.

211

The Tea Party protests scared the hell out of Democrats and RINOs for one reason: The implied threat to vote them out of office.

That need fixin'

212

Heh. Just tossed another RNC letter, unopened.

Pretty envelope, though.

213

Scott Brown on Howie Carr right now:

http://www.wrko.com/

214

The GOP really needs to adopt some of the Tea Party Tenets. So far, I haven't seen or heard many of them from Steele. I was all in favor of him, before he started drinking the water in Washington.

What I'm still waiting for from the GOP is a full-throated excoriation of everything this administration is trying to do, every day and in every press release, followed immediately by a rational, common-sense alternative.

Condemn, criticize, and condescend. It worked for eight years against Bush and softened up the public to accept Obama and his Marxist minions.

215

Brown:  While I was out campaigning, she was hobnobbing with lobbyists in DC.

Talking about SEIU, EMILY'S List,  NARAL all donating to Coakley.

216

Yeah, right, a huge institution just "naturally" wills itself into existence.

Thank you, Ace! The Tea parties are a wonderful patriotic movement, but they are UNFOCUSED. A working party apparatus is needed to give them focus. Sadly, the RNC is lacking at that right now. But those of you who think patriot candidates can ride the unharnessed energy of  Tea Parties into office are foolish. The energy must be harnessed. And that requires a coherent RNC. So let's get to it and make one or fight for one.

217 >>>To "defeat socialism," the Party has to be replaced with something—maybe that has the same name—that at least occasionally tries to, y'know, defeat socialism. Shuffling chairmen, blowing millions on close-calling a string of losses, and rallying around the same assholes who've already sold us out isn't going to work. Do you not notice that poltiicians have an uncanny knack of mirroring public opinion? That is obviously not coincidence. Socialism advanced because the public was pissed about TARP and capitalism. It was more popular (or less unpopular) and the public decided to roll the dice. Now it's becoming seriously unpopular again. And look -- now all the Republicans who were willing to play footsie with it are starting to get pretty aggressive in fighting it. This is what I mean by "entirely theoretical" politics. Would I prefer it if my politicians stuck to principle even when the public soured on those principles? OF COURSE I WOULD. But this is human nature and, if you want to call it that, human evil. It is the way it is. You get a lot further with the wind of public opinion at you back than in your face. I don't get how some people don't get -- or are shocked, shocked to find -- that yes, politicians are corrupt cynical bastards who will sell you out if they can get a vote and a half to replace you. OF course they are! But right now capitalism and limited government are experiencing a rise in popularity, and yes, these same sell-outs are "on our side" once again. I don't get how some of you fail to see the GOP is actually responding, in a positive way, to these shifting winds, or why you continue hammering them for past sins. Yes, they sinned. They will sin in the future. Like Democrats or most any other politician, they will shift with the winds of public opinion. But in almost all cases a GOP candidate will be further to the right than a Democrat.

218 For you a five-to-ten year plunge into socialism unchecked by any seriously-contending rightist party is apparently of no consequence.

Did I say this somewhere? And if you think we risk plunging into a little five-to-ten year plunge into socialism, then you and I have very wildly different ideas about what the state and fate of our nation is. We don't have anything near the cushion that you assume.

You have to stop blowing off real-world concerns and real-world practicalities as if they are teeny-tiny nits that will easily take care of themselves and so are entirely immaterial.

Name me just one "real-world practicality" that I have blown off.

You might just as well say "we'll get a bunch of good athletes together and form a football team, and the New Upstart League will just take care of itself, all of the legalities and financing and business models and securing stadium rights and television contracts and etc."

Yeah, right, a huge institution just "naturally" wills itself into existence.

Posted by: ace at January 13, 2010 03:08 PM (Fue76)

You seem to think that I am saying that the Tea Party movement should become a third political party. I'm not. I'm saying that it is a bloc of votes that will move on ideology and principle. That is what it is. It will develop as much infrastructure as it needs, but that voting bloc will be what it is. If the GOP moves against it, Grahamnesty-like, then the GOP will be committing suicide as they did for the 08 election. This is a "real-world practicality" for the GOP. One they should have learned years ago - back in the Shamnesty, really, which is when it all got started.

219

I don't think Vic sounds crazy.

Actions speak louder than words. Scozzafava + Crist = at least smoke.

Might not be proof, but it is evidence.

220

 I'm the guy that they're afraid of because, guess what? I'm a Tea Partier, I'm a town haller. I'm a grass-rooter.

And I'm the walrus! Koo-Koo-Ka Fucking Chooo!! 

221

looking closely 222, I think you're in agreement with Ace here.

Tea Party = Good. A whole lot of extremist crap at the Tea Party = Bad. Yahoos riling up a Tea Party to run against a decent Republican who actually has a shot = Brain-damagingly stupid.

222

Brown: he's hearing that Coakley callers telling dems who say they voting absentee for Brown that there vote will go to Coakley because of their party affiliation.

223 their vote.  jeez.

224

Vic,

Are you a Bircher by any chance? Or at least read their stuff?

It's just a lot of conspiracy stuff with you.

Indeed. I can agree that Steele is probably better than the twats in the RNC who created the Scuzzyfatass debacle, but Vic lost me at the "McCain-Romney axis" statement. Didn't we just go through a 2008 campaign where there was a good amount of bad feelings between those two?

225 Go to wrko.com right now, howie carr is interviewing Scott Brown.

226

Thank you, Ace! The Tea parties are a wonderful patriotic movement, but they are UNFOCUSED. A working party apparatus is needed to give them focus. Sadly, the RNC is lacking at that right now. But those of you who think patriot candidates can ride the unharnessed energy of  Tea Parties into office are foolish. The energy must be harnessed. And that requires a coherent RNC. So let's get to it and make one or fight for one.

So, what happens if someone with serious organizational skills and leadership ability takes control of the Tea Party movement? What if they are serious about turning a movement into a legitimate party?

227

And Vic blames everything on open primaries in 5, 4, 3, 2,...

Now now, Open Primaries do suck the big suck, as does the ludicrous caucus system of Iowa.

228 progressoverpeace, Do you not notice a Republican candidate is running as a genuine Republican in MASSACHUSETTS and is making his promise to defeat ObamaCare the *centerpiece* of his campaign? Do you not acknowledge that the GOP is, in fact, opposing all of Obama's agenda? And that some of them are doing so stridently? Including acknowledged squishes/across-the-aisle types like Lindsey Graham and McCain? Do you acknowledge no progress and no movement towards your opinion here at all? It seems like you can't take "yes" for an answer, you can't take "You're right" for an answer.

229 maddogg 239, this happened already in NY-23. In other words, it's worth supporting in places where there is no conservative alternative.

230 The Whig Party was the precursor to the Republican Party. The Whigs collapsed because of divisions over whether to extend slavery to the territories. It took some time, but after the Whigs collapsed the base and certain Whig politicians moved to the Republican Party. It would be interesting to see if the Tea Party movement can stand up a party while the Republicans fight a holding action, then Republicans who are so inclined could move over to the Tea Party. Of course the Republican leadership wouldn't participate in their demise so explicitly.

231 in the real world, which I am interested in, what do you think is the TIME FRAME for such a movement to "naturally" develop such structures?

Party created....1854.
First national convention...1856.
First winning POTUS candidate...1860.

Of course, that candidate didn't even get on the ballot in 9 states...

I still see a Tea Party being the 21st century equivalent of the Perot/Ventura "Reform Party"...sucking off GOP votes and thus ensuring the election of Marxist Democrats.  But if you feel warm and fuzzy about this, well, that's what's important.

232 Plus, Howie Carr on wrko.com has his show on podcast, so you can listen later.

233 Who are the 168 members of the RNC?  How did they get this position?  Are they elected?  Or is it a case of who you know?  I would be interedted in knowing so that maybe this can be changed.  Also, how about that board meeting in Honolulu?  These fat cats know how to live, don't they?  They can't have a cheaper board meeting in one of the lower 48?

234 how do I listen to carr? You have given me the website but I see no "listen now" button.

235 oh now I see.

236 I wonder if Mike's golf swing is as good as Barry's?

237 So, what happens if someone with serious organizational skills and leadership ability takes control of the Tea Party movement? What if they are serious about turning a movement into a legitimate party?

