March 19, 2014
— DrewM Everyone loves and respects Thomas Sowell so it's disappointing to see him join the "shut up and get in line" wing of the GOP.
In making the case that conservative sponsored primary fights are endangering the GOP chances to take the Senate he adopts plenty of pithy talking points but shuts his eyes to a whole lot of history.
Only Republican control of the Senate can rein in the lawless Obama administration, which can otherwise load up the federal courts with lawless judges, who will be dismantling the rule of law and destroying the rights of the people for decades after Barack Obama himself is long gone from the White House.Once that happens, even a future Republican majority, led by people with the kind of ideological purity that the Republican dissidents want, cannot undo the damage.
What is this ideological purity Sowell and so many of his fellow establishment apologists speak of? Is it mere "purity" to desire a Republican party that works to shrink government or at the very least stops its growth? Is "ideological purity" a vice while "ideological flexibility" that leads Republicans to join with Democrats to peruse policies such as amnesty, bailouts and supporting nominees like Eric Holder and Sonya Sotomayor, is a virtue? Is the judgement of people who supported candidates like Trey Grayson, Robert Bennett, Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter over Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio and Pat Toomey beyond question and challenge?
This year’s elections and the 2016 presidential election may be among the most important elections in the history of this country and can determine what kind of country this will be for years — and even generations — to come.Those Republicans who seem ready to jeopardize their own party’s chances of winning these two crucial elections by following a rule-or-ruin fight against fellow Republicans may claim to be following their ideals. But headstrong self-righteousness is not idealism, and it is seldom a way to advance any cause.
Yes, yes. Every election is THE MOST IMPORTANT IN HISTORY! This isn't a reason not to try and push the party in a direction amenable to the base but to simply a way to confer lifetime appointments to those who have won a single election at some point in the distant mists of time.
The argument used to be, if you want to change the party run in primaries. Now that people have taken up that challenge the argument seems to be, if you want to change the party wait until an unimportant time in American history. And spoiler: There never is an unimportant time.
Politics, like war, is a question of power. If you donÂ’t have power, you can make fiery speeches or even conduct attention-getting filibusters, but that does not fundamentally change anything. And it has accomplished nothing in this case.
This argument treats conservative insurgents as children who simply want attention from the adults. What it ignores is that the conservative insurgency was born as a reaction to what the GOP did with power the last time they had it.
We all know the story by now...there was a huge increase in domestic spending including one of the largest expansions of the welfare state (Medicare Part D) under George W. Bush and Republican controlled House and Senate. And no, it wasn't simply because of 9/11.
When confronted by its spendthrift ways, the Bush administration argues that much of the increase in nondefense spending stems from higher homeland security spending. It's true that most homeland security spending is tallied under nondefense discretionary spending. Yet when homeland security spending is separated out, the increase in discretionary spending is still huge: 36 percent on Bush's watch.
I know it's become fashionable for some to ignore this history and HOPE that the GOP will CHANGE if given power again but when it comes to politicians, I'm not the trusting kind. I've written before that I think some of the primary targets are the wrong ones and that there's a danger in picking fights you can't win but that's an argument over tactics (as the GOP types like to remind everyone). What I don't agree with are the notions that somehow the real bad actors here are the ones who remember history and want to make the GOP more responsive to conservative concerns.
The most damning point against this whole argument is that it's simply not true. There aren't nearly as many challenges as the Shut Up! caucus want to pretend there are. Look who isn't getting any serious challenge from the dreaded "outside groups"...Lamar Alexander, Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham.
If this minor level of challenge is unacceptable to the party then what they are saying is you may donate, volunteer and vote but you simply can no voice in actually selecting candidates.
Professor Sowell knows well the economic rule that if you want more of something you subsidize it and if you want less you tax it. Think of the primaries as a tax on the GOP history of big spending and support for big but not quite as big government as the Democrats want. But hey, if you're a fan of big spending so long as the GOP is doing it, have at it.
Posted by: DrewM at
05:50 AM
| Comments (335)
Post contains 891 words, total size 6 kb.
Posted by: GMB (et al) at March 19, 2014 05:55 AM (nkPV9)
Posted by: @JohnTant at March 19, 2014 05:58 AM (eytER)
Posted by: Beagle at March 19, 2014 05:58 AM (sOtz/)
Posted by: DangerGirl and her Sanity Prod (tm) at March 19, 2014 05:58 AM (B2fm1)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 19, 2014 05:58 AM (aDwsi)
Posted by: maddogg at March 19, 2014 05:59 AM (xWW96)
I didn't get that from his column. I took it as we should not be "demonizing" each other with name calling etc.
Posted by: Vic[/i] at March 19, 2014 05:59 AM (T2V/1)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 19, 2014 05:59 AM (aDwsi)
Posted by: Chique at March 19, 2014 06:00 AM (r+7wo)
Posted by: Brother Cavil at March 19, 2014 06:00 AM (naUcP)
Anyone looking for me, I'm going to be down on the Dump thread, talking to myself. Feel free to join me!
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Bossy Assault Hobbit [/u][/i][/s][/b] at March 19, 2014 06:01 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: George Will at March 19, 2014 06:01 AM (JQuNB)
Posted by: Dancing Queen at March 19, 2014 06:02 AM (1s+pS)
Posted by: YourPoopyPants at March 19, 2014 06:02 AM (Y/HG5)
There is little point voting for republicans who don't fight to reduce the level of government. We have reached a point where there is literally so much government interference that the economy can no longer expand.
I am not out to win seats for a party - I am out to get rid of unconstitutional laws, onerous regulations, and federal departments.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at March 19, 2014 06:02 AM (AskuI)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 19, 2014 06:03 AM (IXrOn)
Dick Lugar is the quintessential Professional Republican Senator.
When he was defeated in the Primary, he refused to endorse the Republican Nominee. Since he has returned to his home in VA, rather than IN, he has contributed to Democrats.
He was no loss to the GOP.
Posted by: rd at March 19, 2014 06:03 AM (D+lxs)
You mean like Mitch McConnell vowing to "crush" the Tea Party everywhere?
You mean like Dick Lugar undermining Richard Mourdock; telling his donors to withhold funding and declining to support him?
You mean like Chris Christie setting up the election to make Cory Booker a shoo-in?
You mean like Mitch McConnell telling consultants and media firms they'll get no GOP business if they work for non-Establishment candidates?
Is that what you mean by "Rule or Ruin," Mr Sowell?
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at March 19, 2014 06:03 AM (6GRz5)
Posted by: votermom at March 19, 2014 06:04 AM (GSIDW)
In before the Bobsy Twins come in to tell you you're crazy.
I'd rather hear from the Boobsie Twins.
Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at March 19, 2014 06:04 AM (zF6Iw)
Posted by: buzzion at March 19, 2014 06:04 AM (LI48c)
Posted by: DrewM. at March 19, 2014 06:04 AM (8cWgt)
Posted by: Seems legit at March 19, 2014 06:04 AM (A98Xu)
Posted by: Dick Lugar at March 19, 2014 06:05 AM (JQuNB)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 19, 2014 06:06 AM (aDwsi)
Posted by: DrewM. at March 19, 2014 10:04 AM (8cWgt)
No not what I saw there. I gathered what he was decrying wasn't that more conservative candidates were primarying people like McConnell. I interpreted that he meant some of those candidates verbally demonizing their opponents and thus giving ammunition to the Democrats
You know, old RR's 11th commandment.
