November 19, 2012

GOP Strongly Considering Intervention In Primaries To Prevent Another Akin
— Ace

In 2010, the GOP attempted to thwart a perfectly electable candidate -- Marco Rubio -- to push a moderate who was also electable, but who was also, unfortunately, Charlie Crist. This produced a lot of blowback (I remember going nuclear on this site), and the GOP decided to stay out of primary contests more or less entirely.

They're rethinking that now, and I think they should. I don't want them protecting incumbents from worthy challengers, and I don't want them always championing the more-moderate candidate on the theory that more-moderate candidates are more electable.

On the other hand, there does seem to be some dysfunction in the primary process. I think the electorate has decided that "electability" is a dirty word, and, given a choice of several contenders, almost goes out of its way to nominate the weakest possible candidate. I do think that the dirty-word of "electability" has to be given consideration in primaries. I am not of the belief that defeats are filled with nobility.

The GOP is trying to figure out some kind of half-step way to keep out of these things, while also getting into them a bit to prevent further Akins, Mourdocks, O'Donnell's, and Angle's.

The link is to Commentary, though these quotes are from Politico:

The first-term Moran, who was elected to the spot last week by his Senate colleagues, tapped incoming Texas freshman Sen. Ted Cruz as a vice chairman for grass roots and outreach. The plan, according to party leaders, is to employ CruzÂ’s tea party star power to help win over activist groups that may be wary of the NRSC and help unify the GOP behind a single candidate in crucial Senate races.

Eh, that'll help some.


In an interview, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the NRSC chairman in the past two cycles, said the party needs to ask itself whether the goal is to prop up the most conservative candidate or push through the most conservative candidate that can win a general election. He said the party is reevalating its approach.

Jim DeMint speaks of "training" candidates to speak in "sanitized soundbites," but I'm not sure if it's just a case of telling people to fudge and maybe lie a little.

One problem in our primary contest right now is that there is no pushback from the middle against the right. Now, hear me out on this: If someone in a debate had turned to Akin and asked about the exception for rape, we would have heard about this, possibly, far earlier in the process, and voters could have adjusted their vote at that point. However, because the primaries are now largely a competition to get to the furthest right (or to appear that way, at least), no one asks a question like this. To ask the question would be to brand oneself as a moderate, and thus lose votes.

But that's the only way to actually flush someone's edgier opinions out, to question them about those opinions. Otherwise, the question never gets asked in the primary...and then three days after a primary a reporter asks it, and there you go.

It's not that I want the moderate to win these things. (Although if a candidate is simply too conservative to get elected, then yes, I'd support the moderate.) It's that normally in politics there is something of a struggle between wings, a debate, an airing of distinctions between candidates, and if everyone is going to posture as The Most Conservative Candidate we're not going to actually find out much about the candidates -- like who is actually moderate posing a conservative, who is conservative and electable, and who is aggressively conservative and possibly unelectable even in a red state like Missouri.

What I'm really talking about is the primaries as a method of gaining information about the candidates -- something I think which has been missing.

One possible way to extract information from candidates (who have an interest in not providing it) is to have at least one debate in every primary contest moderated, by, get this, conservatives. Conservatives understand conservative politics. Liberal reporters do not. (And questions asked by liberal reporters tend to be discounted by conservatives, as conservatives think they are hostile forces simply trying to undermine conservatism, which they are, of course.)

But if every cycle at least one debate was moderated by a 1-3 member panel of genuine conservatives attempting to flush out distinctions between candidates, the voters would 1 hear their positions and the distinctions between them and 2 better trust the information elicited as being prompted by a sympatico, rather than hostile and subversive, questioner.

Posted by: Ace at 08:30 AM | Comments (427)
Post contains 791 words, total size 5 kb.

1 This produced a lot of blowback (I remember going nuclear on this site), and the GOP decided to stay out of primary contests more or less entirely.


The RNC rules forbid them from getting involved in a contested primary.

Posted by: Vic at November 19, 2012 08:32 AM (YdQQY)

2 waiting for the first: "Let it burn" comment

Posted by: Max Power at November 19, 2012 08:33 AM (+wxCD)

3 How about we just let local voters choose their own candidates?  Sure, we occasionally get a shitty one, but the last thing we need right now is the national party pissing on the grassroots more than they do already.

Posted by: Genghis Khan at November 19, 2012 08:33 AM (ZWvOb)

4

Meh. Let It Burn.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at November 19, 2012 08:34 AM (lOmbq)

5 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 19, 2012 08:34 AM (8y9MW)

6 /sock off

Posted by: Lemmenkainen at November 19, 2012 08:34 AM (ZWvOb)

7 whatever

Posted by: phoenixgirl at November 19, 2012 08:34 AM (Ho2rs)

8 Akin wasn't a big "conservative".  He was stupid. Being anti-abortion is not necessarily conservative.  To me it is more of a religious thing. 


After all the Catholic church is very anti-abortion.  Also mostly liberal.

Posted by: Vic at November 19, 2012 08:34 AM (YdQQY)

9 Stop the Open Primary. We are letting Democrats choose their preferred opponent.

Posted by: navybrat at November 19, 2012 08:35 AM (r1ty1)

10 2 I remember the good old days when we use to wait for the first 'I'd hit it' comment......

Posted by: Max Wedge at November 19, 2012 08:35 AM (pakVN)

11 IIRC, Akin was considered a stalking-horse or a Democrat plant, and was the Dem's favored opponent.

That said- no.  I do not want the National GOP to have any say in who I get to pick from in my Senatorial or House primaries.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 19, 2012 08:35 AM (8y9MW)

12 Maybe look at state primaries, too.  I live in PA - our Primaries are in March and we there is no point in us ever weighing in on Presidential candidates.  The nominee is always chosen before we get to vote here.

Posted by: Liberty Lover at November 19, 2012 08:35 AM (encrR)

13 In an interview, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the NRSC chairman in the past two cycles, said the party needs to ask itself whether the goal is to prop up the most conservative candidate or push through the most conservative candidate that can win a general election. He said the party is reevalating its approach.


That is what Cornyn has always done.  He always pushes the "moderates" which is just another term for a liberal in denial.


Cornyn can kiss my ass.

Posted by: Vic at November 19, 2012 08:36 AM (YdQQY)

14 We need a way to weed out the Akins, O'Donnells, etc., while still letting a Marco Rubio through.

Perhaps we should base it on how sexy Ace finds their garbage?

Posted by: The Lost Dutchman at November 19, 2012 08:37 AM (9F2c1)

15 This is a problem that will take care of itself.  The GOP has outlived its usefulness.  It doesn't realize it yet, but the GOP is going the way of the Whigs.

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 19, 2012 08:37 AM (Hx5uv)

16 Akin should have been dragged off into the woods. Pull a Lautenberg. Stress more that if you fuck up and are GOING to lose because of it, you will be bounced out before the general election. There is absolutely no excuse for what happened in Missouri, and it is delusional that some even here thought Akin still had a chance. He lost by fourteen fucking points in a state that has become quite Republican. In a state with an R supermajority in its statehouse. A state that went to Romney by a larger margin than it did for Bush I and II. When he refused to quit, he should have been forced. Those who still defended him should have been hounded and exposed as the idiots they were. If you have cancer, you zap it before it kills you. You don't feed it.

Posted by: CAC at November 19, 2012 08:37 AM (PX4rB)

17 For the last four years, IÂ’ve been calling for Republicans to stop concentrating on social issues. I am a single woman in my 20s and that fact alone gave me the perspective that I donÂ’t want to regulate a womanÂ’s right to choice. I am pro-life, but because life is complicated, that choice is between a woman and her idea of a higher power. I believe if Roe vs. Wade were repealed, abortion would still go on. I care more about my economy, national security, and fiscal conservatism than I do about what other woman do with their bodies. ItÂ’s not my place, and I donÂ’t believe itÂ’s the governmentÂ’s place, to make such decisions.

Posted by: meeeghan ( . Y . ) mccain at November 19, 2012 08:38 AM (nkiQM)

18 >>>ow about we just let local voters choose their own candidates? Sure, we occasionally get a shitty one Occasionally? We might now have 50 Senators and a say in who Obama nominates for the Supreme Court if not for a series of own goals. The Democrats are talking about the nuclear option to end the filibuster -- which will permit them to nominate justices without any GOP resistance.

Posted by: ace at November 19, 2012 08:38 AM (LCRYB)

19 That old fool actor Reagan was way too conservative to get elected. We shoulda nominated Howard Baker instead.

Posted by: J. Moses Browning at November 19, 2012 08:38 AM (pfRd+)

20 1. the GOP turnout for primaries is pathetic 2. most of the turnout is the GOP core conservative base 3. if the "middle" of the GOP wants a say in choosing candidates, vote in the primaries

Posted by: soothie at November 19, 2012 08:39 AM (ZZuvz)

21 So, the GOP shouldn't meddle in the primaries and thwart perfectly electable candidates, except in cases when the perfectly electable candidates might say something stupid and self-destruct?

Posted by: Artemus Khan, Supervillain-Billionaire-Layabout at November 19, 2012 08:39 AM (27tUc)

22 Well, how do we get and promote candidates of our choice? Do we join the RNC/RCCC in hopes of infiltrating and taking it over from within?

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at November 19, 2012 08:39 AM (vCK/R)

23 Fuck the GOP. They should learn not to jump all over a candidate just because he says something they don't like. The backstabbers in the GOP really ought to shut the fuck up, already. They suck. They're idiots. And what the fuck is the Weeping Boner doing as Speaker again? WTFFFF? The House GOP sucks dick, too. My GOP registration is going this week. No more votes from me. I'm going third party. The GOP can go find an illegal to take my place, the fuckers.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at November 19, 2012 08:39 AM (X3lox)

24 But that's the only way to actually flush someone's edgier opinions out, to question them about those opinions. Otherwise, the question never gets asked in the primary...and then three days after a primary a reporter asks it, and there you go.

Isn't that the job of a campaign manager? Like months before the candidate actually announces his run?

Posted by: weft cut-pollyana [/i] [/b] at November 19, 2012 08:39 AM (ON54M)

25 I think you need to re-un-think that one.  Look at who constitutes Republican leadership.  I don't want those asshats interfering with any primary for any reason.  The outcome will be worse than a thousand Akin's.

Posted by: SpongeBob Saget at November 19, 2012 08:39 AM (SDkq3)

26 Maybe we just need better debate moderators -- you know, actual Republicans.

Posted by: Z as in Jersey at November 19, 2012 08:39 AM (Fvc1x)

27 Akin wasn't a big "conservative". He was stupid. -Vic This. A million times this. And when your stupidity IS GOING TO COST YOU THE RACE, you need to be forced out. Or the Rs could have tried to run another R as an Indie, draining Akin utterly of support and beating McCaskill in the process. Akin could cry and piss and moan all he wanted, but in the end we would have McCaskill gone. Akin would be an afterthought just as he is now.

Posted by: CAC at November 19, 2012 08:39 AM (PX4rB)

28 The Democrats are talking about the nuclear option to end the filibuster -- which will permit them to nominate justices without any GOP resistance.

Posted by: ace at November 19, 2012 12:38 PM (LCRYB)


That's Harry Reid BS talk.  He quickly found out he doesn't have 51 votes for that.

Posted by: Vic at November 19, 2012 08:40 AM (YdQQY)

29 Or maybe the GOP should just employ a little common sense coupled with a bit of research.  When the Democrat incumbent pours millions into a Republican primary candidate's campaign (as McCaskill did to Akin's primary campaign), that should tell you something about who the other side wants to run against.  Maybe then the GOP might want to look a little closer at the primary candidate.  Did you know that Akin had been arrested numerous times protesting outside of abortion clinics?  McCaskill's campaign did.

Hand it to the Dems.  They were smart.  They knew who Akin was and had a pretty strong belief that he would self-destruct.  They were right.

Posted by: angler at November 19, 2012 08:40 AM (SwjAj)

30 One possible way to extract information from candidates (who have an interest in not providing it) is to have at least one debate in every primary contest moderated, by, get this, conservatives. Conservatives understand conservative politics. Liberal reporters do not. (And questions asked by liberal reporters tend to be discounted by conservatives, as conservatives think they are hostile forces simply trying to undermine conservatism, which they are, of course.)

This one I agree with.

And there's more to it than just that conservatives don't trust the media, and so would discount any MFM "gotcha" questions.  I'm a "pro-life, life begins at conception, and that baby's right to life trumps anything but your right to life" conservative, but I can acknowledge that not politically expedient at this time.  So have people like me ask, "Is that your stance, and if so what would you do about it?"

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 19, 2012 08:40 AM (8y9MW)

31

One of the issues in the MO primary is that a Harry Reid PAC was buying ads promoting Akin as the conservative candidate since they considered him the weakest general election candidate.  Not sure how you effectively combat that kind of activity other than to publicize who is behind it.

Posted by: ts at November 19, 2012 08:40 AM (+963m)

32 Stop the Open Primary. We are letting Democrats choose their preferred opponent. I agree totally. Here in Illinois, you used to be able to switch parties if you stayed out of one election.Now the dem's can jump into a rep. primary and pick the worst opponent for the dem.

Posted by: cicero skip at November 19, 2012 08:40 AM (3m9Uc)

33 When confronted with the subject of "Rape" candidates should say We denounce the liberals support of rapists. period

Posted by: Dept. of Accuracy Dept. at November 19, 2012 08:41 AM (BAnPT)

34 Good on us if we can weed out gaffe-prone candidates and incompetent campaigners before election day. Let's just remember that the MSM will still manufacture gaffes where none exist, take statements out of context, put false subtitles to audio clips, and counterfeit the occasional Texas Air National Guard memo.

Posted by: Dante at November 19, 2012 08:41 AM (aLg9U)

35

Why aren't conservatives sending the message that conservatism is good for you and the country? Mitt danced around this for a nanosecond or two, but couldn't (or wouldn't) press the issue.

 

We could have nice  things again like a smaller, less intrusive,  far less expensive government where half of your income didn't get taken away and pissed away. We could have a government that was responsive to your wishes. We could have representatives that were free-market, moral  capitalists who promoted the best and most for the masses and   were dedicated to promoting a robust  economy filled with a diversity of jobs (like we used to have) and opportunity for all for a secure future for themselves and their families.

 

How on Earth could that message not sell well, even in Missouri?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at November 19, 2012 08:41 AM (lOmbq)

36 I guess this means I'll never get to hold office as a Republican.

Posted by: Ronster at November 19, 2012 08:41 AM (nQMHQ)

37 the next Justice will be a swap it's the Justice after that that worries me if we get our shit together and stop the blame game and ragtime, we can win the Senate in 2014.

Posted by: soothie at November 19, 2012 08:42 AM (A3dIE)

38 Principled social conservatism doesn't sell to the feckless. This is a fact that has to be confronted but one that fills me with despair. In order to love your country, it should be lovable, and I don't want to sacrifice doing the right thing (as I see it) for electoral success. It's a quandary.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 19, 2012 08:42 AM (QupBk)

39 ace, ace, ace, you are putting forth a reasoned position that makes sense. Of course that can't be done! It's like Jim Geraghty's suggestion for the sequence of the Presidential primaries. It's logical and rational and will never, ever, ever be used. The problem with the electability is that it is too often a code word for actual RINO squish.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Coming not nearly soon enough. at November 19, 2012 08:42 AM (VtjlW)

40 Akin won because MO doesn't have a run-off election.  In a three-way race that leaves it open to shenanigans by the Dems which is just what happened there.


And that IS under Republican control, unlike open primaries which is not.

Posted by: Vic at November 19, 2012 08:42 AM (YdQQY)

41 >>>Maybe we just need better debate moderators -- you know, actual Republicans. I added that to the post (earlier). yes, such moderators would go a long, long way towards solving this problem.

Posted by: ace at November 19, 2012 08:42 AM (LCRYB)

42 I want to know why the Gop Senate candidates lost in other states that Romney won, such as Montana and North Dakota. I don't recall any icky socon comments from them, and we'd know about it if they did, alright.

Posted by: Zippo Bibrox 5x10 at November 19, 2012 08:43 AM (Ue72k)

43

sellout

Posted by: Purity Squad aka The Most Conservative Consewrvative who ever Conservatived at November 19, 2012 08:43 AM (M2qTM)

44 I vote with the "drag them off into the Cabin in the Woods" the moment they pull an Akin. Oh gee, our candidate vanished. Look like we will have to replace them with someone competent. Like the 3 other candidates who were all handily beating McCaskill and lacked the rampant idiocy of ReTodd Akin.

Posted by: CAC at November 19, 2012 08:43 AM (PX4rB)

45 Here's the thing about Missouri.

Akin got like 34% of the Republican primary vote. Sarah Steelman and John Brunner each got close to 33%. There should have been a runoff after that between the top two.

Akin also shouldn't have been a dick and should have quit after he put his foot in his mouth--Steelman and Brunner are both pro-life, too, and either of them would now be wearing the title Senator-elect over the corrupt Claire McCaskill.

Posted by: Palandine at November 19, 2012 08:43 AM (g7D8V)

46 It's not just weeding out the closet-case candidates and preventing them from putting feet in their mouths. We need candidates that will loudly proclaim and expound conservatism. Unfortunately, conservatism is now (and has been for several decades) antithetical to the Republican establishment.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at November 19, 2012 08:43 AM (vCK/R)

47

You are a trusting soul.

 

They try to swing primaries and they will produce Crists, and Scozafavas. Fuck that. The party does this and more people will simply leave it.

 

Let me know how that works for you.

Posted by: Invictus at November 19, 2012 08:43 AM (OQpzc)

48 I'd hit it.

Posted by: Helen Thomas at November 19, 2012 08:43 AM (jucos)

49 If I am not mistaken Aiken also received financial support from a number of liberal organizations who figured correctly that he was the least electable candidate in the Republican Primary.  Dirty tricks are not restricted to just Richard Nixon, and it is something that the RNC needs to be aware of.  It does raise questions not just about the candidate but about the competence of the RNC as a whole.  The party may be at war with itself, but the party organization is not competent.

Posted by: georgeofthedesert at November 19, 2012 08:43 AM (Eq2MX)

50 Mitt Romney gave some chick Cancer! Foolish post. Akin is not the problem. It does give you baby killer types something to hit me over the head with though.

Posted by: nip at November 19, 2012 08:44 AM (11Tdq)

51 You take that back ace.

Posted by: Candy the Hut at November 19, 2012 08:44 AM (NIZHJ)

52 Both Mourdock and Akin fucked up AFTER the primaries.. how is a change in strategy going to prevent that???

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 19, 2012 08:44 AM (f9c2L)

53 we need an office of devils advocate like the vatican has

Posted by: unclear on the concept at November 19, 2012 08:44 AM (jZZFi)

54 One problem in our primary contest right now is that there is no pushback from the middle against the right. Now, hear me out on this: If someone in a debate had turned to Akin and asked about the exception for rape, we would have heard about this, possibly, far earlier in the process, and voters could have adjusted their vote at that point. However, because the primaries are now largely a competition to get to the furthest right (or to appear that way, at least), no one asks a question like this. To ask the question would be to brand oneself as a moderate, and thus lose votes.

Isn't this what sort of played out during the last Republican Presidential primary?  And how did that turn out?

Posted by: John P. Squibob at November 19, 2012 08:44 AM (kqqGm)

55 >> Occasionally? We might now have 50 Senators and a say in who Obama nominates for the Supreme Court if not for a series of own goals.

I don't need some Northeastern Republican deciding my choice for me.  I will leave the party first.  Sorry the whole representative democracy thing has you all verklempt ace, but that's the way it is.

Posted by: Lemmenkainen at November 19, 2012 08:44 AM (ZWvOb)

56 Maybe the GOP nobraintrust should actually stop letting Dems decide who the Republican winners will be

Makes too much sense. Won't happen

Posted by: kbdabear at November 19, 2012 08:44 AM (wwsoB)

57 I want to know why the Gop Senate candidates lost in other states that Romney won, such as Montana and North Dakota. I don't recall any icky socon comments from them, and we'd know about it if they did, alright. Posted by: Zippo Bibrox 5x10 at November 19, 2012 12:43 PM (Ue72k) Berg didn't run a campaign. He just assumed he'd win since he had a lead in the polls early and Romney was on the ticket. Montana and North Dakota are strange beasts that vote R for President but where a Democrat can win with a campaign push. Since the Republicans failed to match their intensity, they lost. Candidates better be trained to take NO race for granted, with this.

Posted by: CAC at November 19, 2012 08:45 AM (PX4rB)

58 Both Mourdock and Akin fucked up AFTER the primaries.. how is a change in strategy going to prevent that??? Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 19, 2012 12:44 PM (f9c2L) Forget it. They think they're rolling.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at November 19, 2012 08:45 AM (X3lox)

59 How about having honest candidates tell the voters what they believe and then having the voters decide. All primaries must be closed.

Posted by: NJRob at November 19, 2012 08:45 AM (FVp26)

60 Because if we quit nominating vocal conservatives the media will give our candidates a fair shake?

That worked really well with McCain and Romney.

You want some establishment conservative senators?

I give you Arlen Specter, Lindsey Grahm, Chuck Hagel, Jim Jeffords, George Voinovich, Lincoln Chafee, etc., etc.

Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at November 19, 2012 08:46 AM (jeAQW)

61 Ace for über moderator.

Posted by: Z as in Jersey at November 19, 2012 08:46 AM (Fvc1x)

62 The thing about giving the National GOP any say in who is "the most conservative candidate who is electable" is that you won't get Marco Rubio, you'll get Charlie Christ.  You may not get Angle, or Akin, but you wouldn't have gotten Cruz, either.

The National GOP believe that moderation = winning elections.  Until that is no longer the case, I'd rather put up with the occasional "own goal" rather than having a long march of moderate weenies.

Even if Akin and Mourdock both lost, we should have won the Senate.  We had plenty of Conservatives running on purely (or almost purely) Fiscal messages.  Instead, we didn't even move the needle.  Akin and Mourdock, while problems, are not "The" problem.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 19, 2012 08:46 AM (8y9MW)

63 A thousand time, yes. The national Party needs to get involved in the Primary process. We would have a more CONSERVATIVE government if the Party could wing out the dingbats. It doesn't necessarily have to be ideological, but some stances should have zero tolerance (like the Akin position on abortion and rape) Also, if you have ZERO experience under your belt, and the only thing on your resume is "activist", you have no business running for office like Senate or Governor. This is obviously a case by case basis, but figures like Ken Buck or Christine O'Donnell should have been obvious a mile away. Democrats NEVER let weak candidates get through the primary, and also are able to push dead weight out very quickly. Conservatives should embrace the idea of a stronger political party like the days of yore.

Posted by: Hamra at November 19, 2012 08:46 AM (7MC2X)

64 Akin also shouldn't have been a dick and should have quit after he put his foot in his mouth--Steelman and Brunner are both pro-life, too, and either of them would now be wearing the title Senator-elect over the corrupt Claire McCaskill.

Posted by: Palandine at November 19, 2012 12:43 PM (g7D8V)


----


This.  The problem isnt the process.... it was Akins refusal to step aside.


Im not sure Im down with ANY process that forcibly removes duly elected candidates from the ballot without input from the electorate.

Posted by: fixerupper at November 19, 2012 08:47 AM (nELVU)

65 When "electable" translates roughly to "the media approves of this guy," you have a problem.  The media fawned over John McCain in 2008, right up until the day after he became the nominee.