What happens is they fuck everything up.  They divide the base.  They hand more power to the progressive/socialism Dems, who have a very well-oiled machine.

As noted upthread, they've been a good force for vocalizing a more conservative way of thinking and have helped (as have Obama and his flying monkeys and his obscene policy failures) to drive Americans to the right.  There is tremendous danger in trying to turn it into a "legitimate party."

238

241

 Sure Ace,  I've noticed it all and thinks its great and I am genuinely . But, you know...we gotta bitch about something. 

239

So, what happens if someone with serious organizational skills and leadership ability takes control of the Tea Party movement? What if they are serious about turning a movement into a legitimate party?

Puhleeze. 3rd parties are a joke. The American political landscape is littered with them.

So, what happens if someone with serious organizational skills and leadership ability takes control of the Tea Party movement? What if they are serious about turning a movement into a legitimate party?

progressoverpeace, you and I are not far apart. Lindsay Grahamnesty (and the other cheap labor bigots) need to be told to shut up. And if there is a good primary challenger, by all means back him/her. But if the choice is between Lindsay Grahamnesty and a Commiecrat, well, I guess we have to back Lindsay Grahmannesty.

240 how do I listen to carr? You have given me the website but I see no "listen now" button.

Posted by: ace at January 13, 2010 03:25 PM (Fue76)

top right corner LISTEN LIVE

241 as does the ludicrous caucus system of Iowa.

Yeah...only people who actually care enough to go out in the snow show up, and you can't provide thousands of pre-marked ballots to be cast by SEIU employees in multiple precincts.  Insane.

242 Whoa, sorry to hear that Hatchet. Any new prospects out there?

Prospects?  yes.

243 The RNC should push a pretty simple "message" that goes something like this:

"Democrats have controlled both houses of congress and the budget for over 3 years now.  How's that working out for you America?"

244

Vic, it's possible that Iskandar is playing with your head a bit.

 

Yes, I figured that but I used the response for just one more dig at the McCain/Romney wing. Just like I will use AceÂ’s response below.

 

I am making fun of you for your unquenchable thirst for reductivism, to reduce everything to a single-dimensional analysis that has the advantage of being conceptually clean and simple and the great disadvantage of not modeling anything close to reality.

I suppose that from that you mean that the McCain/Romney wing of the Party has not engaged in attacks against the more conservative members of the Party.  For that is the secondary point I am making here now.

 

The primary point is the time to get rid of Steele was a year ago. You preach long and hard about the Tea Partiers dividing the party and hurting the movement but then you seem to be in favore of an internal battle in the Republican Party in the middle of a campaign year.  Who is the one who is not being consistent? Not I.

 

Are you a Bircher by any chance? Or at least read their stuff?

It's just a lot of conspiracy stuff with you.

 

No Ace, I am not a Bircher. Is this more logical argument or are you just pissed because I can not stand your man Romney? 

 

I have met some Birchers though. They came to our school in the early 60s to show a film about the communists in Algeria. When the film reverted to “body count porn” the principle kicked them out. I didn’t miss them.

 

And finally like I said, it is “funny” that when Steele attacked Rush the leadership was silent. It is only after he started attacking the liberal elements of the Party that the leadership starts screaming and you get these columns coming out.

 

Hell Ace, I could make the same claim about you.  Are you part of the RINO leadership in NY?

 

BTW, slow response due to cable once again going in and out.

245
Ace, see Michael Barone's column today. He speaks favorably of the Tea Party movement and makes good points in doing so. I think that, basically, he's saying that the Tea Partiers are addressing substantive issues--there're not merely rabble rousing.

246 I provide that information for context. I just want the GOP to get its shit together and incorporate the passion of the Tea Partiers. A Tea Party competing directly with the GOP would be a disaster.

247 :>>> Sure Ace, I've noticed it all and thinks its great and I am genuinely . But, you know...we gotta bitch about something. Well why you gotta force me to be the corporate/compromiser/sell-out/fence-mender/RINO-lover? I'd rather be the rebel type. You guys keep forcing me to play the responsible, practical-minded one. It's not fun.

248

The Whig Party was the precursor to the Republican Party. The Whigs collapsed because of divisions over whether to extend slavery to the territories. It took some time, but after the Whigs collapsed the base and certain Whig politicians moved to the Republican Party. It would be interesting to see if the Tea Party movement can stand up a party while the Republicans fight a holding action, then Republicans who are so inclined could move over to the Tea Party. Of course the Republican leadership wouldn't participate in their demise so explicitly.

Oh hell no. Do you really want "Bull Moose Revisited"? I don't. Some of the worst legislation (including income taxes and mob election of Senators) followed in the wake of that historical debacle.

249

The Tea Party needs to just keep on being the Tea Party. Non-partisan for the most part, protesting the mind-numbingly bad ideas coming from Washington, holding rallies and generally being a burr under the saddle of incumbent pols. No candidates, just endorsements. No legislation, just core ideas that push for personal freedom and responsibility. Let Congresscritters in Washington look out their windows from time to time and see thousands of formerly quiet Americans speaking their minds with good humor and seriousness.

We.Will.Win.

250

What I'm still waiting for from the GOP is a full-throated excoriation of everything this administration is trying to do, every day and in every press release, followed immediately by a rational, common-sense alternative.

Condemn, criticize, and condescend. It worked for eight years against Bush and softened up the public to accept Obama and his Marxist minions.

--------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, it worked, but now it's backfiring, because it set up a false hope that with the Dems in charge of the 3 branches, we'd all be eating unicorn-sh*t encrusted Skittles right now.

----------------------------

The hard part for a pol (and what the Dems didn't do) is "followed immediately by a rational, common-sense alternative".

--------------------------------------

I agree with your statement, though I would exclude "condescend"; I don't like condescending politicians.

------------------------------------------

I think we need to start filling in all the cracks being created with good, sensible candidates.  This is the time to move the party rightward, but a scorched-earth method won't work.

251 Late to the thread, but Barbara S. has a point -- jetting off to Hawaii for a conference really shows a bit of a tin ear in a time of mass unemployment and economic uncertainty.

Of course, when has the RNC not shown a tin ear lately?

252 Who are the 168 members of the RNC?  How did they get this position?  Are they elected?

They are elected by the State GOP organizations.  In Iowa that is done at the State Convention.  So yes, you do need to know all the big players.  Or at least enough of them.

253

Comedian Lenny Clarke called in to talk to Scott Brown and Howie.

Love it!

254 They can't have a cheaper board meeting in one of the lower 48?

Posted by: BarbaraS at January 13, 2010 03:25 PM (fkMOx)

Or a red state even.

255
I think one must be careful not to mistake the Tea Partiers' vehemence and decibel level for mere noise. They're loud, sure, but they make a lot of sense and, like Barone, I think they're addressing substantive issues. I'm very encouraged by the Tea Party movement. In fact I think it will be our salvation, if any salavation is to be had. Properly harnessed, it will be the engine that drives the GOP to electoral victory in the next few years.

256 Scott Brown says he has voted against all the new democrat imposed taxes here in Masachusetts. And he will not go negative, even though Martha Coakley is. Local comedian Lenny Clark  on wrko now supporting Scott Brown.

257

What happens is they fuck everything up.  They divide the base.  They hand more power to the progressive/socialism Dems, who have a very well-oiled machine.

Yes, they could divide the base and ruin the GOP. Or they could take the base and ruin the GOP. They might even replace the GOP. So it might be wise for the RNC to pull their heads out of their asses and realize the possible threat, and the possible benefits of having them on their side. There are far too many in the GOP who look down their noses at the movement in the same way purity conservatives look down on the moderates. The Tea Party movement scares the Democrats, but it should petrify the GOP.

258

It's not smart to make an enemy of Steele, which is what I think they are doing by handling it this way.

Seems like politicians on both sides are sorely lacking in "people skills".

259

The difference is, of course, that the Republican Party of 1856 had a fanatic base limited to the Anglo-Puritan north of the nation. The 1856 election in this "greater New England" amounted to nothing more than a big Republican rally. The actual election was held between Know-Nothings versus Democrats elsewhere.

The Republicans would have lost 1860 too if the Democrats hadn't split into three parties (North, South, Constitutional-Union). Are the Democrats going to oblige us in 2012? next November? Hardly.

