January 26, 2010
— DrewM The momentum has been building for awhile but now there's a poll out showing Marco Rubio leading (technically it's a statistical tie) Governor Charlie "I loved Obama's Stimulus Before I Was, Sorry What's The Question" Crist.
For the first time, Quinnipiac finds the former state House Speaker Marco Rubio leading the formerly very popular — and still well-known — Gov. Charlie Crist by a margin of 47% to 44%.“Who would have thunk it? A former state lawmaker virtually unknown outside of his South Florida home whose challenge to an exceedingly popular sitting governor for a U.S. Senate nomination had many insiders scratching their heads,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “He enters the race 31 points behind and seven months later sneaks into the lead.”
“And, the horse race numbers are not a fluke,” Brown added. “Rubio also tops Crist on a number of other measurements from registered Republicans, who are the only folks who can vote in the primary. Rubio’s grassroots campaigning among Republican activists around the state clearly has paid off.”
Of course the knock on Rubio by, um, true conservatives like David Frum, is that he can't win the general election. Well....
It would appear Rubio also has a good chance at beating the leading Democratic challenger, South Florida Congressman Kendrick Meek. Rubio leads Meet 44% to 35% among Florida voters. Crist also has a good chance to beat Meek, though, leading 48% to 36%.
I've been a big advocate of accepting less than stellar conservatives in states where that's our best chance (hello Massachusetts) but Florida clearly isn't in that category.
If you support Crist on grounds a more conservative candidate isn't electable, the truth is you really aren't interested in electing conservatives.
Meanwhile, if you are a conservative...
Posted by: DrewM at
07:23 AM
| Comments (199)
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: CCooper at January 26, 2010 07:28 AM (PCN/c)
So you're saying that the Meek shall not inherit the earth?
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at January 26, 2010 07:28 AM (I/MqP)
Time to slip another C note into Rubio's tip jar.
Posted by: dayers at January 26, 2010 07:32 AM (9ypY/)
I've been a big advocate of accepting less than stellar conservatives in states where that's our best chance (hello Massachusetts) but Florida clearly isn't in that category.
Yes, there really is a difference between making that argument when it's true and just making it with your hands over your ears in every case.
Posted by: Mama AJ at January 26, 2010 07:32 AM (Be4xl)
"Fuck You Florida."
For the past 36 years, Florida voters have determined the outcome of every presidential election. As goes Florida, as goes the majority in the rest of the country. That's the state to watch during any presidential election.
Posted by: Guest at January 26, 2010 07:33 AM (ITzbJ)
Posted by: John Galt at January 26, 2010 07:34 AM (F/4zf)
Posted by: Mortimer Duke at January 26, 2010 07:34 AM (I/MqP)
Posted by: Jean at January 26, 2010 07:37 AM (ouk5a)
Rubio 2010 and then Rubio 2012. The precedent has been set for the election of a freshman sentator. Rubio is captivating, engaging, and represents the next generation of conservative American's.
Although I hate identity politics, Rubio's ethnicity is a plus for a party branded as looking out for the white guy.
I know it is a pipe dream, but I haven't seen a candidate emerge yet that I believe can defeat Obama in 2012.
Posted by: California Red at January 26, 2010 07:37 AM (KYB3U)
Fuck you, troll. Is that the best you got here?
Posted by: Hatchet Five at January 26, 2010 07:38 AM (wPZU5)
Exactly.
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at January 26, 2010 07:38 AM (554T5)
Posted by: Jean at January 26, 2010 07:38 AM (PjevJ)
Posted by: GarandFan at January 26, 2010 07:39 AM (ZQBnQ)
I have. Obama.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 26, 2010 07:39 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: John McCain at January 26, 2010 07:40 AM (554T5)
Hate to go off topic so early in a thread but Dennis Prager has a nice column out today that shreds Charles Johnson and his ten reasons for parting ways with the right.
Posted by: bulwark at January 26, 2010 07:40 AM (MdzCh)
Posted by: David Axelrod, maestro of trolls at January 26, 2010 07:40 AM (wPZU5)
Posted by: Rocks at January 26, 2010 07:43 AM (Q1lie)
( I put a little Canadian into my post, in keeping with the international favor here at AoSHQ)
Posted by: Kemp at January 26, 2010 07:43 AM (qvT/A)
Posted by: CCooper at January 26, 2010 11:28 AM (PCN/c)
--That's news to me!
Time to go hunting before class.
Posted by: logprof at January 26, 2010 07:44 AM (gJL6J)
I've been a big advocate of accepting less than stellar conservatives in states where that's our best chance (hello Massachusetts) but Florida clearly isn't in that category.
Also, South Carolina ... time for Lindsey Graham to sit down (looking ahead to 2014).
Posted by: Mr Natural at January 26, 2010 07:44 AM (8Dfl6)
Posted by: Charles Johnson at January 26, 2010 07:45 AM (DUNS7)
Posted by: Jack is Back! at January 26, 2010 07:45 AM (lbJL2)
Posted by: Guest at January 26, 2010 07:46 AM (ITzbJ)
Posted by: The Outlaw in the Heavenly Hall at January 26, 2010 07:46 AM (FajZG)
It'll be a lot more than that. I'd predict Meek goes down by double digits in the 15-20 point range.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 26, 2010 07:46 AM (ffbXx)
As Axelrod pointed out above, you were commenting on a joke being offered by a sockpuppet. How very lame, and when it comes to lame I'm an expert, man. Now pass the roach...
Posted by: Pauly Shore at January 26, 2010 07:48 AM (wPZU5)
Hey, cut Drew some slack here, his hand is still shaking. After lunch that first drink will calm him down.