Posted by: Vic[/i] at March 19, 2014 06:07 AM (T2V/1)
Posted by: votermom at March 19, 2014 06:07 AM (GSIDW)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at March 19, 2014 06:07 AM (6GRz5)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 19, 2014 06:08 AM (aDwsi)
Posted by: Seems legit at March 19, 2014 06:09 AM (A98Xu)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at March 19, 2014 10:03 AM (6GRz5)
You forgot our old buddy, the GOP Party stalwart Charlie Crist of FL. A Republican that "good" Republicans needed in the Senate.
Who is now proudly running for office in the Democrat Party.
Posted by: rd at March 19, 2014 06:09 AM (D+lxs)
Posted by: Brother Cavil at March 19, 2014 06:10 AM (naUcP)
Posted by: willow at March 19, 2014 06:11 AM (nqBYe)
Posted by: Mike in the Hinterlands at March 19, 2014 06:11 AM (DNpio)
I think Dr. Sowell is wrong about this - this one statement:
"Those Republicans who seem ready to jeopardize their own partyÂ’s chances of winning these two crucial elections by following a rule-or-ruin fight against fellow Republicans may claim to be following their ideals. "
Ignores what we saw happen in 2010 and 2012. Think Lisa Murkowski, Cassell, and others.
When establishment-supported candidates win a primary, the rule is 'shut-up and get in line', yet that is not reciprocated when the opposite happens.
It's why many of us are fed-up with the GOP - they exhibit this very 'rule-or-ruin' mentality.
Posted by: Blindside at March 19, 2014 06:13 AM (WzWmY)
Posted by: Mr. Brooks at March 19, 2014 06:14 AM (Aif/5)
Posted by: Minnfidel at March 19, 2014 06:15 AM (bXdYS)
Sowell jumped the shark in a fairly recent NRO column when he employed not-so-subtle Nazi Germany allusions describing Ted Cruz. I thought it was despicable. Still do. There should be an Old Republicans Home where cranky, delusional old men like Sowell and McCain can lie around the pool and soak up the sun and play shuffleboard and yell at the help.
I notice too that Mark Steyn no longer writes for NRO--or at least I haven't seen his byline lately. A shame, since Steyn was one of the only reasons I ever checked them out. It's also a shame that Bill Buckley is dead. I think he would've adored Steyn's work. I also think he would've embraced the Tea Party and recognized a shake-up of the GOP Establishment as a good thing.
Posted by: troyriser at March 19, 2014 06:15 AM (O66NZ)
Posted by: Ann Coulter at March 19, 2014 06:15 AM (JQuNB)
When establishment-supported candidates win a primary, the rule is 'shut-up and get in line', yet that is not reciprocated when the opposite happens.
It's why many of us are fed-up with the GOP - they exhibit this very 'rule-or-ruin' mentality.
Posted by: Blindside at March 19, 2014 10:13 AM (WzWmY)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This! I am looking at you, Mr. Lugar.
Posted by: rd at March 19, 2014 06:15 AM (D+lxs)
Posted by: Mike in the Hinterlands at March 19, 2014 10:11 AM (DNpio)
He just did a $6M ad buy in SC. If he was "safe" he would not be doing that.
Posted by: Vic[/i] at March 19, 2014 06:16 AM (T2V/1)
Posted by: JJ Stone at March 19, 2014 06:17 AM (4oSMi)
Posted by: DrewM. at March 19, 2014 06:17 AM (8cWgt)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 19, 2014 06:18 AM (aDwsi)
get control of the govt out of the hands of those who explicitly want us
to go down the tubes economically. the others we can work on [gets
lead pipe ready...]
Posted by: Geezer der Mensch at March 19, 2014 06:19 AM (6aFlV)
Posted by: rd at March 19, 2014 10:15 AM (D+lxs)
I'll never regret voting against Dick Lugar in the primary even though voting against him was voting against a sure thing--and sure enough, Mourdoch lost and Donnelly won. I'd do it again even knowing the result. A message had to be sent.
Posted by: troyriser at March 19, 2014 06:19 AM (O66NZ)
Posted by: Hillary Clinton at March 19, 2014 06:19 AM (GjPnA)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 19, 2014 09:58 AM (aDwsi)
Slap punitive taxes on Starbucks coffee, tofu, and Toyota Priuses (Prii?) and you're bound to hit most of them.
Posted by: joncelli at March 19, 2014 06:19 AM (RD7QR)
While it maybe true that the Bush years resulted in spending well beyond the responsible, Clinton and Obama have damaged the very heart of American Society, it's soul. Economic recovery is possible, but one cannot recover lost culture.
Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 19, 2014 10:06 AM (aDwsi)
Its probably worse than that. Clinton and papa doc practically destroyed the fucking planet. Clinton practically built the china of today, and obama will be building the russia of tomorrow.
Posted by: Berserker-Dragonheads Division at March 19, 2014 06:20 AM (FMbng)
Posted by: Barky the Magnificent at March 19, 2014 06:21 AM (JQuNB)
Posted by: rickb223 at March 19, 2014 06:21 AM (cB3Ay)
Posted by: major major major major at March 19, 2014 06:21 AM (MUhs0)
Posted by: HR at March 19, 2014 06:22 AM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 19, 2014 06:23 AM (aDwsi)
Why is GOP talking amnesty when voters dont want it?
How to fight that without replacing the a-holes?
Posted by: Temper Tantrum at March 19, 2014 06:23 AM (AWmfW)
Posted by: JJ Stone at March 19, 2014 06:23 AM (4oSMi)
Posted by: Just Some Guy at March 19, 2014 06:23 AM (vgIRn)
He is not, however, a political strategist. Why treat him as such?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (anti-Irish Bigot) at March 19, 2014 06:24 AM (QFxY5)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 19, 2014 06:24 AM (aDwsi)
Posted by: rickb223 at March 19, 2014 06:24 AM (cB3Ay)
Posted by: Dancing Queen at March 19, 2014 10:02 AM (1s+pS)
Even Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia disagree with one another. Both recognize that they are not right sometimes.
Dr. Sowell will also recognize he isn't always right. While I'll give him SOME credence here, my eyes don't lie but the Republican Party does.
The party has more or less left me - they don't, as a whole, express the same values that I hold. I agree with them on more issues than I do with the Democrat party, but I disagree with them a whole lot, and, on the whole, they've proven to untrustworthy.
Specific individuals I trust, but not the GOP-apparatus as a whole.
Posted by: Blindside at March 19, 2014 06:24 AM (WzWmY)
Posted by: Minnfidel at March 19, 2014 10:15 AM (bXdYS)
The squish faction never takes a turn. They are very good at telling everyone else to work for the good of the party as a whole while not doing it themselves.