Plus the Tea Party hasn't even got a geographic base. Their ideals are most fervently held in the South and the Rockies, and they already have Republicans for that - southern and western Republicans don't have as much RINO baggage as they do in the northeast. (Some, but not as much.)

260

WTF!  I wanna win in 2010, including Brown.  Steele, I vote he goes, but if brighter political minds think it'd hurt the cause more by keeping him.  Fine!.  I just wanna win.

The Tea Party is waking people up.  I think they'll be a great force for moving the GOP to the right.  I'm expecting this will be primarily by their votes in primaries and putting pressure on sitting Congresscritters.  If a few run their own candidates, and it splits the vote, both sides will get the message. 

I dropped out circa 2006/7.  The Tea Party gave me hope, so I'm back and more focused than ever before. 

I want to win now!  With whoever gives me the best chance now!  I'll get more particular after the 2010 elections.

261 >>>Ace, see Michael Barone's column today. He speaks favorably of the Tea Party movement and makes good points in doing so. I think that, basically, he's saying that the Tea Partiers are addressing substantive issues--there're not merely rabble rousing. I agree with that -- But do you agree that to get action on these substantive points you actually have to work through the political system? My point is only that ideas are not self-executing. Philosophy is not self-executing. Conservativism is not self-executing. Movements are not self-executing. To execute an agenda, you need the VOTES in Congress. It *freaks me the fuck out* when I hear people I am depending on for votes start talking as if voting doesn't matter, and start talking like Ron Paul nuts, that it doesn't matter which party is in office, they're both the same, we need a third party to take back America, etc. etc. etc.

262 >>Well why you gotta force me to be the corporate/compromiser/sell-out/fence-mender/RINO-lover?


Nobody is forcing you. You are who we thought you were.

263 We aren't dead yet. Posted by: Reform Party at January 13, 2010 03:32 PM (V9SYy) [Looks around, then bops Reform Party on the head with a club]

264 Scott Brown says he has voted against all the new democrat imposed taxes here in Masachusetts. And he will not go negative, even though Martha Coakley is. Local comedian Lenny Clark  on wrko now supporting Scott Brown.

Posted by: bowel movement at January 13, 2010 03:34 PM (Fd5yK)

He is killing me!

265

Yea, but the premise around here that Open Primaries gave you John McCain is unsupported by facts. California was a closed primary, guess who won - McCain. New York was a closed primary, guess who won - McCain, New Jersey, same, Illinois, ditto, Florida, same, Conneticut, Delaware, Maryland......

I should have added that the-ever-so-slightest-plurality-winner-take-all primaries suck too. There should be proportional delegates. Conventions could be real events and not just coronation ceremonies.

266
And I consider myself a Tea Partier, BTW.

267 My point is not that the Tea Party is "bad." Or ineffectual. It's good and could be very effectual. But to be effectual, the agitation and the energy has to be TRANSLATED into useful tangible action. It's like an engine -- you don't just need the burner, the fire, the combustion chamber. You also need the mechanism to translate heat into mechanical energy, forward progress. It just freaks my shit out when I hear what sounds to me like "We don't need the pistons; we just need to get this engine as hot as possible." No, I assure you, you need the pistons too.

268 It seems like you can't take "yes" for an answer, you can't take "You're right" for an answer.

Posted by: ace at January 13, 2010 03:25 PM (Fue76)

"I tell you I'm a thief and you call me a liar."

That quote just came to mind. I can't remember what movie it's from. But if the choice is between Lindsay Grahamnesty and a Commiecrat, well, I guess we have to back Lindsay Grahmannesty.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at January 13, 2010 03:28 PM (ujg0T)

I agree. But I understand how dangerous the squishy right, though more of a slow bleed, and there are many who just won't vote for them, as we found out in '08. Personally, I think that our nation's fate is going to be sealed (for quite a while) in the next year, and I think that it is mostly a monetary issue. My concern is that some sense of control of the federal government is re-instituted beforehand. So many legislative and governmental taboos have been broken, without official pushback, over the last year, though ...

269 Puhleeze. 3rd parties are a joke. The American political landscape is littered with them.

Our "first past the post" method of electing officeholders guarantees that third parties will always be irrelevant.

270 Howie about to talk to John McCormack, the reporter who was manhandled by a Coakley goon last night.

271

Illinois, ditto, Florida, same

Like I said, McCain ekes out the slimmest of pluralities and he takes all the delegates? Fuck that. I want a real (i.e., closed and proportional) primary process.

272 The pistons may be a not-as-sexy part of the engine as that super-hot combustion chamber, but they are absolutely essential to translating all that heat and fire into directed forward progress.

273 I agree with that -- But do you agree that to get action on these substantive points you actually have to work through the political system?

Yes, absolutely, I agree with you on that.

274 There is tremendous danger in trying to turn it into a "legitimate party."

Posted by: Peaches at January 13, 2010 03:27 PM (9Wv2j)

Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly.  ~Robert F. Kennedy

275 Vic, geez, did you watch the Hannity interview?

Hannity: Are the Republicans ready to lead?
Steele: I don't know.

Hannity: Can the GOP take back the House?
Steele: Not this year.

This guy has been running around talking about "I'm winning elections." Bullshit. The Tea Party movement, and its influence on independent voters, is what is winning elections, not any brilliance from his leadership. The alliance has already been formed with the right and the center, not with the right and the far-right.

Ace, I believe that right now the message must be sent by the Tea Party movement to put the fear of God into both parties. That starts with who we pick in the primaries this year. I plan on voting for the GOP challenger to Boozman (R-Ark.), who voted for TARP and the retroactive 90% tax on AIG bonuses, but if Bernie Skoch doesn't pull it off I'll do the right thing and vote for Bozo. I'm pissed off, but I'm not crazy, and I think that's where the vast majority of the Tea Partiers are.

276 Zimriel and Curmudgeon, note that I am NOT calling for the formation of a Tea Party. I was just musing about what standing up a formal Tea Party would look like. The best-case scenario is for the GOP and the Tea Partiers to get drunk together, decide that they're the bestest buddies on the planet after all, and throw up on the Democrats. Win/win.

277

We aren't dead yet.

Posted by: Reform Party at January 13, 2010 03:32 PM (V9SYy)

Oh yes you are. When Pat Buchanan had to fight with "Natural Law" Maharishi Yogi follower John Hagelin over the carcass of what was once Ross Perot's cult of personality, yes, I can say you are dead.

278 well ed that is really all I am saying. I get freaked out when people seem to want to abandon dirty, mundane elective politics for just the sexy, fun, principled philosophizing of a *movement.* we can chew gum and walk at the same time. We need both. I just hate that people keep offering this paradigm where the Tea Party is a DIRECT COMPETITOR to the GOP. And people say, "Oh, I choose the Tea Party." Well, they're offering entirely different products. They are not competitiors. Tea Party offers the substance/philsophy. GOP offers the party machinery to translate ideas into action. They are not in opposition at all, and it just worries me that people keep setting up that paradigm.

279 280  Lenny Clark is a riot. He is friends with Denis Leary, who I grew up with. Fun times!

280 OokOok, I'm just saying that we don't have years for a new party to ripen and mature into something with real muscle (even if that were possible, which I think it is not).  We need a coordinated and effective push back against all this progressive/socialist crap RIGHT NOW.  Not a moment to waste.  And there is already a structure in place on which to hang that effort.  Not to use it would be worse than stupid.

281

Posted by: just dandy at January 13, 2010 03:40 PM (tpf2l)

Yes, I watched the whole thing on a U-Tube video and quoting parts of it out of context does not get the actual wording out.

He evaded the question on taking back the House and he attacked the big tenters. 

Saying anything else is not accurate.

282

I agree with your statement, though I would exclude "condescend"; I don't like condescending politicians.

Neither do I. I should've been more clear.

The GOP would've been right in raking Pelosi over the coals for her condescending answer of "Are you kidding me?". If I'd been in charge, I'd have asked if she's even thought that what they're attempting in the HealthCare bill is even Constitutional. Most Americans wonder about that. But what did we hear from them? Crickets. You can't tell me that there aren't a few Constitutional scholars around to get a sound bite from...

In other words, I would've out-condescended her in the GOP response.

283 #234 Zimriel

That isn't what I said, though I do agree with it.