Posted by: Kemp at January 26, 2010 07:48 AM (qvT/A)
Posted by: Dr. Spank at January 26, 2010 11:40 AM (ehLtp)
No. He inadvertently dipped in top secret government pudding that had been irradiated, mistaking it for Pistachio. It was developed by the Obama Administration to combat a possible uprising by ring wing fanatics. He's in a coma. He hasn't turned big and green or anything but no one really knows if he is going to be a Superhero or Villain at this point. I think Ace wants to be a Villain though because he hates shaving.
Ace had been warned of this but he ignored it hoping he might at least get a few inches taller.Posted by: Rocks at January 26, 2010 07:49 AM (Q1lie)
NOOOOOOO!! We don't want to know. If we get any more wrinkled down here we might get mistaken for a Sharpei or something.
Posted by: Hatchet Five's balls at January 26, 2010 07:50 AM (wPZU5)
Posted by: Jean at January 26, 2010 07:50 AM (tJF9l)
Posted by: doc at January 26, 2010 07:53 AM (lklDJ)
They're deathly afraid that he'll be forced to move more towards the center, a la Bubba Clinton. He's bursting their utopian bubble.
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at January 26, 2010 07:53 AM (554T5)
But, but McCain's goes to supports cristie!!!
The answer is obvious...more money to Rubio
and JD in AZ...
Posted by: Serfer62 at January 26, 2010 07:54 AM (HLCnI)
Posted by: The Outlaw in the Heavenly Hall at January 26, 2010 07:54 AM (FajZG)
I've been a big advocate of accepting less than stellar conservatives in states where that's our best chance (hello Massachusetts) but Florida clearly isn't in that category.
Neither, you would think, is Texas. WTF are we doing with Perry and Hutchison in the gubernatorial race? Don't get stuck on stupid, GOP.
This requisite Medina boost brought to you by Concerned Conservatives for Medina.
Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic at January 26, 2010 07:54 AM (pZEar)
My staff keeps telling me how great our trolls are, and then I come here and see Guest's pathetic shit. PLEASE TELL ME WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY PAYING HIM FOR THAT SHIT!!!!!
Posted by: David Axelrodam at January 26, 2010 07:55 AM (wPZU5)
Sorry man, that's out of my area of expertise. Check with Axelrod.
Posted by: Peter Noone at January 26, 2010 07:57 AM (wPZU5)
Posted by: Ben at January 26, 2010 07:58 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: phreshone at January 26, 2010 08:00 AM (1AnxB)
RINO Crist met with Obama last week, for what it's not known. Crist is a known ACORN supporter.
Posted by: bill-tb at January 26, 2010 08:01 AM (y+QfZ)
Posted by: David Frum Forum at January 26, 2010 08:01 AM (GtYrq)
Posted by: Guest at January 26, 2010 08:01 AM (wPZU5)
Posted by: Jean at January 26, 2010 08:02 AM (Z7GrA)
Posted by: Ben at January 26, 2010 11:58 AM (wuv1c)
You've been fooled, that's just clarified pork fat. Watch out or you'll end up deep fried.
Posted by: Rocks at January 26, 2010 08:02 AM (Q1lie)
That's the first thing that popped into my head, too. B+
Posted by: CUS at January 26, 2010 08:02 AM (wOGfT)
And now he has turned from mild-mannered Ewok to Pudding Man. He now has all the amazing powers of pudding.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 26, 2010 08:02 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Jean at January 26, 2010 08:03 AM (PjevJ)
I fear the ascension of social authoritarians. People whose efforts at social engineering are every bit as rampant, and almost as noxious, as anything the left does. Dana Carvey's Church Lady is a parody of such people, but they are no joke. Whiny, holier-than-thou busybodies are a waste of space. I had the misfortune of having to grow up amongst them in middle Tennessee. I've since moved to Arizona, with its culture of rugged individuality, and I'm much happier.
As the Democrats implode, they lose their ability to act as a check on the ambitions of social authoritarians, and that is a problem. The precise reason why the political pendulum keeps swinging is because of the abuses and excesses that each party brings with it anytime it gets too much power.
Right now the American people are finding out what it feels like when the communist wing of the Democratic party gets to push its evil policies because there aren't enough Republicans and honest Democrats to keep them quiet. If things go TOO far the other way in November and 2012, then the American people will find out what it feels like to have the ideological successors to the temperance movement interfering in their personal lives.
I prefer to avoid both personally.
Give me a candidate who is fiscally conservative, and socially libertarian, and I'll vote for them every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Give me a nominally conservative candidate who is chomping at the bit to use the power of the state to tell other people how to live, and I'll vote for the 3rd party candidate every time.
My liberty is not for sale.
Posted by: Lee at January 26, 2010 08:04 AM (8cnnJ)
No. By that I mean yes. Yes in that he could lose, but it is very unlikely. However, I'd slather myself in butterscotch pudding to tune into progressives pulling out all the stops to "save the Congressman with guts".
Grayson can self fund. The trial lawyers won't abandon him.
Posted by: WTFCI at January 26, 2010 08:04 AM (GtYrq)
Meek inherited his seat from his mom. I think she announced her retirement late so that her son was the only one aware and in a position to run for her seat. I think Rubio will crush him.
Can anybody post here using the new Firefox 3.6? I have to use IE <blechh>.
Posted by: IreneFingIrene at January 26, 2010 08:04 AM (JKe0g)
Only if your stapler is smarter than our liberal trolls. Is it red by any chance?
Posted by: Milton Waddams at January 26, 2010 08:04 AM (wPZU5)
18 Rubio has a hot wife?
Damn. *sniff*
You should just forget him Miss Radish. Now, I know this guy, lives in the Shire. Not too awful bad looking, has a great heart and is a true conservative. Slips on a tin foil hat once in a while but maybe you can cure that. Goes by the nickname of teej once in a while. Let me know.