When David Frum, Nancy Pelosi, or Meghan McCain start sentences with "what the GOP needs is..." ignore them.  They're not in the business of helping us.

Open primaries are like letting the student body at USC pick UCLA's starting line-up on game day.  They are an opportunity for the enemy to stack the deck and kick our asses.

Being two shades of gray less big-government statist than your Democrat opponent is not going to fix anything.  Going over the cliff at 90 isn't an improvement over going over the cliff at 120.  The point is to turn the car away from the cliff.

It would be nifty if all the different factions - the so-cons, the fiscal-cons, the pro-lifers, basically everyone except the establishment RINOs in the Rockefeller wing - would rally around something that they could all agree on and become cohesive.  I nominate small-government Federalism, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and would welcome further constructive talk on the subject.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at November 19, 2012 08:47 AM (Jdtsu)

66 F*ck, we have to teach our politicians to lie during the campaign??? Stupid Party, catch the fever.

Posted by: The Mega Independent[/i] at November 19, 2012 08:47 AM (JGfaj)

67 if we get our shit together and stop the blame game and ragtime, we can win the Senate in 2014.

Posted by: soothie at November 19, 2012 12:42 PM (A3dIE)

 

We have two chances, slim and none. And Slim is sick.

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at November 19, 2012 08:47 AM (R8hU8)

68 > The National GOP believe that moderation = winning elections. Until that is no longer the case, I'd rather put up with the occasional "own goal" rather than having a long march of moderate weenies.

This.  AllenG, you should start a blog or somethin.

Posted by: Lemmenkainen at November 19, 2012 08:47 AM (ZWvOb)

69 Akin also shouldn't have been a dick and should have quit after he put his foot in his mouth--Steelman and Brunner are both pro-life, too, and either of them would now be wearing the title Senator-elect over the corrupt Claire McCaskill. Posted by: Palandine at November 19, 2012 12:43 PM (g7D8V) You are forgetting that Akin's primary concern was Akin. He didn't give a shit if he won or not. Conceding would force him to admit he was wrong and probably an idiot. Try forcing a true idiot to admit they are one.

Posted by: CAC at November 19, 2012 08:47 AM (PX4rB)

70 IMHO, Primary voters should be the ones asking candidates the strategic questions: How will you make sure the media don't distort your message? How will you answer the inevitable abortion-rape question?

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 19, 2012 08:48 AM (QXlbZ)

71 Good thing this never happens to the Dems. Imagine what would happen if the Dems nominated one of their most left-wing guys to the Senate -- or even the White House. Imagine some candidate who supported, say, partial birth abortion -- which 95% of Americans oppose -- trying to run as a general election candidate. They'd be destroyed! We'd win in a landslide and the Dems would be terrified to ever talk about abortion. It's not like they could sing songs glorifying abortion and dress up as giant vaginas. Voters would obviously rebel against such extreme whack-job politics, right? Right?

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 19, 2012 08:48 AM (ZPrif)

72 This is a cogent and rational main blog post, especially by Internet standards,   but alas it's missing a giant neon screaming elephant in the room.  The real   problem with GOP primary contests is the GOP's primary electorates.  The   GOP often gets saddled with the Akins, Mourdocks, O'Donnells, Angles,   Millers and Paladinos of the world because GOP primary voters   disproportionately consist of uneducated and irrational malcontents.  There's   not really any way to "fix" that.  Irrational is irrational.  Ignorant is ignorant.    Uneducated is uneducated.  Malcontents will be malcontents. Granted, sending   candidates to "politics school" might help at the margins, but   unfortunately it's the equivalent of putting a band aid on a hemorrhage. 

Posted by: Tsar Nicholas II at November 19, 2012 08:48 AM (pmsMR)

73 >  Democrats NEVER let weak candidates get through the primary, and also are able to push dead weight out very quickly.

Oh, there are plenty of weak Dem candidates, but they have the press running a 20 man flying wedge for them, so it doesn't matter.

Posted by: Lemmenkainen at November 19, 2012 08:48 AM (ZWvOb)

74

Also, if you have ZERO experience under your belt, and the only thing on your resume is "activist", you have no business running for office like Senate or Governor.

 

Funny,  I seem to remember that working out  well for a certain SCOAMF.

 

Twice.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at November 19, 2012 08:49 AM (lOmbq)

75 Refresh my memory; in 2008, was it the socons who turned traitor? Or was it moderates like David Frum, Kate Parker, and Chris Buckley?

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 19, 2012 08:49 AM (QXlbZ)

76 getting into them a bit to prevent further Akins, Mourdocks, O'Donnell's, and Angle's.


Which one of these things is not like the others? Angle was up 4 in the polls on election day. She would have won if the NV GOP had helped her GOTV instead of tacitly endorsing Harry Reid.

Posted by: schizoid at November 19, 2012 08:49 AM (0dJZK)

77 The Donks proudly trot out Slappy Maxine, Fauxahontas, Tony the Weener, Alan "Die Already" Grayson, and Slow Joe, yet pay no price for it

When our candidates have to be trained to walk on eggshells, we're already playing prevent defense.

The Republican party isn't playing to win, they're playing not to lose.

But let not your heart be troubled, a little tweek here and there and all will be fine. That's what they tell me

Posted by: kbdabear at November 19, 2012 08:50 AM (wwsoB)

78

If fact, I will never vote for Cornyn again because of his bullshit in that primary.

I have not forgotten, and I never will.

Posted by: Invictus at November 19, 2012 08:50 AM (OQpzc)

79 Akin may be an idiot but Akin is not the problem.  Events have proved that Romney was completely right and truthful about the 47% remark and yet he was pilloried for it by the MBM.  The media is the enemy and the Rethugs will never have a candidate with a hope of winning that is acceptable to the media.  The media will make up whatever they have to demonize whoever they have to.

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 19, 2012 08:50 AM (Hx5uv)

80 >>>oth Mourdock and Akin fucked up AFTER the primaries.. how is a change in strategy going to prevent that??? yes, and a different process might have flushed this out earlier. I have news for you. The August CNN poll on abortion found that something like 83% support abortion for victims of rape, as opposed to 14% who believe it should be outlawed for rape victims as well. You don't have to change your position to take notice of the deep unpopularity of it, and the extreme unlikelihood of it prevailing in any kind of near-to-medium term window (10 to 30 years).

Posted by: ace at November 19, 2012 08:50 AM (LCRYB)

81 As I recall the speculations, Akin was in a tight 3 way primary contest and got a boost from crossover Dems as a political ploy to put the weakest candidate on top.
 
I don't know if that is true. Also, I doubt if it would work if the race wasn't tight. Finally, we have been known to advocate just such a strategy ourselves.
 
How about this? The GOP/RNC/RNCC could hold a 2-3 day workshop for ballot qualified candidates, closed door, to coach the candidates on how to avoid obvious traps. In exchange for attending, each candidate would receive $10k in campaign contributions from the GOP directly.
 
I don't know if that violates any campaign laws though.

Posted by: GnuBreed at November 19, 2012 08:50 AM (ccXZP)

82 GOP needs better carrots and better sticks. Why can't we force guys like Akin out when he fucks up to the point of unelectability? The Dems do this all the time. Somebody fucks up and they are quietly replaced. What carrots and sticks do the Dems use to enforce their will on their fuck-up candidates? I assume it's a combination of govt appointments or jobs with Dem-connected law firms and the like.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 19, 2012 08:50 AM (ZPrif)

83 Whatever. You've become a liberal party and you can lose every time.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at November 19, 2012 08:50 AM (3GtyG)

84 The fuckheads at the GOP managed to lose House seats and then went ahead and re-elected the biggest fucking dickhead crybaby in the world as Speaker. Maybe we should take the GOP leadershit out to the woods and have them disappear? Perhaps it was the way the Crybaby Weeper of the House and the GOP leadershit set out to stab the Tea Party in the back and crush any enthusiasm after 2010 that had something to do with the pathetic showing in 2012 against a fucking dog-eating retard who was rending the Constitution and making a mockery of "governance" right up to election day? Perhaps? (And the pussy who was running at the top of the ticket who couldn't be bothered to point any of this obvious shit out, because he was a pussy)

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at November 19, 2012 08:50 AM (X3lox)

85 Ace for über moderator.  Dressed in a Star Wars costume, to protect his anonymity.

I'd watch that debate, even if it was for some county position in Nebraska.

Posted by: Z as in Jersey at November 19, 2012 08:51 AM (Fvc1x)

86 Cac, that's a lot of ticket-splitting. I don't understand but the past month has made me question my understanding if many many things. 58, it's now going to be up to the NRSC to ask each and every candidate how they feel about legitimate rape. My head hurts.

Posted by: Zippo Bibrox 5x10 at November 19, 2012 08:51 AM (LttFA)

87 If the RNC was smart, they would bring in Palin and ask for her help with the grassroots, and actually listen to her advice, rather than constantly sideline/attack her. Say what you will about her, she understands the GOP electorate and has a great nose for candidates. She wanted Steelman instead of Akin - if Steelman had won the primary, she'd be the Senator-elect now, regardless of her position on abortion. OK, admittedly Palin picked Mourdock, but I don't think anyone could have seen his gaffe coming.

Posted by: Hobo Hunter at November 19, 2012 08:51 AM (grjFJ)

88 The GOP establishment may have enough sage wisdom in it to identify when an up-and-coming Akin is pointing the lightsaber at his face and fiddling with the trigger, but these same fellows also tried to derail Marco Rubio in favor of the far more malleable Charlie Crist. So, there's that. Everybody agrees that stupidity is bad. The trick is in finding the mechanism to stop it. The GOP is, at best, a fox guarding the house full of stuff foxes eat when left unattended.

Posted by: Artemus Khan, Supervillain-Billionaire-Layabout at November 19, 2012 08:51 AM (27tUc)

89 Democrats NEVER let weak candidates get through the primary>>

Never and always rarely are the correct word to use.

Posted by: Alvin Greene at November 19, 2012 08:51 AM (tf9Ne)

90 Didja  see  me  on  SNL?  I  killed!  Axelrod  told  me  it  would  be  good  optics.  Gotta  go  - Springsteen  is  on  the  line  and  I'm  starting  to  weep.

Posted by: Chris Christie at November 19, 2012 08:52 AM (ypzqs)

91 Jim DeMint speaks of "training" candidates to speak in "sanitized soundbites," but I'm not sure if it's just a case of telling people to fudge and maybe lie a little.

It won't matter.  The candidates can say the most sensible things and the Media will spin to the GOP's detriment. 

If a reporter asks a candidate, "How's the weather?" and the candidate says, "Seems pretty nice," the headline will read REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE PRAISES WEATHER WHILE THOUSANDS ARE WITHOUT POWER IN SANDY'S WAKE.

I don't know how to fix this, except maybe to take every liberal member of the Media out and shoot them.  Just kidding.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at November 19, 2012 08:52 AM (P7hip)

92

Akin may have been a poor candidate, but was Tommy Thompson any better?  Both of them defeated 2 tea party type candidates. 

 

We need to

1. CLOSE THE PRIMARIES - Keep the Democrats out. 

2.  CONTROL THE DEBATES -  We need to provide the moderators, not the MFM. 

Posted by: rd at November 19, 2012 08:52 AM (zLp5I)

93 Who doesn't favor abortion in the case of rape-rape?

Posted by: Butters at November 19, 2012 08:52 AM (NIZHJ)

94 there was absolutely no Republican national leadeership in this last election. none. now we have the scramble and i see no one that is taking up the conservative mantle. who? jindal who says we should be nicer? is he kidding? obama did buy votes. can't he read? does he think disguising this fact will make them stop? can he out buy them? doubt it. liberals hate consevatives and we are the ones that have to be nicer. sad fact is, we are nice people. too nice.

Posted by: mikez at November 19, 2012 08:52 AM (vmyXX)

95 How many conservative primary losers ran third party or endorsed the Donk?

How many RINO primary losers did that besides Lisa Murcokesky, Lugar the Dick, and Oompa-Loompa Crist?

Posted by: kbdabear at November 19, 2012 08:52 AM (wwsoB)

96 >>>As I recall the speculations, Akin was in a tight 3 way primary contest and got a boost from crossover Dems as a political ploy to put the weakest candidate on top. There is no speculation about it. McCaskill paid for ads which "criticized" Akin as "the most conservative" candidate in the primaries-- which of course is something that makes him attractive to conservatives in a primary.

Posted by: ace at November 19, 2012 08:53 AM (LCRYB)

97 The dysfunction in the case of Akin was allowing the Democrats to run negative ads against all the credible Rs until Akin rose to the top.  Akin was the chosen Republican of the Democrats...  who then sank him.


Posted by: DANEgerus at November 19, 2012 08:53 AM (e3/KR)

98

Akin won the Missouri primary nomination because McCaskill and her people encouraged Democrats to cross over and vote for Akin, clearly the weakest candidate in the Republican field. It's an old Chicago trick and it works even if it's a closed primary: register as a Republican and vote for the biggest loser in the GOP bunch.

 

What this means is that not a lot of  Republican soul-searching is necessary, although schooling Republican candidates on how to respond to debate questions or questions from the press without damaging the GOP brand or instantly killing their campaigns sounds like a very good idea.

Posted by: troyriser at November 19, 2012 08:53 AM (vtiE6)

99 I should add that I don't think Palin is infallible, but she deserves credit for her successes, particularly in 2010.

Posted by: Hobo Hunter at November 19, 2012 08:54 AM (grjFJ)

100 One problem in our primary contest right now is that there is no
pushback from the middle against the right.

I've been living in Indiana since before the primaries.  There was nothing BUT pushback from the middle-left during the primary.   The squish wing, led by Lugar, threw a 6-month tantrum. How DARE the (closed) primary voters prefer someone who might not say, "Whatever you want, Boss!" when SCOAMF says, "Hey, I need some money."

I'm not sure we'd be any better off with Lugar still seated. Same dirty tricks and shitty attitude from Reid.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at November 19, 2012 08:54 AM (ZKzrr)

101 Support the most right, viable candidate who could win.

Posted by: Zombie William F. Buckley at November 19, 2012 08:54 AM (sZTYJ)

102 Huckabee wanted Akin. That fact alone should have driven Rs over to the rest of the bunch. But the problem is he won with a third of the total R primary vote. He wasn't a majority pick in the first place. So when calls for him to quit arose, he should have instantly, since 2/3rd of his party's voters didn't pick him in the first place. He was already there by dumb luck. He'd go on to lose because he was dumb.

Posted by: CAC at November 19, 2012 08:54 AM (PX4rB)

103 Ah, I get it. We need more squish nominees who don't stand for anything and won't say anything to offend anyone! Yep, that'll fix it! Did the friggin' ORCA software eat the brains of the regular bloggers here?

Posted by: davidinvirginia at November 19, 2012 08:55 AM (8ohP1)

104 >>>OK, admittedly Palin picked Mourdock, but I don't think anyone could have seen his gaffe coming. We would have seen it coming if we just asked him about his position. But we don't, because we assume two things: 1, that this sort of question is "unfair" and a "gotcha" (it's not -- if it's your policy, it's a fair and straightforward question) 2, that "everyone agrees" with this policy, so there's hardly any point in asking about it, because we're all on board with it, so there's no informational value to the question at all.

Posted by: ace at November 19, 2012 08:55 AM (LCRYB)

105 69 Try forcing a true idiot to admit they are one.
Posted by: CAC at November 19, 2012 12:47 PM


See: Biden, Joe pg. 219

Posted by: Dept. of Accuracy Dept. at November 19, 2012 08:55 AM (BAnPT)

106 Why can't we get a Praeger/Hewitt to moderate a debate?

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 19, 2012 08:55 AM (X/+QT)

107 One thing the GOP has to do if they want to at least compete

Fill a warehouse full of donuts. Lock that idiot Huckabee and Bush consigliere Karl Rove in there and don't let them out

Posted by: kbdabear at November 19, 2012 08:55 AM (wwsoB)

108 Frankly, Mourdock had already been elected statewide in Indiana once as state treasurer, so comparing him to a House member "stepping up" to run statewide for the first time is silly.

Richard Mourdock was done in by a couple of things besides the abortion/rape thing.  Dick Lugar was a total bitch after being beaten in the R primary for one.  Secondly, Joe Donnelly did the typical midwestern Dem thing of playing up what a reasonable, moderate, common-sense, Catholic Dem he is and people bought it.

Even though the Church he belongs to has the exact same position on abortion/rape as what Richard Mourdock articulated.  Donnelly basically pulled a Bart Stupak maneuver.  "Oh look what a good Catholic I am but don't ask me any questions about Church doctrine, that's my personal business."

Runoffs are good ideas for primaries but states don't do them because they involve an expense to the state.  Akin would have lost to Steelman in a runoff and this wouldn't have been an issue. 

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at November 19, 2012 08:55 AM (dcoFe)

109 The base of the Republican party didn't go all the way to the right in a vacuum. The government keeps slipping left, even under Republicans.We pick the farthest right candidate because we don't trust moderates.

Posted by: JustLikeDavidHasselhoff at November 19, 2012 08:55 AM (WYTHl)

110 >When he refused to quit, he should have been forced. Those who still defended him should have been hounded and exposed as the idiots they were.

If you have cancer, you zap it before it kills you. You don't feed it.

Posted by: CAC at November 19, 2012 12:37 PM (PX4rB)

I agree that he should have been forced, but how? Does Missouri have some mechanism by which the party can force someone off the ticket once they've won the primary?  I don't recall (having lived there for 32 years) that there is one, but I could be wrong I suppose. But, my understanding is that all the party can do is cajole the candidate and cut off funding, which they did.

I would like to point out though, that Missouri is pretty pro-life overall and that "no abortion, period, ever" type candidates are not necessarily out of the mainstream there.  This is the state that elected John Ashcroft twice as governor and once as Senator.  There are ways to make that argument in an intelligent and reasonable manner but Todd Akin is too goddamned stupid to do it and that's why he got bounced.

Posted by: DanInMN at November 19, 2012 08:56 AM (XqeyF)

111 REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE PRAISES WEATHER WHILE THOUSANDS ARE WITHOUT POWER IN SANDY'S WAKE.

That bastard.

Posted by: Typical Voter at November 19, 2012 08:56 AM (JGfaj)

112 I have news for you. The August CNN poll on abortion found that something like 83% support abortion for victims of rape, as opposed to 14% who believe it should be outlawed for rape victims as well.

You don't have to change your position to take notice of the deep unpopularity of it, and the extreme unlikelihood of it prevailing in any kind of near-to-medium term window (10 to 30 years).

Posted by: ace
.........
It ain't news to me.. I think most GOP pols are fucking dinosaurs when it comes to women's reproductive issues.  We still have GOP Senators and Representatives introducing bills (lots of them!) each year to do things like "define an embryo as a person" from the moment of conception.. and outlawing abortions.. fucking neanderthals.
Think what you want.. act however you want.  express pro-life beliefs.. but stop trying to push this nonsense on a populace that thinks you are fucking crazy.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 19, 2012 08:57 AM (f9c2L)

113 Gosh, I hope this turns into a Palin argument thread.

Posted by: The Mega Independent[/i] at November 19, 2012 08:57 AM (JGfaj)

114 Look, it's easy for there to be changes without some top-down RNC crap.

1.) Closed primaries.

2.) Instant runoff if no one gets over 50%.

3.) State/local party guys need to be the ones cockblocking the Akins.

Done.

Posted by: Lemmenkainen at November 19, 2012 08:58 AM (ZWvOb)

115 and for everyone on the right who freaked out and joined the left's/media's chorus in condemning Akin, what part did you have in the defeat? oh I know, we had to condemn Akin so he wouldn't drag others dow with him what a bunch of shit

Posted by: soothie at November 19, 2012 08:58 AM (rGEm7)

116 >>.Richard Mourdock was done in by a couple of things besides the abortion/rape thing. Dick Lugar was a total bitch after being beaten in the R primary for one. Secondly, Joe Donnelly did the typical midwestern Dem thing of playing up what a reasonable, moderate, common-sense, Catholic Dem he is and people bought it. But was he not narrowly ahead before his rape statement, and after that, narrowly behind?

Posted by: ace at November 19, 2012 08:58 AM (LCRYB)

117 He wasn't a majority pick in the first place. So when calls for him to quit arose, he should have instantly, since 2/3rd of his party's voters didn't pick him in the first place. He was already there by dumb luck.

Here's my question, and I ask it from time to time.

When there are two candidates who are very close on the issues, and very close in the race, why is it that none of them (or virtually none of them) can step back and say, "Look, this is more important than me and my ambitions.  I encourage all my supporters to vote for X, and fully endorse (him/her) for (position)."

If either of Akin's opponents had done that, they likely would have won with over 50% (and, it seems, close to 60%) of the vote.

There were a couple of times when the same kind of thing could have changed the course of the Republican Primary (and I'm not even going to try to prognosticate on how that would have turned out).

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 19, 2012 08:59 AM (8y9MW)

118 1.) Closed primaries. 2.) Instant runoff if no one gets over 50%. 3.) State/local party guys need to be the ones cockblocking the Akins. Done. Posted by: Lemmenkainen at November 19, 2012 12:58 PM (ZWvOb)

Posted by: CAC at November 19, 2012 08:59 AM (PX4rB)

119 It's a point that people should take note of, Donnelly's strategy of pretending to be more centrist and moderate than we know he really is. Why does it work for Democrats? Why can't Republicans do the same?

Posted by: ace at November 19, 2012 08:59 AM (LCRYB)

120 each year to do things like "define an embryo as a person" from the moment of conception.. and outlawing abortions.. fucking neanderthals. Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 19, 2012 12:57 PM (f9c2L) Are you retarded? If someoen believes that life begins at conception then that is their view. And it is not a neanderthal view, you blithering idiot. You might not agree with it but don't imagine your powers of reason are that great if you can't see the clear argument in favor of it for those who take that side. You are the neanderthal you were waiting for.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at November 19, 2012 08:59 AM (X3lox)

121 We pick the farthest right candidate because we don't trust moderates

Yeah, you guys really gotta get over this distrust of moderates thing.

Posted by: Chris Christie[/i] at November 19, 2012 09:00 AM (JGfaj)

122 Okay, first a couple of things about Akin.

1. Yes, McHagskill played some dirty tricks.  She was running ads here during the primary touting Akin as "too conservative for Missouri" when it was all about trying to drag Akin over the finish line in the primaries.

2. Also, Akin was dead last in the polls, but ended up winning the primary.  Why?  Because the polls polled actual Republicans, but due to Missouri's wonderful open primary, Democrats tampered with it and pushed Akin over the line.

3. There was no way to force Akin out of the election against his will.  His name was on the ballot, not the party's.  The party denounced him and dropped its funding, which is all it could do.

4. Even if Akin had dropped out, Steelman and Brunner would not have been eligible, there is a sore loser law in Missouri.  So the choice would have had to have been some unknown person, who probably wouldn't have beaten McCrapskill either.

5. Missouri is not going to be "solid red" for much longer, all of the state-wide offices except 1 are controlled by Democrats, and the 1 that isn't (Lt. Gov.) is kind of a dick.  The Dems are developing a pretty deep bench here.  The 2016 election is probably going to be very tough.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 19, 2012 09:00 AM (d/5qf)

123 Mourdock could have stated his position more artfully; unless you believe children that are born as the result of rape deserve the hatred and scorn of society.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 19, 2012 09:00 AM (QXlbZ)

124 >>> If either of Akin's opponents had done that, they likely would have won with over 50% (and, it seems, close to 60%) of the vote. this was a perfect storm situation with each candidate polling at very nearly 1/3rd. If everyone's polling equally, who gets out?