Whenever someone tells you "it's for the good of the party as a whole", what they really mean is; "STFU and give me your money and your vote, when I want your opinion, I will tell you what it is."
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes, We Be Bossy at March 19, 2014 06:24 AM (kXoT0)
It felt SOOOOO good to het the "donate" button.
Remember, though, the Tea Party is no longer a factor in GOP primaries. Reince told me so. /s
Posted by: mnw at March 19, 2014 06:24 AM (P+3u+)
The ignorance and naivete, it burns!
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 19, 2014 06:24 AM (zfY+H)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 19, 2014 06:25 AM (aDwsi)
Posted by: Fritz at March 19, 2014 06:25 AM (UzPAd)
72 "Only Republican control of the Senate can rein in the lawless Obama administration"
I have a phone and a pen. Congress can suck it!
Posted by: King Barry XIV at March 19, 2014 06:26 AM (DrWcr)
Posted by: Juan McCain at March 19, 2014 06:26 AM (JQuNB)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 19, 2014 06:27 AM (aDwsi)
Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 19, 2014 06:28 AM (HDwDg)
Posted by: Seems legit at March 19, 2014 06:28 AM (A98Xu)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 19, 2014 09:58 AM (aDwsi)
Slap punitive taxes on Starbucks coffee, tofu, and Toyota Priuses (Prii?) and you're bound to hit most of them.
And Subarus.
Posted by: rickb223
-----------------------------------
COEXIST bumper stickers.
Posted by: Mike Hammer
Patchouli oil & Birkenstocks.
Posted by: rickb223
--------------------
Knitted hipster hats
Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 19, 2014 10:27 AM (aDwsi)
Beard transplants.
Posted by: Insomniac at March 19, 2014 06:28 AM (DrWcr)
Posted by: eman at March 19, 2014 06:28 AM (AO9UG)
Posted by: Citizen X at March 19, 2014 06:28 AM (7ObY1)
Posted by: rickb223 at March 19, 2014 06:29 AM (cB3Ay)
Posted by: Paul at March 19, 2014 06:29 AM (9qDRl)
Knitted hipster hats
Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 19, 2014 10:27 AM (aDwsi)
Long denim dresses and skirts.
Anything made from hemp.
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes, We Be Bossy at March 19, 2014 06:29 AM (kXoT0)
Posted by: DangerGirl and her Sanity Prod (tm) at March 19, 2014 06:29 AM (B2fm1)
Posted by: Citizen X at March 19, 2014 06:29 AM (7ObY1)
Posted by: Minnfidel at March 19, 2014 10:15 AM (bXdYS)
Yes, the base/tea party has been more pragmatic when it comes to elections than the party.
Posted by: Temper Tantrum at March 19, 2014 06:29 AM (AWmfW)
Posted by: Insomniac at March 19, 2014 06:29 AM (DrWcr)
Posted by: Chique at March 19, 2014 06:30 AM (r+7wo)
Posted by: ontherocks at March 19, 2014 06:30 AM (p1Gn9)
Posted by: willow at March 19, 2014 06:31 AM (nqBYe)
...which means we must support those who wish to make common cause with the Democrats.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 19, 2014 06:31 AM (uhAkr)
Put up whoever you want to primary someone you think is a squish. Personally, I don't know what the big deal is here.. There are only a handful of primary challenges to incumbents..
But anyway.. like I said.. put up a challenger.. fine.
But if you lose, get behind the candidate - no matter what.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at March 19, 2014 06:31 AM (Z7PrM)
...which means we must support those who wish to make common cause with the Democrats.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 19, 2014 10:31 AM (uhAkr)
My friendsh, now you're making shensh!
Posted by: Juan McCain at March 19, 2014 06:31 AM (DrWcr)
Posted by: Mike in the Hinterlands at March 19, 2014 06:32 AM (DNpio)
Posted by: Temper Tantrum at March 19, 2014 10:23 AM (AWmfW)
Because greed. The GOP Establishment is talking amnesty because the big money corporate donors, particularly those comprising the US Chamber of Commerce, are hot for it. They fairly salivate at the thought of all that sweet, cheap labor that an influx of millions of suddenly legalized illegal immigrants would represent.
Posted by: troyriser at March 19, 2014 06:32 AM (O66NZ)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 19, 2014 06:32 AM (aDwsi)
Posted by: Citizen X at March 19, 2014 10:30 AM (7ObY1)
****
I saw a painting of William of Ockham yesterday. He had one of those 8 o'clock ironic not-quite-a-beard facial hair thing going on.
Brings that whole Razor thing into question.
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at March 19, 2014 06:33 AM (lHb9q)
"Ann Coulter — whose conservative credentials nobody has ever challenged"
Lost me there.
Ann Coulter, the Chris Christie sycophant?
Posted by: jwb7605 [/i][/u][/s][/b] at March 19, 2014 06:33 AM (ZALPg)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 19, 2014 06:34 AM (aDwsi)
Posted by: Citizen X at March 19, 2014 06:34 AM (7ObY1)
Posted by: rickb223 at March 19, 2014 06:34 AM (cB3Ay)
Otherwise, Obama announces the pullout, saying "Republicans start wars, Democrats end them!" with a finger in the air, and the GOP shuffles around trying to decide whether or not to support this or oppose it.
It doesn't ultimately matter who wins, I'm just suggesting strategy
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 19, 2014 06:34 AM (zfY+H)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 19, 2014 06:34 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: DrewM. at March 19, 2014 06:35 AM (8cWgt)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 19, 2014 06:35 AM (IXrOn)
Posted by: troyriser at March 19, 2014 10:32 AM (O66NZ)
It is incredibly stupid on their part to think that. All those newly legal folks are going to trot down and sign up for every single social service they can. Additionally, why assume they won't want minimum wage at least? If they are legal, they don't have to work dirt cheap for cash.
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes, We Be Bossy at March 19, 2014 06:35 AM (kXoT0)
Thomas Sowell is the first economist I read for pleasure, and the first one who made perfect sense to me. He has explained economics in a way that has taught me to see the world differently.
It will take a lot more than a misstep in his political analyses to get me to curse him.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (anti-Irish Bigot) at March 19, 2014 06:35 AM (QFxY5)
Posted by: willow at March 19, 2014 06:35 AM (nqBYe)
Posted by: Killerdog at March 19, 2014 06:35 AM (EYp+q)
Surely there's at least one LaRouche or John Birch blog that would take you, isn't there Drew?
Oh look, another useless comment from the guy who thought Ted Cruz was sending our brave boys in the House to get machine-gunned on the beaches or something.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 19, 2014 06:36 AM (uhAkr)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at March 19, 2014 10:31 AM (Z7PrM)
You dont need to tell that to the base/tea party , it's the GOP who needs to be told that.
Dede Scozzafava and Lisa Murderovsky! Remember?
Posted by: Temper Tantrum at March 19, 2014 06:36 AM (AWmfW)
Romney is the worst candidate ever, no one should vote for him, he's guaranteed to lose because he's a RINO!
-Ann Coulter
Romney is the best possible candidate and everyone should vote for him because he's more conservative than anyone understands!