Posted by: cupid at January 26, 2010 08:04 AM (QdUKm)
"I know it is a pipe dream, but I haven't seen a candidate emerge yet that I believe can defeat Obama in 2012."
A candidate will emerge. You can count on it. I suspect that even many of those 52%ers realize by now that Obama is an empty suit. Rosiland Carter likes him, though. He makes her husband look almost competent.
Posted by: Guest at January 26, 2010 08:05 AM (ITzbJ)
But, but McCain's goes to supports cristie!!!
I'm having a problem with Palin supporting McCain. WTF?
Posted by: Agnostica at January 26, 2010 08:06 AM (gbCNS)
Maybe it's an addon that isn't fully compatible with 3.6?
Posted by: WTFCI at January 26, 2010 08:06 AM (GtYrq)
Posted by: Abby Adams at January 26, 2010 08:07 AM (pLTLS)
Yes, those people are awful, now PUT OUT THAT CIGARETTE and stop driving that awful SUV and replace that high-flow toilet and we'll be back later because we don't like how you're raising those kids of "yours."
Posted by: Typical social liberal at January 26, 2010 08:08 AM (T0NGe)
Those damned church lady Christianists! They're out to spoil our debauchery!
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at January 26, 2010 08:08 AM (554T5)
Posted by: Lee at January 26, 2010 08:10 AM (8cnnJ)
Grayson is in a R+2 registration district. Seems to me he could lose this year, especially with Rubio on an upper ticket.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at January 26, 2010 08:10 AM (DIYmd)
Orlando area. There's a big chunk of metro Orlando in there which would be strong for him, the rest of the district not so much.
Looking at the map, Grayson's district is very clearly one of those that was gerrymandered to provide a slim 10 point or so margin to the democrat under normal circumstances. Its definitely not a district gerrymandered with an unbeatable democrat advantage to protect congressional "royalty" like Pelosi
With circumstances being anything other than normal these days, I'd have to say that district could be very much in play if the Republicans put up a credible candidate.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 26, 2010 08:10 AM (ffbXx)
Yeah, but it's like being afraid of those awful Zoroastrians. You're fearing a caricature .
Posted by: AmishDude at January 26, 2010 08:12 AM (T0NGe)
60 Les types désolés, mes moutons préférés sont morts cette semaine et j'ai été hors de lui. Elle était toujours si avec plaisir quand j'ai sorti avec les hautes bottes et les gants en caoutchouc.
No thats some funny shit...I think.
Posted by: dananjcon at January 26, 2010 08:13 AM (pr+up)
@77 - I'm having a problem with Palin supporting McCain. WTF?
That's kind of bothering me too. I have to wonder if she feels like she "owes him one". And hopefully only one. I would much prefer to see her get behind an actual conservative.
Posted by: cupid at January 26, 2010 08:13 AM (c459z)
It only sounds like a caricature until you see it for yourself.
Posted by: Lee at January 26, 2010 08:13 AM (8cnnJ)
Posted by: Tom in Korea at January 26, 2010 08:14 AM (+gX1+)
I see the problem. It's just that the cursor is invisible, but I can post. I googled it. Other people are having the same problem. Wierd.
Posted by: IreneFingIrene at January 26, 2010 08:15 AM (lhxhu)
Posted by: Jean at January 26, 2010 08:16 AM (IcVGZ)
Looking at the map, Grayson's district is very clearly one of those that was gerrymandered to provide a slim 10 point or so margin to the democrat under normal circumstances. Its definitely not a district gerrymandered with an unbeatable democrat advantage to protect congressional "royalty" like Pelosi
B'jeezers I get blamed for everything, WTF!!
This PC B.S. has got to go, Afro Engineering ain't no angel either ya know!
Posted by: gerry manderer at January 26, 2010 08:17 AM (pr+up)
The unfortunate thing about politics is that the "coattails" syndrome is endemic. McCain still wields a lot of power within the "old boys network" in Washington. Republicans seeking advancement have been forced to associate with him.
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at January 26, 2010 08:17 AM (554T5)
That shit is real.
The Hollywood "save the Unicorn King" gambit is going to have to pull out all the stops. I'll guess Celebrity Big Brother's next season will be hosting the cast at the White House.
Posted by: WTFCI at January 26, 2010 08:18 AM (GtYrq)
No, I'm fearing the very kind of people I GREW UP AMONGST.
It only sounds like a caricature until you see it for yourself.
The likelihood of social conservatives gaining a strong majority AND passing social legislation as opposed to undoing liberal social legislation is extremely low.
Posted by: Mama AJ at January 26, 2010 08:18 AM (Be4xl)
Who in the hell are these Kardashians? What is their societal contribution, and why won't they just go the fu*k away?
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at January 26, 2010 08:20 AM (554T5)
Posted by: Tom in Korea at January 26, 2010 12:14 PM (+gX1+)
We don't want any commie foreign pudding. Jell-O or home made.
The morons stick with Jell-O because they kept forgetting to let the homemade cool, that hurts.
I know what you are thinking....instant pudding. Get behind me Satan!
Posted by: Rocks at January 26, 2010 08:20 AM (Q1lie)
How is that worse than a Mike Huckabee telling you what you can eat, what you can drive, what you can wear, and what you can look at on the internet?
Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 26, 2010 08:21 AM (mR7mk)
Posted by: mystry at January 26, 2010 08:21 AM (kmgIE)
I'm having a problem with Palin supporting McCain.