Posted by: ace at November 19, 2012 09:00 AM (LCRYB)

125 Why can't we get a Praeger/Hewitt to moderate a debate?
Posted by: Tonic Dog

Because that would smack of intelligence and competence. Both which are like garlic and crosses to the GOP leadership.

Posted by: weft cut-pollyana [/i] [/b] at November 19, 2012 09:01 AM (ON54M)

126 And before I get jumped on.. here's how a pro-life candidate should answer:

"I am personally pro-life and I believe abortion is against the will of my God.  But I do not intend to change the law of the land and we have more pressing things to work on in Washington, like getting this economy working again."

Or, answer it as a state's rights issue.

In any case, it is not up to the feds to decide or not what a woman and her doctor decide to do.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 19, 2012 09:01 AM (f9c2L)

127 >>>Mourdock could have stated his position more artfully; unless you believe children that are born as the result of rape deserve the hatred and scorn of society. No matter how artfully you put it 83% of the country is against this position (including one half of the conservative vote).

Posted by: ace at November 19, 2012 09:01 AM (LCRYB)

128 Yeah, you guys really gotta get over this distrust of moderates thing.

----

Dude..... seriously???

Posted by: Allen West,looking at his districts new boundries at November 19, 2012 09:01 AM (nELVU)

129 Perhaps the best way to get involved would be for the party to check on the campaign staff composition of each person making out of the primaries.
Had you looked at Akin you'd have seen nothing but family members.  This is a problem, a huge problem.
They should have sent down a strategist ASAP.  Forced Akin to work with him.  Perhaps then things could have been avoided.

Also I agree with Ace at least on the debates thing. I'm not even sure there was a debate between the 3 honestly, and if there was it certainly wasn't well covered or publicized.  Your primary voters are going to be your base, but they may not be well informed (I half think Akin won the primary on name recognition alone.)
At the very least the national GOP could sponsor a debate, record it and post it (in it's entirety) to freaken YouTube so that it could be passed around the base for people to try to inform themselves.
As it was now, I was going off what I could scrounge up on my own about the candidates (that was "not great stuff" about Steelman, decent things about Brunner, and Akin's congressional work.)
I confessed I thought Akin would have played stronger in Missouri based on his small government (almost trending libertarian in places) mindset, but since the abortion issue hardly ever actually produces a congressional record, the stupidity caught me by surprise.

Although once again in full disclosure I remind you all, I wrote Akin's campaign manager (his son) prior to the primaries, offered to help handle the "medical ethics" questions I knew were going to get thrown at him with a fury.  They never wrote back. (I stated up front I was willing to do it for absolutely nothing.)  People here may disagree with my particular response to the abortion question, but you have to admit it's infinitely better than Akin's.

Posted by: tsrblke (work) at November 19, 2012 09:02 AM (5BEp7)

130 Two things we need to learn: 1. Tact. If you have a position, think before you speak and then state it tactfully. 2. How to shrug. When someone on our side slips up and the media pounces, don't join them you tards, ignore it.

Posted by: soothie at November 19, 2012 09:02 AM (0yntW)

131 No intention to start a Palin argument, but I don't think anyone can deny that the Romney/Ryan campaign left Palin and her fellow-travellers on the table, with little or no attempt to reach out to them. I think the vast majority of them were good soldiers and still voted for R/R, but a lot of their enthusiasm would have been dampened. These are people who are the heart and soul of the Tea Party movement and could have been a tremendous asset in fundraising and GOTV efforts. This schism still exists and needs to be healed, but I won't hold my breath.

Posted by: Hobo Hunter at November 19, 2012 09:02 AM (grjFJ)

132 Even if Akin had dropped out, Steelman and Brunner would not have been eligible, there is a sore loser law in Missouri. IIRC, the sore-loser statute only applied if Akin stayed in the race. If he dropped out voluntarily, either could have run.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 19, 2012 09:02 AM (QXlbZ)

133 You are the neanderthal you were waiting for. Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair
......
No.. it is a neanderthal view to codify it as law!

Have whatever view you like.  But it is not up to the federal government to define when life begins.. religions cannot even agree on that!

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 19, 2012 09:02 AM (f9c2L)

134 I am personally pro-life and I believe abortion is against the will of my God. Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 19, 2012 01:01 PM (f9c2L) "my G-d"? STFU. You are a fucking retard.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at November 19, 2012 09:02 AM (X3lox)

135 It's a point that people should take note of, Donnelly's strategy of pretending to be more centrist and moderate than we know he really is.

Why does it work for Democrats? Why can't Republicans do the same?

________________________________________


Because they're allowed to cross dress to get the Left's agenda passed.  No one in the media much cared that Jim Webb wrote odes to the "Gallantry of Confederate Soldiers" because they knew that if he beat Maccacca he'd vote for things like Obamacare.

Posted by: Alec Leamas at November 19, 2012 09:03 AM (Nfpnr)

136 Let's let the entrenched insiders pick the Republicans who will reach across the aisle, play nice with Donks, and shut out anyone who isn't down with bigger government

When I look at the margin that Romney lost to Obullshit, I'm not thinking "what could have been"

I'm thinking of that Jack Nicholson line;

"What if this is as good as it gets"

Posted by: kbdabear at November 19, 2012 09:03 AM (wwsoB)

137 If everyone's polling equally, who gets out?

That's where checking your ego at the door comes in handy.  The two candidates talk, and decide between them which one exits.  If one already has a good GOTV machine, for instance, or if the other already has good relations with people in DC. 

They talk to each other and make that decision.  But it requires them both checking their ego at the door.

If only one is willing to do so, then he's the one who gets out.

But what you don't do is split the vote over small differences, when you know that's going to throw the election to someone you believe is even worse.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 19, 2012 09:03 AM (8y9MW)

138 Not being grumpy but I thought about changing the GOP from within and then I went to a caucus.  Insiders controlled the key decisions.  Maybe 10% were like-minded people.  But a healthy portion (50%?) of Akin-types (MSM stereotypes live in person).  It was disheartening.

/Libertarian boy meets world.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 19, 2012 09:03 AM (X/+QT)

139 Posted by: meeeghan ( . Y . ) mccain at November 19, 2012 12:38 PM (nkiQM)

I would like to see a porno with you and Lindsey Lohan.

Judging by the quality of the work both of you do, that may be sooner rather than later.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 19, 2012 09:04 AM (GsoHv)

140 Yes, Ace.  But he never should have been "narrowly" ahead in the first place.  Dick Lugar actively undermined him from the moment the primary election was called for Mourdock.

He refused to campaign with him.  He discouraged donors and prominent moderates in Indiana from associating with Mourdock.  Lugar basically did everything possible to make Mourdock's job difficult.

Donnelly smartly played to the suburban moderates around metro Indy who support Lugar and played up what a moderate, sensible guy he would be, just like Dick Lugar.

And when the abortion/rape thing came up nobody, including Mourdock, went after Donnelly to get him to explain why his own position was different from what his Church teaches. 

The happiest person in Indiana other than Joe Donnelly on election night was Dick Lugar.

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at November 19, 2012 09:04 AM (dcoFe)

141 Why are Dems better at fucking with our open primaries than we are with theirs? Why aren't we getting them to nominate Roseanne Barr and the Code Pink lady? We should see a secret Repub crossover surge for every Proud Communist, Strident Atheist and Dancing Vagina Lady in every Dem open primary. But we don't.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 19, 2012 09:04 AM (ZPrif)

142 In any case, it is not up to the feds to decide or not what a woman and her doctor decide to do.

_______________________________

Um, it kind of is now.

Posted by: Alec Leamas at November 19, 2012 09:04 AM (Nfpnr)

143 Probably doesn't matter anyway. After the party endorses immigration reform they will die, and none of this will matter.

Posted by: Invictus at November 19, 2012 09:05 AM (OQpzc)

144 No.. it is a neanderthal view to codify it as law! Huh? Someone has to determine the beginning of life (when citizenship and rights then start) and the end of life. The States handle the end of life determination ... IN LAW, Einstein. They should be handling the beginning of life, too ... IN LAW. Have whatever view you like. But it is not up to the federal government to define when life begins.. religions cannot even agree on that! Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 19, 2012 01:02 PM (f9c2L) Oy. I can't believe you actually wrote that. How embarrassing.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at November 19, 2012 09:05 AM (X3lox)

145

When the RNC decided in the last presidential convention that conservatives would more or less be taken out of  choosing who our  presidential  candidates will be, then I'm not looking  for them to be actually helping us to find congressional candidates that could turn things  around in this nation.

 

We'll be given dem-lite candidates in 2014.  Watch for it.  The RNC is not our friend anymore. 

Posted by: Soona at November 19, 2012 09:05 AM (whJ33)

146 >but you have to admit it's infinitely better than Akin's.

If Todd Akin had said, "I'm not here to talk about abortion, I'm here to focus on the economy and creating jobs for the American people" he would a Senator-elect today.  The people who care that he's pro-life know that he's pro-life and that's good enough.

Posted by: DanInMN at November 19, 2012 09:05 AM (XqeyF)

147 Be very, very careful what you wish for.

Posted by: Filly at November 19, 2012 09:06 AM (3mmkS)

148 Everyone knows that in order to win elections, Republicans have to moderate on the social issues and show they will compromise with Democrats. Just ask Senator Scott Brown.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 19, 2012 09:06 AM (QXlbZ)

149 That is what Cornyn has always done. He always pushes the "moderates" which is just another term for a liberal in denial.


Cornyn can kiss my ass.

Exactly.  Cornyn fucked this process up by pissing on the grassroots and not listening to the concerns of the base, never going for the most conservative candidate that could win, despite what he said  (see Crist, Charlie).  When the base decided they couldn't trust Cornyn's NRSC, they went their own way. 

Overally, Cornyn has done a fucking lousy job as chair of the NRSC, and I hope we can primary his ass this coming cycle.  Texas can do better than him.

Posted by: thirteen28 at November 19, 2012 09:06 AM (AbmsP)

150

I support Ace's view that the candidates just lie to the low information voters like the Dems do. We could get far right candidates to pretend to be centrist. It works for the Dems.

Posted by: JustLikeDavidHasselhoff at November 19, 2012 09:06 AM (WYTHl)

151 Which one of these things is not like the others? Angle was up 4 in the polls on election day. She would have won if the NV GOP had helped her GOTV instead of tacitly endorsing Harry Reid. Posted by: schizoid at November 19, 2012 12:49 PM (0dJZK) Most of the polls were wrong. A few did get it right, most notably Mellman, who was Reid's pollster. Reid knew he was going to win because he got his dream opponent.

Posted by: The Political Hat at November 19, 2012 09:06 AM (sZTYJ)

152 148 Everyone knows that in order to win elections, Republicans have to moderate on the social issues and show they will compromise with Democrats. Just ask Senator Scott Brown.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 19, 2012 01:06 PM (QXlbZ)


 Touche!

Posted by: Hello, it's me Donna let it burn really.really bummed at November 19, 2012 09:06 AM (9+ccr)

153 Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 19, 2012 01:02 PM (f9c2L)

_________________________________________

Waits for Chi-Town Jerry to deliver Illinois for the Republican Presidential candidate  .  .  . 

Posted by: Alec Leamas at November 19, 2012 09:06 AM (Nfpnr)

154 Also, ace, how did Scott Brown do?

He couldn't beat freaking Liawatha Warren.

Before NE Liberal Republicans start lecturing the rest of us on who to run, maybe they need to win several state-wide races in their own States, and send some conservatives (regularly) to the Senate and Congress.

I'm sorry that Akin was a moron.  I'm sorry that Mourdock made one (admittedly monumental) gaff.  But that is no reason to let the National GOP have any say in who runs for Senate in Texas.  F that.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 19, 2012 09:07 AM (8y9MW)

155 Or, answer it as a state's rights issue.

To make abortion a states' rights issue means repealing Roe v. Wade.  Which, to the left and to the public at large, is equivalent to saying that you want to enslave pregnant women.  So not even that libertarian argument is going to work.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 19, 2012 09:07 AM (d/5qf)

156 We need to
1. CLOSE THE PRIMARIES - Keep the Democrats out.
2. CONTROL THE DEBATES - We need to provide the moderators, not the MFM.

**

Debates? pfft.

Posted by: panzernashorn at November 19, 2012 09:07 AM (BAnPT)

157 Probably doesn't matter anyway. After the party endorses immigration reform they will die, and none of this will matter.

Posted by: Invictus at November 19, 2012 01:05 PM (OQpzc) --------

 

 

You are correct sir! Time for that divorce.

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at November 19, 2012 09:07 AM (R8hU8)

158 As an aside, I'm sure there's enough power and leeway in Obamacare for the next GOP administration to totally fuck with abortion (and other procedures).  That should make the socons happy.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 19, 2012 09:07 AM (X/+QT)

159 If this has been covered earlier in the comments, forgive me.. But can anyone explain to me why conservatives continue to allow the liberal media to own and dictate the debate process?

Posted by: sdavis at November 19, 2012 09:07 AM (njVMI)

160 The GOP's entire problem is a failure to advocate gay marriage. If they would just do that, and go further, extending the franchise to human/animal and human/furniture unions as well, they would win big.

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at November 19, 2012 09:08 AM (w41GQ)

161

What the hell does "too conservative to get elected" even mean? I guess maybe it means the same thing is "living constitution". IOW, something so flexible as to render it meaningless.  That's not to say that Jim DeMint would be elected in Massachusetts, but then it's unlikely he would even win the Repub nomination there.

I do agree that Republican primaries should be closed, not open.  Too much opportunity for mischief.  And we need to get voters more involved in the primaries, such that a bad candidate isn't selected solely due to low turnout.  In addition, in a crowded race, such as we had in TX, all states should require that the candidate receive 50% of the primary vote to move to the general.  I think there were 8 candidates in MO and Akin was the benefactor of all the negative advertising between Sarah Steelman and John Brunner.  Dems also ran "too conservative" ads in the primary against Akin, hoping to boost his support.  Well, that all worked, but it's not like Akin was the front-runner.  The same thing happened in Nebrasksa, where Deb Fischer ended up the surprise winner. 

We were lucky in TX, we could have ended up with DewCrist, but fortunately, TX requires a runoff when no candidate gets 50%.  That alone would have kept Akin off the ballot in November.

In the end though, Akin still could have won if he had just kept has mouth shut on the abortion issue.  He could have just said I'm pro-life, and left it at that. Dems can say whatever wacky shit they want and they rarely pay a penalty but Repubs, when they say stupid stuff, it's an exercise in carpet bombing by the media.  The difference is the Dem voters still show up and vote no matter how crappy their candidate but Repubs won't vote en masse for idiots, and it's usually over the social issues.  Again, not saying social issues aren't important, only that you risk alienating a lot more people on the right as the right has a fair pct of pro-choice, unlike the Dems who, as was demonstrated during Obamacare, have a very small pct of pro-lifers.

 

Posted by: Jon in TX at November 19, 2012 09:08 AM (PYAXX)

162 Another part of the problem is that the media plays a continual game of "Make a GOP candidate say something stupid." It's an easy way to get into the national news, and it doesn't matter how obscure the candidate is. Democrats rarely have to worry about this, as their kooks just don't attract the same attention (go figure.)

Posted by: Hal at November 19, 2012 09:08 AM (MftY/)

163 We would have seen it coming if we just asked him about his position. But we don't, because we assume two things: 1, that this sort of question is "unfair" and a "gotcha" (it's not -- if it's your policy, it's a fair and straightforward question) 2, that "everyone agrees" with this policy, so there's hardly any point in asking about it, because we're all on board with it, so there's no informational value to the question at all. Posted by: ace at November 19, 2012 12:55 PM (LCRYB) I'm going to nit pick at this. I truly doubt that Murdock's policy position is that a child that is conceived during a rape is a gift from God. It may be the underlying support for a position that abortion should not be allowed even in cases of rape/incest but it's not a policy position per se. So asking about a candidate's position on a matter won't necessarily get at the problematic statements. Hell, even if you ask directly "why do you oppose that" the response will be along the lines of the situation is a terrible one but the child that is conceived is worthy of protection, despite the circumstances of that conception. I mean, it may be that someone will blurt out something stupid and I'm all for getting the idiocy out there as early as possible, but I'm not sure that even your sensible ideas will protect against that. I'm kind of leery with making large changes based on Akin since I am desperately hopeful that his brand of idiocy is sui generis.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Coming not nearly soon enough. at November 19, 2012 09:08 AM (VtjlW)

164 I tried to get involved at the local level with the Repubs but it turns out my stridently secular libertarian ideas weren't endorsed 100%. A bunch of them were, like, all churchy and shit. So I decided, fuck them. I think I'm more effective ranting in an internet echo-chamber anyway. GOP will never win again unless they are willing to blindly obey a dude who walks in randomly off the street one day and starts telling them why they are such fuck-up losers.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 19, 2012 09:08 AM (ZPrif)

165 Go ahead, Grand OLD Party. Fiddle with the deck chairs.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 19, 2012 09:09 AM (zpqa2)

166

I'm sorry that Akin was a moron. I'm sorry that Mourdock made one (admittedly monumental) gaff. But that is no reason to let the National GOP have any say in who runs for Senate in Texas. F that.

 

---- Damn straight

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at November 19, 2012 09:09 AM (R8hU8)

167 Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 19, 2012 01:03 PM (8y9MW)

Great idea, but it will never happen. Politicians are sociopaths and have no interest in what you suggest.

That's why the weakest candidates must be coerced. But having the national party do it is a recipe for an unmitigated disaster.

I am rarely disappointed by Ace's ideas, but this one is a very, very bad one.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 19, 2012 09:09 AM (GsoHv)

168 @Chemjeff,

I disagree, the Donks working on MO's exective branch are the effect of a few problems 1) Weak Candidates (perpetutal loser Ed Martin anyone?) 2) Dems running at RINOs.  No really, our democrats act like what we would normally consider a RINO, they run remarkably conservative.
Look at Nixon, he touted Balanced state budget and smaller state government.  Will he deliver? Eh, probably not, but MO voters are getting drawn in by the song and dance.
Meanwhile, our state house gets more and more conservative, our R presidential votes go up, and we send a fairly conservative (minus the KC/STL inner city reps) slate to congress every 2 years.

Posted by: tsrblke (work) at November 19, 2012 09:09 AM (5BEp7)

169 138 Not being grumpy but I thought about changing the GOP from within and then I went to a caucus. Insiders controlled the key decisions. Maybe 10% were like-minded people. But a healthy portion (50%?) of Akin-types (MSM stereotypes live in person). It was disheartening.

/Libertarian boy meets world.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 19, 2012 01:03 PM (X/+QT)


Yeah, the caucus isn't exactly an executive committee meeting.  No important decisions are made at that level.  A caucus is just the county/state version of a national convention - only for show.


You have to get involved at the precinct level to get a voice in the real decision-making.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 19, 2012 09:10 AM (d/5qf)

170 164  +1

lol  :-P

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 19, 2012 09:10 AM (X/+QT)

171 When confronted with the subject of "Rape" candidates should say We denounce the liberals support of rapists. period Posted by: Dept. of Accuracy Dept. at November 19, 2012 12:41 PM (BAnPT) Republicans should do what Dems do in this instance, change the subject and attack. any Republican asked about abortions for rape should instantly talk about the infant born alive act and infanticide. Do not even attempt to address the original question. That's what Dems do.

Posted by: elizabethe at November 19, 2012 09:10 AM (ou/rY)

172 well stated CAC one of the worst aspects of Akin ( and related to why we lose the womens vote) is not only did he say something toxic, and had his defenders here and elsewhere, but the fact that many on this site do not have the empathy to understand why Akins comments were so offensive and immediately toxic to his and all republicans campaign. we heard shit like , " it will pass" , "circular firing squad" , " when the voter realize its him or McCaskill.." BTW, although i am generally a lifer, if my daughter is raped, shell get an abortion if I have to do it myself. so if that makes me a baby killer to some extreme mirror image magic uteri wackos , so be it,

Posted by: Avi at November 19, 2012 09:10 AM (40anC)

173 I tried to get involved at the local level with the Repubs but it turns out my stridently secular libertarian ideas weren't endorsed 100%. A bunch of them were, like, all churchy and shit.

So I decided, fuck them. I think I'm more effective ranting in an internet echo-chamber anyway.

GOP will never win again unless they are willing to blindly obey a dude who walks in randomly off the street one day and starts telling them why they are such fuck-up losers.
_____________________________________


I think I've met at least 25 of you in the past four years.

Posted by: Alec Leamas at November 19, 2012 09:10 AM (Nfpnr)

174 Waits for Chi-Town Jerry to deliver Illinois for the Republican Presidential candidate . . .
Posted by: Alec Leamas
.........
Hmmm.. we did elect a fiscally conservative, socially moderate Senator in this very blue state just two years ago.

Anyone who thinks going more conservative and championing the religious right is going to win us elections is a fucking idiot.  The country has changed.. try to keep up.  Wishing it was 1955 ain't gonna cut it.  Pining for the days of Ronnie Reagan ain't gonna work either.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 19, 2012 09:11 AM (f9c2L)

175 I have news for you. The August CNN poll on abortion found that something like 83% support abortion for victims of rape, as opposed to 14% who believe it should be outlawed for rape victims as well. You don't have to change your position to take notice of the deep unpopularity of it, and the extreme unlikelihood of it prevailing in any kind of near-to-medium term window (10 to 30 years). Posted by: ace That's why there should be zero tolerance for any aspiring Republican to be espousing that position. If anything, the pro-life community SHOULD be smart enough to understand how that undermines a more mainstream, pro-life position and cut these people off at the knees, but they don't because many of them agree with it. If those people get bent out of shape over this, fine, there's the door. I guess they were never really conservatives to begin with if that's the only thing keeping them on the reservation.

Posted by: McAdams at November 19, 2012 09:11 AM (7MC2X)

176 You have to get involved at the precinct level to get a voice in the real decision-making. Posted by: chemjeff at November 19, 2012 01:10 PM (d/5qf) This. And there is woeful underrepresentation at the precinct level iirc. So you showing up can actually make a big difference.

Posted by: elizabethe at November 19, 2012 09:11 AM (ou/rY)

177 My vagina is a higher moral authority

Posted by: Lib Female at November 19, 2012 09:11 AM (vYB+W)

178 I want to know why the Gop Senate candidates lost in other states that Romney won, such as Montana and North Dakota. I don't recall any icky socon comments from them, and we'd know about it if they did, alright. Posted by: Zippo Bibrox 5x10 at November 19, 2012 12:43 PM (Ue72k) The GOP Senate candidates got hit everywhere. There was only one state that elected a Republican despite Obama winning the state: Nevada. Dean Heller won for these reasons: 1st. He had been elected thrice before as Nev. Sec. of State 2nd. He defined his opponent early and often to the point where his opponent spent her time responding to Heller's attacks, thus preventing her from defining Heller. 3rd. Heller put together a statewide coalition against his opponent. He kept her margins small in liberal Clark County, and used the rest of the state's hatred for urban/liberal Democrats from the Vegas area to gain the win on election night. 4th. Heller did NOT talk about how rape babies are God's plan or about magic uteri.