-Ann Coulter
Yeah, you thought we'd forget, huh Coulter?
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 19, 2014 06:36 AM (zfY+H)
Posted by: mugiwara at March 19, 2014 06:36 AM (W7ffl)
Posted by: Lincolntf at March 19, 2014 06:36 AM (ZshNr)
Posted by: Chique at March 19, 2014 06:37 AM (r+7wo)
1) Kahlua
2) Stevie-in-the-raw (coffee sweetener)
3) tickets to "12 Years A Slave"
4) solar roof panels (from one of the few solar companies that haven't gone bankrupt yet)
5) AARP membership
Posted by: mnw at March 19, 2014 06:37 AM (P+3u+)
This shit is no fun at all.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (anti-Irish Bigot) at March 19, 2014 06:37 AM (QFxY5)
Posted by: rickb223 at March 19, 2014 06:37 AM (cB3Ay)
Posted by: troyriser at March 19, 2014 10:32 AM (O66NZ)
I was making a rhetoric point, the GOP is up to no good, so why be nice to them.
Posted by: Temper Tantrum at March 19, 2014 06:37 AM (AWmfW)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 19, 2014 06:37 AM (aDwsi)
Posted by: Peggy Nooner at March 19, 2014 06:38 AM (JQuNB)
Posted by: willow at March 19, 2014 06:38 AM (nqBYe)
Posted by: DrewM. at March 19, 2014 06:38 AM (8cWgt)
The extreme left has been following a long-term plan. They took over colleges and universities and then government. They also took control of public schools. In Dallas and Dallas county, we are run by wealthy white Democrat trial lawyers. They pick the school superintendent and put minority Democratic politicians in jail to get them out of the way. The left stole the 2008 Democratic nomination from Hillary by abusing the caucus process and then stole the 2012 election so subtly that we didn't know it had been stolen until we found out what the IRS had been doing.
I sympathize with Thomas Sowell, because I don't think you can sell the far right to the American people, although I hope I am wrong. You definitely cannot sell social conservatism and conservative religion to them.
Posted by: Jim Bender at March 19, 2014 06:38 AM (J+9cE)
Posted by: Citizen X at March 19, 2014 06:38 AM (7ObY1)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 19, 2014 06:39 AM (zfY+H)
1) Kahlua
2) Stevie-in-the-raw (coffee sweetener)
Posted by: mnw at March 19, 2014 10:37 AM (P+3u+)
Those nasty grimy socks they wear with their sandals in the winter.
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes, We Be Bossy at March 19, 2014 06:39 AM (kXoT0)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 19, 2014 06:39 AM (aDwsi)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 19, 2014 06:39 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Seems legit at March 19, 2014 06:39 AM (A98Xu)
Posted by: Seems legit at March 19, 2014 06:40 AM (A98Xu)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 19, 2014 10:34 AM (SY2Kh)
Do you actually know anything about LaRouche or the John Birch Society?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (anti-Irish Bigot) at March 19, 2014 06:40 AM (QFxY5)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at March 19, 2014 06:40 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 19, 2014 06:40 AM (aDwsi)
Our enemies are giving out clothes hanger pendants and chanting 'Hail Satan!'. They're not moderates in the slightest.
A competent party should be wiping the floor with them.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 19, 2014 06:40 AM (uhAkr)
Posted by: DrewM. at March 19, 2014 06:40 AM (8cWgt)
If you are a Kahlua drinker there are some great recipes for homemade that are just as good, and 25% of the price.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (anti-Irish Bigot) at March 19, 2014 06:41 AM (QFxY5)
Posted by: Holypoint at March 19, 2014 06:41 AM (JQuNB)
Posted by: ontherocks at March 19, 2014 06:41 AM (p1Gn9)
Posted by: SH at March 19, 2014 06:42 AM (gmeXX)
Posted by: Citizen X at March 19, 2014 06:42 AM (7ObY1)
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at March 19, 2014 06:42 AM (PYAXX)
Posted by: HR at March 19, 2014 10:40 AM (ZKzrr)
Tastes like spiked milkshake poured into the remnants of day-old decaff.
Posted by: joncelli at March 19, 2014 06:42 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 19, 2014 06:43 AM (zfY+H)
Surely there's at least one LaRouche or John Birch blog that would take you, isn't there Drew?
Hollowpoint, do you actually believe your own Pollyanna bullshit?
I am serious here.
Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at March 19, 2014 06:43 AM (5ikDv)
Mormons and Pentacostals are proggs? Shit, that makes us all proggs.
Posted by: HR at March 19, 2014 06:43 AM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: Minnfidel at March 19, 2014 06:43 AM (bXdYS)
Nonsense We must forever love anyone who identified as a Republican, regardless of actual performance.
If we had 100 Arlen Specters in the Senate, America would be in a Golden Age.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 19, 2014 06:43 AM (uhAkr)
I know I have serious disagreements with the Party and probably will not vote GOP for President this upcoming, depending on who gets the Nom.
GOPe and others can get pissed at that, or at me, just the same as I'm pissed at it, and them. No big deal. Thanks for the opinion, Mr. Sowell, but I'll keep my own counsel.
Posted by: Bigby's Other Hand at March 19, 2014 06:44 AM (3ZtZW)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 19, 2014 06:44 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at March 19, 2014 06:44 AM (PYAXX)
I've written Dr Sowell twice on the issue of "Because Shutup." His "Cruz Control" articles and conclusions were so different from what I thought he would think that I asked him if he was up against a deadline for each of them.
What really baffled me was the comparisons of the Tea Party to Hitler and Nazism. I still shake my head at those smears.
Didn't expect, nor did I get, a reply. Well that is what you get when an academic(economist) is allowed to write about things about his expertise I guess.
Slante Var!
Posted by: Rattrays Old Gowrie at March 19, 2014 06:45 AM (CfpNk)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 19, 2014 06:45 AM (aDwsi)
Posted by: Kosher Sizer at March 19, 2014 06:45 AM (ODaO0)
Posted by: DrewM. at March 19, 2014 06:46 AM (8cWgt)
Posted by: willow at March 19, 2014 06:46 AM (nqBYe)
He's not entirely wrong that conservatives are way to quick to throw out candidates based on perceived straying from the One True Way (as perceived by he individual) but he overstates how much this is done and is far too quick to instantly defend any Republican for anything no matter what.
If the GOP was worth a damn, they'd help get good primary challengers for trash like Olympia Snowe.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 19, 2014 06:46 AM (zfY+H)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (anti-Irish Bigot) at March 19, 2014 10:35 AM (QFxY5
Well other than one commenter and one banned asshole that had his commnt TB3Ked, I haven't seen anyone saying calling Sowell a RINO or that he is dead to them. The most said is that they think he's wrong, pointing out that they didn't like his Nazi allusions to Cruz. But you know the shills will push the claim that now everyone that isn't blowing Mitch McConnel and John Boehner want to throw Sowell out of the party.