As long as she doesn't support support him, I'm okay with it. Token appearance, say a couple nice things about him and then stay out of it.
Now if she were to do more, or say something bad about other candidates, that wouldn't be good.
Posted by: Mama AJ at January 26, 2010 08:21 AM (Be4xl)
Sorry for OT, if you really want to get your blood pressure WAY up there, check out the headline on BreitbarTV (don't know how to link with tinyurl stuff):
Obama Blames Congress: ‘I Didn’t Make a Bunch of Deals’ to Pass Health Reform
Posted by: always right at January 26, 2010 08:21 AM (7GfKM)
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at January 26, 2010 12:20 PM (554T5)
It's amazing how far filming something going in your ass will take you.
Posted by: Katie Couric at January 26, 2010 08:22 AM (Q1lie)
Posted by: Serfer62 at January 26, 2010 08:22 AM (HLCnI)
Ditto
Posted by: John Galt at January 26, 2010 08:22 AM (F/4zf)
Posted by: Agnostica at January 26, 2010 08:22 AM (gbCNS)
You paint a false dilemma.
The truth is that by giving voice to my wishes, and voting accordingly, I'll have a Republican party that will be more responsive to those wishes, and less beholden to social authoritarians.
When pandering to those fucktards costs the party electorally, they'll stop doing it.
Right now that isn't a problem, but it may soon become one. I'm keeping my eye on the candidates. If my bullshit-sense starts tingling, you can rest assured I'll call shenanigans on them. I have no intention of trading one flavor of tyranny for another.
Posted by: Lee at January 26, 2010 08:23 AM (8cnnJ)
The occupy Bajor and have been at war with the Federation for some time now.
What?
Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 26, 2010 08:23 AM (mR7mk)
92 No, I'm fearing the very kind of people I GREW UP AMONGST.
Fine, then don't vote for your relatives. But for God's sake, don't feed into the leftist narrative of right-wing Christianist Bible-freaks. They wish to smear ALL of us, the libertarian-minded included, with this broad brush in order to discredit all of us.
Posted by: chemjeff at January 26, 2010 08:25 AM (pTyL2)
Posted by: mystry at January 26, 2010 12:21 PM (kmgIE)
Even worse it's vanilla. It was a last minute run to a 7-11. They had to take what was there.
Posted by: Rocks at January 26, 2010 08:25 AM (Q1lie)
Exactly.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
The bullshit stinks just as bad, the only difference is the color.
I'd forgotten all about Huckabee, he's the perfect example of exactly what I'm talking about. Fred Thompson called him a Christian Socialist.
Posted by: Lee at January 26, 2010 08:25 AM (8cnnJ)
"It was a rational comment comment. I've yet to see a rational comment from you, you sick freak."
By the way, you might want to take note: That's "sick, twisted, freak" to you, and some of us wear the phrase as a badge of honor.
Posted by: a Glenn Beck listener at January 26, 2010 08:25 AM (5npD/)
Posted by: chemjeff at January 26, 2010 08:25 AM (pTyL2)
That explanation needs an ace rant. I can only give you the black and white story.
Posted by: WTFCI at January 26, 2010 08:26 AM (GtYrq)
Time to slip another C note into Rubio's tip jar.
Would rather slip it into his briefs, but I'll settle for his tip jar.Posted by: Robert at January 26, 2010 08:26 AM (4NAaB)
"The occupy Bajor and have been at war with the Federation for some time now."
FIRE THE FLESH-ORBS!
Posted by: Ensign Kim at January 26, 2010 08:26 AM (5npD/)
Isn't it time for David Frum to quietly recede into the woodwork, never to be heard from again? I mean for a guy who claims to know know all the "smart moves" that Republicans should make, its odd that he's proven wrong time and again, yet he keeps coming back with more of his boring pretentiousness.
Seriously, Republicans would be well served to listen to his advice and do the exact opposite.
On another subject, what happened to Michael Steele?
Posted by: exceller at January 26, 2010 08:27 AM (jx2Td)
Speaking of Breitbart, I just heard him on the radio telling Mike Church that he has some big time bombshells planned for this year, imparticular in October!
Hunker down, git your popcorn ready and enjoy.
Posted by: dananjcon at January 26, 2010 08:27 AM (pr+up)
@116: Vanilla pudding is delicious. I love eating it. (ohwait)
Posted by: Abby Adams at January 26, 2010 08:28 AM (pLTLS)
On another subject, what happened to Michael Steele?
SHHHHH keep quiet - maybe if we don't mention him anymore, he will vanish for good
Posted by: chemjeff at January 26, 2010 08:28 AM (pTyL2)
Fine, then don't vote for your relatives. But for God's sake, don't feed into the leftist narrative of right-wing Christianist Bible-freaks. They wish to smear ALL of us, the libertarian-minded included, with this broad brush in order to discredit all of us.
Posted by: chemjeff at January 26, 2010 12:25 PM (pTyL2)
I'm always amazed by 'conservatives' or libertarians that fear social conservatives. Looking at the socon agenda:
1) Break up the government school monopoly - generally suggested via a voucher system
2) Get the Supreme Court out of the business of legislating
3) Stop the expansion of hate crime laws to behavioral groups
I'm not sure what the issue is. Seriously, what libertarian would oppose those?
Posted by: 18-1 at January 26, 2010 08:29 AM (7BU4a)
Gov Palin has to support turd from AZ, its the honorable thing to do. However she promised to support only conservatives so I don't see her exceeding other rinos.
If the turd from AZ gets zipped the rino establishment are finished and the young Turks will steer the GOP.
The above was written without speel chech...
Posted by: Serfer62 at January 26, 2010 08:30 AM (HLCnI)
You actually have to pay for the answer to that question.