Posted by: The Political Hat at November 19, 2012 09:12 AM (sZTYJ)

179 I'm not sure we'd be any better off with Lugar still seated. Same dirty tricks and shitty attitude from Reid.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at November 19, 2012 12:54 PM (ZKzrr)

Also

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at November 19, 2012 12:55 PM (dcoFe)

 

I knew Mourdock was a comparative long shot when I voted for him in both the primary and the general election. I also knew Dick Lugar was a sure thing, a safe seat.

 

I'd do it again even knowing the outcome. Dick Lugar no longer represented Indiana. He was (and is) a creature of the Beltway, his the Republican name always invoked when Democrats wanted to shore up their bipartisan credibility. Besides, Lugar's lived year-around in Virginia for what? 25 years? Let Virginia have him.

Posted by: troyriser at November 19, 2012 09:12 AM (vtiE6)

180 Posted by: Wm T Sherman at November 19, 2012 01:08 PM (w41GQ)

And I will finally be able to come out of the closet!

We have a divan that's just so sweet and kind and beautiful and sexy......

Posted by: Wood gives me wood at November 19, 2012 09:12 AM (GsoHv)

181
1, that this sort of question is "unfair" and a "gotcha" (it's not -- if it's your policy, it's a fair and straightforward question)

2, that "everyone agrees" with this policy, so there's hardly any point in asking about it, because we're all on board with it, so there's no informational value to the question at all.

Ace, it's an entirely foreseen question too. That's what's strange.  There's a 100% chance it will get asked.  Heck 200% chance (they'll ask it twice.)  Yet Akin (and others) act like it comes as a surprise.  Hell, you should have a focus-group tested response to this, so well rehearsed it seems totally off the cuff (while not being so.)  Yet most republicans don't.  Why?  (It was as obvious a question as "what will you do to get the economy moving again.)

Posted by: tsrblke (work) at November 19, 2012 09:12 AM (5BEp7)

182 I tried to get involved at the local level with the Repubs but it turns out my stridently secular libertarian ideas weren't endorsed 100%. A bunch of them were, like, all churchy and shit.

Well, yeah, there are a lot of religious conservatives in the Republican Party as well.  Shocking, I know!  What were you expecting, that you'd show up and they would agree with you 100%?  You have to take a long view.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 19, 2012 09:13 AM (d/5qf)

183 154 Also, ace, how did Scott Brown do? He couldn't beat freaking Liawatha Warren. he' s the only senate candidate to have outpolled Romney not even Cruz did that. and if SPOS Akin ran in Mass hed have gotten 9%

Posted by: Avi at November 19, 2012 09:13 AM (40anC)

184 To make abortion a states' rights issue means repealing Roe v. Wade. Which, to the left and to the public at large, is equivalent to saying that you want to enslave pregnant women. So not even that libertarian argument is going to work.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 19, 2012 01:07 PM (d/5qf)


There was a Gallup poll posted here a few months ago showing something like 70% favoring at least some restrictions on abortion. That would make overturning Roe v. Wade a slam dunk if it weren't for idiots like Akin scaring the crap out of people.

Posted by: schizoid at November 19, 2012 09:13 AM (0dJZK)

185

#1--- Close our primareies where we can!!!

The dems have been voting in our primaries for a decade or three

#2--- Make these candidates understand the media is thier enemy and will say anything they can to trip them up.

Posted by: Hard Right at November 19, 2012 09:14 AM (uhftQ)

186 Hmmm.. we did elect a fiscally conservative, socially moderate Senator in this very blue state just two years ago.

Anyone who thinks going more conservative and championing the religious right is going to win us elections is a fucking idiot. The country has changed.. try to keep up. Wishing it was 1955 ain't gonna cut it. Pining for the days of Ronnie Reagan ain't gonna work either.

_______________________________


Well then, I thank you for your efforts on behalf of the GOP, which we all know experienced limited success confined only to Illinois in 2006.

Posted by: Alec Leamas at November 19, 2012 09:14 AM (Nfpnr)

187 Sorry, Ace, but you lose me at "simply too conservative to get elected." I don't even know what that means. How exactly do you define "too conservative to get elected"?

Posted by: YFS at November 19, 2012 09:14 AM (zTBag)

188 No. Step 1) our national platform must be federalism. National GOP involvement in a state primary is a violation of that principal. Step 2) Missouri is an open primary state. Akin won bc Axelrod funneled cash to him, and Dem voters voted for him to help Air Claire Step 3). Your debate idea is good. This shit isn't complicated. Which is why, more and more I am forced to conclude that the Beltway Boy Lovers are acting with malice.

Posted by: Hopeless at November 19, 2012 09:15 AM (3ryAQ)

189

Posted by: tsrblke (work) at November 19, 2012 01:09 PM (5BEp7)


The problem is that no matter how conservative they pretend to be (or even actually are), these are the people who are going to be running in the US Senate primary in 2016 and vote for Dingy Harry as Senate Majority Leader.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 19, 2012 09:15 AM (d/5qf)

190 Hostess' brands appear to be getting bought out soon. Word is that the Mexican baked goods company Bimbo will buy them. Ho-Ho and Ding Dong jokes all around if that happens.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at November 19, 2012 09:15 AM (e0xKF)

191 We have to stop nominating folks who give us a very bad image. These are the Akins, Mourdocks, etc. But anyone who is anti-science, or wishes to impose their own particular religious ideology, or start bashing on segments of the population because they are "immoral" in their world view ... these folks need not apply. I will donate no money, and support no candidate that espouses, or does not immediately repudiate, statements like that. In the past, when faced with a GOP candidate who thought evolution was hogwash, or a failed democratic candidate whom was a waste of space, I had to make a very hard choice between two evils. In those cases, I had to weigh the damage each candidate was likely to do to our region. And in the end, I voted *AGAINST* the GOP candidate whom pushed things that I felt to be more dangerous to us than the grossly incompetent nincompoop whom wound up with a second term as our governor. Don't ever nominate, or put forward, someone who will not at least, at bare minimum, mouth words that make sense to educated (not liberal, but think, I dunno, Ph.D and Masters level scientists and engineers) people. Never nominate someone we cannot get behind. So if they are hawking some creationist bullshit du jour, out they go. No money/time/effort, and I will actively work AGAINST them getting the nod or the job. And if that means that socons need to STFU about their oddball beliefs, so be it. We are in a country which is largely tolerant of others, even with different lifestyles. We should not EVER under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES ... EVER ... be bashing on one group because their existence somehow insults our "moral fibre". If you believe this, you are no better than the 7th century warriors trying to pull the rest of us down their particular shithole. We are in a country which is made up of immigrants, many legal, some not so. Think about the risk these illegals are taking, for economic betterment. If there ever was a group more likely to agree with small government, fiscally conservative, lower taxes ... I don't know of them. So lets, I dunno, STOP DOING OUR BEST TO PISS THEM THE FUCK OFF?? Please? Lets, I dunno, help SOLVE SOME OF THEIR ISSUES, win their hearts, minds, and votes? And if you can't bring yourself to do this, ask yourself if your relatives, whom may or may not have had documentation upon arriving here ... would they have been welcomed? What makes this country great is, in part PRECISELY because people struggled mightly and wanted a better life for them and their family. This is to be encouraged, applauded. They are taking risks, which if they are successful, will be rewarded. Yes, this violates some of our laws. Which are horribly broken and need fixing and massive simplification, just like our tax system. Imagine the revenue impact to the US if we could add these undocumented workers to the tax system. Have them pay taxes like the rest of us do. Really folks, this isn't rocket science. No more nutjobs. No more Akins, Mourdocks, Angles. No more witches. No more creationists. No more young earthers. No more antievolutionists. Climate change is happening, but the only real controversy is whether or not we are causing it. Denying it isn't happening (we've got a 4Gy record of it changing) means you are unqualified for higher office. cAGW is the controversy. And the record is working against the alarmists (aka the "warmists" ... like Michael Mann and his infamous and fully debunked hockey stick). Don't make it harder by pulling crap like "young earth" or other pablum to deny reality. Seriously, anyone doing that is completely unqualified for office. Call this a basic intelligence test. If you fail, go away. I was horrified by the run to the right during the primaries. This whole process is broken, not merely the interminable debates. But the underlying process of "more conservative than thou". And it gives the enemy far too much ammunition, as untruths are used later on to bash the eventual last candidate standing. Our campaigns should be positive, battles of ideas and focus. They should NOT be a "I am more conservative than you" contest. Ever. I want small government fiscal conservative Jacksonians running. These people will NEVER talk about gay marriage, or socon issues. You won't ever hear about evolution. You wont ever hear about other things that a real small government fiscal conservative Jacksonians WOULD NEVER FUCKING SAY. So if you can't be a small government fiscal conservative Jacksonians, then dont run. I am sick of losing, not because we run a bad campaign, but because some dipshit lets loose the looney tunes of their ideology, in public, to a media that eats it up.

Posted by: joe in michigan at November 19, 2012 09:15 AM (3R8wQ)

192 Democrats rarely have to worry about this, as their kooks just don't attract the same attention (go figure.)

-------

57 States.
Guam tips overs.
I dodged sniper fire in Kosovo.
I invented the internet.... and Love Story was based on my wife and I.
You have to pass the bill to find out what's in the bill.
I was named after the first man to climb Everest..... years before he actually did it.
The call to prayer is the sweetest sound on Earth.
Roosevelts fire side chats on TV.

You average low info voter has NEVER heard of any of these.....

Posted by: Allen West,looking at his districts new boundries at November 19, 2012 09:15 AM (nELVU)

193 >>>I'm going to nit pick at this. I truly doubt that Murdock's policy position is that a child that is conceived during a rape is a gift from God. It may be the underlying support for a position that abortion should not be allowed even in cases of rape/incest but it's not a policy position per se. I don't know what you're claiming. Are you claiming the policy of no abortion/no exception for rape is not a "policy" at all, but just some kind of gesture? It is a policy. He's talking about the law he'd vote for if he had his druthers. If it's not a policy than he can say he *personally* believes that children of rape should be protected but that his *policy* is to allow that decision to the victim, the unwilling mother. If he's saying he'd make it a law -- which is what he was saying -- then it's a policy. It may be an unlikely policy to ever come to fruition, but it is still his policy. And it's fair to talk about that. And it's fair for voters to ask if that's their own policy. It's also fair to ask candidates why they are advancing extremely unpopular positions if the defense is always "Well there's no way that would actually *HAPPEN,* you know." If there's no way it would actually happen then why are you talking about it as is if it is your policy?

Posted by: ace at November 19, 2012 09:15 AM (LCRYB)

194 >>>The GOP is trying to figure out some kind of half-step way to keep out of these things

Wouldn't it be nice if our party was as committed to our political agenda as the Democrat party is to the socialists. Then we wouldn't have to fight our party to get a candidate that represents our agenda and have to settle between candidates who are quasi big govt supporters, and incompetent rubes who can't get through an election without trying to consume their own feet.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at November 19, 2012 09:16 AM (0q2P7)

195 If the only difference between the Donks and the GOP is "what is the best rate to grow the government", then what is really the point?

Posted by: kbdabear at November 19, 2012 09:16 AM (wwsoB)

196 NRSC:

Big bucks with bigger connections, strictly for incumbent re-elections.

149. thirteen28

The Texas Republican Party is no different/better than the RNC.

As for replacing Hutchison, we'll have to see what Cruz does now from Washington. He knows how to argue for the Constitution. If Cruz can tow the line, when Cornyn finally retires, perhaps Texas can choose another new senator to work in coalition for more limited governance, particularly less federal aggressions.

But as for replacing Cornyn so long as he's running for re-election, I saw the futility within the Texas Republican Party in facing down our Congressman's re-election '12.

Posted by: panzernashorn at November 19, 2012 09:16 AM (BAnPT)

197
If those people get bent out of shape over this, fine, there's the door. I guess they were never really conservatives to begin with if that's the only thing keeping them on the reservation.

And you can have fun taking it up the ass from the left just like the religious right if that happens.  Good luck winning *any* elections without 'em.  Of course, you're too stupid to understand this.  *You* need the socons, so get pandering.

Posted by: GMan at November 19, 2012 09:16 AM (sxq57)

198 any Republican asked about abortions for rape should instantly talk about the infant born alive act and infanticide. Do not even attempt to address the original question. That's what Dems do.

Posted by: elizabethe at November 19, 2012 01:10 PM (ou/rY)

Screw that shit.  Go after the crappy rape reporting mechanism and victim assistance in this country.  The reason why many rapes aren't reported. (and part of the reason we even have this question to ask.)

Nutjobs can twist even your born alive act claims into something horrific.  Who's going to be opposed to a better response to raped women?  Only an asshole whose about to get trounced, that's who. (If you tried to turn such a response into an attack, you'd be smothered in "Candidate X is opposed to helping rape victims" ads."

Posted by: tsrblke (work) at November 19, 2012 09:16 AM (5BEp7)

199 Yet Akin (and others) act like it comes as a surprise. Hell, you should have a focus-group tested response to this, so well rehearsed it seems totally off the cuff (while not being so.) Yet most republicans don't. Why? (It was as obvious a question as "what will you do to get the economy moving again.) Posted by: tsrblke (work) at November 19, 2012 01:12 PM (5BEp7) This. Hell, that came up instantly when the Akin fiasco happened. The Horde banged together roughly 20 different acceptable answers in about three minutes. Do that, drill drill drill until that's what you automatically answer when asked. This is not rocket surgery people. Okay, whining time. Can we please come to some consensus as to what constitutes the Religious Right and/or SoCons? I think a great deal of the shrieking at each other over these topics comes from using very different definitions and then people getting upset because they are being accused of whatever when that's not what the other person means. If we're going to circular fire squad, can we at least aim better?

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Coming not nearly soon enough. at November 19, 2012 09:17 AM (VtjlW)

200 Sorry if someone's mentioned this already, but how about we start with CLOSED PRIMARIES?!?!?! In Missouri, it is well known that Democrats voted for Akin in the open primary, because they saw him as the weakest opponent for McCaskill. This has to stop. How dumb are we that we let our opponents pick who they want to run against?

Posted by: parteagirl at November 19, 2012 09:17 AM (AWvHa)

201 GOP should only campaign on 1) Rape-babies! 2) Vaginas are Scary! 3) Tax cuts for billionaires! 4) Gays do it in the pooper! (Seriously, the actual poophole -- where poop comes from!) 5) Invading Mexicans!

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 19, 2012 09:17 AM (ZPrif)

202 "...and I don't want them always championing the more-moderate candidate on the theory that more-moderate candidates are more electable"

Problem is, that's exactly what they're likely to do. It's not called The Stupid Party for nothing, ya know.

Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at November 19, 2012 09:17 AM (vd7A8)

203 Akin was and remains a fool, the poster fool for the wider confederacy of fools that included the contemptible Mike Huckabee (who reportedly urged him to stay in the race despite having completely destroyed his campaign). That really worked out well for Akin, and the republican hopes of getting the senate so they could hold Oblamer to account and derail Obamacare even if Romney lost... Its all the more pathetic that Akin only won the nomination because McAskell (?) aligned groups backed him, plainly seeking to engineer the weakest nominee to give the detested senator a fighting chance. That they were doing that should have been a bright flashing red light to the base that shows up in the nomination, but no, they fell for it hook line and sinker. You could see it plain as day and in real time, but, no, not those dopes...'cause Akin's all biblical and stuff. It really is the stupid party, showing up with a damp rag for the 4-year fight against the corrupt-evil party who's packing an M-16 and has made sure its in bed with the ref (the DMM) just in case ...

Posted by: fark, farkety, fark fark fark at November 19, 2012 09:17 AM (bT79U)

204 There was a Gallup poll posted here a few months ago showing something like 70% favoring at least some restrictions on abortion. That would make overturning Roe v. Wade a slam dunk if it weren't for idiots like Akin scaring the crap out of people.

Posted by: schizoid at November 19, 2012 01:13 PM (0dJZK)


That doesn't matter - people have the impression, created by the Dems and the media, that the only thing keeping their abortions legal is Roe v. Wade.  And Roe v. Wade does include restrictions on abortion, just in this stupid trimester scheme.  Among the general public, it is not possible to be in favor of abortion and also in favor of repealing Roe v. Wade.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 19, 2012 09:17 AM (d/5qf)

205 Akin would not have won in SC even though it is open.  If no candidate gets 50% a run-off is required and he would have lost.

Posted by: Vic at November 19, 2012 09:17 AM (YdQQY)

206 Akin should have been expelled from the party. there has to be zero tolerance for such assholes

Posted by: Avi at November 19, 2012 09:17 AM (40anC)

207 and if SPOS Akin ran in Mass hed have gotten 9%

Probably.  But what would Cruz have gotten?  Or someone like him.

The only (real) answer to that is: "we'll never know."  And we'll never know because someone like Cruz is unlikely (at best) to run in Massachusetts.  My point, though, is this:  The areas of the country that are reliably Red run a certain way.  The local GOP has figured out how to win elections here.

If the National GOP had its way, Texas would have run David Dewhurst.  If you wanted to see someone underperform Romney, that would have been the way to do it.  If the National GOP had it's way, Charlie Christ would have been the nominee in FL, not Rubio.

We can deliver GOP Candidates who win our states.  Until the NE starts doing the same, you'll excuse me if I don't take their advice.

I already admitted that Akin was an idiot.  Can you explain to me why Scott Brown lost against Liawatha?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 19, 2012 09:17 AM (8y9MW)

208 119 It's a point that people should take note of, Donnelly's strategy of pretending to be more centrist and moderate than we know he really is.

Why does it work for Democrats? Why can't Republicans do the same?

Posted by: ace at November 19, 2012 12:59 PM (LCRYB)

 

The difference between the media laying down covering fire for you vs. attacking you.  They will actively help a Democrat pretend to be more moderate than he actually is.  When Harry Reid became the Minority Leader in the Senate for the first time they played up that he was a moderate Dem and I'm pretty sure they attempted calling him pro-life as well.   So they actively sought in getting the public to see him as a non-liberal.  And as they do this they seek to claim that the squishiest liberal Republican as the equivalent of David Duke.

Posted by: buzzion at November 19, 2012 09:18 AM (GULKT)

209

As long as the left owns the MFM, entertainment, education, and the electoral process  they'll  own DC.  Get used to it.

 

Unless a few states break away for a more constitutional union, the United States of American  as history has known it,  is dead. 

Posted by: Soona at November 19, 2012 09:18 AM (whJ33)

210 CBS has McRino fellating Bill Clinton to negotiate with the Fakestinians.

Posted by: Butters at November 19, 2012 09:18 AM (NIZHJ)

211 A genius move of Cornyn's sure to cement the GOP's reputation as the party of the rich and powerful. That should kill off the GOP within a few election cycles and bring about a new and vital Tea Party.

Posted by: major major major major at November 19, 2012 09:18 AM (utCAk)

212 Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Coming not nearly soon enough. at November 19, 2012 01:08 PM (VtjlW)

You are probably correct, and that's why we need a boot camp for aspiring senate and representative candidates.

teach them what not to say, and then make them wear shock collars during all public appearances.

I volunteer to hold the button.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 19, 2012 09:18 AM (GsoHv)

213 And that is what the RNC should be doing.  Instead of interfering with primaries they should change the damn  MO law to require a run-off if nobody gets 50%

Posted by: Vic at November 19, 2012 09:18 AM (YdQQY)

214 When you're on a Mission From God, nothing will stop you.  If a large part of your constituency believes that the Bible is true, that the world is less than 10,000 years old, etc., etc., what are you going to do?  You're going to lose more female votes than you'll gain anywhere else.  You'll also turn off people who, while otherwise receptive to conservative issues, are appalled (or repelled) by such people holding power.  I don't believe all this Globull Warming nonsense spouted by the Left, but my reason involves science, not some concept that "God Controls All" or something like that.  THAT attitude is what really turns off a large part of the electorate.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 19, 2012 09:19 AM (dZ756)

215 >>>Sorry, Ace, but you lose me at "simply too conservative to get elected." I don't even know what that means. How exactly do you define "too conservative to get elected"? Two republicans who were leading in red states that went easily for Romney suddenly lost when they said they favored a policy of no abortion even in cases of violent knife-at-the-throat rape by some extra-chromosonal low-intellect genetic-lottery-loser rapist. That's what I mean. You know what it means, you just don't like it. If you want to pretend that this is anything but a disastrous position, that's fine, but I won't join in on the pretense.

Posted by: ace at November 19, 2012 09:19 AM (LCRYB)

216 What some more libertarian parts of the Republican party never seem to wrap their heads around is the fact that the pro-life people aren't being pro-life to win elections.  They are pro-life because they don't want to go to hell.

The winning elections thing is far, far secondary for them.

Rather than beating up on our own voters perhaps maybe we should be more aggressive in challenging the extreme social agenda on the other side with at least the same vigor with which we attack our own?

Maybe, perhaps? 

I'd just once like to see a Democrat who claims to be Roman Catholic yet supports gay marriage and abortion grilled relentlessly on his faith and why he doesn't adhere to it.  You know, instead of beating up on our people who actually do follow their beliefs faithfully.

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at November 19, 2012 09:19 AM (dcoFe)

217 I think next election will be worse, conservatives who did crawl over broken glass to vote for Romney, and who are now being told they're the problem, what is there incentive to vote for another moderate next time around? I think we may end up with a third party.

Posted by: Stop feeding the trolls at November 19, 2012 09:19 AM (pwTow)

218 They f*cking infiltrate and corrupt every institution they can dream up, and we sit around kvetching about the primary process.

Posted by: The Mega Independent[/i] at November 19, 2012 09:19 AM (JGfaj)

219 I'm sorry, but if it wasn't for the Republican Establishment, we'd have Senator Joe Miller instead of Lissa Murcowsky. Don't forget that.

Posted by: NJRob at November 19, 2012 09:19 AM (FVp26)

220 Akin or his retard comments were not the problem.  Akin would have won his Senate seat with 60% of the vote, if conservatives who don't sympathize with social conservativism just rolled over and played ball.  Akin could have said he ate the bodies of aborted children to protest abortion and still won, if we weren't such self-defeating ninnys.  The things said and done by candidates don't matter at all.  We need more Akins, not less, to prove this point. Erm, if more lose, then just need even more Todd Akins and Dick Mourdocks to prove that theoretically these are the facts.  We will have the strongest, purest block of 25 Republican senators this nation has ever seen.  That'll show them.

Posted by: Schnack at November 19, 2012 09:19 AM (79hDj)

221 the "which GOP politician farted and how can we ignore it" strategy has never worked for us. I would suggest that every GOP politician farted once in their lifetime and we get over it and start attacking the democrats for their various failures... like why did Romney go soft on immigration when that's a winner...enforcement not cooption...when he could point out Obama's love affair with separatist group LaRaza, for example. We're fucked because, apparently, no democrat ever, makes any mistakes or gaffes.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 19, 2012 09:19 AM (QxSug)

222 Baracka Claus is comin' to town Baracka Claus is comin' to town You better not work You better not try Get your hand out I'm telling you why Baracka Claus is comin' to town Baracka Claus is comin' to town Baracka Claus is comin' to town If you're a success I'm taxin' you twice Gonna reverse who's naughty and nice Hey! Baracka Claus is comin' to town Baracka Claus is comin' to town Baracka Claus is comin' to town I'll pay you just for sleeping Don't work, stay home and play You will care if you're bad or good 'Cause if you're bad you get more cake So, Republicans watch out I'm lookin' real fly Media shouts 'We elected our guy' Hey! Baracka Claus is comin' to town Baracka Claus is comin' to town Baracka Claus is comin' to town The market's goin' down Why do you have a frown?