The formerly unprecedented Tea party movement exists because of some temporally unique combination of circumstances.  In my opinion its the combination of an extreme leftist-led Congressional majority, a leftist President, their combined (and partly realized) socialist agenda, coupled with the extreme UNpopularity of the outgoing previous Presidential administration.  The movement exists because of a sense of detachment that part of the public has with BOTH major parties.

Under slightly different circumstances, I think a lot of the tea-partiers would just become/vote Republican, as in the natural pendulum swing of two party American politics.    I don't think there is anything the Tea Party stands for ideologically that the Republican party doesn't (at least on paper), although there are probably a good number of Tea Party types dissatisfied with the Republican affliliation with the religious right.

I certainly do agree with Ace that by itself being angry at the gov't and waving signs around is a waste of time.   In the end it mostly matters to the extent that it puts elected officials in seats. . .though there is some "wind blowing effect" that might be salutory.

As one example, now we have the laughable situation where the Obama administration has seen its plummeting poll numbers, and after literally historically unprecedented levels of Federal spending, and after socializing or trying to socialize three major American industries, is trying to rebrand itself as being fiscally conservative.

I'd say that to the extent that Tea parties persuade voters to vote Republican, that's good, but what would be better is if the Tea parties persuade good candidates to step forward to try and claim seats, and possibly better yet if it raises general awareness by the public of free market economic and other policies. 

284 Steele also appears to be pretty hard to work for, according to that article.


Michael "In the Hizzy" Steele is hard to work for? The same guy who was recently telling people to fire him or get out of the way? The same guy who called his base Nazis and said his party is unfit to lead? No, this guy doesn't have an ego or anything.

HE IS A BUFFOON.

Firing him would be a PR nightmare. The Democrats consider him an Uncle Tom now, but they will go on and on about how the racist Dixiecrat holdovers who make up the modern GOP fired the black man. You're retarded, if you think otherwise.

Let the Senior RNC members handle this. They are going about this the right way, making Steele do something he should have done himself long ago (shit or get off the pot.) They are also reminding the public why they are effectively axing him.

285

Alright, folks, we heard you; Michael Steele is no longer chair of the RNC. Please welcome our new leader, Meghan McCain!!!!!

 

What??

286

Look people, it is time for me to drop this thread. More argument is pointless as attitudes are set in stone here and my cable is screwing up anyway.

If you want to get rid of Steele fine. As I said we should have done that a long time ago. If you still want to get rid of him do it in private AFTER the damn 2010 election.

Now is not the time.

 

287 302

Alright, folks, we heard you; Michael Steele is no longer chair of the RNC. Please welcome our new leader, Meghan McCain!!!!!

Well, at least she has nice tits....

288 Alright, folks, we heard you; Michael Steele is no longer chair of the RNC. Please welcome our new leader, Meghan McCain!!!!! What?? Posted by: Republican National Committee at January 13, 2010 03:46 PM (ERJIu) Four hours. Four hours I've had this boner!

289 256 The RNC should push a pretty simple "message" that goes something like this:

"Democrats have controlled both houses of congress and the budget for over 3 years now.  How's that working out for you America?"

Dem response:  "Its Bush's fault".
They're STILL doing that.

290 >>>ce, I believe that right now the message must be sent by the Tea Party movement to put the fear of God into both parties. I re-ask: Have you not noticed the GOP has become increasingly strident and doctrinaire (in a good way!) on these issues? If you haven't noticed... not sure what to say. You have to be willing to accept "Yes" for an answer at some point. If you want to ignroe the "Yes" and still just keep hammering the party trying to agree with you, then you have some other agenda besides politics and policy.

291 ERJIu 302, WINNAH

292 The best-case scenario is for the GOP and the Tea Partiers to get drunk together, decide that they're the bestest buddies on the planet after all, and throw up on the Democrats.

Yeah, this.

293
The difference is, of course, that the Republican Party of 1856 had a fanatic base limited to the Anglo-Puritan north of the nation. The 1856 election in this "greater New England" amounted to nothing more than a big Republican rally.

Not quite. Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan were staunchly Republican, to a greater or lesser degree. Slavery was regarded as moral evil in those states and they rightly perceived that bullying by the South, chiefly by means of the Dread Scott decision, was undertaken both to sustain and even expand chattel slavery and force the North to accept slavery by legally compelling the return of escaped slaves. They also knew that the South was comitted to perpetuating slavery and would either force the Union to accept the peculiar institution or destroy the Union.

I know something about this on a personal level. I'm from Illinois and all the male members of my mother's family, who had immigrated from Ireland just ten years before the outbreak of the Civil War, fought for the Union. Three gave their lives for the cause of eradicating slavery and the Union. Several left us memoirs explaining why they  fought. 700 years of oppression by the English made them sympathetic to the plight of blacks and staunch abolitionists. Also they hated England, particularly the English aristrocracy, which had vast wealth tied up in the cotton trade and support the South for that reason. (The English middle and working class supported the Union).

294

although there are probably a good number of Tea Party types dissatisfied with the Republican affliliation with the religious right.

Gee, I thought a lot of we tea partiers *were* of the Religious Right, judging by some of our signs, speeches, etc.

I think the "religious right" bogeyman is something the Commiecrats throw out there to stir up feuds between people who are together about 90% of the time, even when they sharply disagree about the other 10%

In fact, I think I am probably about 95% in agreement with all of you. So let's have a group hug.

But please---none of this 3rd party shit. And do realize that a strong RNC motor is necessary, fueled by tea party high octane. Now there is a better metaphor for Ace.

295

Dem response:  "Its Bush's fault".
They're STILL doing that.

And that's when it's time for the reasoned response from the GOP that goes something like this, "Bullshit" and then proceeds to list the litany of bad legislation and its' results, like spooking the market with Cap-n-Tax.

Every Dim action should be met with a more equal and opposite conservative reaction.

It's a law I heard about once...

296

You know, I'm really an idiot when it comes to all these political phrases.  But people keep talking about the tea party hurting "the base" of the gop.  It would seem to me that the tea partiers are the base.  At least if the base are truly conservative voters. 

To my way of thinking, it's the gop that left the base.  At least many in the gop.  Get rid of them and play to your base, your core constituency, instead of taking them for granted.

297 I get freaked out when people seem to want to abandon dirty, mundane elective politics for just the sexy, fun, principled philosophizing of a *movement.*

Totally agree with that too. And everything else you said in 295.

298 i mean -- even the dreaded Maine Sisters are opposing ObamaCare, voting to filibuster! Do I think they're really on our side? No, not really. But bear in mind the entirely of the Senate GOP caucus is voting to filibuster, and all but three (or one?) GOP rep voted against ObamaCare. What you guys seem to be talking about is "getting back to first principles and core doctrine," but you just keep talking about that and not noticing that A LOT OF THAT is going on all around you. Maybe not as much as you might want, and maybe it took too long for that (maybe? definitely) but you have to stop talking as if the GOP of 2010 is exactly the same as the GOP of 2006. This bothers me-- that perceptions are frozen in a certain point in time, as if fossilized into agate.

299
Seriously, anyone here, name me the last 3 RNC Chairpersons.

Are you shtting me? I can remember when Mark Racicot and Whatshisname from Oklahomo were the chairs.

300

Who is this RELIGIOUS RIGHT.

And what are your objections to them?

I can't wait for the first idiot to try and answer those questions.

301

It *freaks me the fuck out* when I hear people I am depending on for votes start talking as if voting doesn't matter, and start talking like Ron Paul nuts, that it doesn't matter which party is in office, they're both the same, we need a third party to take back America, etc. etc. etc.

Look, I don't want it to sound like I am against you but this is the way I intend on voting.  If the RNC puts up a Snowe clone as a Republican candidate, I will vote for the Dem.   I am as conservative as the day is long and I used to be very active in politics.  I've voted in every election save one since I was 18 and that's a lot of elections.  I will vote against a dishonorable Repub and for a dishonorable Dem hoping that in the next election the system will work and because I expect the Repub to be honorable.  I also expect the Dem to be unconstrained by convictions so at least I will be assured of getting what I'm voting for.  I'm done with voting for people simply because they have an R after their name.

I used to be a regular contributor to the Republican party at all levels.  Last time the RNCC called me they were down right rude to me when I told them why I wasn't going to contribute.  Instead of wanting to find out how they could earn my vote instead of just expect it, they insulted me. 