Posted by: The Michael Steele Book Tour at January 26, 2010 08:31 AM (GtYrq)
Steele appears to be doing the best thing he can do right now, which is to keep his fool yap shut. Or perhaps bringing Ed Gillespie back is the start of a move to marginalize him, by having people who are actually competent do his work for him.
Posted by: Hatchet Five at January 26, 2010 08:31 AM (wPZU5)
Posted by: mystry at January 26, 2010 08:31 AM (kmgIE)
Posted by: teej at January 26, 2010 08:32 AM (QdUKm)
@96 - Posted by: Jean at January 26, 2010 12:16 PM (IcVGZ) -
Have you been reading my stuff?
John Jay
Posted by: teej at January 26, 2010 08:34 AM (QdUKm)
My current thinking is Pence. We'll see. Subject to easy change.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at January 26, 2010 08:34 AM (DIYmd)
I'm not sure what the issue is. Seriously, what libertarian would oppose those?
IMO it's either the hard-core atheist Objectivist types, or it's the hip cool kids who generally support the Democrats' social agenda but don't want to bust the budget, so they call themselves "libertarian" to reflect this.
Posted by: chemjeff at January 26, 2010 08:35 AM (pTyL2)
Lacey Underalls had the best theory, that they are aliens from the planet Plastisurgia. Clearly their 15 minutes aren't up yet.
Posted by: Hatchet Five at January 26, 2010 08:36 AM (wPZU5)
OT - re: Palin's various endorsements. I'm a little bothered with Sarah Palin endorsing incumbent Rick Perry here in TX.
There might be a little "back-scratching" going on there, or perhaps just some sort of professional courtesy amongst the Order of Governors, but I don't like it. From an ideological standpoint, I think she would find that Deborah Medina is significantly more conservative than Perry. Or Kay-Bee, for that matter.
Posted by: reason at January 26, 2010 08:37 AM (sPO/s)
Posted by: Agnostica at January 26, 2010 08:37 AM (gbCNS)
I'd forgotten all about Huckabee, he's the perfect example of exactly what I'm talking about.
You are in much more danger from his liberal policy of releasing violent felons than from any possible socially conservative policy he might come up with.
Posted by: Mama AJ at January 26, 2010 08:37 AM (Be4xl)
Posted by: arhooley at January 26, 2010 08:38 AM (C5ZSk)
Posted by: fluffy at January 26, 2010 08:38 AM (4Kl5M)
Oh yes, I'm a moby.
You got me!!
Drats, foiled again!
@ 96
Someone who claims to be fiscally conservative and then turns around and increases spending isn't a fiscal conservative in the first place and should be removed from office.
Socially libertarian does NOT mean morally questionable. It means someone who recognizes that the legitimate power and authority of the state is LIMITED. Trying to use the power of the state to regulate the private lives of citizens is a violation of their rights. It doesn't matter whether it is some leftist trying to rob from the productive to pay off the useless, or a social authoritarian trying to regulate "obscenity" on the internet (for the chiillllldrennnn of course). Both are examples of evil and tyranny.
Posted by: Lee at January 26, 2010 08:38 AM (8cnnJ)
I could be wrong, but I think Radish already has a bf. Perhaps you could convince her that you would be an upgrade. Possessing Marco Rubio hotness, possibly...
Posted by: Hatchet Five at January 26, 2010 08:39 AM (wPZU5)
Posted by: The Outlaw in the Heavenly Hall at January 26, 2010 08:39 AM (VVJx3)
Lee, the reform / real-conservative movement is entirely fiscal this year. Only frauds like Perry and Huckabee are waving their Bibles around, and they're doing that because everyone knows they're weak on economics.
For Hoffman, Brown, and Christie the whole "social-conservative" thing didn't even turn up; Brown went so far as to declare that he "believes in evolution". Someone told me that McConnell had written some kind of thesis, but even he didn't make it part of his platform.
Lee, you may have had a point in 2004 and 2005 but this is 2010.
Posted by: Zimriel at January 26, 2010 08:40 AM (9Sbz+)
Posted by: Jean at January 26, 2010 08:41 AM (tpEh1)
I think the hip cool kids don't have much of an issue with busting the budget either. Libertarian just sounds a little cooler that socialist. Overall, the LP's effort to focus on college kids whose primary concern is legalizing pot has backfired in a big way for libertarianism as a whole.
I often run into young 'libertarians' who can give a good rant about how the government has no right to control what you smoke followed by how the government needs to control what you drive, eat, and do to save the earth.
I think the more fundamental issue is that liberals *hate* socons so it becomes much easier to play along with their strawman of what the social right stands for. Give socons a working majority in the government and you will get a more libertarian agenda then what we have now...
Posted by: 18-1 at January 26, 2010 08:42 AM (7BU4a)
Oh yes, the true hard-core libertarians are all for abortion-on-demand, child porn, and drugs on every street corner. Things much of society, not just the SoCons, oppose.
Posted by: Hatchet Five at January 26, 2010 08:42 AM (wPZU5)
Posted by: Clarence Beeks at January 26, 2010 08:42 AM (YmPwQ)
Posted by: Tom in Korea
True. There's always F-Cup Pudding from Japan.
...and yes, they mean that kind of F-cup.
Posted by: Iskandar at January 26, 2010 08:43 AM (/o58C)
On another subject, what happened to Michael Steele?
SHHHHH keep quiet - maybe if we don't mention him anymore, he will vanish for good
Posted by: chemjeff at January 26, 2010 12:28 PM (pTyL2)
Tru-dat...I think the Rino fuckwads in the GOP are beginning to understand that we know what we want. Based on Ma, NJ & VA and apparently so in FL the efforts of folks on the interwebs, tea party talk radio etc. have clearly done a much better job than those monthly news letters from Steele(I use them as kindling) Is the RNC even neccesarry anymore? May be as a forum for the exchange of ideas but thats about it.