Posted by: Choomy at November 19, 2012 09:20 AM (Kflw4)

223 Sock fail

Posted by: Spypeach at November 19, 2012 09:20 AM (pwTow)

224 "THAT attitude is what really turns off a large part of the electorate."

Posted by: SFGoth at November 19, 2012 01:19 PM (dZ756)

 Your Bay Area superiority is showing.

 

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 19, 2012 09:20 AM (GsoHv)

225 make the socons happy.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 19, 2012 01:07 PM (X/+QT)

 

I'm still waiting for the fiscons to not raise the debt ceiling.

Posted by: Invictus at November 19, 2012 09:20 AM (OQpzc)

226

Posted by: joe in michigan at November 19, 2012 01:15 PM (3R8wQ)


Please, joe, tell us about which Republican candidate this year who was bashing gays.  Please, inform us.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 19, 2012 09:20 AM (d/5qf)

227 I support Ace's view that the candidates just lie to the low information voters like the Dems do. We could get far right candidates to pretend to be centrist. It works for the Dems. Posted by: JustLikeDavidHasselhoff at November 19, 2012 01:06 PM (WYTHl) I was saying this the other day. This works for Dems because Democrats accept that their candidates have to pretend to be centrists and trust that they will not in fact be centrists when it comes to voting. Republicans cannot or will not or have been burned to much by RINO's to do this. So conservatives have a very hard line to walk -- they have to say things that will convince their constituency (whether is's socons, or fiscal cons, or immigration cons or whatever) that they will vote the proper way, but still not say anything that will scare the squish voters who might find those kinds of statements icky and offputting.

Posted by: elizabethe at November 19, 2012 09:21 AM (ou/rY)

228 Mourdock really shouldnt be lumped in with the rest...he had won statewide before.  He said a dumb thing (that his opponent agreed with) at the wrong time.  Shouldn't have said it, but poorly worded answer is different than the amateur stuff  of Angle/O'Donnell

Posted by: Google it first people at November 19, 2012 09:21 AM (RZIb+)

229 It's a point that people should take note of, Donnelly's strategy of pretending to be more centrist and moderate than we know he really is. Why does it work for Democrats? Why can't Republicans do the same? Posted by: ace at November 19, 2012 12:59 PM (LCRYB) Because it's an asymmetric fight. A center-left politician can pay lip service to the center-right and get a pass because the left operates like an insurgency. They understand to advance against powerful traditional inclinations requires not spooking the locals until the time is right to strike. It's precisely why Obama got a pass from the left being against gay marriage for 16 years, and then suddenly coming forward. They don't care if their people have to go deep undercover, because their fealty to the Cause is known. The GOP doesn't have it like that. A conservative who embraces profligate spending, high taxes, the safety hammock, etc, isn't a sabotuer behind the wire, waiting to blow a strategic bridge. He's become part of the problem. Worse, he's given legitimacy to the other side. So, the answer is that we're not playing the same game by the same rules, like two sides at chess. More like Starcraft. We have different forces working with different strengths and weaknesses, and we can't mirror the tactics of the other side. We have to assess what we have and don't have and work off of that. Pretending moderation isn't nearly as effective for the right as simply articulating conservatism without sounding like a loon.

Posted by: Artemus Khan, Supervillain-Billionaire-Layabout at November 19, 2012 09:21 AM (27tUc)

230 @220, and yet he lost. I don't know how a conservative could not vote for him so I assume that there was a lot of independents that didn't vote for him. Whatever Akin said, it's more laughable the attempted construction put upon him by the left. Oh, "he meant rape is legitimate..." what? make fun of the left, attack! attack!

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 19, 2012 09:21 AM (QxSug)

231 As an angry libertarian internet ranter I want to make it clear to the GOP that I will never volunteer an hour or contribute a dime if the GOP keeps nominating these neanderthal fucktard Jesus-freaks. Ok, technically I will *continue* to not volunteer an hour or contribute a dime but I was seriously considering it this time before I heard about that Akins dumbshit. If anything I'm gonna not donate time or money even more angrily in the past. And say mean things about the Repubs on the internet. I mean more than I usually say, and with more fucking curse words, motherfuckers!

Posted by: LibertarianPrick at November 19, 2012 09:21 AM (ZPrif)

232 >> To make abortion a states' rights issue means repealing Roe v. Wade. Which, to the left and to the public at large, is equivalent to saying that you want to enslave pregnant women. So not even that libertarian argument is going to work.
 
chemjeff,
 
You just described Romney's position to a 'T' as shown on his campaign website. Repeal Roe vs. Wade and return the issue to the states.
 
The results were less than satisfying.

Posted by: GnuBreed at November 19, 2012 09:21 AM (ccXZP)

233 I think next election will be worse, conservatives who did crawl over broken glass to vote for Romney, and who are now being told they're the problem, what is there incentive to vote for another moderate next time around?

This.

Posted by: GMan at November 19, 2012 09:22 AM (sxq57)

234 All candidates should be required to wear a top hat, tails, spats, cane, and a monacle. Handlebar moustache optional.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 19, 2012 09:22 AM (zpqa2)

235 I want small government fiscal conservative Jacksonians running. These people will NEVER talk about gay marriage, or socon issues. You won't ever hear about evolution. You wont ever hear about other things that a real small government fiscal conservative Jacksonians WOULD NEVER FUCKING SAY. So if you can't be a small government fiscal conservative Jacksonians, then dont run.


Posted by: joe in michigan at November 19, 2012 01:15 PM

I want that too joe. How many of us are there that we can switch from hip and too cool Dems and stay at homes to get out to those voting booths to replace the socons who'll be told to pound sand?

The socons used to be called Reagan Democrats. If they're told they're not welcome in the GOP, they'll soon be called Democrats. These are not high income people who'll be juiced to vote for tax cuts for Wall Street

Posted by: kbdabear at November 19, 2012 09:22 AM (wwsoB)

236 After Akin, how was it possible that MoreDick could not have been prepared for a rape question? I mean seriously, to not be ready is an indictment on his intelligence

Posted by: Avi at November 19, 2012 09:22 AM (40anC)

237

It's funny when the libertarian branch proposes throwing social cons out of the Republican party. It would be like my hand trying to throw my torso and one leg out of my body.

Posted by: JustLikeDavidHasselhoff at November 19, 2012 09:22 AM (WYTHl)

238 Well then, I thank you for your efforts on behalf of the GOP, which we all know experienced limited success confined only to Illinois in 2006.
Posted by: Alec Leamas
..........
We did real well this year though by running to the right?

joe is right up there.  young earth?  evolution is just a theory?

I tell ya what.. anyone who really believes in the literal translation of Genesis can go get their own party.  We don't want them in the Republican party because they are delusional nut jobs.  I'm sick of catering to dopes and pretending their opinion matters.

The religious right can go pound sand.  They are dead to me.  You cannot count on them anyway.

You voters simply laugh at us.  They are hurting bad in this economy, and still they wouldn't be caught dead voting for numbskulls in the GOP.  I don;t blame them anymore.  And since I ain't leaving the party, let's jettison the SoCons.. They are the ones that keep losing elections for us.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 19, 2012 09:22 AM (f9c2L)

239 @219, as much as you want to rail against Murkowski, she votes for Mitch for Leader.  And she sustains Republican filibusters.  Joe Donnelly and AirClaire will not.  Your point is ridiculous.  A nominally better conservative senator is not better than a Rino, when the alternative is the democrat senator.   Thanks so much establishment haters for giving up two shoo-in Senate seats to democrat senators.  The master plan is working wonderfully.

Posted by: Schnack at November 19, 2012 09:22 AM (+EXSF)

240 So conservatives have a very hard line to walk -- they have to say things that will convince their constituency (whether is's socons, or fiscal cons, or immigration cons or whatever) that they will vote the proper way, but still not say anything that will scare the squish voters who might find those kinds of statements icky and offputting.

-----

..... that .... and  . . ..  well...... we lie about you and cover for Democrats.

Posted by: The M.F.M. at November 19, 2012 09:23 AM (nELVU)

241 Akin should have been expelled from the party.

once again: there is no "party expulsion" procedure

Posted by: chemjeff at November 19, 2012 09:23 AM (d/5qf)

242 **Why does it work for Democrats? Why can't Republicans do the same? ** Because no democrat ever makes any mistakes, every democrat is perfectly moderate and has no extreme views, and every democrat will think for himself and is not a rubberstamp for the party. That's how WV keeps electing DNC Senators who go on to robotically vote the party line. I think the GOP strategy of hoping the MSM points out hte shortcomings of various DNC pols is a failure. Start attacking please.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 19, 2012 09:23 AM (QxSug)

243 Young voters.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 19, 2012 09:24 AM (f9c2L)

244 I have one fleshy foot out the door, you guys. Don't make me do this!

Posted by: Meghan McCain at November 19, 2012 09:24 AM (QKKT0)

245 We didn't quit the GOP, the Grand OLD Party quit us.

Posted by: The New Electorate at November 19, 2012 09:24 AM (zpqa2)

246 The belief that we can intervene in these primaries and get a better result reminds me of how the left wants to intervene in the market place to get a "better, fairer result." If we intervene in the primaries, can we prevent another Aikin? Perhaps.... But we probably wouldn't control the House if we were intervening in the primaries as well.

Posted by: EFG at November 19, 2012 09:24 AM (C+qQ0)

247 Alex, SoCons can best be understood (in political terms) as adherents to the Natural Law view of law/etc. Which we point out is the intended interpretive matrix for the Constitution. Natural Laws have a source (God), and this Eternal Law is what temporal laws should be patterned off of, subject to the unique circumstances of our particular tine & place in history.

Posted by: Hopeless at November 19, 2012 09:24 AM (NKWFJ)

248 That they were doing that should have been a bright flashing red light to the base that shows up in the nomination, but no, they fell for it hook line and sinker. You could see it plain as day and in real time, but, no, not those dopes...'cause Akin's all biblical and stuff.

oh spare us with your patronizing insults.

According to the polls of *actual Republicans*, Akin enjoyed the weakest support of the three candidates.  He only won because meddling Democrats pushed him over the finish line in an open primary.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 19, 2012 09:24 AM (d/5qf)

249 once again: there is no "party expulsion" procedure

Posted by: chemjeff at November 19, 2012 01:23 PM (d/5qf)


You guys really need one.  Just sayin'.

Posted by: A. Schickelgruber at November 19, 2012 09:25 AM (QKKT0)

250 Fauxcahontas won. The far left get elected.  The far right can get elected too if we conservatives would drop our principles and vote for idiots like Akin.  The problem is we are too principled to vote for idiots who happen to be fiscal conservatives.  We need to get over ourselves and just go vote and pull the big R.

Posted by: Sophistahick at November 19, 2012 09:25 AM (UhXzR)

251 Whatever Akin said, it's more laughable the attempted construction put upon him by the left. Oh, "he meant rape is legitimate..." what? make fun of the left, attack! attack! Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 19, 2012 01:21 PM (QxSug) no what he said was how the uterus can magically inhibit conception during rape. I realize that many of that assholes defenders tried to stress the term "legitimate" and downplay the magic uterus, but it DIDNT WORK.

Posted by: Avi at November 19, 2012 09:25 AM (40anC)

252 I don't know what you're claiming. Are you claiming the policy of no abortion/no exception for rape is not a "policy" at all, but just some kind of gesture? No, no, sorry I should have been more clearer. Murdock's statement was something to the effect that a child conceived in a rape is a gift from God. The nit picking part is claiming that statement in and of itself is the policy, or, in other words, that the pro-life position is rape is great because hey you get a baby. I don't disagree at all that the position is no exceptions for rape/incest. I was just drawing a fine distinction between the position itself and the predicate for the position is all.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Coming not nearly soon enough. at November 19, 2012 09:25 AM (VtjlW)

253 PrimordialOrderedPair, LibertarianPrick, others: Anyone who is getting all cursy and screamy and Internet Hulk Mode Angry is cruising for a ban. We do not need it. People are permitted to disagree. The attempt at emotional bludgeon is tiresome and offputting. There are far more people here who want to have civil discussion than who want to entertain the seethingly angry and hostile. It's called social media, not antisocial media. Please note this for your records.

Posted by: ace at November 19, 2012 09:25 AM (LCRYB)

254 " ... when faced with a GOP candidate who thought evolution was hogwash ..."

The ignorance of secular "conservatives" never ceases to amaze:
http://is.gd/UPiuI8

Posted by: Gerry at November 19, 2012 09:26 AM (lNrX+)

255 The religious right can go pound sand. They are dead to me. You cannot count on them anyway.

Well, fuck you too.  Guess you don't want my vote, or my wife's vote, or my parent's vote then.  Guess I'll not help you with time, donations, or simply trying to convince my friends to vote "R".

Again, fuck you, and enjoy being in the wilderness right along with me from now on.  Jackass.

Posted by: GMan at November 19, 2012 09:26 AM (sxq57)

256 If I think a Republican is icky, he can't get elected because me and my gay friends will just vote for the cool kidz

Pick who I want, or I'm taking my boobs and going home

Posted by: Meghan McCain at November 19, 2012 09:26 AM (wwsoB)

257 Good thing Obama doesn't have any unpopular opinions like: Supports partial birth abortion Supports Affirmative Action and racial preferences Supports forcing Catholics to pay for abortions.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 19, 2012 09:26 AM (ZPrif)

258 Posted by: trumpetdaddy at November 19, 2012 01:19 PM (dcoFe) agree 100% with your entire comment. I think it's interesting that the people for whom fiscal conservatism or immigration is their major issue demand that candidates make very strong statements about their issues, even if those statements might be off-putting to independents or other voters, but have no tolerance for social conservatives wanting candidates to make strong statements about their important issues.

Posted by: elizabethe at November 19, 2012 09:26 AM (ou/rY)

259 Posted by: Choomy at November 19, 2012 01:20 PM (Kflw4) Mind if I quote that for my blog?

Posted by: The Political Hat at November 19, 2012 09:27 AM (sZTYJ)

260 Hey liberturds be careful at your half an hour protest in January you might collapse the system!

Posted by: czar of snark at November 19, 2012 09:27 AM (Kflw4)

261 250 Fauxcahontas won. The far left get elected. The far right can get elected too if we conservatives would drop our principles and vote for idiots like Akin. The problem is we are too principled to vote for idiots who happen to be fiscal conservatives. We need to get over ourselves and just go vote and pull the big R. Posted by: Sophistahick at November 19, 2012 01:25 PM (UhXzR) wrong!!!!!!! all coservative voted Talent and he lost. even if all conservatives voted Akin, there are not enough cause everyone else voted McCaskill

Posted by: Avi at November 19, 2012 09:27 AM (40anC)

262 @chemjeff,
Meh, Nixon's the only threat.  Look, we ejected the Carnahan's completely from this state.  They were a political powerhouse, and yet now. Purged.  Robin went down by double digit points.  We can keep our Senate and congressional delegation heavily red (after we recover from this mess in 6 years) even if every one of those people run.

I think Blunt beats Nixon (if Nixon tries to run in 4 years.)  In six years I suspect we'll field either Wagner or Luektameyer (however it's spelled).  L's (hah, avoided typing it again) is well liked in his district, Wagner will be too.  They'll make strong candidates.

Posted by: tsrblke (work) at November 19, 2012 09:27 AM (5BEp7)

263 >>>Whatever Akin said, it's more laughable the attempted construction put upon him by the left. Oh, "he meant rape is legitimate..." what? make fun of the left, attack! attack! The issue is 83%-14% against him. "Making fun of" only works when the audience is receptive to the joking and thinks the suggested target is fit for lampooning. You cannot "make fun of" someone if the crowd is with them 83-14. I mean, you can, but it will not work. Stone faces, crickets, jeers.

Posted by: ace at November 19, 2012 09:28 AM (LCRYB)

264 Akin was NOT a tea-party guy, Sarah Steelman was. McCaskill's money made sure that Akin won the Primary, because he was the most beatable. The RNC was never very supportive of Akin; he had a reputation for not being an establishment Republican; meaning he made up his own mind about how he voted in the house. If Steelman would have been the Republican nominee, I believe she would have won.

Posted by: Blackhawk at November 19, 2012 09:28 AM (mCOPv)

265

Is this any surprise? GOP ALWAYS wants to get-a-long. They are faced with a declining electorate... Declining in mores, education, intelligence, work ethic, rugged individualism, etc.

America... and the GOP will have to wait til the crash of society (see Europe) before there is a turn towards PRODUCTIVITY and the concept of self-responsibility.

There is no doubt that the GOP could win again. Conservatism may even come back with a sweeping victory in 2016, but it will be just a pause in the incessant death spiral in this 'progressive' march towards tyranny.

I don't see any other way around the trend.

Posted by: TA at November 19, 2012 09:28 AM (zoLzQ)

266 What I get so sick of hearing is "If only Akin or Mourdock hadn't opened up their mouth" So basically, this position is completely indefensible, but there's nothing wrong with it? The firestorm over these men was not because they misunderstood female biology or were pro-rape, it's that they were willing to push any sort of nonsense for their fundamentalist views. The national party needs to get involved, if nothing else, simply sending out direct mail to other Republicans letting them know the candidates position. Had the NRSC simply sent out a mailer to all registered GOP women in missouri, Akin would have been a distant 3rd. He won because no one bothered to go after him within the GOP.

Posted by: McAdams at November 19, 2012 09:28 AM (7MC2X)

267 Ok, I was just trying to be funny. It was supposed to be an over-the-top cursing joke. But I'll stop.

Posted by: LibertarianPrick at November 19, 2012 09:29 AM (ZPrif)

268 It came from a blog feel free.

Posted by: choomy the clown at November 19, 2012 09:29 AM (Kflw4)

269 It's not that I want the moderate to win these things. (Although if a candidate is simply too conservative to get elected, then yes, I'd support the moderate.)


******

Given a choice between Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown, I know who I'd prefer.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at November 19, 2012 09:29 AM (piMMO)

270 . The far right can get elected too if we conservatives would drop our principles and vote for idiots like Akin. The problem is we are too principled to vote for idiots who happen to be fiscal conservatives.

Sadly, this.

Republicans need to decide what the goal is.  But that means all republicans.  The ficons think the socons are icky?  Too bad.  If the socon is the one running, and he supports the things you support, deal with his "icky" views and vote for him anyway.  Socons think the ficons are all going to hell?  Too bad.  If ficon is the one running, and the things he supports are all things you support, deal with the fact he's a heathen damned to hell, and vote for him anyway.

The only part I think the National GOP has in this is to define the nation-wide GOP message.  What are our top 3 goals for the next two years (remember, Congress is re-elected every 2 years)?  Make it clear that those issues are what we're running on.  Send help to candidates to craft a message around those things.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 19, 2012 09:30 AM (8y9MW)

271 Where the hell is the Fedex man with my Colorado Glaucoma Medicine?

Posted by: Butters at November 19, 2012 09:30 AM (NIZHJ)

272 You are probably correct, and that's why we need a boot camp for aspiring senate and representative candidates.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 19, 2012 01:18 PM (GsoHv)



I came to this conclusion independently.  And it shocks me that a national party isn't doing this already.


Does the GOP have a 'how to run a campaign" manual it gives out to all local candidates?  If not, why not?  Are consultants keeping this from happening.


Then again, taking advice from the Party of Stupid is, well....

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 19, 2012 09:31 AM (X/+QT)

273

Akin's comment was at least consistent in trying to save the lives of babies, yet somehow that's worse than Bill Clinton's rape or that Obama friend who said all white people were going to hell?

 

I don't think gaffes had anything to do with our loss. The Democrats get away will electing Charles Manson, for god's sake.

Posted by: JustLikeDavidHasselhoff at November 19, 2012 09:31 AM (WYTHl)

274 257 Good thing Obama doesn't have any unpopular opinions like: Supports partial birth abortion Supports Affirmative Action and racial preferences Supports forcing Catholics to pay for abortions. Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 19, 2012 01:26 PM (ZPrif) Obama's coalition is a coalition of single issue voters. while those issues that Obama supports are not popular , they do not induce significant single issue opposition.

Posted by: Avi at November 19, 2012 09:31 AM (40anC)

275 So conservatives have a very hard line to walk -- they have to say things that will convince their constituency (whether is's socons, or fiscal cons, or immigration cons or whatever) that they will vote the proper way, but still not say anything that will scare the squish voters who might find those kinds of statements icky and offputting.

Posted by: elizabethe at November 19, 2012 01:21 PM (ou/rY)

 

 

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

 

 

If we want to win conservative toe-holds in a now marxist DC, it must be done through the dem party.  They're the ones with the juice now.

 

Convince a conservative no-name (a  state legislator with little time legislating) and convince them to change party and run with the party that gets the final vote.  We discussed this somewhat last week.

 

The RNC has obviously been infiltrated with leftists, or at the least, left leaning squishy moderates.  Let's start infiltrating the dem party.

Posted by: Soona at November 19, 2012 09:31 AM (whJ33)

276 He won because no one bothered to go after him within the GOP.

That's not true.  The primary here was pretty brutal.  They all went after each other.  Once again: the only reason Akin won was because of McHagskill's dirty tricks.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 19, 2012 09:32 AM (d/5qf)

277 "No more creationists. No more young earthers. No more antievolutionists"

I can post this link again and again and again ..
http://is.gd/UPiuI8

Posted by: Gerry at November 19, 2012 09:32 AM (lNrX+)

278 Posted by: Hopeless at November 19, 2012 01:24 PM (NKWFJ)

Erg right, but even Aquinas (Natural Law Theorist extraordinaire) didn't believe in modeling all civil law (it's own level) after natural Law.
Nor Locke.  Their governments required much less pluralism than we have (and in the case of a heavily pluralistic society, which was more Locke's deal than Aquinas, you saw a shift towards a thinner government which left it to the individual to foster good moral positioning.)
Remember: Coerced virtue is not virtue at all and Natural Law is built upon virtue (from Aristotle to Aquinas to Locke.)

Posted by: tsrblke (work) at November 19, 2012 09:32 AM (5BEp7)

279 Posted by: Artemus Khan, Supervillain-Billionaire-Layabout at November 19, 2012 01:21 PM (27tUc) Thanks Artemus Khan, that actually answers a question I've long had in a very compelling way.

Posted by: elizabethe at November 19, 2012 09:32 AM (ou/rY)

280 The thing I discovered in the final week (here in PA) was that Romney apparently had been asked a question during the republican debates and his reply referenced Roe v Wade and nominating conservative SC justices to review the case. Which to me is a very middle of the road position. But the 0bama campaign plastered the airwaves with that footage the final week. So I have the conundrum of seeing polls that show the majority of Americans opposed to abortion, yet a political party (D)'s that see an advantage to painting a candidate as 'extremist' for wanting to take the SC to take another look at abortion. It's tough to have it both ways, unless someone is lying through their teeth, which I find completely possible. But if you can't win without the liars, then you have to adjust strategy. To me, with all the possible methods that women have to protect themselves from pregnancy either before, during, or after coitus, I have to scratch my head at the entire question. But if it's become a third rail for conservative candidates, then stay the hell away, and justify the reluctance to go near it with some pithy words. Words are cheap, but Americans spent almost a billion dollars of their hard earned dollars to support a losing cause.