Posted by: buzzion at March 19, 2014 06:46 AM (LI48c)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 19, 2014 10:03 AM (IXrOn)
That is a rather ... weird argument, tbh. How does one transition the party to conservatives if the actual elected pols are not? Hmm. Seems like a recipe for status quo, to me.
Posted by: [/i]KG at March 19, 2014 06:46 AM (p7BzH)
Posted by: SH at March 19, 2014 10:42 AM (gmeXX)
Yes, realpolitik and not faith in party.
Posted by: Temper Tantrum at March 19, 2014 06:46 AM (AWmfW)
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at March 19, 2014 06:46 AM (PYAXX)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at March 19, 2014 10:31 AM (Z7PrM)
===
I've been doing that for years. I'd like some reciprocity.
Posted by: Biff Boffo at March 19, 2014 06:46 AM (YmPwQ)
Posted by: Mac at March 19, 2014 06:47 AM (bxKJf)
Pour encourager les autres.
We don't have a House of Lords, and one day these comfortable bastards in Washington will realize that.
Whether at the ballot box or the end of a rope is still unclear.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (anti-Irish Bigot) at March 19, 2014 06:47 AM (QFxY5)
Posted by: willow at March 19, 2014 06:47 AM (nqBYe)
Posted by: Damiano at March 19, 2014 06:47 AM (j0wOO)
Posted by: phoenixgirl @phxazgrl at March 19, 2014 06:48 AM (u8GsB)
Posted by: SH at March 19, 2014 06:48 AM (gmeXX)
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at March 19, 2014 06:48 AM (YYJjz)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at March 19, 2014 06:48 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 19, 2014 10:45 AM (aDwsi)
***
We could start by looking on my house (off grid, in the mountains, 8 solar panels, purchased at market prices, no subsidy). In some settings the economics favor using solar panels.
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at March 19, 2014 06:49 AM (lHb9q)
What you said pretty much validates DangerGirl's comment. In all her voting life, the Republicans have failed to meaningfully pursue conservative goals, which leads to her feeling like they don't damn well mean it when they do their annual pinkie swearsies.
Posted by: [/i]KG at March 19, 2014 06:49 AM (p7BzH)
We must have people who speak in a measured fashion and don't do anything which might drive voters away. But you DUMB SHITCOCKS are just so stupid you'll screw it all up! SHUT UP AND DO AS WE SAY!
Posted by: Moderate Republican Logic at March 19, 2014 06:49 AM (uhAkr)
Posted by: willow at March 19, 2014 06:49 AM (nqBYe)
Posted by: Kosher Sizer at March 19, 2014 10:45 AM (ODaO0)
Well , after you show us president Romney.
Posted by: Temper Tantrum at March 19, 2014 06:49 AM (AWmfW)
Yup....and I was mostly just agreeing with Chique.
Even smart people are wrong sometimes.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (anti-Irish Bigot) at March 19, 2014 06:50 AM (QFxY5)
What would his mentor, Milton Friedman, think?
What would Milton Friedman do if he were here right now?
He'd surely kick an ass or two, that's what Milton Friedman would do!
Posted by: Insomniac at March 19, 2014 06:50 AM (DrWcr)
Nah, they're Democrats.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 19, 2014 06:50 AM (zfY+H)
Posted by: votermom at March 19, 2014 06:50 AM (GSIDW)
Posted by: ontherocks at March 19, 2014 06:50 AM (p1Gn9)
Posted by: Mac at March 19, 2014 10:47 AM (bxKJf)
I wish that were true, but it's not.
Posted by: Paul at March 19, 2014 06:50 AM (9qDRl)
Right. That's the problem with McCain,Graham,Cornyn,etc.
Toilet tissue.
GOPe = Full Retard
Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at March 19, 2014 06:50 AM (5ikDv)
Posted by: Brother Cavil at March 19, 2014 06:51 AM (naUcP)
Posted by: SH at March 19, 2014 06:51 AM (gmeXX)
just looking for the guidelines here.
====
Since the Westboro creeps are all Democrats.....no.
Posted by: Biff Boffo at March 19, 2014 06:51 AM (YmPwQ)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 19, 2014 06:52 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Rattrays Old Gowrie at March 19, 2014 06:52 AM (CfpNk)
Posted by: rickb223 at March 19, 2014 06:52 AM (cB3Ay)
That's the only conservative congress I recall in American history, unless you count the first few ones in the 1700s. They accomplished a lot, including a balanced budget and forcing congress to live by their own laws (mostly reversed by Pelosi's House).
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 19, 2014 06:52 AM (zfY+H)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at March 19, 2014 06:52 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: VP Joe Biden at March 19, 2014 06:53 AM (Aif/5)
Posted by: Brother Cavil at March 19, 2014 06:53 AM (naUcP)
Posted by: Biff Boffo at March 19, 2014 06:53 AM (YmPwQ)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (anti-Irish Bigot) at March 19, 2014 10:40 AM (QFxY5)
LaRouche's fixation on the Queen of England is hilarious. I fervently hope LaRouche makes a movie someday, something along the lines of Scientology's John Travolta 'Battlefield Earth' debacle. Imagining Queen Elizabeth II as a global evil mastermind has all sorts of comedic possibilities.
Posted by: troyriser at March 19, 2014 06:53 AM (O66NZ)
Posted by: Kosher Sizer at March 19, 2014 06:54 AM (ODaO0)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 19, 2014 10:52 AM (SY2Kh)
STOP RAPING PEOPLE HOLLOWPOINT!!
Posted by: Temper Tantrum at March 19, 2014 06:54 AM (AWmfW)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 19, 2014 10:52 AM (SY2Kh)
Says the guy who wants a blogger to leave.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 19, 2014 06:54 AM (uhAkr)
Evidently that's what you want. Punishment for questioning or holding opinions contrary to the GOP.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 19, 2014 06:54 AM (zfY+H)
Posted by: Chique at March 19, 2014 06:54 AM (r+7wo)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at March 19, 2014 06:55 AM (VtjlW)
Where have you gone, J.D. Hayworth-- a nation turns its lonely eyes to you. Please come back & try again.
Posted by: mnw at March 19, 2014 06:55 AM (P+3u+)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 19, 2014 06:55 AM (aDwsi)
Posted by: Kosher Sizer at March 19, 2014 10:54 AM (ODaO0)
Why do you ask questions you already know the answer to?
Posted by: Paul at March 19, 2014 06:55 AM (9qDRl)
At this point, the govt is subject to regulatory capture and the massive FSA, I have little hope in any event.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at March 19, 2014 06:56 AM (0Kobm)
Thomas Sowell is the first economist I read for pleasure, and the first one who made perfect sense to me. He has explained economics in a way that has taught me to see the world differently.
It will take a lot more than a misstep in his political analyses to get me to curse him.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (anti-Irish Bigot) at March 19, 2014 10:35 AM (QFxY5)
Go read Mises.org.
Probably find something there, the place drips with economists, need ferrets to get rid of them all probably.
Posted by: kindletot at March 19, 2014 06:56 AM (LRUgq)
>>>What really baffled me was the comparisons of the Tea Party to Hitler and Nazism
No kidding. Establishment doesn't have answers that are applicable to reality anymore. Not even their smears make any sense.