Sorry - no more.  Better the devil you know, as the saying goes.

302

Steve, Dred Scott was 1857. Not 1856.

Plus your family was atypical of the Irish then. Most Irish in the US at the time supported, maybe not slavery, but definitely a caste system with blacks on the bottom. Most Irish were hoping to sit that war out. I didn't like Gangs Of New York, partly because they tried to brush this under the rug, but... even that movie had to admit that the Irish rioted in Manhattan because they did not want to fight the South.

As far as the Irish hating the English aristocracy... uh, no. The Irish didn't have a problem with the old-line, pre-Cromwell upper class (many of whom were also Catholic). The English the Irish hated, and in places still hate, are the Protestant nouveau-riche whigs who came over to Ireland and tore the place apart during the middle 1600s.

303 @315, teej:

Bingo.

(apologies for the one word, "Self-righteous meaningless cant and blather.")

304 Dem response:  "Its Bush's fault".

That's why the RNC needs to hammer the 3 year Democrat control thing.  Past polling/surveys have shown a huge number of people don't realize the democrats took both houses of congress in 2006.

Eliminating that erroneous belief would help a LOT.

Educating the public that Congress controls the budget, would also help a LOT.

305

So, you want a process that never ends, can damage the winner no matter what happens and cost a hell of a lot more than it does now, draining you of resources that you could use to defeat the other party. Have fun, let me know how your political suicide works.

Sorry Malamutt, but what happened in Florida--where McCain eked out the slimmest of pluralities and took all the delegates--was bullshit.

As for political suicide, somehow the Demunists manage to win elections with proportionality, despite a rather bitter Hillary vs Obama fight.

But if that's really a problem, fine, then make both parties play by the exact same proportionate and closed primary rules. Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards carrying their delegates all the way to the Convention would have made great political theater.

Oh, and there was one state that did that in 2008 - California. McCain got 144 out of 145. Yup, the final scoreboard, under your system, was McCain 144, Romney 1.

After "Super Tuesday" and Florida, why are you surprised it was that lopsided? The fix was already in for Romney by the time CA rolled around.

Here is what all the "I hate open primary" folks want -  a system that would prevent a John McCain from winning. Sorry, elections don't work that way.

I am well aware of that. But the "Super Tuesday" front-loaded and winner-take-all system, coming right after the Iowa and New Hampshire circuses, is *no way* to elect a President.

I'm not saying that the system now is perfect, but please be honest enough to admit that your anti-open primaries feelings have more to do with McCain winning than actually not attracting more people to your point of view.

Wrong. I have felt this way for years now. Ever since 1988 in fact. Frankly, I also would have preferred that the 2000 Republican Convention had not come across as the Coronation Of Bush The Younger. Does the USA really have to become the modern Rome?

306
... you have to stop talking as if the GOP of 2010 is exactly the same as the GOP of 2006.

It appears to me that both the GOP and the Conservative movement are undergoing an incredible transformation. It's like watching Bruce Banner morph into the Incredible Hulk. I'm very optimistic. The Tea Party movement is playing an important role in that transformation, as both the engine and an expression of change. Obama and the progressives are going to fall, and fall hard.

307 Okay, I admit I went overboard in saying the Irish "didn't have a problem" with the old Anglo-Normans. The Irish did have several problems with that aristocracy. But I can assure you that compared to Cromwell, those problems paled.

308 I agree that they should have someone in mind who can do the job effectively. That seems like a given, though this is the RNC. I'm glad there is such activity outside the traditional apparatus, but this is already backfiring.

309

Yea, winner take all is bad. We certainly donÂ’t want a system that represents, what, the electoral college system used to elect Presidents, do we.

 

NOT in a *primary* and NOT *within our own party*. Somehow you think that the primaries are the same as the general election.

 

And think of what you are saying, Malamutt. No horse trading, no battle of ideas. Party hackery is all that matters, and maybe, just maybe, having a vast personal fortune at one's disposal can undo that. Really? I'd like to think we can do better at candidate nomination, which again, is NOT the general election just yet.

310

 

This kinda reminds me of that dust-up we had with my Rep Doolittle paying his wife 15% of his campaign contributions...legal but swarmy.

Steele can be a force for good in our party or he can go the money grubber route. We need (and always have needed) clean hands in this party...don't be a DEM. You get your paycheck and nothing else on the side. Why doesn't Steele get this?

311

If you want to ignroe the "Yes" and still just keep hammering the party trying to agree with you, then you have some other agenda besides politics and policy.

I guess what you're not getting, at least from me, is that the ones who "had to be swayed back to our side", were never on "our side" in the first place.  You want to give them a second chance.  I say to heck with that (boy, am I having to clean this up), this is our country and our freedom we're talking about here.  There are no second chances.  They were on their own side.  Get. Rid. Of. Them.

312 If the RNC puts up a Snowe clone as a Republican candidate, I will vote for the Dem.

I'd simply not vote in that particular race.  If a winner get a total significantly less than what the turnout total was, it sends them a message that nobody was very enthusiastic about them. 

313

What's eating my ass is what got us here?  I may be wrong, but I believe what got us here is politicians, especially Republicans, not working for their constituents.  People like Graham and McCain who go along to get along.  Look what they did when they had the opportunity to get things done - hardly anything good.  They had the chance to fix healthcare!  That's not new.  They could have fixed it right instead they let the people who lined their pockets have free reign.  Now, because the effing Dems have virtually not moral compass to guide them as the blindly feel their way through 'fixing' things that should in reality be fixed, things are instead, worse than ever.  I see your arguement that the Repubs are united.   They had no effing choice!  The conservative movement was headed for the cliff.  It may be theoretical but Republicans have to be held to account if for no other reason than the Dems can't be.

314 #303 Mallamutt.

I agree entirely.

I don't have the numbers handy, but I think if you just added up the number of Republican primary votes cast, McCain took the most of them.

While I'm sure its retrospectively possible to come up with some convoluted primary system that might have denied McCain the candidacy, I think he ultimately earned it.

In short, if you weren't happy with McCain, you should probably blame the Republican primary voters collectively, not the primary mechanics.

I'll take the Republican "winner takes all" system over the idiot Dem caucus system any day.

315

Steve, Dred Scott was 1857. Not 1856.

I made no mention of when the Dread Scott decision was made. I don't know why you mentioned that.

Plus your family was atypical of the Irish then. Most Irish in the US at the time supported, maybe not slavery, but definitely a caste system with blacks on the bottom. Most Irish were hoping to sit that war out.

You're wrong about that--notwithstanding the Irish riots in New York after the Battle of Gettysburg, which Gangs of New York portrayed in lurid detail (instead of sweeping it under the rug). If anything, that movie perpetuated the myth of Irish disloyalty and portrayed the Irish as criminally insane idiots.

The Union armies of the West especially comprised huge numbers of Irish and German immigrants.

And you're wrong about Irish feelings concerning the aristocracy.

But this is off topic, so let's just drop it.

316 Catholic Families for America Endorses Scott Brown for Massachusetts Senate Seat

317

333 If the RNC puts up a Snowe clone as a Republican candidate, I will vote for the Dem.

I'd simply not vote in that particular race.  If a winner get a total significantly less than what the turnout total was, it sends them a message that nobody was very enthusiastic about them. 

No - I'll vote against the Repub because it is so hard to get rid of them once they're in.  I'd rather vote for a good one in the next election than a bad one in this one - right or wrong.

318 Yes, the GOP finally noticed (after the polls showed this wasn't some fringe movement), but they had to have it beaten into their skulls for months and a lot of them still don't get it. I certainly doubt we'd have the Cap 'N Tax 8 today, but they thought they could get away with that vote in July.

The flip side of your argument -- re: Dems not fearing the TP if they go third party -- is that if the GOP sees that the Tea Partiers are going to vote for them no matter what as a protest vs. Dems, they won't fear the movement either if they are lucky enough to regain power.

I'm not for purity tests, and I agree with Levin that our anger shouldn't be directed at the GOP now especially as they are holding 100% of the caucus together battling this monstrosity. He went off on Beck and even Hannity about stoking the "pox on both houses" theme a while back. I try to cut Steele a lot of slack, but I want to barf when I see him taking credit for the change in the political atmosphere during 2009.