Posted by: dananjcon at January 26, 2010 08:43 AM (pr+up)
Posted by: Barbie, the doll?woman at January 26, 2010 08:44 AM (Ki7fm)
I could be wrong, but I think Radish already has a bf. Perhaps you could convince her that you would be an upgrade. Possessing Marco Rubio hotness, possibly...
Hell, I'm not even good looking in my dreams.
Posted by: teej at January 26, 2010 08:44 AM (c459z)
Posted by: arhooley at January 26, 2010 12:38 PM (C5ZSk)
Such as...?
Posted by: 18-1 at January 26, 2010 08:44 AM (7BU4a)
103 Wow. Khloe Kardashian really was hosted at the White House?
Her sister Kim had a very nice spread in Playboy.
Posted by: TC at January 26, 2010 08:46 AM (DYJjQ)
Are you perhaps a multi-millionaire with your own private jet? I'm trying to help you out here, man.
Posted by: Hatchet Five at January 26, 2010 08:46 AM (wPZU5)
As for Palin, I'm not surprised she's backing Perry. They're both outspoken creationists, and not very bright.
Halfsigma had her pegged last November (link on my name). Her IQ probably isn't 100 like he said, but it's no higher than 115.
Posted by: Zimriel at January 26, 2010 08:47 AM (9Sbz+)
.talk about a bad deal...Ken is a litlle light on the "junk" if you know what I mean...
Posted by: Barbie, the doll?woman at January 26, 2010 12:44 PM (Ki7fm)
Light in the junk? Funny to hear that coming from a woman that's only half anatomically correct....
Posted by: Ken at January 26, 2010 08:48 AM (Vu6sl)
Posted by: Lee at January 26, 2010 12:38 PM (8cnnJ)
It depends actually. Out of people that identify as libertarian a large number are actually dopitarian/liberalitarian thanks to the failures of the LP. But there certainly are real libertarians out there. And those people are worried about the National Socialists currently running the not Sarah Palin.
Posted by: 18-1 at January 26, 2010 08:48 AM (7BU4a)
1) Break up the government school monopoly - generally suggested via a voucher system
2) Get the Supreme Court out of the business of legislating
------------------
18-1, these are all on the libertarian agenda, so it's total bunk to ask "What could libertarians possibly object to from the socons?" Keep thinking, you'll come up with it.
Posted by: arhooley at January 26, 2010 08:48 AM (C5ZSk)
Posted by: Jean at January 26, 2010 08:48 AM (3WbbL)
@127 I'm always amazed by 'conservatives' or libertarians that fear social conservatives.
Methinks he's referring to things like pr0n, titty bars, alcohol, gambling, and weed.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at January 26, 2010 08:48 AM (sXLx/)
Her sister Kim had a very nice spread in Playboy.
Posted by: TC at January 26, 2010 12:46 PM (DYJjQ)
I see what you did there...
Posted by: conscious, but pissed off at January 26, 2010 08:50 AM (Vu6sl)
Posted by: arhooley at January 26, 2010 12:48 PM (C5ZSk)
So...you can't actually come up with anything else huh? Well, let me know if you do.
Posted by: 18-1 at January 26, 2010 08:51 AM (7BU4a)
------------------
Oh, so the solibs are the only conservatives who do this? Ever hear of George W. Bush?
Posted by: arhooley at January 26, 2010 08:52 AM (C5ZSk)
Posted by: arhooley at January 26, 2010 08:54 AM (C5ZSk)
It'll be a lot more than that. I'd predict Meek goes down by double digits in the 15-20 point range.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 26, 2010 11:46 AM (ffbXx)
You're right! Meek is a total imbecile. As soon as the general election starts and people get to see him talk, he's going down big time. The only elected leaders in Florida who are worse than Meek right now are Teacups Grayson and Corrine Brown.
Posted by: Mandy P. at January 26, 2010 08:54 AM (MK6Kx)
Posted by: Guest at January 26, 2010 08:55 AM (ITzbJ)
Posted by: Sigmund Freud at January 26, 2010 08:57 AM (wPZU5)
Posted by: Vague, yet meaningless at January 26, 2010 08:59 AM (oCMdU)
JFK's IQ was around 117-119.
Nixon was genius grade in the 140's
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 26, 2010 08:59 AM (ffbXx)
Posted by: fozzy at January 26, 2010 09:01 AM (ccEuN)
Posted by: arhooley at January 26, 2010 12:52 PM (C5ZSk)
Actually, Bush is an interesting case in point. He actually stuck with what he said he was going to do - most of us (certainly I did) just presumed that 'compassionate conservatism' crap was pure electioneering. In the end though, what were the alternatives? McCain? Gore?
The problem that we all need to face front and certain is the damage that the LP types did to the libertarian brand. It looks like Obama's overreach might have reminded people why they hate big government again, but from the late 90s to late 00s the majority of the populace saw 'economic conservatism' in a negative light. "Those crazy people want to get rid of meat inspectors and let big business piss in our corn flakes!"
I've argued for years that libertarians should dump their current party model (and in fairness many have been trying to dump the LP) and find individuals that will advance their agenda to support. It looks like the 'Tea Party movement' might be sort of doing that, ironically fused with social conservatives doing the same thing...
But overall the point is good - RINOs and 'socially moderate' Republicans are invariably the first ones to stab conservatives in the back when it is in their immediate interests - look at Specter or Chaffee.