Posted by: Bigby's Other Hand at March 19, 2014 06:56 AM (3ZtZW)
Posted by: Biff Boffo at March 19, 2014 10:53 AM (YmPwQ)
The same moderates that promised to fight fight fight! over the debt ceiling .
Posted by: Temper Tantrum at March 19, 2014 06:56 AM (AWmfW)
@ 175 - "so does this mean we also must associate with westboro church?"
No, they're Democrats, IIRC.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at March 19, 2014 06:56 AM (YYJjz)
Yeah that was kind of a watershed moment. It definitely separated the men from the boys. The left was full of glee and acted like it was insanity, most of America went "shrug, I like this Cruz guy" and GOP elites acted like he came in and crapped on the ice sculpture at their Hamptons dinner party.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 19, 2014 06:56 AM (zfY+H)
Posted by: Biff Boffo at March 19, 2014 10:46 AM (YmPwQ)
Bingo. It's not we "purists" who won't play with the team; it is the Establicans who shaft and stab *us* in the back.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at March 19, 2014 06:56 AM (GsebS)
Posted by: MTF at March 19, 2014 06:57 AM (3uHwI)
Posted by: WalrusRex at March 19, 2014 06:57 AM (Hx5uv)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at March 19, 2014 10:03 AM (6GRz5)
THIS.
So is Dr. Sowell inadvertantly admitting that the sour grapes establishment losers will actually cause us to lose the senate?
Posted by: joanne at March 19, 2014 06:57 AM (s/quq)
>>>wish you whiney mother fuckers would win an election with your preferred true conservative so you would just shut the fuck up.
Its enough for me to assist you in losing, Losers.
Posted by: Bigby's Other Hand at March 19, 2014 06:58 AM (3ZtZW)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 19, 2014 10:52 AM (SY2Kh)
Give it a rest. No one is persecuting you, O Brave Truth Bearer and Light Bringer to the Unwashed (TM).
Posted by: troyriser at March 19, 2014 06:58 AM (O66NZ)
Posted by: ExSnipe at March 19, 2014 06:58 AM (LKJt3)
Posted by: Reform Party Handing Clinton 8 Years at March 19, 2014 06:58 AM (aDwsi)
Posted by: willow at March 19, 2014 06:58 AM (nqBYe)
Posted by: Seems legit at March 19, 2014 06:58 AM (A98Xu)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 19, 2014 06:58 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: --- at March 19, 2014 06:58 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: HR at March 19, 2014 10:43 AM (ZKzrr)
Nope, you are right. My cleaning lady wears skirts to the floor because of her religious faith.
For the Liberal gals, there is a specific type of Earth Mother "granny" skirt that I am picturing--that I can't describe. They are usually a gauzy denim.
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes, We Be Bossy at March 19, 2014 06:59 AM (kXoT0)
Posted by: LYNN at March 19, 2014 06:59 AM (AjrEe)
While I'm all all for taking the Senate, but if we have a bunch McConnell/McCain types then what does that really buy us. We won't spend as much money on social programs and only get lip-service to 'limited government.'
Not trying to be a Debbie Downer buuuuuut.....
Posted by: ATLDiver at March 19, 2014 06:59 AM (4N7Kq)
@ 207 - "Why did you leave out Bush?"
Assuming you mean Bush I, good point. He got elected when people assumed he was going to be Reagan's third term. He lost when he went "moderate, pragmatic" and started crossing the aisle to "work with" the Dems.
Thanks for strengthening my point.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at March 19, 2014 06:59 AM (YYJjz)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at March 19, 2014 06:59 AM (VtjlW)
>>>most of America went "shrug, I like this Cruz guy"
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 19, 2014 10:56 AM (zfY+H)
Interesting. How are things in the parallel universe you inhabit? In this one, called "reality", the shutdown was getting like 20% approval.
Posted by: Paul at March 19, 2014 07:00 AM (9qDRl)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 19, 2014 07:00 AM (zfY+H)
Posted by: Deety at March 19, 2014 07:00 AM (D8ONs)
Posted by: DrewM. at March 19, 2014 07:00 AM (8cWgt)
Thanks for strengthening my point.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at March 19, 2014 10:59 AM (YYJjz)
You know which Bush he meant. Quit being a damn weasel and just admit a "moderate" won 2 elections.
Posted by: Paul at March 19, 2014 07:01 AM (9qDRl)
Posted by: Beagle at March 19, 2014 07:01 AM (sOtz/)
Posted by: Berserker-Dragonheads Division at March 19, 2014 07:01 AM (FMbng)
Yeah that was kind of a watershed moment. It definitely separated the men from the boys. The left was full of glee and acted like it was insanity, most of America went "shrug, I like this Cruz guy" and GOP elites acted like he came in and crapped on the ice sculpture at their Hamptons dinner party.
====
True. I had a hard time separating the Rinos from the hardcore lefties that week. It's still simmering under the surface.
Posted by: Biff Boffo at March 19, 2014 07:01 AM (YmPwQ)
Posted by: willow at March 19, 2014 07:02 AM (nqBYe)
Posted by: Virgil Earp at March 19, 2014 07:02 AM (T2V/1)
Paul: ask people what they think about the government shutdown now. Go ahead, find people and ask actual human beings you meet. See how they respond and get back to me.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 19, 2014 07:02 AM (zfY+H)
Posted by: Joe Biden at March 19, 2014 07:02 AM (Aif/5)
Posted by: eman at March 19, 2014 07:02 AM (AO9UG)
Posted by: ontherocks at March 19, 2014 07:02 AM (p1Gn9)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 19, 2014 07:03 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: willow at March 19, 2014 07:03 AM (nqBYe)
You should hang out with Democrats more, they appreciate your kind of Republican sensibilities.
Posted by: DrewM. at March 19, 2014 11:00 AM (8cWgt)
Come off it. The Tea Party is exactly the same way. Always feeling free themselves to call down fire and brimstone, then getting the vapors when one crusty old geezer says something mean to them.
Posted by: Paul at March 19, 2014 07:04 AM (9qDRl)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 19, 2014 10:58 AM (SY2Kh)
Projection .
Posted by: Temper Tantrum at March 19, 2014 07:04 AM (AWmfW)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at March 19, 2014 07:04 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at March 19, 2014 07:04 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 19, 2014 07:04 AM (zfY+H)
@ 244 - "You know which Bush he meant. Quit being a damn weasel and just admit a "moderate" won 2 elections."
Actually, I *didn't* know which Bush he meant, since like a lot of you "true lib" Republicans, he did a very poor job of actually articulating his point.