Vic, there's nothing out of context there. A real answer would be:

Q: Is the GOP ready to lead?
A: "Heck yes we're ready to lead! We're leading right now. We have the majority of America on our side and we're listening to their demands to stop this thing, unlike the Democrats. You should ask them if they know how to lead, because they can't even lead their own party, let alone America."

Q: Can the GOP take back the House?
A: "Definitely we can take back the House, and we plan on pulling out all the stops to do so. A vote for any so-called Blue Dog Democrat is a vote for Pelosi, and everyone in their districts knows that, so I like our chances."

319

I'll take the Republican "winner takes all" system over the idiot Dem caucus system any day.

State Caucuses suck. (Hillary wins state after state hands down but was not the nominee? Honestly, she was rooked badly, and I say that even though I loathe her).

However, making the national convention the Big Final Caucus has some merit. Yah, that means bringing back the proverbial smoke filled room, even though we don't smoke anymore.

Winner take all allows candidates with the slimmest of pluralities to rocket forward. I'd rather have Romney work out some kind of deal with even (blah) Huck than let Juan McAmnesty take it without a fight.

 

320 "My friends..."

321 teej, Okay... And ponder this. This country WILL have a recovery at some point. When it does, the party in power will get most of the credit. If you are comfortable with the public believing Socialism Works, for the next 40 years, as after the Great Depression, then go for it, dude! Reagan did not become popular and transform America due to his vision. Or his speeches. Or his charm. Or his lucidity. He did those things because his ACTIONS were believed by the public to have directly benefited them. He cut taxes -- we did not go bankrupt; in fact, we became more prosperous than at any time before. He opposed the Soviets. He did not destroy the world in a nuclear exchange; in fact, his aggressive posture against Communism is widely believed to have sped up COmmunism's demise. Do you get me? For a party's ideas to WIN, and REALLY win, they have to 1) be implemented and 2) actually work or seem to work and 3) be credited by a majority of the public as working. A lot of you seem to think that somehow pure rhetoric and crap wins this shit. It doesn't. Regan was popular because the economy boomed. Capitalism and anti-communism advanced. Bush the Elder was voted out of office because the economy contracted. Capitalism and anti-commumism retreated. Clinton remained popular because he inherited a growing economy. The public grew to appreciate his version of "Third-Way Neo-Liberalism," because, in their mind, it "worked." (They did not consider the possibility that a more capitalistic governance would have produced GREATER growth.) Bush lost his popularity when his two signature issues -- tax cuts, the War in Iraq -- were seen as failures. The economy didn't grow as much as the public wanted (and the media/Dems said it should), and then it contracted. And of course the War in Iraq was going badly for years before it turned around. Obama got into office based on the financial meltdown and bush's perceived failures. The public was willing to give socialism a try. And now socialism is becoming unpopular because the economy is in tatters. We have a GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY here. We have never had socialism so repudiated-by-facts-on-the-ground, ever. We have the chance to implement our own agenda (or some of it, at least) and get the credit when the public sees OUR agenda working and contrasts it with Obama's agenda failing. And some of you blow this off entirely, postulating that simply carrying signs and giving speeches will be enough to convince people. People are convinced by facts, not arguments. You want to destroy socialism forever? Then elect a capitalist congress that reassures businesses and consumers and ushers in a period of recovery. Or, you can just continue ranting about how you were betrayed and let Obama and the Democrats take credti for his 1% growth "recovery. Your choice.

322 OK, Gus , old buddy. I'll take a crack at your throw-down. Objectionable Religious Right- A voter who votes his personal religious/social/moral issues before his fiscal issues.

323 oh and by the way, after three years of grinding recession, the public will be willing to credit Obama's 1% Wonder "recovery," the same as they were willing to give FDR credit for his very halting, very jerky semi-recovery.

324 so are we here to settle old scores or accomplish shit in the future?

325 @339  I haven't followed all your comments & points, but I'll vote for your Q&A!!!  Excellent answers (A)!!!!

326

#342 THANK YOU for summing it up nicely. Just because you make a moron (in the good sense) "stand on principle" doesn't mean that the rest of the morons (in the bad sense) voting understand that's what you did.

Remember Clinton's "great economy"? We all know it was really Gingrich's great economy, but who rode the coattails? Ace's statement berars repeating in boldface: The public grew to appreciate his version of "Third-Way Neo-Liberalism," because, in their mind, it "worked." (They did not consider the possibility that a more capitalistic governance would have produced GREATER growth.)

 

327 344 oh and by the way, after three years of grinding recession, [ ... ]

Posted by: ace at January 13, 2010 04:25 PM (Fue76)

This is where we split. I don't think that our monetary system will last through three years of recession. I think it's going to be kicked over the edge with the Israeli assault on Iran, frankly - or with Iran's moves in the next year or two if Israel doesn't attack it.

328
You want to destroy socialism forever? Then elect a capitalist congress that reassures businesses and consumers and ushers in a period of recovery.

Amen to that.

Although I don't think socialism will ever be destroyed. There's a cockroach quality about it.

329

Seriously, anyone here, name me the last 3 RNC Chairpersons.

I can do ya better than that-Steele, Duncan/Martinez, Mehlman, Gillepie, Racicot, Gilmore, etc.

Like I said earlier, I volunteered 2 decades for the the RNC. They have ALWAYS been pretty much the same. Some are better fundraisers than others, most of them, hardly anyone outside of beltway politics knows. The DNC is this way, too. Steele is only getting attention for his asshatery because he gets air time. So the lesson to me is this. If they cant keep from saying stupid shit,  or be ready to make changes in the RNC, then they need to go back in the shadows and STFU.

330 yeah I overstated, it will never be destroyed. but it can be repudiated and made toxic until people start to forget, which seems to be for a generation, or a little more.

331

342  - Ace.

All good points and an argument well made. 

I would like to make the argument though that there is benefit in having the Republicans know that the ones who will be putting them in power are pissed the hell off and that they, the candidates are seen to be at fault.

Even though the Republicans are currently united, it doesn't seem that way.  No one has stepped to the plate and taken a strong leadership position.  It's just like the economy.  Everyone says its better but it sure the hell doesn't feel that way.

Someone on the right needs to lead, even if they have to be cowed into it.

332

>>me: although there are probably a good number of Tea Party types dissatisfied with the Republican affliliation with the religious right.

>>Curmudgeon: Gee, I thought a lot of we tea partiers *were* of the Religious Right, judging by some of our signs, speeches, etc.

This is undoubtedly also true.   I don't use the term "religious right" as a perjorative, by the way.  (I suppose I could use the term "social conservatives", though that's a bit of a different thing).  

The point is that there are plenty of individuals who may otherwise be conservative on fiscal or even foreign policy issues for whom their personal distaste for religious Christians colors their perception of the Republican party.  I'm not saying things should be this way. . .I'm just saying the phenomenon is real.

The Tea "party" also includes Libertarians, Birchians, Ron Paulians, and other assorted ring wingy groups that have been marginalized within or outside the Republican party for one reason or another.

Again, if the Republican party had been doing what it was "supposed" to be doing, there would be no popular Tea Party movement.    If it does what it OUGHT to do (ie elect individuals who actually enact a sane conservative fiscal policy), then there won't be any more Tea Party movement. . .or more correctly, it will recede back into the sparse tax-protests of years ago.

333 >>345 so are we here to settle old scores or accomplish shit in the future?


Tough choice.

334

@342 - Oh, I do get your points ace.  The thing is, you seem to see it as capitalism (money) vs. socialism.  I see it as freedom vs. socialism.  Are lower taxes, smaller govt. etc., good for the economy and therefor most everyone's pocketbook.  Of course.  But it's not all about the pocketbook for some of us. 

 

 

335 >>>No one has stepped to the plate and taken a strong leadership position. The party out of the White House almost never has a leader. There is no particular reason for a guy to follow some other guy he's at the same rank as. Gingrich was an aberration. An out-of-the-WH leader is rare. Plus, Gingrich did have the important post of Speaker.

336
oh and by the way, after three years of grinding recession, the public will be willing to credit Obama's 1% Wonder "recovery," the same as they were willing to give FDR credit for his very halting, very jerky semi-recovery.