Posted by: 18-1 at January 26, 2010 09:02 AM (7BU4a)
It wasn't libertarians agitating for the regulation of the internet in the 1990s by the government to keep adults from seeing boobies because children might see them, too. (It's kind of a stretch to think of Bill Clinton, who signed the legislation into law, as socially-conservative, but it was 1996 and he was taking orders from Congress.)
Think also of No Child Left Behind and Bush's "faith-based initiatives". Good principles, but ended up costing billions of dollars of government spending and oversight.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 26, 2010 09:03 AM (mR7mk)
Posted by: arhooley at January 26, 2010 12:54 PM (C5ZSk)
And those are exactly what you would get from a federal government made up of socons. So...why do you have an issue with them?
Posted by: 18-1 at January 26, 2010 09:03 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: Guest at January 26, 2010 09:04 AM (ITzbJ)
The fact that she, Ashton Kutcher, Oprah, Obama, etc are the top followed people on Twitter is reason alone to bomb all the Twitter servers out of existence.
Posted by: Lincoln Adams at January 26, 2010 09:04 AM (gLNLT)
Posted by: Jean at January 26, 2010 09:05 AM (tTdaQ)
Posted by: CCooper at January 26, 2010 09:08 AM (PCN/c)
Posted by: Jean at January 26, 2010 01:05 PM (tTdaQ)
Federalism - the solution to almost every public issue we face in America today.
Posted by: 18-1 at January 26, 2010 09:09 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: Jean at January 26, 2010 01:05 PM (tTdaQ)
+ 1000!!
I lean libertarian federally but am much more socon at the local level. The biggest problem I have with the LP is that they flirt way too much with the conspiracy types for my taste. And the LP's foreign policy sure looks a lot like everything is the fault of the US and we should just back ourselves into a nice little isolationist bubble and pretend all other countries don't exist. Way too naive for this day and age, IMO.
Posted by: Mandy P. at January 26, 2010 09:09 AM (MK6Kx)
Federalism - the solution to almost every public issue we face in America today.
Posted by: 18-1 at January 26, 2010 01:09 PM (7BU4a)
Exactly.
Posted by: Mandy P. at January 26, 2010 09:10 AM (MK6Kx)
-------------------
Sounds distinctly libertarian to me, and totally agreeable.
18-1, let's flip this around. If we agree that your list is also libertarian, then tell me what you have against them?
Posted by: arhooley at January 26, 2010 09:12 AM (C5ZSk)
Posted by: mystry at January 26, 2010 09:17 AM (kmgIE)
It wasn't libertarians agitating for the regulation of the internet in the 1990s by the government to keep adults from seeing boobies because children might see them, too. (It's kind of a stretch to think of Bill Clinton, who signed the legislation into law, as socially-conservative, but it was 1996 and he was taking orders from Congress.)
Think also of No Child Left Behind and Bush's "faith-based initiatives". Good principles, but ended up costing billions of dollars of government spending and oversight.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 26, 2010 01:03 PM (mR7mk)
I know that, I was referring to what I assume Lee's problem is with social conservatives. Having also grown up in middle Tennessee, I figure his issues likely derive from people who don't want legalized gambling, who create various local ordinances that are designed to make it impossible to operate strip joints or adult stores, and who want dry counties. And don't forget the weed. None of those should be federal issues and I really don't see too many people running for federal office on this stuff.
The last time I remember some federal uproar about the social conservative agenda had to do with internet gambling, and I am still not convinced that there wasn't some other ulterior motive involved, namely, preserving a cottage industry for Nevada and the various states with off-shore casinos along with the ability to easily dodge income taxes on winnings.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at January 26, 2010 09:23 AM (sXLx/)
Posted by: Charlie Gibson at January 26, 2010 09:26 AM (CfmlF)
Are you perhaps a multi-millionaire with your own private jet? I'm trying to help you out here, man.
Dude! This is the innertubes! You can be as handsome, smart, and wealthy as you want to be--the beauty of the virtual world! The world is your oyster! Oh, and just a couple more days til your surgery, huh?
Posted by: runningrn at January 26, 2010 09:30 AM (CfmlF)
I'm with Lee -- I really have no desire to have the Mike Huckabee's of the world running the show, or the Pat Buchanan's. They are almost as obnoxious as the far left imho. No thanks. Yes, they do exist and there are people out there who are very supportive of them. Huckabee, Paul, and Buchanan had/have a pretty staunch following in my neck of the woods, and if you only spoke to the folks who are their fan club it would make you think Republicans are of every bad thing the Dems accuse them (which has been quite artfully manipulated by the media and academia).
I suppose Sarah Palin comes pretty close to a fiscal conservative/social libertarian, at least in my idea of what that means. She really doesn't force her morals/ideals upon people and has not had an administrative history of doing it either. She was, above all else, very pragmatic and upholding of personal freedoms, rights, and responsiblities in her administrative tenure. That may be the thing I like most about her.
Posted by: unknown jane at January 26, 2010 09:30 AM (5/yRG)
Iceback scandi-lover.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at January 26, 2010 09:34 AM (+4UPl)
Money bomb for Rubio in Feb.
Palin supports Rubio.....
Posted by: non_dhimmie at January 26, 2010 09:34 AM (zACGu)
Posted by: Indian Outlaw at January 26, 2010 09:37 AM (7NcLZ)
Heh! From Hotair: (If this doesn't motivate you to send some money to Rubio, I don't know what will!)
"Gov. Charlie Crist, who has been taking a steady pounding for his "man hug" with President Obama in Fort Myers last February, says he may be with the president again at the University of Tampa Thursday when the president may announce a major award of high-speed rail money for Florida -- money that state officials say will create thousands of new jobs."