However, I think only a retard would label Bush II as a "moderate," despite some of the things he did that conservatives did not like. Only an idiot or a Democrat would think that Bush II was in the same league as McCain or Romney.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at March 19, 2014 07:05 AM (YYJjz)
Posted by: mnw at March 19, 2014 07:05 AM (P+3u+)
Posted by: Lincolntf at March 19, 2014 07:06 AM (ZshNr)
Posted by: Kosher Sizer at March 19, 2014 07:06 AM (ODaO0)
Posted by: willow at March 19, 2014 07:06 AM (nqBYe)
And some folks seem to like it that way and get personally offended when you disagree.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 19, 2014 07:07 AM (zfY+H)
Posted by: WalrusRex at March 19, 2014 07:07 AM (Hx5uv)
Posted by: Brother Cavil at March 19, 2014 07:07 AM (naUcP)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit[/i][/u][/b][/s] at March 19, 2014 07:07 AM (0HooB)
Posted by: Kosher Sizer at March 19, 2014 11:06 AM (ODaO0)
What I hear is GOP pigs whining every time they're challenged by the tea party.
Posted by: Temper Tantrum at March 19, 2014 07:08 AM (AWmfW)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 19, 2014 07:08 AM (zfY+H)
@ 274 - "It can be done, if we get off our butts, roll up our sleeves, and get to it."
Exactly. And they didn't even the internet. Or electricity, for that matter.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at March 19, 2014 07:10 AM (YYJjz)
Posted by: Kosher Sizer at March 19, 2014 07:10 AM (ODaO0)
Yeah, we know. And the LAST time someone tried it was.... when Clinton got elected by a plurality. Doesn't mean it can't work again but "worked once" does not mean an established pattern or rule, just saying.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 19, 2014 07:11 AM (zfY+H)
@ 276 - "What I hear is GOP pigs whining every time they're challenged by the tea party."
It's pretty sad when GOP-E politicians and functionaries will actively help a Democrat to defeat a Tea Partier who wins a primary, isn't it?
It the GOP-E wants to *act* like they and the conservatives/Tea Partiers/liberty lovers are two separate parties, then maybe it's time for that to actually happen?
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at March 19, 2014 07:11 AM (YYJjz)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 19, 2014 07:12 AM (SY2Kh)
@ 279 - "Now Bush is not a RINO / moderate? I don't care who you are that's funny right there."
I've never said Bush was a RINO/moderate. While he wasn't as conservative as I'd have liked, he definitely was not cut from the McCain/Dole/Boehner/Romney jib.
Which, oddly enough, would seem to shoot down your "true con" straw man, btw.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at March 19, 2014 07:14 AM (YYJjz)
Calling him a "RINO" or "Moderate" is misguided, in my opinion. Someone like McCain is straight down the line a moderate, with only one area he seems conservative in: strong military. Romney is just a moderate with personal leanings toward social conservatism, but totally willing to use the government to impose his ideas.
Objectively, these really aren't the same sort of cat at all.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 19, 2014 07:14 AM (zfY+H)
Good little lapdog that one. Excellent bootlicking skills.
Fetch me a juicebox, son.
Posted by: Senator John McCain [/i] [/b] at March 19, 2014 07:14 AM (5ikDv)
Posted by: Bubba at March 19, 2014 07:14 AM (E1JS5)
Now you're just being dishonest and willfully so. What do you gain from this? What are you hoping to accomplish? Has this just become about personally feeling hurt now?
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 19, 2014 07:15 AM (zfY+H)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 19, 2014 07:15 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 19, 2014 07:16 AM (aDwsi)
Gee, you mean they're pushing back against those who'd prefer to see them remain in the minority? Shocking.
What did the GOPe accomplish when they had the majority?
*crickets*
Posted by: Senator John McCain [/i] [/b] at March 19, 2014 07:16 AM (5ikDv)
'Cause that's the way we roll.
I would LOVE to see that in a rider on some contract someday.Posted by: Deety at March 19, 2014 07:18 AM (D8ONs)
Posted by: Kosher Sizer at March 19, 2014 11:06 AM (ODaO0)
Really now? Who bad mouths whom? I never heard Tea Party Republicans go after Mitch McConnell, until he went after them first.....
Posted by: Curmudgeon at March 19, 2014 07:18 AM (GsebS)
Posted by: SH at March 19, 2014 07:18 AM (gmeXX)
And you are so damn sure you KNOW who is going to win that the rest of us need to sit down and shut up.
See if you can define "establishment" for yourself and figure out why the Tea Party challenges them. Why are you so sure that if we drag the party a little more right that we are sure to lose?
Posted by: sweet...ish at March 19, 2014 07:20 AM (bj+Nc)
"What did the GOP do when they were in the majority? Nothing."
You lie, McCain! At least they de-funded NPR! I guess you FORGOT that, huh?
Oh, wait... you mean they failed even to do THAT? OK, never mind. "Nothing" is accurate.
Posted by: mnw at March 19, 2014 07:22 AM (P+3u+)
Posted by: Syme at March 19, 2014 07:23 AM (Hb3wi)
Sowell would have us become the one thing we despise: RINO.
Let the GOP burn. Reprising conservative sensibilities from 2006, "Bite Me, GOP" http://tinyurl.com/n84n59k
Posted by: Born Free at March 19, 2014 07:23 AM (xL8Hf)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 19, 2014 11:08 AM (zfY+H)
We're pretty close letting the political establishment have complete control of Lord Acton's "absolute power"!
Posted by: Karl Rover at March 19, 2014 07:25 AM (o3MSL)
Posted by: Burn the Witch at March 19, 2014 07:26 AM (gBnkX)
Posted by: sock_rat_eez at March 19, 2014 07:27 AM (+jyzN)
Posted by: Deety at March 19, 2014 07:27 AM (D8ONs)
Just in case anyone wanted to know.
Posted by: sock_rat_eez at March 19, 2014 11:27 AM (+jyzN)
FTFY
Posted by: buzzion at March 19, 2014 07:29 AM (LI48c)
Although he's been right on a lot of stuff that is not the case here.
The GOPe does not reciprocate. They expect us to shut up and get in line but when a Tea Party guy wins locally, they do all they can to stop him from winning or having any serious voice. The Roves actually are trying to defend the GOPe as if we were a virus needing to be killed.
Winning elections means nothing if the winners are not on your side ideologically sufficiently to make it a unified team that works to implement, not just TALK about your agenda. We have seen what happens with the GOPe once they have all 3 branches. They STILL go along to get along, they STILL vote with Dems to INCREASE (just a hair less fast, at best) the size of gov and do zilch to change the long term trajectory we are on over the cliff.
Saying, vote pubbie since we will go over the cliff at 85 miles per hour and the the Dems want to take you over it at 104 miles per hour is not a good idea.
Dem rank and filers get a return on their investment.
They know the party advances socialism no matter who is in office, and it will not improve the federal judge situation under Hillary or any other leftist the Dems nominate. Their primary true believers are not getting burned like we are.
Power only matters when you USE IT for your side, and to affect the long term solvency of your party acting in accordance to your ideological aims, not merely to have power for the sake of holding it. Dems get this. In spades.
They take hits for the team over the ACA, since they know it will grow the state, and socialized medicine changes the landscape of a country and makes it permanently leftist. Our current GOP is actually working for the progressives. They do not advance OUR agenda. They do not even keep meager promises to their base. Heck, they are trying to get a NEW leftist immigrant base!