The FDR analogy can be taken too far. The electorate was less well-informed in FDR's day because the technology for disseminating information was very limited. And even at that, I'm not sure that Americans were convinced that a semi-recovery had taken place during his second term. At any rate, the onset of war changed the whole game and rendered the issue moot.

337

Objectionable Religious Right- A voter who votes his personal religious/social/moral issues before his fiscal issues.

Are you saying you find people like that objectionable?

338 >>>But it's not all about the pocketbook for some of us. Well aren't you a special little treasure! I appreciate that whenever you have the slightest window to do so, you inform me of how goshdarn pure you are! Because that's what matters! Well, you go on caring about freedom and knocking pocketbook issues as somehow dirty. I just informed you the obvious -- that the economy tends to drive politics much more than vice versa -- but you go on with your righteous self and your empty feel-good cant.

339 can we have a little less grandstanding here? Whenever I'm at a political event and they throw the mic open to the room, 10% of the speakers want to tell the room how awesome they are and a bunch of other perfectly irrelevant bullshit. Grandstanding is fucking annoying as balls and you really should try to reduce it a little.

340

The FDR analogy can be taken too far. The electorate was less well-informed in FDR's day because the technology for disseminating information was very limited. And even at that, I'm not sure that Americans were convinced that a semi-recovery had taken place during his second term.

Technology changes, but human nature does not. Just remember that.

At any rate, the onset of war changed the whole game and rendered the issue moot.

And it is highly possible the Obamunists will bungle us into a major war.

341

@342 - Oh, I do get your points ace.  The thing is, you seem to see it as capitalism (money) vs. socialism.  I see it as freedom vs. socialism. 

A little Venn diagram is in order here. The overlap of money and freedom is very high. Or maybe a regression analysis that shows the correlation as .99

342 The Tea Partiers greatest weapon is persuading independents to vote GOP. We can't win anything without the indies, who are not going to vote third party. The best part to me about the movement is that is not about divisive social issues, it is about unifying issues of fiscal responsibility, small government and liberty. When the indies quit paying attention after the election, it is going to be the TP that continues to hold the GOP accountable.

The infighting doesn't help, but quite frankly Steele is brining it on himself and I don't think indies give a damn about it anyway. It's sure not going to drive them to the Dims. To use Ace's car analogy, the GOP is merely the body at this point. The Tea Party is the engine.

343 Actually, it sounds like teej IS a special little treasure (or maybe a big one)!  LOL

Ace: Attacking his own base since 1857.

Pardon me while a tend my own "self-righteous meaningless cant and blather."

LOL.

344
Also, as Amity Schlaes points out in her book, FDR's New Deal policies actually quashed a nascent and very shaky recovery late in his second term. New Deal policies, if not FDR himself, were being repudiated in the Supreme Court and by the people. At the time I don't think Americans were thinking in terms of a recovery much less giving FDR credit for one. Steinbeck published In Dubious Battle in the late thirties: his vision of a violent populist uprising was shared by many if the situation didn't change. But it did change, because of war.

345

Objectionable Religious Right- A voter who votes his personal religious/social/moral issues before his fiscal issues.

And I say again that this is a false choice. Increasingly "social issues" have serious fiscal impacts. See "Family, breakup of"

 

346 Old Sailor, I know, you are in "politics" just for the grandstanding, the opportunity to stand up and bravely proclaim how awesome you are. That's what I meant by self-righteous cant. I'm just a little sick of people taking every single possible opportunity to pat themselves on the back so forcefully. I think it's awesome that you think you're so awesome and I'm really glad you enjoy such a high self-esteem, but why not take it a little easier on us baser creatures who do not have the advantage of your nearly-angelic perfection?

347

Steinbeck published In Dubious Battle in the late thirties: his vision of a violent populist uprising was shared by many if the situation didn't change.

You DO know that Steinbeck was essentially complaining that the New Deal wasn't socialist enough, don't you?

Just because the Obamunists will make a big leftist mess, like FDR did, *does not* mean that the American Public won't be manipulated, often by latter day "intellectual" Steinbecks, into making an even bigger leftist mess.

348

356 >>> Wow!  I'm glad we're not face to face because we would be pelting each other.

Nature abhores a vacuum.  So does politics.  Palin may not be seen by many as leading conservatism, but by many she is.   Unfortunately for her though, I think most don't see her as THE leader.

There is space and opportunity out there for a leader to step up and there are some who have head faked making the step.  This, imo, is the time.  Hell, if Brown wins, he could be the Repub equilivant of Obama...except with substance.

349

362 - I would have to respectively disagree.  We have had economic booms and busts throughout the history of this country.  I would be hard pressed to find a time when personal freedoms have increased as opposed to decreasing except for getting rid of slavery (good thing) and the "freedom to murder babies" (bad thing).  You might come up with others but for the most part personal freedom has been chipped away at again decade after decade after...

 

350 Fire the guy.  What the hell has he actually done of any importance to the party?

351
The pocketbook issues-vs-morality issues is an argument that has been going on for a long time. I agree with Curmudgeon that it represents a false choice and can therefore be dispensed with.

352

The Democrats dodged a bullet for 2 reasons. First, John Edwards finally realized that the truth about his affair was going to come out and decided to get out of the race. If not, he could have hung around till the end, getting 15% and mucking the system up.

 

Which makes my point. What I am proposing wouldn't harm the GOP alone.

 

Second, the super delegates decided Obama was going to win, and after awhile, Hillary decided she couldnÂ’t fight the whole party. Now, since Super-Delegates are generally disliked, I am assuming you donÂ’t want them (Michael Steele would be a super-delegate, as would RINOs Snowe, Collins, Arnold, Graham).  

 

And yet you go on to assume that I do. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

So, you go straight proportional, what happens if a Susan Collins decides she is going to run for President just to get enough delegates to force some change in the party platform? The law of unintended consequences still apply.

 

Maybe some changes *need* to be made to the platform. I wish Tom Tancredo had been able to do something like this.....

 

Why? You want super-delegates Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and all the other allegedly evil RINOs having more say? You for the most part have the same schedule. For the most part, if one party is open, the other is open. Other than super-delegates, there really isnÂ’t that much of a difference between the parties system.

353

The Tea Party movement can represent political momentum if the republicans reach out to their fiscally conservative message.  The public responded to the Regan message of lower taxes and the promise to stop the malaise of the Jimmy Carter era.   

You are correct that the cyclical recovery no matter how weak can be a bonus to Obama.  However, his policies are more likely to create stagflation like the Jimmy Carter era than a recovery.  Obama's current hollow promise to address unemployment and the growing debt will bring about another round of business taxes that will further suppress economic activity.  Even if he does get a small growth rate the high unemployment and inflation (stagflation) will keep the public angry. 

354 teej, respectfully, what animates a very ideological guy like yourself isn't that important, because you represent a small sliver of the electorate. Can you acknowledge that far more voters ARE animated by pocketbook concerns? And therefore maybe adjust your theories about how to win elections to conform to that reality? This is what I mean by those whose view of politics is almost entirely theoretical.

355 there is far too much of this sort of thinking: "This is what animates ME, so it should be what animates others." Should has nothing to do with reality.

356
You DO know that Steinbeck was essentially complaining that the New Deal wasn't socialist enough, don't you?

Yes. My point, or the point I was attempting to make, was that quite possibly a lot of people did not see a recovery taking place, and that this awareness of a non-recovery was giving rise to an apocalyptic view of the future if things continued on their current dismal course. Steinbeck favored more socialism; Lindbergh and the America First people favored a different approach (I hesitate to label it "fascist," but there was pro-fascist tenor to aspects of America First). But on either end of the politcal specturm there was the view that things were going to get very bad.

Steinbeck, BTW, became rightwing in his later years. A little late to the party, but there you have it.

357

Oh crap, partial post error, bear with me...

Why? You want super-delegates Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and all the other allegedly evil RINOs having more say? You for the most part have the same schedule. For the most part, if one party is open, the other is open. Other than super-delegates, there really isnÂ’t that much of a difference between the parties system.

 

Oh really? How praytell does this statement square with your previous one: "The Democrats dodged a bullet for 2 reasons. First, John Edwards finally realized that the truth about his affair was going to come out and decided to get out of the race. If not, he could have hung around till the end, getting 15% and mucking the system up." I think, along with those crappy superdelegates, that there are sigfnicant differences in the Demunist vs. GOP primaries, don't you?