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat [/i] at November 19, 2012 09:34 AM (feFL6)

281 So basically, this position is completely indefensible, but there's nothing wrong with it? The firestorm over these men was not because they misunderstood female biology or were pro-rape, it's that they were willing to push any sort of nonsense for their fundamentalist views.

Do you think any discussion of Roe v Wade or "outlawing" abortion is going anywhere in the next 2 years?  No?  Then their positions on abortion -whatever they are- are immaterial.

Unfortunately, it seems that at least some fiscal conservatives are much more anti-social conservative than they are anti-Democrat.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 19, 2012 09:34 AM (8y9MW)

282 This thread reveals why the GOP coalition can not serve. SoCons believe in principals above power Liberals believe power is the only principal. A large portion of the GOP, ace for example, are in the "power is the only principal" camp. They would just like to do different things than the Dems with the power, but are liberal in the complete absence of principles. Reagen articulated principles, and people flocked to him. Absent clear, coherent, articulated principles from which policy is derived, you are just a liberal that has different opinions on what to do with power. Every election we lose, we SoCons point out "So, you never articulated principles, and SHOCKA, you lost.". Every election we win, principles are articulated. Notice the pattern? Self-gratification is not a principal. It is the problem.

Posted by: Hopeless at November 19, 2012 09:34 AM (q7YYY)

283 Westboro Baptist agreed with Akin and Mourdock. LOL!

Posted by: choom on comrades at November 19, 2012 09:34 AM (Kflw4)

284 Want to know the main reason that I vote for Republicans?

Because they're not Democrats, and that's pretty much the main reason

Anyone else out there feel the same way?

Hell, I know quite a few Democrats who only vote for Dems because they're not Republicans

You'd think someone would decide there's a huge market that isn't being served and could take away the customers.

Back in the early 70's, Detroit made junkpiles because they arrogantly figured that people would buy a Ford, Chevy, or Dodge because it beat walking

It never occurred to them that those shitty little Jap cars would become another option


Posted by: kbdabear at November 19, 2012 09:34 AM (wwsoB)

285 Avi, So how do explain Missouri voting for Romney and not Akin?  I think I'm right.

Posted by: Sophistahick at November 19, 2012 09:35 AM (UhXzR)

286 @ 207, AllenG -- There was a letter in my local rag this morning that, in a nutshell, makes it clear why Scott Brown lost to Lieawatha. The letter-writer was happy to see Lizzie Warren win "Ted Kennedy's seat." That is how a majority of voters think around here: they see that the Democrats won damn near every election in MA since, well, forever, that there's lots o' Free Shit still available, and that's good enough for them. No boat-rocking allowed.

We also elected (or reelected) a boatload of other Democrats, including some with less than no experience like Joe Kennedy III and, in my district, a spectacularly corrupt Representative. The latter ran against a Republican who was a) teh Ghey and b) could "work with Democrats," too.

It wasn't easy to vote for Brown, BTW. He spent half his campaign talking about how he could hold hands across the aisle, supported Wimminz Rights and all that stuff that would turn you the hell away from a candidate anywhere else.

Basic premise: voters are, in large measure, dimwits. That goes double for states like MA.

Posted by: MrScribbler, banned at TepidAir at November 19, 2012 09:35 AM (yKUrR)

287 Sadly, this.

AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 19, 2012 01:30 PM (8y9MW)

Absolutely not.

Akin lost not because he was too conservative, but because he was an idiot.

No GOTV in MO would have gotten him elected.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 19, 2012 09:35 AM (GsoHv)

288

We should have run an independent candidate against Akin.  AirClaire would have won by an even greater margin.  But it's important that we recognize in this age of independent expenditures, it's not enough to embargo a candidate who strays too far.  We need to actively work to defeat these people, even if helps the democrat candidate momentarily.  Akin didn't get defeated because he was an ultra-conservative candidate, he got defeated because he was an idiot.   Ultra conservatives win elections all the time in this country.  I actually agree the Senate and the US would be better off with more, not less, ultra-conservatives.  Ultra-conservatives who unflinchingly support extermely conservative social ideology too, but even one ultraconservative retard is one too many.

Posted by: Schnack at November 19, 2012 09:35 AM (iHqLy)

289 Hey, let's ask those wiz kids who designed ORCA what they think!!!

Posted by: John Cornyn at November 19, 2012 09:36 AM (wwsoB)

290 No more giving money to the GOP. From now on I give my money directly to candidates campaigns. Sorry Karl. Ya fucked up. No more Fiorinas.

Posted by: Cackfinger at November 19, 2012 09:36 AM (CCHli)

291 No GOTV in MO would have gotten him elected. Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 19, 2012 01:35 PM (GsoHv) and the sad thing is that many conservatives dont have the empathy to understand why Akins comments were so toxic.

Posted by: Avi at November 19, 2012 09:36 AM (40anC)

292 "If a large part of your constituency believes that the Bible is true, that the world is less than 10,000 years old, etc., etc., what are you going to do?"

Posted by: SFGoth at November 19, 2012 01:19 PM (dZ756)

 

You should talk to more Christians. A minority, it's true, are literalists and fundamentalists who mistake the printed Word of God for a science textbook. Insofar as abortion is concerned, whose position is more extreme: conservative Christians who believe human life is sacred or pro-choice advocates such as President Obama, who believes abortion should be legal into the third trimester, up to the point of natural birth, and who also believes children who somehow survive the abortion procedure should be terminated, as well? As an aside, 42% of adult minority women in NYC have had abortions. The Grand Dragon of the KKK could not have come up with a better scheme to harm minority communities in the long term.

 

I personally don't believe women who are impregnated as the result of rape or incest should be legally forced into carrying that child to term, and thus should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy for the sake of  their mental and emotional health and well-being. In the best of worlds, that child would be born and accepted by the mother as her own, or she would put that child up for adoption.  As it is, I simply cannot support using the coercive powers of the state to literally, physically force a woman into giving birth against her will.

Posted by: troyriser at November 19, 2012 09:36 AM (vtiE6)

293 The only part I think the National GOP has in this is to define the nation-wide GOP message. What are our top 3 goals for the next two years (remember, Congress is re-elected every 2 years)? Make it clear that those issues are what we're running on. Send help to candidates to craft a message around those things. Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 19, 2012 01:30 PM (8y9MW) I agree with this. Also the GOP should have a little cheat sheet for candidates on how to handle hostile media questions about abortion, immigration, and oh, whatever other hot button issue there is, especially to these old guys who do not realize the media rules have changed. the media has two primary goals against conservatives 1. expose any apparent hypocrisy, 2. divide and conquer. Make Republicans speak against other Republicans. Republicans should never play along.

Posted by: elizabethe at November 19, 2012 09:37 AM (ou/rY)

294

Hmm, there's this idea that the illegals from Mexico and other points south are just a bunch of Jeffersons and Franklins in waiting, and those of us who'd like to see our borders at least somewhat enforced are a bunch of nativist scum. Sorry, cant get behind that

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at November 19, 2012 09:38 AM (YmPwQ)

295 Posted by: Hopeless at November 19, 2012 01:34 PM (q7YYY)

Bah and a half. We're not Lockean anymore. We haven't been since at least FDR (probably earlier). SoCons see power as a method of instituting their principles. They want to make their principles law.  Welcome to the nietzschean world of politics.
I agree we didn't articulate our principles of small government and individual responsibility very well this cycle, but how many SoCon's win national elections by espousing their religious principles?  Not many.

Posted by: tsrblke (work) at November 19, 2012 09:38 AM (5BEp7)

296 Yeah, those knuckle-draggers need much more empathy, like D'ohbama, who thinks infanticide is just peachy keen.

Posted by: Gerry at November 19, 2012 09:39 AM (lNrX+)

297 Posted by: MrScribbler, banned at TepidAir at November 19, 2012 01:35 PM (yKUrR)

Which makes my earlier point- until the NE Republicans can win their own states, you'll excuse me if I don't listen to their advice about who to run in mine.

Akin lost not because he was too conservative, but because he was an idiot.

True.  Akin lost because he was an idiot.  But there are more than a few who are trying to blame it on the Socon wing, and I'm trying to point out that no one is going to agree with you 100%.  Everyone needs to decide, in an election, what is more important to them.  The handful of issues where they disagree with their Republican candidate, or the mountain of issues where they disagree with the Democrat?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 19, 2012 09:39 AM (8y9MW)

298 278, Yes yes, no doubt. I was merely trying to give ATC a working def. of what a SoCon IS (as opposed to what a SoCon is against), and please note my caveat regarding time, place historical circumstance.

Posted by: Hopeless at November 19, 2012 09:39 AM (TKpwb)

299 285 Avi, So how do explain Missouri voting for Romney and not Akin? I think I'm right. Posted by: Sophistahick at November 19, 2012 01:35 PM (UhXzR) Because Romney was not in offensively toxic moron that Akin was. Romney ran ahead of all Senate candidates except Scott Brown. how do you explain that?

Posted by: Avi at November 19, 2012 09:39 AM (40anC)

300 Unfortunately, it seems that at least some fiscal conservatives are much more anti-social conservative than they are anti-Democrat.

Yup - because I think they really do come from a different tribe.

I wonder how many "fiscal conservatives, social moderates" were raised in a religious household, rebelled against the religion in their teenage years, and now reject it all and are completely secular.  So social conservatism is inherently tied up with the idea of their strict, moralizing parents whom they rebelled against.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 19, 2012 09:40 AM (d/5qf)

301 "If a large part of your constituency believes that the Bible is true, that the world is less than 10,000 years old, etc., etc., what are you going to do?"

How about READ THE FRIGGIN' POLL, DIPWAD?
http://is.gd/UPiuI8

Posted by: Gerry at November 19, 2012 09:40 AM (lNrX+)

302 At the state levels, the GOP cleaned up in governorships and statehouses, other than Clownifornia

Maybe the nobraintrust should ask those guys how they did it

Nahhhh, they don't have the "experience" that the Beltway instituionals have

Posted by: kbdabear at November 19, 2012 09:40 AM (wwsoB)

303 Posted by: chemjeff at November 19, 2012 01:40 PM (d/5qf)

I know quite a few personally who fit this description. It's going to be a problem getting the younger vote as we move forward.

Posted by: tsrblke (work) at November 19, 2012 09:41 AM (5BEp7)

304 Timmy is advocating elimination of the debt limit...I've been predicting this sort of thing. LiB

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 19, 2012 09:41 AM (zpqa2)

305 This blog is SoCon by day, evenly-distributed by night. =P

I feel as if a conservative-moderated conservative debate is a good idea. For all the people whining about the GOP establishment, what would you have to lose from this? Run all national- or state-level candidates in front of a debate panel of a Paulista, a Tea Partier, and an establishment conservative. Questions get asked and answered. Make decision thereafter.

Makes sense to me.

Posted by: WAGOPinTX at November 19, 2012 09:41 AM (fXInK)

306 "He won because no one bothered to go after him within the GOP. That's not true. The primary here was pretty brutal. They all went after each other. Once again: the only reason Akin won was because of McHagskill's dirty tricks." Not for Akin it wasn't. Basically, Steelman and Brunner duked it out and Akin was the only thing left from the rubble. I've seen it happen before. All I'm saying is if a Republican is running and holds radical views, the National Party has a duty to make sure Republican voters know about it. I would say 95% of this applies to SoCons, but if there was say a radical FiCon running around saying he plans to shut down all public schools and throw all current recipients immediately off of Social Security, it would be the same situation. It's a case by case basis, but these decisions aren't hard to make. We've lost the Senate now several times,despite the fact Red States significantly outnumber Blue ones, we should have an easy 60 seat majority. At some point, we have to recognize that candidate quality is VERY important in Senate races and we need to weed out the garbage. Lett he TruCons whine, I'm done with Christine O'Donnells and Todd Akins handing the Senate over to Harry Reid.

Posted by: McAdams at November 19, 2012 09:42 AM (7MC2X)

307 If the RNC was smart, they would bring in Palin and ask for her help with the grassroots, and actually listen to her advice, rather than constantly sideline/attack her. Say what you will about her, she understands the GOP electorate and has a great nose for candidates.

Can't tell if sarcasm.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 19, 2012 09:43 AM (SY2Kh)

308 the GOP should have run a write in campaign in Missouri. even if that lost, it would have innoculated the party against the dems using Akin in their war on women meme. of course it would have lost its effectiveness once MoreDick opened his mouth.

Posted by: Avi at November 19, 2012 09:43 AM (40anC)

309 Elimination of the concept of budgeting expenditures + Obama with no re-election concerns + no spending limit = Fun

And gasoline gets poured onto the fire.

Whee! LiB!

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 19, 2012 09:44 AM (zpqa2)

310

My son gets straight B-s on every single English test and paper.  He whines that he gets the same grade regardless of how much he tries or goes in for extra help.  He blames the teacher.  I, being not easily snowed, believe it is because he keeps doing the same quality of work and that he needs to change.  He finally looked inward, asked for help from different people and low and behold he pulled out an A on his last paper. 

We need to be looking inward I believe we need to alter our principles susch that we just go vote and pull the big R in the generals.

Posted by: Sophistahick at November 19, 2012 09:44 AM (UhXzR)

311 I personally don't believe women who are impregnated as the result of rape or incest should be legally forced into carrying that child to term, and thus should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy for the sake of their mental and emotional health and well-being. In the best of worlds, that child would be born and accepted by the mother as her own, or she would put that child up for adoption. As it is, I simply cannot support using the coercive powers of the state to literally, physically force a woman into giving birth against her will. Posted by: troyriser at November 19, 2012 01:36 PM (vtiE6) I am a very strong pro-lifer and I agree with this. If I were raped, I would not be able to kill any innocent baby that came along, but as a policy issue, I would never legislate against this exception and I would never make that decision for someone else. As a pro-lifer I would hope to try to change the culture surrounding rape victims, much the same way the pro-life movement embraced and supports the crisis pregnancy center movement.

Posted by: elizabethe at November 19, 2012 09:44 AM (ou/rY)

312 301
"If a large part of your constituency believes that the Bible is true,
that the world is less than 10,000 years old, etc., etc., what are you
going to do?"

How about READ THE FRIGGIN' POLL, DIPWAD?
http://is.gd/UPiuI8
Posted by: Gerry

Ok, I read it.  Do you have something intelligent to say without putting ad-hominems in caps?

Posted by: SFGoth at November 19, 2012 09:44 AM (dZ756)

313 295, Sucks for you, because without us the GOP is a 100 seat congressional party and a 20 seat senate party. Maybe it's time to try, you know, turning back the clock? Embracing principals as a means of trying to get elected? A clear articulated list of principals in written form that are then implemented. Why, we could start with the Bill of Rights and federalism. The GOP can never out liberal the libs, so stop trying.

Posted by: Hopeless at November 19, 2012 09:44 AM (WqqJb)

314
How about READ THE FRIGGIN' POLL, DIPWAD?
http://is.gd/UPiuI8

Posted by: Gerry at November 19, 2012 01:40 PM (lNrX+)



I read it, too.  Then I read it again.


So, do you believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 19, 2012 09:46 AM (X/+QT)

315 @301

Right, but do you want independent voters or do you just want to count on a base that doesn't seem to exist in swing states, at least not enough to pull off a win?


Posted by: WAGOPinTX at November 19, 2012 09:47 AM (fXInK)

316 "A clear articulated list of principals in written form that are then implemented. Why, we could start with the Bill of Rights and federalism."

Run this against Santa? Good luck with that.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 19, 2012 09:47 AM (zpqa2)

317 Akin and Brown lost because Republicans split their vote and don't pull the big R, BIRM.  We need to be less principled, like the libs.  That is how you win in the General.

Posted by: Sophistahick at November 19, 2012 09:47 AM (UhXzR)

318 For cripes' sake, SoCons aren't the problem; messaging is the problem.  No POTUS candidate since Reagan was able to articulate conservatism.  Not. One.

Add that to the fact that the GOP establishment is full of compormisers and squishes, and you have the makings for a long Democrat reign.

Get rid of people like Boehner and McConnell.  It's a start.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at November 19, 2012 09:49 AM (IF7Sq)

319 @312  i can even put it in all lower-case:

you are a perfect example of the stupid party - thinking that catering to 15% - one more time- fifteen percent - of americans is going to win elections.

the truth hurts (especially if you're an arrogant secularist):
http://is.gd/UPiuI8

Posted by: Gerry at November 19, 2012 09:49 AM (lNrX+)

320 And why would one vote for a GOP candidate again? Taking my marbles and going home. Too poor to go Galt so I will simply flow down the sewer with the rest of my fellow Americans. Ever wonder what it felt like to be a poor Jew in 1928 Germany?

Posted by: ALL_IS_LOST at November 19, 2012 09:50 AM (T/L2Z)

321 Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 19, 2012 01:39 PM (8y9MW)

I hope you realize that the time you spent formulating this one paragraph blog comment is more than many (perhaps most) Americans spend on their political philosophy during an election year?

Reagan won because he was able to articulate some strong conservative principles in a way that made people comfortable with them. Everyone knew that he was no fan of abortion, but he minimized the incredible downside of the topic. Akin took the same topic and made it so polarizing that he alienated some people who probably agree with about 99% of everything else he believed.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 19, 2012 09:50 AM (GsoHv)

322

The nation is irrevocabally split.   With a squishy  purposeful and   perpetually un-informed middle.  The sooner everyone realizes this the sooner we can start looking at  solutions.  Unfortunately, enough of you (even conservatives) don't want to face this obvious fact.

 

Our choices are dwindling quickly if we don't want a total breakdown of freedom and liberty.   If we can do it peacefully, then all's the better.  If not, then a hot civil war should  ensue.  We're talking about freedom here.

 

I don't want to be frog-marched and shackled without, at least, a fight. 

Posted by: Soona at November 19, 2012 09:51 AM (whJ33)

323 Jerry Moran vetting U.S. Senate candidates? Please tell me this is a joke. The guy makes Orrin Hatch look like a principled conservative.

Posted by: Cowboy Bob at November 19, 2012 09:51 AM (V9qC6)

324 After the election, the GOP will now control 30 governorships

Somebody down at the state level knows what they're doing

Cornyn is just trying to protect fossilized cronies who've ossified inside the Beltway. If he and the institutional national level guys had their way, they'd hold onto their seats until they died of old age

Posted by: kbdabear at November 19, 2012 09:51 AM (wwsoB)

325 Gerry, you have a question @314.  I'm most curious about your answer.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 19, 2012 09:51 AM (X/+QT)

326 Purity Of Essence is what some of us have taken away from this last election cycle, apparently. I'm not sure that's a winning strategy.

Posted by: WAGOPinTX at November 19, 2012 09:52 AM (fXInK)

327 And yes, I know it'll never happen, but term limits would really clear up a lot of the problem.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at November 19, 2012 09:52 AM (IF7Sq)

328 Well, ace, and jerry and chemjeff, once you've written us pro-life voters out of your party, and lost 20%-30% of your base, how exactly are you going to win elections? Because I, and hundreds of thousands if not millions of pro-life conservatives are simply not going to vote for your anti-tax, pro-abortion GOP candidates. That was the issue that got me out of the Dem party 30 years ago, and it's the issue that would take me out of the GOP.

If you can't accept the moral argument, at least understand the consequences of betraying your allies. We are not committed to the GOP. We are committed to fighting abortion, no matter how long it takes. Even if we fail to end it.

Posted by: Danby at November 19, 2012 09:55 AM (tYxYT)

329 Posted by: troyriser at November 19, 2012 01:36 PM (vtiE6)

here is the Akin problem in microcosm.

We have a commenter on a political blog who in one short paragraph has demonstrated conclusively that he is far, far smarter than the Republican candidate for the United States Senate seat representing the state of Missouri.

For all we know he may be a 15-year-old kid sitting in his parent's basement. But he is still smarter!

Missouri needs to be spanked.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 19, 2012 09:55 AM (GsoHv)

330 The most striking takeaway from the election is that the most radical, incompetent leftist won re-election amidst a terrible economy that he himself worsened, if not created. We ran the best candidate possible, and still the electorate was split 50-50.

If neither abandoning principles nor moving farther right is the answer, then we must LiB.

(Hint: Neither of those IS the answer.)

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 19, 2012 09:56 AM (zpqa2)

331

One thing everyone needs to do is look at the state first.  If the race is against an incumbent Dem in a Purple or Blue state, don't pick the most conservative guy.  In solid Red states, don't push RINOs.  I still cannot believe anyone in their right mind believed Christine O'Donnell had a snowball's chance in hell of winning a statewide election in Delaware, even before the witch stuff.  Mike Castle was the only Republican who had won there in 20 years, and it was just idiotic and suicidal to challenge him in a primary.  Nevada and Colorado are Purple states now, we will not win those states with Tea Party or social conservatives. 

 

There is a place in the House for far-right and far-left people.  They don't belong in the Senate, period.  Todd Akin should never have been promoted by anyone for a Senate seat.

Posted by: rockmom at November 19, 2012 09:56 AM (aBlZ1)

332

I forget. What was the last fiscon win?

When did they not raise the debt ceiling.

You keep claiming to stand for shit that never happens.

Posted by: Invictus at November 19, 2012 09:56 AM (OQpzc)

333 The Moderates don't win and blame the socon's.

Posted by: DaveA at November 19, 2012 09:58 AM (MOWP1)

334 Surprise, surprise - an arrogant secularist is too dumb to know what "ad hominem circumstantial" means - or too dishonest to care.

Posted by: Gerry at November 19, 2012 09:59 AM (lNrX+)

335 Jim DeMint speaks of "training" candidates to speak in "sanitized soundbites," but I'm not sure if it's just a case of telling people to fudge and maybe lie a little. THIS. we need to train our team to never give the press anything except a serious thrashing, even if that means lying. If you can't get elected by being the most decent human being in the world, and mitt has proven that I think, then you need to give them whatever it takes to get elected in order to staunch the blood of the nation.

Posted by: Truman North, last of the famous international playboys at November 19, 2012 09:59 AM (qrJhS)

336 @328

I think it would be foolish to kick the pro-life members of the GOP to the curb, but surely you can understand that we'd like to prevent candidates from making verbal Chernobyls? I think it's clear that the Mourdock and Akin position caps you at 40% of the vote...in solidly red states.

Posted by: WAGOPinTX at November 19, 2012 10:00 AM (fXInK)

337 Question for the angry socons in here: Are you mad (if at all) at fiscons for (a) something fiscons say / stand for or (b) just that not all of them are super vocal/supportive of your socon positions?

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 19, 2012 10:01 AM (X/+QT)

338 Concur with 331 and 335 entirely.

Posted by: WAGOPinTX at November 19, 2012 10:02 AM (fXInK)

339


From American Thinker

http://tinyurl.com/crwp3jn

The Republicans inability to think long-term and see that we are in a generations-long war with anti-Americans will be their, and perhaps the nation's, downfall. When Romney had the opportunity to take the stage in front of 60 million plus people on three occasions and attack Obama on every front, he played it safe, hedged his bets, and said Obama was a great guy who loved his family, but weren't his policies just the worst! It wasn't Obama's fault you see, he just doesn't get it.

By failing to expose Obama and the Progressives in general, the Republicans have left most Americans unaware that there is a war raging for the soul of the nation and left them believing it really is a choice of the lesser of two evils. Romney and the Republicans stood down from being "personal" with Obama because he was too likable and people may feel sorry for him, meanwhile the Shining City on a Hill is engulfed in flames and Obama and his crew are the arsonists, dressed as firefighters. If Republicans believed that, if Mitt Romney believed that, they owed it to the future of the Republic to say so.