Posted by: runningrn at January 26, 2010 10:00 AM (CfmlF)
Heh! From Hotair: (If this doesn't motivate you to send some money to Rubio, I don't know what will!)
"Gov. Charlie Crist, who has been taking a steady pounding for his "man hug" with President Obama in Fort Myers last February, says he may be with the president again at the University of Tampa Thursday when the president may announce a major award of high-speed rail money for Florida -- money that state officials say will create thousands of new jobs."
Posted by: runningrn at January 26, 2010 02:00 PM (CfmlF)
Ugh! Not the high-speed rail thing. That is such a bust. It was originally supposed to go from the Daytona area all the way down the I-4 corridor to Tampa. Which, frankly, kinda stinks. If we have to have it, I think we would be better served going from Jacksonville to Miami, but that's just my opinion. Anyway, it went from that plan to basically being transit from downtown Orlando to Disney. in other words, it's for the tourists, and it's going to costs billions.
The other really stinky part is apparently the strings that come with the money mean that the state can only hire union people to do the job. Double ugh. It'll never get done and likely cost much more than projected, which we'll end up footing the bill for of course. It's a boondoggle if I ever saw one.
Posted by: Mandy P. at January 26, 2010 10:41 AM (MK6Kx)
Posted by: Hedgehog at January 26, 2010 10:44 AM (oQIfB)
18-1 173, yes, Gore. We should have voted Gore in 2000.
Knowing what we know now, we'd have shaken out the hippy-ness by 2002, any economic problems would have been blamed on the CRA and not on "compassionate conservatism", and Jeb Bush (much smarter and with better conservative instinct than George) would have been President in 2004 and, presumably, today.
Contesting Florida in 2000 was the biggest mistake the Republicans have made since 1876.
Posted by: Zimriel at January 26, 2010 10:49 AM (9Sbz+)
Ugh! Not the high-speed rail thing. That is such a bust. It was originally supposed to go from the Daytona area all the way down the I-4 corridor to Tampa. Which, frankly, kinda stinks. If we have to have it, I think we would be better served going from Jacksonville to Miami, but that's just my opinion. Anyway, it went from that plan to basically being transit from downtown Orlando to Disney. in other words, it's for the tourists, and it's going to costs billions.
I don't understand why people can't see the stupidity in this idea. What is the supposed benefit to building this rail system? For the record, we were down there last year and did go from Orlando to Tampa for one day, but that's because our package had one day at Busch Gardens included. Other than that, we would not even have considered going to Tampa. We drove, it took us less than an hour and a half on the road, we went directly from our hotel to Busch Gardens, and it didn't cost much extra in gas. Taking a train would take at least as long when you factor in your time at the station and the time spent traveling from the station to your destination, plus the cost of the train tickets, and you don't have the convenience of being able to leave whenever you want. How many Orlando tourists even go to Tampa now, and why would anyone think that a train would increase that number enough to justify the contruction and maintenance costs?
This thing will be as successful as the Springfield Monorail.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at January 26, 2010 10:55 AM (sXLx/)
Posted by: Charlie Crist at January 26, 2010 11:20 AM (44J/C)
It's not even going that far anymore. It's only going from downtown Orlando to the attractions (I Drive, Disney, Universal, etc). And Crist is getting billions for it. Like I said, it's a boondoggle. But Crist and his people are trying to spin it into some big jobs program.
Posted by: Mandy P. at January 26, 2010 11:41 AM (MK6Kx)
Rubio 2010 and then Rubio 2012. The precedent has been set for the election of a freshman sentator.
Precedent has also been set that such experience isn't enough for said President to be any good at the job, so I don't think that floats.
On a separate note: Sugar Free pudding isn't as sticky as the regular kind.
Posted by: barbelle at January 26, 2010 12:04 PM (qF8q3)
It's not even going that far anymore. It's only going from downtown Orlando to the attractions (I Drive, Disney, Universal, etc). And Crist is getting billions for it. Like I said, it's a boondoggle. But Crist and his people are trying to spin it into some big jobs program.
Ugh. Galactically stupid. As a tourist I can say that if we travel to Orlando it's not because we are interested in anything downtown. I doubt that most tourists are either, and if they really are, then they can drive there or get a cab.
This really wouldn't anger me except that it's going to be paid for by federal money. If they really want this train, let the city and county pay for it themselves.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at January 26, 2010 12:11 PM (sXLx/)
I like Marco Rubio, but he isn't saying anything new. He is saying essentially what Rush Limbaugh has been saying for the past 20 years. The story here is why is his message just now beginning to resonate with voters? You think it might have something to do with the fact that his message is in such stark contrast to the Obama administration's agenda, which has already turned out to be an unmitigated disaster after only one year?
Obama doesn't have any leadership skills, absolutely none whatsoever, and he doesn't have any qualifications whatever to be president. I continue to be incredulous that that empty suit got elected.
I had to laugh at Ben Stein on Cavuto today. In so many words, but tactfully, he said that Obama is an imbecile, who doesn't even have enough common sense to realize that he is fucking up. It's all about promoting himself, not about promoting any agenda. That egomaniacal fool is falling down drunk with power. That psycho will have to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the White House.
Posted by: Guest at January 26, 2010 01:08 PM (ITzbJ)
Posted by: Curmudgeon at January 26, 2010 01:17 PM (ujg0T)
Seems to me that if the virtual unknown has managed to catch the exceedingly popular sitting governor, maybe the guv wasn't really that popular to start off with, let alone "exceedingly"...
Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at January 26, 2010 02:31 PM (8PFPH)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.217 seconds, 327 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: David Frum at January 26, 2010 07:26 AM (ehLtp)