 

I agree that Romney didn't campaign well. But honestly, I want a changed primary system, and I have wanted that since I first voted in 1988, when it just seemed that all GOP rivals were steamrolled by Bush The Younger's winner-take-all Super Tuesday. Not that Mr. Dole would have been an awesome candidate, but I think it's safe to say he would have been better than Bush The Elder.

 

My disgust with open primaries dates back to watching Louisiana, where the corrupt slime Evan Edwards gave enough tacit support to David Duke and shut out Buddy Roemer, effectively "choosing" his general election opponent.

 

 

358

I'm just a little sick of people taking every single possible opportunity to pat themselves on the back so forcefully.

Isn't that ironic.  Cause sometimes ace, that's how I see you.

Here's something from Ann C's column this week -

In a boiling rage, liberals constantly accuse Christians of being "judgmental." No, we're relieved.

If you haven't read the whole thing, give it a try.

And no, I don't go around "patting myself on the back" thinking "ha, see, I'm better".  Remember that nice long conversation some of us had a while back when you were wanting to kick, stomp, torture etc. all jihadists?  Do you remember any of my posts from that afternoon?

What I have recognized is that the decline of this once great nation has followed the moral decline of this nation.  Most of that decline is due to greed and before you jump on that consider that greed takes many forms. Not just money.  But when people put money before principles, that is a form of greed.

359
Steady, lads. Steady. The Zulus are out there. Point your guns at them, not at each other.

360 @376 - If all you're interested in is winning, then sure. But what good does it do to "win" if the person who wins is still a worthless sob?

361 If a R dominated congress bailed out Clinton, and the public percieved that as Clinton's polocies working, isn' t that a flaw in your logic?

362

Also @376 - So I guess what you're saying is that my vote (and the votes of those like me) isn't(aren't) important. I mean, there are so few of us.

363

I gotta go.  And don't get the wrong idea ace.  I am glad you have this site and appreciate it.  If news "I won't get anywhere else" is all I cared about, I could just go to nicedeb (which I do), MM et al. 

There are absolutely great discussions here with people I don't always agree with and as the saying goes - steel sharpens steel.

364

 So I guess what you're saying is that my vote (and the votes of those like me) isn't(aren't) important. I mean, there are so few of us.

Unfortunately, YES you are. And so am I.

I work in an office of flunkies. I keep my politics under wraps not so much because of some leftist "superiors" who might make life difficult, but rather because the overwhelming number of my coworkers are *not* political. They follow The Bachelor(ette) and American Idol or sports. They are inclined to think "Clinton had a good economy" even though you and I know better. I try to politely point out where that isn't the case when I can, but harranguing them would not work. That's how it is with so many people.

365 Captain Hate at #7 had it mostly right.

The biggest problem I see is with the RNC, not Steele. You have a broadly diverse, but (by a large majority) conservative base, who nominally belong to a party run by a tiny group of narrow-sighted, pragmatism-driven beltway types. If this tiny group had any scruples, they'd at least stick to some basic form of conservatism, rather than always—always playing the angles and making deals.

This nonsense about "not having any leaders" is silly. Leaders win elections. Until then, they are contenders. Wanting some magic wand to make a contender the de facto leader is lazy thinking.

But Ace is also correct. Firing Steele is a dumb move right now. He's not getting cooperation from the RNC, and they don't understand what he's doing either. Forget about "why." Doesn't matter at this point. Since both Steele and the RNC are ineffective, the people will have to go around them to accomplish what these ineffectives clearly are unable to do: elect a leader.

366 >>>Also @376 - So I guess what you're saying is that my vote (and the votes of those like me) isn't(aren't) important. I mean, there are so few of us. I'm not really saying that. I'm saying it's self-indulgent and solipsistic to not acknowledge that others don't think the way you do. If you want to actually get your agenda implemented you at least have to ponder what might animate a majority to agree with you.

367 From a GOP strategy meeting, circa 1977-8.

"We lost to this goofy peanut farmer from Georgia and he's turned out to be a disaster. If he keeps this up, we might have a chance to take him down in 1980. All we need to do is figure out what mistakes we made in the last campaign and how do we avoid them in the future.

What's that, son? We beat Reagan -- who needs to listen to him? And Jesse Helms -- nobody listens to that crazy coot. Besides, a lot of folks think he is a backwards hick and he's probably a racist. We just can't have the party associated with people like that. Why, they'll drive away the moderates.

No, who we need for 1980 is somebody solidly in the middle of the party. Somebody with a solid track record. George Bush, maybe. ? Hasn't held an elective office for a while, but he's got a pretty good resume and he is a solid party man. Or maybe Howard Baker. He was solid on the Nixon impeachment stuff -- lots of positive name recognition for Baker from all those televised hearings.  

Yeah, Reagan is going to run again, but we will beat him down quicker this time. Carter is a crazy fool, but even he has better economic sense than Reagan. Ronnie and his voodoo economics. Anyone crazy enough to believe that crap doesn't belong anywhere near the Presidency."

368

Steele has to go, he's making money for himself  and not supporting the candidates he should be.  I got an email from Sen. DeMint last night saying that they did not endorse Scott Brown because he is not 100% conservative, but put link to Scott's website in it if we choose to support him.

 

Steele made me quite RNC.  Nothing to national parties from me ever again.  I will give to individual candidates.

369 Carol, Carol, Carol, let's think rationally here. Because you dislike one or two or even a few Republicans, that is not a rational or a legitimate excuse to abandon the party.  That's like saying that because you dislike a few people in the nice town where you are living, you're going to sell your house and become a hobo. Women, they are soooo screwy.

370 103 >>>Personally, I think they are concerned with his robust support of the Tea Party movement. ...

I really wish I could believe that.

AND, this Ugg person is pissing me off.

371 http://tiny.cc/Vx6GC

A prime example of the RNC circle jerk going on right now. Too little too late.

372

Timmy for RNC Chairman!

All he has to do is sit in his wheelchair and every once in a while say "Timmy!"

373 Given a choice, I'd rather first see the gaggle of RINOs (including McConnell and McCain, Hatch, etc) in the Senate step down from RNC, SRCC and general GOP influence.  They are old school in new school times...

Let someone like DeMint lead...  If he's OK with Steel... or not... I'll live with his advice...  In other words, I've had it with the moderate leadership.... 

It's hard to say if Steele is or isn't part of the RINO crowd as an outsider.  A lot of Steele's  silliness could be he is being used as a RINO puppet -- or not... 

374 67 >>>Yes, We risk losing all the minorities that voted R in 2009.


Both of them

Posted by: Dr. Spank at January 13, 2010 01:58 PM (ehLtp)

I'll have you know there are three!  Me, my mom and my stepdad.

375 104 Fire his black ass.  Color is the only thing keeping him employed.  If you don't see it, you are the fucking racist, and part of the problem.

Posted by: Pelvis at January 13, 2010 02:16 PM (LlaBi)

ITA.

376  It seems that you've put a good amount of effort into your article and I want a lot more of these on the web these days. I truly got a kick out of your post. I do not have a bunch to to say in response, I only wanted to register to say special work.

377 At Long Last! A pertinent, coherent post concerning a subject matter that so much logic is missing. Many thanks for sharing this artistic and rational commentary with the world. We definitely need more wisdom like you have shown here. I will very much appreciate subscribing to your feed if you have one. I treasure it very much.

378  Advantageously, the post is in reality the sweetest on this precious topic. I fit in with your conclusions and will eagerly look forward to your upcoming updates. Just saying thanks will not just be sufficient, for the phenomenal lucidity in your writing. I will right away grab your rss feed to stay abreast of any updates. Fabulous work and much success in your business enterprise!

379 Amazing, your writing goes to the essence of the issue. Your lucidity
leaves me wanting to know more. Allow me to forthwith grab your feed to
keep up to date with your online blog. Saying thanks is simply my little
way of saying bravo for a wonderful resource. Take On my warmest wishes
for your incoming post.

380

Great article and post, we will submit your article to our social network and our twitter, thanks and please post our comment, as we will put a link as well on our blog to your article. Thanks!

 

381 Wonderful post! Thanks for sharing your knowledge with us!