Posted by: T. Hunter - let it burn at November 19, 2012 10:02 AM (EZl54)

340

#330 I don't agree.  I think Gabe was closer to the mark this morning.  What we need to learn from this electionis that America has changed, and elections are never again going to be won on the economy.  Voters may tell pollsters it's the #1 issue, but they are lying.  It's not what they vote on.  They vote on which candidate shares their values, or the vote against the candidate they think most inimical to their values.  That's where the last 5 elections have been won and lost.

 

The Tea Party was a scream for fiscal sanity, but it isn't going to carry the day in a national election.

Posted by: rockmom at November 19, 2012 10:02 AM (aBlZ1)

341 317 Akin and Brown lost because Republicans split their vote and don't pull the big R, BIRM. We need to be less principled, like the libs. That is how you win in the General. Posted by: Sophistahick at November 19, 2012 01:47 PM (UhXzR) no. Brown lost narrowly in the bluest of states. Akin lost because some conservatives could not vote for him, and all libs and moderates would not vote for him Romney won Missouri because the vast majority of conservatives, moderates and independents voted for him. Akin did bring out toothless pitchfork wielding hillbillies . too bad their inbreeding decreases their fertility.

Posted by: Avi at November 19, 2012 10:02 AM (40anC)

342 Let's face it people.   Considering that the left holds all the pillars of this nation now, Reagan would have lost to Dear Leader.

Posted by: Soona at November 19, 2012 10:02 AM (whJ33)

343

The divide between socons and ficons is as big as bigger than the divide between cons and progs.  At what point do some of you fuckers drop your high and mighty fucking attitude about socons.  Without them, you got dick.  With them, you've got a fucking chance to win.  Some of you can't tell where your philosophy ends and politics begins.  You want some sort of libertarian litmus test or else.  Well, as my old friend Jim Galloway used to say, that shit don't flush in my toilet.

Someone else mentioned above that SoCons are more worried about their souls than elections, and that's probably more true than not.  They are also the ones who end up having to violate their moral beliefs when voting.  See, you can be pro-choice, but unless you believe it is morally right to allow abortions, then you aren't violating your morals.  But if you are pro-life, you are violating your morals to vote for a pro-choice candidate.  That's not easy for SoCons. 

Regardless, the key to beating the Dems is for us to come together, not stick our (figurative) bayonets into each other.  Remember, politics is about compromise, where neither side gets all of what they want.  So FiCons and SoCons have to give up something.  But if the libertarians are just going to run around saying fuck you, you'll vote what I want or you'll get the Dems, well, then likely we'll just get Dems because fuck you right back. 

Posted by: Jon in TX at November 19, 2012 10:03 AM (PYAXX)

344 Gerry, I see you're still around.  Did you see my question?  I'd like your insight...how would you have voted in that awesome poll you liked multiple times?

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 19, 2012 10:03 AM (X/+QT)

345 For all we know he may be a 15-year-old kid sitting in his parent's basement. But he is still smarter!

Missouri needs to be spanked.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 19, 2012 01:55 PM (GsoHv)

 

51-year-old commercial artist, thanks. Two young adult children, one in college, one in the Army. Hot Boston Irish girlfriend. Nice house, but no basement.

 

And don't blame Missouri Republicans. Akin was more or less selected by McCaskill and the Democrats of Missouri because he was the least competitive of those running in the GOP primary. Rank-and-file Democrats were encouraged to cross over and vote for him in the primaries for just that reason.

Posted by: troyriser at November 19, 2012 10:03 AM (vtiE6)

346

I'm going to get smacked for something here in a second.... but I was just noticing just how rife this election was in votes associated with race.

Hispanics voted Obama 70+%

Blacks 95+%

Asian 70+%

Whites 39%

Why do the minorities get a pass for racist voting? Whites voted 59% for Romney, and we're known as racists. But the others take it to a whole other arena.

This holds 2 possible scenarios. Do the elected white 'liberal' power brokers continue to manipulate the monority vote? or do the minorities wise up and se that the GOP has more minorities represented in the past cabinets and elected positions throuought the nation, and thus the GOP is the true party of the 'little guy'? 

Posted by: TA at November 19, 2012 10:04 AM (zoLzQ)

347

Posted by: Danby at November 19, 2012 01:55 PM (tYxYT)


Umm, I am not suggesting "writing off" pro-life voters.  I am pro-life.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 19, 2012 10:04 AM (d/5qf)

348 Let's face it people. Considering that the left holds all the pillars of this nation now, Reagan would have lost to Dear Leader.

Posted by: Soona at November 19, 2012 02:02 PM (whJ33)


Exactly. Yet we're (not me) still attempting to formulate strategy as if it were 1980.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 19, 2012 10:05 AM (zpqa2)

349 @337

I think it's part (a) and part (b). (a) being that fiscal conservatives "sell out" (and to be fair the Bush years were dark times for fiscal conservatives actually holding to fiscally conservative principles). (b) being that a pro-life, religious conservative such as myself who thinks Akin and Mourdock were more of a problem for Romney than Romney himself is a "troll" or an "arrogant secularist".

Posted by: WAGOPinTX at November 19, 2012 10:05 AM (fXInK)

350 Remember, politics is about compromise, where neither side gets all of what they want. So FiCons and SoCons have to give up something.

Yeah no kidding.

These are the people who *might* go to one Republican central committee meeting, see a bunch of blue haired religious ladies opening the meeting with a prayer, and storm out and say "fuck it I can't stand to be in the same room with a bunch of intolerant asshole religious kooks!!!"

Posted by: chemjeff at November 19, 2012 10:06 AM (d/5qf)

351 349, Fair enough.  Thanks for the answer.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 19, 2012 10:07 AM (X/+QT)

352 @350 It looks like you think "FiCons" are just cheap liberals.

Posted by: WAGOPinTX at November 19, 2012 10:08 AM (fXInK)

353 If you can't accept the moral argument, at least understand the consequences of betraying your allies. We are not committed to the GOP. We are committed to fighting abortion, no matter how long it takes. Even if we fail to end it. Posted by: Danby at November 19, 2012 01:55 PM (tYxYT) are you confirming that ALL Lifers condone and agree with Akin? I dont think Ace was talking about all Lifers , just a fringe- unless you're not a fringe.

Posted by: Avi at November 19, 2012 10:08 AM (40anC)

354 "Hot Boston Irish girlfriend."

Posted by: troyriser at November 19, 2012 02:03 PM (vtiE6)

Prove it.

Tasteful topless photos are acceptable.

I blame the Missouri Republican party for not smacking the shit out of Akin and making him bow out. It would have been a tough fight even without his monumental gaffe.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 19, 2012 10:08 AM (GsoHv)

355 All I'm saying is if a Republican is running and holds radical views, the National Party has a duty to make sure Republican voters know about it.

Who decides what constitutes "radical"?  You?  See that is the problem.  What if a majority of Missouri Republicans actually agree that, say, evolution is a myth?  Is that then a "radical" position?

What you really want is to throw the SoCons out.  I got it.  You look down at us and sneer at us as redneck inbred hillbillies.  But neither of us are going to defeat the Dems on our own, and nobody is asking you to *like* us, only to help us defeat a common enemy.  Sounds like your real enemy is us though.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 19, 2012 10:13 AM (d/5qf)

356 I'm all for this, just as soon as we kick all socially liberal folks out the GOP. And the fiscal moderates/liberals. So Con and Fis Con only in the GOP. The party would do better than 08 and 12.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 19, 2012 10:14 AM (VrVBw)

357 vocal/supportive of your socon positions?

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 19, 2012 02:01 PM (X/+QT)

 

Still waiting for fiscons to not raise the debt ceiling, or cut spending on any damn thing. This time will be different, right? I think that is played out now. No one believes you anymore.

 

But keep blaming socons.

Posted by: Invictus at November 19, 2012 10:15 AM (OQpzc)

358 The NRSC has to defend incumbents, that's part of their deal and a factor in candidate recruitment - "Hey, if you win, we will help you get reelected, including defending against primary challenges."  But they should not be picking favorites in open primaries.

It was so much they "sought to thwart Rubio," he was a blip on the radar at the time, they were jumping on the Crist bandwagon when he looked like a sure thing.

It is one thing to recruit a candidate when we don't have any viable ones, it is another to choose one before that state's Republicans get their say.

The problem with Akin was McCaskill openly funded his primary campaign, outside Tea Party idiots pushed their own candidate, and Missouri doesn't have a run-off system for primaries.  He was always the weakest link.  Everyone knew it well before his big gaffe, that's why McCaskill bought ads touting him as the "true conservative."

Mourdock failed because he ran a divisive primary campaign, which is probably the only way to challenge an incumbent, but you have no right to expect a guy whose reputation and career you have been trashing for six months to want to support you.

Tea Party favorites have a habit of crashing and burning.  Not just Mourdock, but in our own wave year of 2010 we lost winnable seats with O'Donnell, Angle, Buck, Maes, and Joe Miller.

Posted by: Adjoran at November 19, 2012 10:16 AM (ZHQvg)

359 Question for the abortion-priority voters, out of curiosity: if the GOP no longer called for repeal of Roe v Wade, but could have *every single candidate* commit to an aggressive set of restrictions on abortions (required parental notification, nothing beyond the first X weeks, as strict as you can get in a world with Roe v Wade), would you vote for GOP candidates?

For the sake of the question, assume that the requirement would be held in lockstep by every GOP candidate. My question is about whether its Roe v Wade or the high road (which seems to get mostly ignored by elected pols) or if a legitimate pressing of restrictions by Republican politicians would get your vote.

Posted by: WAGOPinTX at November 19, 2012 10:16 AM (fXInK)

360 The FisCon Party.

I like it but what about the little children and their toys?

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 19, 2012 10:17 AM (zpqa2)

361 (To follow up on my previous post: every Republican candidate pre-vetted to be morally opposed to abortion.)

Posted by: WAGOPinTX at November 19, 2012 10:18 AM (fXInK)

362 Posted by: Invictus at November 19, 2012 02:15 PM (OQpzc)



That was not very responsive to my question.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 19, 2012 10:18 AM (X/+QT)

363 "Sounds like your real enemy is us though."

Posted by: chemjeff at November 19, 2012 02:13 PM (d/5qf)

Let's face it; abortion isn't going anywhere. The best we can do is moderate it so that there aren't abortion clinics in grade schools.

As a fellow SoCon (sort of...it's complicated) I see the only solution is to take a principled stance against abortion and gay marriage, etc., but never, ever suggest any concrete solutions or policy details.

People want to know what you think, but not too much.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 19, 2012 10:18 AM (GsoHv)

364

"All I'm saying is if a Republican is running and holds radical views,"

 

I believe abortion is murder and homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, like not eating meat. I also voted for the GOP nominee EVERY DAMNED TIME.

 

Is my position radical?

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 19, 2012 10:19 AM (VrVBw)

365 332, I agree. The FiCons don't, and never have believed their own BS. Certainly their candidates don't. What they believe in is power for it's own sake, AKA liberalism with a disagreement about what the state should do. 337, Not mad at em. Just ready to let them go their own way. I ask, "hey bud, could you tell me your principals?" and they start screaming and blaming me for their inability to win elections, after they've marginalized the shit out of us in tge party we built. They want a GOP without us? Go ahead, have it. We've compromised till our backs are nearly broken since 88 letting the FiCon/Squish/LibLite crowd run things. The LibLite crowd is primarily interested in justifying their love of immorality, and forcing the law to agree with them. Their only principal is themselves and power. They are immune to reason in all it's forms. Why again are we still helping you? When we were in charge there was 8 years of Reagan. Because-- principles above power.

Posted by: Hopeless at November 19, 2012 10:21 AM (oYccn)

366 355  Posted by: chemjeff at November 19, 2012 02:13 PM (d/5qf)

Stop playing the martyr for a second.  A radical/wacky/dangerous/strange/unique/awesome/principled/super position can often be that way intependent of support.

42% of some state believes that the earth is 10,000 years old.  That may be a "radical" idea regardless of popular support.

If 65% of NYers vote Democrat, doesn't mean Obama and his ideas aren't radical/dangerous/stupid/etc.  They are.

Eye of the beholder....but the earth does [primarily] go around the sun.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 19, 2012 10:22 AM (X/+QT)

367 Are you mad (if at all) at fiscons for (a) something fiscons say / stand for or (b) just that not all of them are super vocal/supportive of your socon positions? Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 19, 2012 02:01 PM (X/+QT) I'm not an angry so-con, but I am pro-life and what makes me a little annoyed is the knee-jerk "we lost an election! Blame the so-cons!" stuff that comes up. What also bothers me is the double-standard that I just noticed that socially conservative extreme statements should be cause for absolute party shunning (which I agree with btw), but when candidates or commenters try to say "hey maybe we need another message" about immigration or fiscal policy suddenly that person is "caving" or "pandering" and is a RINO squish. So fiscons and other people seem to get that messaging is important when talking about pro-life stuff, but not when talking about immigration or fiscal sanity. I know everyone is probably gone.

Posted by: elizabethe at November 19, 2012 10:22 AM (ou/rY)

368 Prove it.

Tasteful topless photos are acceptable.

I blame the Missouri Republican party for not smacking the shit out of Akin and making him bow out. It would have been a tough fight even without his monumental gaffe.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 19, 2012 02:08 PM (GsoHv)

 

If I posted a topless photo of her, said hot Boston Irish girlfriend would kill me in a paroxysm of rage and then feel very remorseful about it afterwards during confession, hence the downside of that whole Boston Irish thing. 

Posted by: troyriser at November 19, 2012 10:24 AM (vtiE6)

369

I've said this several times since the election....neither FiCons nor SoCons have easy sells to general public as it is currently comprised. The GOP is supposed to be the party of NO, whether socially or fiscally, and the people are too busy saying YES.

Religion is for fuddy-duddy, woman-hating rednecks, fiscal belt-tightening is only for rich greedy bastards who can afford it, or racists who hate the poor. Burn the religious right as well as the math witches.

Rush is correct on this one, you can't beat Santa. He gives everyione a present and doesn;t seem to care about tthat "naughty or nice" list anymore.

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at November 19, 2012 10:24 AM (YmPwQ)

370 Chemjeff, Bingo. Only cares about power for it's own sake? Doesn't actually have any principals? Loathsome morality in all it's forms and wants to use the law to promote/confirm their own immorality? It's the definition of a liberal. And, SHOCKA, ithe Beltway Boy Lovers in the GOP keep producing liberalism lite. Their goal is only to advance liberalism, and that's what we've had from the GOP since 88.

Posted by: Hopeless at November 19, 2012 10:24 AM (q7YYY)

371 367, it can seem like a double standard.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 19, 2012 10:25 AM (X/+QT)

372 The GOP should strive to have the best messaging amongst its dwindling supporters.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 19, 2012 10:25 AM (zpqa2)

373

The only Republican to win a majority since the 80ies won that majority by making "values" the most important issue of that election (with a war going on and a so-so economy). This notion that social conservatism is a disadvantage to the GOP rather than an asset is just insane.

Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 19, 2012 10:26 AM (BpFmk)

374 The matter of principles is what this is all about. We SoCons accept the existing social contract, The Constitution, as it us worded. Federalism is the principal that SoCons, FiCons, and when articulated clearly a majority of Americans, can all support. Why don't we try principals, for a change?

Posted by: Hopeless at November 19, 2012 10:30 AM (3ryAQ)

375 The GOP should strive to have the best messaging amongst its dwindling supporters. Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 19, 2012 02:25 PM (zpqa2) lol!

Posted by: elizabethe at November 19, 2012 10:32 AM (ou/rY)

376 This may not be the thread/site for this question, but I'm curious:  What should be the legal penalty for abortion (if socons get it banned)?

(a) Premedicated first degree murder?  --> Capital punishment for woman and doctor?  Accessory to murder for the man/enabler?

(b) Second degree murder?  -->  Lock the woman up for 30 years?

(c) 30 days and a $500 fine?  Doesn't seem to value the life of the embryo/fetus very much.

(d) Can a rapist sue for wrongful death of his potential-child-to-be?

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 19, 2012 10:33 AM (X/+QT)

377

"42% of some state believes that the earth is 10,000 years old. "

 

Really? I'm Southern Baptist and I don't think this is a widely held belief. Most folks I know believe in a Creator/Intelligent Design however. These are not the same thing.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 19, 2012 10:34 AM (VrVBw)

378 This notion that socialconservatism is adisadvantageto the GOP rather than an asset is just insane. Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 19, 2012 02:26 PM (BpFmk) And is in fact the triumph of the liberal media that manufactures divisions between Republicans by making Republicans comment on the statements of other Republicans. Then the other Republicans blame that one wacko -- not the liberal media, but it was their decision to focus on that one thing in the first place. The media is completely playing Republicans whenever they do this, and all candidates should be trained to never answer questions about another Republican's policy statement or on air comments but to shift and attack the extreme Democrat position. They should all say, "talk to Akin if you want his position, all I know is that Democrats like the President want nurses to put infants who survive abortion to be put in a closet to die." This is what Democrats do. Republicans need to study it.

Posted by: elizabethe at November 19, 2012 10:37 AM (ou/rY)

379 (d) Can a rapist sue for wrongful death of his potential-child-to-be?

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 19, 2012 02:33 PM (X/+QT)

 

If I were emperor? Yeah, death penalty.

 

Since I live here, now, I'd take the rape/incest/life of the mother as I don't think a loving God would like me passing up a deal that saved a million babies a year.

 

Can that deal be made? Of course not. So it is moot. The sad part is I can't see a nation that can make peace with late term abortions as worth defending.

Posted by: Invictus at November 19, 2012 10:42 AM (OQpzc)

380 376, Good Q. Two parties here to consider. The doctor and woman. The woman is the 2nd victim of tge abortion by a predatory profiteering doctor. Since the first days if western civilization the Hippocratic Oath forbade doctors, the people who should know better, to participate. The doctor must be punished. The woman us deserving of our love and sympathy. Priests for Life has a total and complete section on pro life apologetics. Ace is correct on the need for media bootcamp, esp. For so cons. There are literally prewritten sheets that other SoCons (usually Catholics) have produced filled with home run short answers to all the gotcha questions. Women are always the second victim if abortion. Over 50% report being forced or bullied into it by abusive partners or family members threatening homelessness. Abortion profiteers make billions killing babies.

Posted by: Hopeless at November 19, 2012 10:45 AM (oYccn)

381 @chemjeff, sorry, i got you mixed with someone else.
@WAGOPinTX, I made the pledge, in 1984, not to ever vote again for anyone who would support abortion. That said, if those measures were put up as a sop to me, "here's your abortion restrictions, now shut up" a la Scott Brown, no they wouldn't be acceptable. If I believed the candidate supported them because they were "the best we can do, here and now" and I knew the candidate was really pro-life, then yes, I would support the candidate

Posted by: Danby at November 19, 2012 10:48 AM (tYxYT)

382 or bullied into it by abusive partners or family members threatening homelessness. Abortion profiteers make billions killing babies.

Posted by: Hopeless at November 19, 2012 02:45 PM (oYccn)

 

Go pray at an abortion mill and you'll see lots of 30 something males escorting their underage gf's in to get rid of the evidence. No one cares.

Posted by: Invictus at November 19, 2012 10:54 AM (OQpzc)

383 There is no such thing as "too conservative". But I expect a candidate to be a good enough politician that he knows what to say according to circumstances. When a journalist asks you a gotcha question, do what everyone else does. Lie. LIE about your extreme positions. God knows the Dems do it all the time.

Posted by: El Gordo at November 19, 2012 10:55 AM (Y2o9M)

384 Well, that's point. They do the same thing on every issue, they misread Akin's statement and they make criticizing Rice about her race. There's never an honest discussion from the left, make fun of it, attack attack attack.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 19, 2012 10:56 AM (QxSug)

385 Akin won because of McCaskill and national democrats meddling in an opne primary without a runoff rule. Solution: Closed primaries and a runoff rule. No NRSC meddling required. Okthxbye.

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at November 19, 2012 10:57 AM (YFK6G)

386 that is the thing, it seems that DNC pols have suffered no ill will for any position they've taken or association with the loonie bin they made. Read the story on the monkey circus that was the poll watchers at Allen West's election district. The entire election for 2012 was a joke. It looks like soros was able to get incompetent, corrupt monkies in at every level in the election. If the Allen West recount shows anything, it's that there's probably 2 million votes for romney scattered throughout the swing states that are in dumpsters.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 19, 2012 11:00 AM (QxSug)

387 **385 Akin won because of McCaskill and national democrats meddling in an opne primary without a runoff rule. Solution: Closed primaries and a runoff rule. No NRSC meddling required. Okthxbye. Posted by: alwaysfiredup at November 19, 2012 02:57 PM (YFK6G)** This may be the most correct thing said today. The left chose Akin, Akin couldn't answer a question without discrediting his entire party (a question that Annie C has the correct answer for, free to use by all). We had the same problem in 2008 when we somehow nominated a tame McCain to run for president instead of a right proper republican. But the GOP is sure as hell not interested in fixing this problem.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 19, 2012 11:03 AM (QxSug)

388 "4. Even if Akin had dropped out, Steelman and Brunner would not have been eligible, there is a sore loser law in Missouri. So the choice would have had to have been some unknown person, who probably wouldn't have beaten McCrapskill either. Posted by: chemjeff at November 19, 2012 01:00 PM (d/5qf)" Not true. The Sore Loser law prevented them from running as independents or the nominee of some other party. Each could still have run as nominee of the GOP, the primary they registered for.

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at November 19, 2012 11:05 AM (YFK6G)

389 How about, instead of hand-picking candidates, which the GOP intelligentsia are abysmal at, they simply help the candidates that need help? Sometimes it's money, sometimes it's an image makeover. More than anything, some of these guys need a "10 Liberal Traps You're Bound to Fall Into" debate-prep white paper. One of the things that makes Dems so successful is the unwavering adherence to base principles. How else would you explain the success of Stephanie Cutter or Wasserman-Shultz? They're complete morons, but everything they say is rote and backed up by every other Dem. So at some point, people perceive it as wisdom.

Posted by: red speck at November 19, 2012 11:09 AM (9/Ug/)

390 239 @219, as much as you want to rail against Murkowski, she votes for Mitch for Leader. And she sustains Republican filibusters. Joe Donnelly and AirClaire will not. Your point is ridiculous. A nominally better conservative senator is not better than a Rino, when the alternative is the democrat senator. Thanks so much establishment haters for giving up two shoo-in Senate seats to democrat senators. The master plan is working wonderfully. Posted by: Schnack at November 19, 2012 01:22 PM (+EXSF) --------------------- You've got to be kidding. Joe Miller was a shoe in till the Republican establishment gave Murmurcowsky the go ahead to ignore the primary process and run with their blessing. And we wouldn't have her stabbing us in the back all the time on social and lib-nazi fembot issues.

Posted by: NJRob at November 19, 2012 11:11 AM (FVp26)

391 After all the Catholic church is very anti-abortion. Also mostly liberal.

Posted by: Vic at November 19, 2012 12:34 PM (YdQQY)

 

 

Not true but whatever... There are *many* people who self-identify as Catholic but they never attend Mass (well, maybe at Christmas and Easter). The liberal Catholics who do attend Mass on a regular basis are primarily in the Northeast. The Catholics in SC are not liberal. I, for one, would love to bring back the Inquisition.

Posted by: Lynne at November 19, 2012 11:13 AM (lHn6+)

392 I'm in WA state and while we have two nitwits for Senators, my local congresswoman is Jaime Herrera Beutler.. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Herrera_Beutler"> link to wikipedia article </a>. In  a blue state, she won reelection with 60% of the vote. she campaigned to put the Columbia River Crossing on the ballot (very popular because the local bureaucrats want to stick us with a bill for light rail, which we don't want). I have absolutely no idea where she stands on social issues. Supports a balanced budget amendment, wants to reduce salaries of Prez, VP and Congress by 10%, co-sponsores a bill to prevent insider trading in Congress. Those are popular issues even in blue states (and good to support even if they don't pass.) We really need to stop getting sidetracked by social issues. We can't get the message out about limited government if all the media wants us to talk about is abortion.

Posted by: notsothoreau at November 19, 2012 11:15 AM (5HBd1)

393 None of this will matter until the GOP CLOSES all state primaries so the left doesn't get to pick our candidates for us!

Posted by: CPO at November 19, 2012 11:22 AM (tKLxN)

394 Once again:
1. Akin was NOT a Tea Party candidate. I believe Sarah Palin endorsed someone else.
2. Huckabee is a big-government evangelical RINO.
3. For Akin and Mourdock (the Rape Twins) to entertain answering any questions or speaking about abortion and rape indicates that not only are they NOT tea party candidates, they are idiots.
4. O'Donnell ... ok, we blew that one. Big time. Like really, really big time. Whip us, beat us, make us think twice before we choose someone to run against the establishment-chosen candidate. Remind us not to support someone who is "not a witch".
5. Angle - see #4. Ouch.

Posted by: Paul A'Barge at November 19, 2012 11:27 AM (7JpOx)

395 I have said this for more than ten years: If the GOP dies, then when you turn over the body you will find it clutching vise-like to a dwindled, hard-core so-con minority. The way forward is to actually live the creed that Republicans pretend to: freedom and tolerance. Fat chance.

Posted by: DriveBy at November 19, 2012 11:30 AM (PqT4s)

396 Explaining electoral common sense to Teatards is like splashing holy water on a vampire.

Posted by: packsoldier at November 19, 2012 11:42 AM (hklXo)

397 Blame the socons for an election loss over economics. Try to explain either socon issues or econ issues to the ObamaPhone Lady or to Lena Dunham. Can't do it.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 19, 2012 11:44 AM (QxSug)

398 359 Question for the abortion-priority voters, out of curiosity: if the GOP no longer called for repeal of Roe v Wade, but could have *every single candidate* commit to an aggressive set of restrictions on abortions (required parental notification, nothing beyond the first X weeks, as strict as you can get in a world with Roe v Wade), would you vote for GOP candidates? For the sake of the question, assume that the requirement would be held in lockstep by every GOP candidate. My question is about whether its Roe v Wade or the high road (which seems to get mostly ignored by elected pols) or if a legitimate pressing of restrictions by Republican politicians would get your vote. Posted by: WAGOPinTX at November 19, 2012 02:16 PM (fXInK) ----------------------- You cannot get any of those things without repeal of Roe. The leftist courts won't allow it.

Posted by: NJRob at November 19, 2012 11:46 AM (FVp26)

399 Teatards? What about the evangelical gaytheist left that is going to chase the pr0n industry to Canada over condoms? But, it's true that the right has abused federalism for their own goals. However, since the left is never punished for their sins who cares, eh? All this socon and teatard knocking is kinda dumb, it's demographics, don't you know? Or it's the power of incumbency that got us. maybe, just maybe, Romney got everyone who he possibly could, to vote for him. But he got overpowered by the ObamaPhone lobby.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 19, 2012 11:49 AM (QxSug)

400 To no one in particular: We need to forget trying to reason with (most) Democrat voters. Wouldn't it be more advantageous to reason with Republican voters, who sit home? We need people to explain conservatism, and the stakes to OUR voters (and indies). I imagine even moderates of seemingly no party ID are concerned with aspects of the "culture war." The key is to discuss these social issues in a non-threatening, non-incendiary way. There are SO MANY issues which used to be local, but have been nationalized because of an overreaching court (schools, crime etc). Liberals have made everything political, and everything is therefore political, whether we want it or not. Remember Dukakis was asked about the hypothetical rape of his wife. He failed that test. I imagine most libs would fail the same test. Enviromentalism run amok, affirmative action, indoctrination of schoolchildren... There is so much more to America, and what matters to people, than taxes and birth control.

Posted by: Baldy at November 19, 2012 11:50 AM (opS9C)

401 Ace, Love your debate idea. But it probably makes WAY too much sense for the Party of Stupid to ever actually do it.

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at November 19, 2012 11:53 AM (F0o5k)

402 "**385 Akin won because of McCaskill and national democrats meddling in an opne primary without a runoff rule. " So it's McCaskill's fault that the Republicans fielded an idiot as a candidate and somehow didn't know he was an idiot until the general election? Oh, ok then. We'll just ask the Democrats to pretty please not do that anymore, and then we'll win! Or we could stop running unelectable narcissistic idiots like Akin, even when they have superficial ideological appeal. Just an idea.

Posted by: GalosGann at November 19, 2012 12:39 PM (T3KlW)

403 "You cannot get any of those things without repeal of Roe. The leftist courts won't allow it." Then it follows that we must move the courts to the right. How does that happen if you refuse to vote for anyone who might actually do that?

Posted by: GalosGann at November 19, 2012 12:46 PM (T3KlW)

404 364 "All I'm saying is if a Republican is running and holds radical views," I believe abortion is murder and homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, like not eating meat. I also voted for the GOP nominee EVERY DAMNED TIME. Is my position radical? Posted by: Dick Nixon Your positions would only be radical if you wanted to translate them into public policy, i.e. no exceptions for abortion or homosexuality is outlawed. BTW, I hold the same personal views as you do, but I don't expect bureaucrats to come up with some sort of "solution" to these moral issues. There's also the problem that not everyone can agree on the same morals. There are many people in the pro-life movement that think the morning after pill is the same as abortion and want to ban it, I disagree. As far as deciding who's a dingbat or who's not, I think it's like the saying goes, I know it when I see it. And sunlight is the best disinfectant. You can vote for whomever you want in the primary, but I think the NRSC has a duty to make sure Republicans know what they are getting.

Posted by: McAdams at November 19, 2012 12:49 PM (7MC2X)

405 "359 Question for the abortion-priority voters, out of curiosity: if the GOP no longer called for repeal of Roe v Wade, but could have *every single candidate* commit to an aggressive set of restrictions on abortions (required parental notification, nothing beyond the first X weeks, as strict as you can get in a world with Roe v Wade), would you vote for GOP candidates? For the sake of the question, assume that the requirement would be held in lockstep by every GOP candidate. My question is about whether its Roe v Wade or the high road (which seems to get mostly ignored by elected pols) or if a legitimate pressing of restrictions by Republican politicians would get your vote. Posted by: WAGOPinTX at November 19, 2012 02:16 PM (fXInK) " No. In 1973 Doe v. Bolton, SCOTUS said that abortion must be legal in cases where the health of the mother is at issue - health involving financial, psychological, familial and physical issues. You're anxious about being pregnant, you're guaranteed abortion. You're not sure your husband wants another baby, you're guaranteed an abortion. Into the 9th month. It's a health issue. The way around this is to either put up judges who disagree with that, or, pass a constitutional amendment declaring it wrong. Since the GOP made clear in 2005, and since, that it WILL NOT create a Senate dedicated to reforming the judiciary, nor will it work on an amendment, the whole intra-party debate on abortion is just what pointless complaint to make to best effect. They don't WANT to win through.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at November 19, 2012 12:54 PM (3GtyG)

406 "396 Explaining electoral common sense to Teatards is like splashing holy water on a vampire. Posted by: packsoldier at November 19, 2012 03:42 PM (hklXo)" Especially after you had things your way and still lost and STILL want to keep talking shit since you can't accomplish shit. Gee I wonder what happened to your credibility? Oh yeah, you wasted it chasing undecideds who it turns out just weren't that into you. The smart GOP strategy for 2016 is to 2008 EVEN HARDER than we did in 2012 and hope that our stopped clock approach pays off somehow. We'll find someone even more inevitable and then they'll use SUPER Orca and then they'll...uh...probably trip right over their own dick again per the usual failure to stand for anything or learn from mistakes..

Posted by: Cackfinger at November 19, 2012 01:23 PM (CCHli)

407 @254 "The ignorance of secular "conservatives" never ceases to amaze: http://is.gd/UPiuI8" ... um yeah. Akin and his crew really helped us out there, didn't he now. What was he? some sort of con ... some con? something? Yeah ... ignorance. Have a little gander in the mirror. I'm a real limited government fiscal conservative. I do not believe that government has any business in anyones bedroom, or mandating religious world views like creation. And I don't believe that things that aren't science should be taught in a science course. Teach em all you want in religion class. Keep your hands off the science. If this is what we have to look forward to, then this is appropriate http://goo.gl/SD12M . If we as a party cannot tolerate those who point out the deep, profound, fundamental flaws in our platforms, our external messaging because of the socons, yeah, you are gonna lose the bulk of the party. Make your choice well.

Posted by: joe in michigan at November 19, 2012 01:40 PM (3R8wQ)

408 A run-off in Missouri would have taken care of Akin. That's what they should push for. Without a run-off in TX, we would be stuck with Dewhurst.

Posted by: lonestar at November 19, 2012 01:48 PM (sR06G)

409 @355 "Who decides what constitutes "radical"? You? See that is the problem. What if a majority of Missouri Republicans actually agree that, say, evolution is a myth? Is that then a "radical" position?" You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts. If the majority of people think evolution is a "myth" we have a far deeper failure in this country than I was aware of. You don't get to vote on science. You don't get to poll on it. So if science competes with your religious world view, and your religious world view wins out, how, exactly, does that help us? Hint, it hurts us. "What you really want is to throw the SoCons out. I got it" No. I want them to STFU. I don't give a rats ass if they have profound cognitive problems that preclude them from understanding basic science. But I really don't want them opening their mouths and embarrassing all of us by confirming this. There are some things that are off limits to be discussed openly, in public, as a result of the Akin, Mourdock, ... fiascos. That pretty much includes the whole socon thing. No small government fiscal conservative would EVER try to leverage a government to push their agenda. This simply would never happen, by definition. So I'm left with this complete lack of understanding as to who these folks are. They can't be small government, as they advocate using the government as a way to extend their world view, and DIRECTLY IMPACT OTHERS, rather than, correctly as a small government conservative would do, tell the government that its rights are small, limited, and derive from the consent of the governed, not imposed upon the governed. DOMA? Seriously? WTF? Spending government money, expanding government, in order to impose your will upon the masses? None of this NONE OF THIS is conservative, small government, individual liberty, fiscally conservative. None. Yet you wish us to believe that "socons" are the bulk of the GOP? Um ... yeah. Righto.

Posted by: joe in michigan at November 19, 2012 01:50 PM (3R8wQ)

410 Global Warming! The Science! is settled!

Posted by: They Blinded Me With Science! at November 19, 2012 02:05 PM (njnnp)

411 @407  Are you that dumb?

Posted by: Gerry at November 19, 2012 02:22 PM (lNrX+)

412 "You don't get to vote on science. You don't get to poll on it. " ..." DOMA? Seriously? WTF?" Aaaahh, the savoury irony. Remind me how you determine sexual orientation in an autopsy. Or, the biological difference between a swinging bisexual and a gay man living a lie with a wife and kid. Not the emotional difference, mind you; the real driving hard objective physiology. Psychological traits are real. But we're not obliged to alter social law to serve them. Too depressed to enjoy military service? That gets you out of the draft--IF the military thinks you're so depressed as to be useless. To their purpose. Your refudiation of the DOMA maybe sincere. But it's not "smarts vs. black superstition". It's "my likes vs. your likes". Oh, and the reason wife-beating slaveowners honored freedom of religion wasn't warmfuzzy dogoodism. Or anything they got out of admiration of Greco-Roman Republicanism, because those guys killed Socrates for blasphemy and said "Good riddance". The Founders allowed freedom of religious conscience because repressing it leads inevitably to scorched-earth civil war. So, they spared themselves the bother.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at November 19, 2012 02:57 PM (3GtyG)

413 I knew Mourdock was a comparative long shot when I voted for him in both the primary and the general election. I also knew Dick Lugar was a sure thing, a safe seat.

I'd do it again even knowing the outcome. Dick Lugar no longer represented Indiana. He was (and is) a creature of the Beltway, his the Republican name always invoked when Democrats wanted to shore up their bipartisan credibility. Besides, Lugar's lived year-around in Virginia for what? 25 years? Let Virginia have him.

Posted by: troyriser at November 19, 2012 01:12 PM (vtiE6)

----

How dare you have a choice in your own representation.


We need to get the national GOP control freaks in to put a stop to people like you.

Posted by: MlR at November 19, 2012 03:47 PM (vR2l5)

414 The Democrats sometimes wind up nominating candidates that embarrass their party. Examples include Alvin Greene (U.S. Senate from South Carolina, 2010), and Mark Clayton (U.S. Senate from Tennessee, 2012).

They don't seem to wind up with candidates like that in races where they could be competitive, though.

Posted by: Joshua at November 19, 2012 04:30 PM (oCZ4e)

415 @226 "Please, joe, tell us about which Republican candidate this year who was bashing gays. Please, inform us." http://bit.ly/zDpxbb Not that I take the word of liberals, you can take that quote and google it, and find it many places. Like here http://usat.ly/TcvMYl Because, if Santorum is talking about LBGT sex, you can bet that he's not saying nice things about them. I wonder what that would be called. Hmmm... And there are many others. http://bit.ly/xiovuF Google to your hearts content. I am ready for your apology. Sure, take your time. I can wait. Yes people, we collectively have a socon liability. If you have serious hate, for any reason, of a particular group, and you want the government to impose something resembling your will upon others, chances are you really aren't a conservative, but a statist with an agenda. If you are serious, and I mean really serious about being a personal responsibility, personal liberty, small government, fiscal conservative, which, supposedly, the GOP is made mostly of, then there is no way in hell you could ever support attacks on LBGT, restrictions on their freedoms, additional government layers and expenditure to prevent them from living the way they wish. It just doesn't compute. Its completely illogical. The LBGT community is a small government personal libertarian's natural ally. Yet when we foist candidates such as Rick Santorum, Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, ... we do our best to alienate and scare them. You might not agree with their lifestyle. Fine, thats your choice. But you don't have the right to make your choice and preferences part of the law. You don't have the right to deny them theirs. Cause if you think you do, then you are a damned statist. So stop trying to raise all manner of moralizing points here. Either you are a personal responsibility, personal liberty, small government, fiscal conservative, or you are not. And if you are attempting to regulate others lives to your own personal code of morals, demanding candidates fall all over themselves to do the same, they you most certainly are not a personal responsibility, personal liberty, small government, fiscal conservative. You are a democrat. We have to save the party from those who would do it harm seeking to impose their statist views and particular ideology and morality upon others. Never again will I vote for a candidate whom has to "lurch right" to capture a nomination to be "more to the right" than the next person. If the candidate cannot win as a personal responsibility, personal liberty, small government, fiscal conservative, then they cannot win. "Socons" need to muzzle their statist instincts or find a new home where they can express them to their hearts desire. Or the rest of us, the bulk of the GOP whom aren't statist and don't demand ridiculous intrusions into the bedroom (see Santorum quotes for examples), could always leave and form our own party. Same effect either way.

Posted by: Joe in MI at November 19, 2012 05:49 PM (3R8wQ)

416 Posted by: Chris Balsz at November 19, 2012 06:57 PM (3GtyG)

_______________________________________


Yeah, I'm kind of waiting for Mr. Wizard's CV demonstrating all of his science degrees and publications. 

Because I'm more than a little bit tired of being lectured to about science from the people who failed it in high school.


Posted by: Alec Leamas at November 19, 2012 05:50 PM (Nfpnr)

417 Posted by: Joe in MI at November 19, 2012 09:49 PM (3R8wQ)

_________________________________________


You clearly don't understand what Santorum was saying - you're free to disagree on the substantive issue but he was absolutely, unequivocally correct with regard to the Lawrence decision being founded in 'Shit Harry Blackmun Made Up' and not in the text of the United States Constitution.  But don't let fidelity to the Constitution interfere with your hatred of the square in the sweater vest who has a disturbing number of children.

Posted by: Alec Leamas at November 19, 2012 05:57 PM (Nfpnr)

418 (see Santorum quotes for examples),

__________________________________


You do understand that your first quote was from 2003, no? 

I suppose if we understood SCIENCE!11!!11 like you, we could construct a time machine and return to 2003 to ensure that Santorum didn't screw up an election 9 later.

Posted by: Alec Leamas at November 19, 2012 06:00 PM (Nfpnr)

419 @418 (see Santorum quotes for examples), "You do understand that your first quote was from 2003, no?" Irrelevant, as he kept saying this crap. http://bit.ly/AEmxZS Guys, google isnt hard to use, and you can find examples from this year, last year, any year. He goes off on contraception. Gays. And so on. "I suppose if we understood SCIENCE!11!!11 like you, we could construct a time machine and return to 2003 to ensure that Santorum didn't screw up an election 9 later." This above quote is why we lose elections. Because we do have some complete blathering idiots in this party. I'm depressed enough already today. Arguing with idiots over obvious things isn't making this any better.

Posted by: Joe in MI at November 19, 2012 06:52 PM (3R8wQ)

420 @417 "You clearly don't understand what Santorum was saying - you're free to disagree on the" Directed at the wrong person. Check your aim before you fire.

Posted by: Joe in MI at November 19, 2012 06:53 PM (3R8wQ)

421 @412 "Aaaahh, the savoury irony. Remind me how you determine sexual orientation in an autopsy." Remind me again how this is relevant to anything at all? How, precisely, does this fit the small government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, fiscal conservatives that the GOP are supposed to be ... if you are arguing over sexual orientation? Game, set, match. If you don't understand why you lost, then you have the choice to learn and grow from the experience, or keep blathering on about irrelevant things, attempting to drive, in the most statist way possible, legislation that codifies your perception of morality, taking needed funds from potentially useful programs or expanding the taxes upon me, to fund your little ideological fantasy. Yeah, going after the LGBT community for your own personal hatred of them, codifying it into law (e.g. DOMA) is statist. Don't like it? Don't do it.

Posted by: Joe in MI at November 19, 2012 06:58 PM (3R8wQ)

422 @411 "Are you that dumb?" This is why we lose. Despite the fact that the liberals are wrong about so many things, their people are smarter. Doesn't make them right more, but they are smarter. I've found its harder to convince smarter people they are wrong than dumber people. Smarter people are clingier. Until we excise these planks, and muzzle these impulses, we are going to keep losing.

Posted by: Joe in MI at November 19, 2012 07:02 PM (3R8wQ)

423 This above quote is why we lose elections. Because we do have some complete blathering idiots in this party.

_____________________________________________


I doubt that my response to your recriminations is the cause of the GOP losing elections. 

Back to the matter at hand - please explain how the candidate who wasn't nominated, viz, Santorum, (together with his 2003 statements) was the cause of the GOP loss in 2012. 

And while you're at it, as you have taken to looking down your nose at a score of folks, why don't you reveal your credentials that support your superiority.  You're a PhD in astrophysics, right?  Or was it neuroscience?

Posted by: Alec Leamas at November 19, 2012 07:04 PM (Nfpnr)

424 @416 "Yeah, I'm kind of waiting for Mr. Wizard's CV demonstrating all of his science degrees and publications. " If you are talking to me, this I'm a B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. in Physics, with something like 12 publications, Phys Rev Letters, Phys Rev B, and a number of others. I left that field 15 years ago, so not much since then, apart from some IEEE/ACM papers, conference proceedings, and some book chapters. "Because I'm more than a little bit tired of being lectured to about science from the people who failed it in high school." Not me. I aced it.

Posted by: joeinmi at November 19, 2012 07:07 PM (80GjT)

425 Posted by: joeinmi at November 19, 2012 11:07 PM (80GjT)
__________________________________

OK - riddle me this - whom do you suppose has produced more human misery with their "antiscience" positions?  Those who think Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to work, or those who believe that vaccinations cause autism?  Those who don't want to give up their pickup truck because it might get a bit balmy, or those who oppose the use of DDT on a worldwide basis and genetically engineered foods?  When was the last time we built a new nuclear power plant in the United States?

Posted by: Alec Leamas at November 19, 2012 07:31 PM (Nfpnr)

426 Perhaps an intelligence test for candidates.  That would not only get rid of people like Akin, bur also like Lincoln Chafee.

Posted by: Bob at November 20, 2012 06:15 AM (/aN21)

427 "Remind me again how this is relevant to anything at all? " I dunno. Why did you get on a soapbox and bitch about being a Scientist surrounded by neanderthals? "If you are serious, and I mean really serious about being a personal responsibility, personal liberty, small government, fiscal conservative, which, supposedly, the GOP is made mostly of, then there is no way in hell you could ever support attacks on LBGT, restrictions on their freedoms, additional government layers and expenditure to prevent them from living the way they wish. It just doesn't compute. Its completely illogical. The LBGT community is a small government personal libertarian's natural ally. Yet when we foist candidates such as Rick Santorum, Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, ... we do our best to alienate and scare them. You might not agree with their lifestyle. Fine, thats your choice. But you don't have the right to make your choice and preferences part of the law. You don't have the right to deny them theirs. Cause if you think you do, then you are a damned statist. " Totally false. You and the LGBT are the statists, who insists that the voluntary association of 225 years MUST GO. You support personal liberty unless it forms democratic consensus; then you demand the State squelch the law as drafted by the voters. The entire point of MARRIAGE is codifying relations with THIRD PARTIES. As a gay judge decreed in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, "Homosexual relationships are entitled to the same cultural significance as heterosexual relationships." http://documents.nytimes.com/us-district-court-decision-perry-v-schwarzenegger Cultural significance can only be achieved from OTHER PEOPLE. YOU are codifying your morality, without regard for the will of the People. "Game, set, match." To me, I think. You failed to answer basic science questions, which should be as simple to answer - objectively - as "How come ducks don't sink?". You presume to lecture me as an abused scientist, without being able to base your views in objective fact -- you just talk about the SOCIAL costs of holding my position, as if you were a club President. You're as wrong, on the science, as Todd Akin. You presume to lecture me as a member of a group somehow pledged to agree with YOUR priorities - knowing that 225 years of American history has not, in fact, made war on religion as you'd like; that most Americans living and dead agree with me, not with you. And you presume to call us "statist", who resist the opposite moral code enforcers jamming their worldview through the courts. The opposite of DOMA is not neutrality. So Doc, I give you an F in psychology, an F in biology, an F in Civics, and an F in Debate.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at November 20, 2012 09:58 AM (3GtyG)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
405kb generated in CPU 0.2606, elapsed 0.4238 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.3349 seconds, 555 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Support





Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact

Change the At to "@" and the DOT to "."




Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Search Thingy



Archives

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 10378
  • Files: 182
  • Bytes: 263.3M
  • CPU Time: 11:31
  • Queries: 295715

Content

  • Posts: 22824
  • Comments: 5953260

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0