Boner always says the next budget or debt ceiling battle will be line in the sand. Obama knows it's never coming, since the GOPe folds every time like a cheap suit and never stands on Constitutional principle. The do not even have to wait hours anymore, the leadership folds and actually gives Dems MORE than what they asked for it seems.
Sowell, you are so so so so very wrong here...
Posted by: Mehow at March 19, 2014 07:30 AM (def5M)
Bush the younger was a moderate in some areas, and extremely conservative in others. He was very conservative on military, tax cuts, and social issues, and pushed congress to cut spending every single budget he proposed. On the other hand, he increased government's size dramatically and was willing to use regulation and federal spending to address problems, so he was a mixed bag.
Calling him a "RINO" or "Moderate" is misguided, in my opinion. Someone like McCain is straight down the line a moderate, with only one area he seems conservative in: strong military. Romney is just a moderate with personal leanings toward social conservatism, but totally willing to use the government to impose his ideas.
Objectively, these really aren't the same sort of cat at all.
Issues can vary. Romney may have been a RINO in some places, but he understood the immigration scamnesty farce, something the Bushyrovies, acting under the utter delusion that they could win a Hispandering contest, did not.
The Bushyrovies also foolishly pushed an additional Medicare entitement, which is just more of the hair of the dog that bit us.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at March 19, 2014 07:34 AM (GsebS)
At an unimportant non-crucial election? When will that time ever be? All elections are the most important one ever, it seems or the pundits will claim thus. If we won in 14, the same would apply if Hillary won and started nominating leftist judges. Unlike the pubbies, the Dems' selections to the bench are nearly always true believers who even contort their rulings to make the law do the judge's bidding. Even when we win, we get judicial minimalism while leftist judges "see" rights not there and simply vote, in effect, their personal preferences. No time to fight will work, there will ALWAYS be a huge election to win, etc. Hilldabeast's nominees will be just as radical leftist and ideologue and unreasonable and activist as O's...
Posted by: Mehow at March 19, 2014 07:36 AM (def5M)
#308 has it. Those of us who cheered on John Roberts against the slimy Charles Schumer (how is such a man like Schumer not indicted as a domestic enemy of the Constitution?) really received a rude shock.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at March 19, 2014 07:44 AM (GsebS)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 19, 2014 07:45 AM (zfY+H)
Of course, it had been a few days without the standard, paint-by-numbers, "true con" bait post from Drew. Probably saw a site-hit drop and needed to gin up some plastic outrage from the faithful, so a "true con" bait post attacking someone who has done more for the conservative movement in this country while taking a shit than Drew will do in his entire lifetime seemed a good tactic for getting the traffic up, I'm sure.
Posted by: trumpetdaddy at March 19, 2014 07:56 AM (uUI8H)
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at March 19, 2014 08:11 AM (FFIoe)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 19, 2014 08:11 AM (zfY+H)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 19, 2014 12:11 PM (zfY+H)
Bingo. It's not like Drew posted that Thomas Sowell is dead to him now.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at March 19, 2014 08:13 AM (GsebS)
Posted by: Chris_Balsz at March 19, 2014 08:17 AM (5xmd7)
Posted by: Chris_Balsz at March 19, 2014 08:18 AM (5xmd7)
Posted by: ToursLepantoVienna at March 19, 2014 08:31 AM (miAG4)
Posted by: Chris_Balsz at March 19, 2014 08:35 AM (5xmd7)
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith[/i][/b][/s][/u] at March 19, 2014 08:45 AM (qyfb5)
Posted by: Lib troll at March 19, 2014 08:47 AM (TF/YA)
FFS. This isn't that difficult.
Nominate the most conservative candidate who stands a reasonable chance of being elected.
Ted Cruz or Mike Lee won't win in Massachusetts. We don't need to nominate someone like the Maine sisters in Idaho.
The only problem with this is that:
(1) the Establicans often set the bar for "most conservative candidate with a reasonable chance of being elected" so low as to render it meaningless.
(2) the Establicans often work to sabotage the primary candidate winner when it isn't their guy or gal.
If my guy / gal doesn't win the primary, I will still wholeheartedly support the primary winner over the Commiecrat in the general election. The Establicans, however, time and time again that they will show no shc reciprocity.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at March 19, 2014 08:54 AM (GsebS)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at March 19, 2014 10:40 AM (VtjlW)
Absolutely correct, of course, but you would not believe how much push back against that idea I receive.
I take that back: I'm certain you know exactly how much push back I get on that idea.
Posted by: physics geek at March 19, 2014 09:05 AM (MT22W)
Oh, are Rubio and Toomey off the persona non grata list? Or did they recant their public heresies on immigration and gun control, respectively? It's so hard to keep track of which once-and-future saviors are being recognized by the Tea Party these days. Not that I'm happy with what Rubio and Toomey said, either...I just get a kick out of so many of the people who claimed to be motivated by principle rejecting their former darlings with the vehemence that suggests they were really cult-of-personality types.
"Look who isn't getting any serious challenge from the dreaded 'outside groups'...Lamar Alexander, Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham."
In the cases of Alexander and Graham, I agree. Challenges should be made, because those are seats we could keep. But there's a good reason why no one is challenging Susan Collins, and why many of us are prepared to put up with the places where she crosses lines for purposes of electability. It's because in a state like Maine, the choice is between her on the one hand, and (at best) a "moderate" like Angus King on the other. Or are you happier with King's votes than you were with Olympia Snowe's, Drew?
Better to have someone who will agree with you 90% of the time than 60%, when you can get them. But when the actual choice is between someone who agrees with you 60% of the time and someone who agrees with you 5% of the time, put me down for the 60%. (See also: Mike Castle.) Or when the choice is between someone who's error-prone and someone who's not, put me down for the solid one -- because they're less likely to give you the 5% guy as a consequence of their nomination. (See also: Jerry Tarkanian; Jane Norton; John Brunner OR Sarah Steelman; and yes, Dick Lugar.)
Posted by: Demosthenes at March 19, 2014 09:47 AM (kNw9i)
Better to have someone who will agree with you 90% of the time than 60%, when you can get them. But when the actual choice is between someone who agrees with you 60% of the time and someone who agrees with you 5% of the time, put me down for the 60%. (See also: Mike Castle.)
But when Castle doesn't win the primary and O'Donnell does, do you stab O'Donnell in the back?
I will back the primary winner in the general against the Commiecrat no matter what. Will you?
Posted by: Curmudgeon at March 19, 2014 10:03 AM (GsebS)
"But when Castle doesn't win the primary and O'Donnell does, do you stab O'Donnell in the back?"
If you're asking about me personally...no. No, I wouldn't. Although Christine O'Donnell is still the most egregious misstep made by the Tea Party in two election cycles* -- which is something, considering Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock -- she would have been an infinitely preferable senator to Chris Coons. And in the general election, I always vote for the person I think would do the best job; electability is only a factor in the primary races. So, had I voted in Delaware in 2010...Castle in the primary, O'Donnell in the general.
* Of course, the Tea Party has had about twice as many stunning successes as missteps. Rand Paul and Scott Walker in particular have been fantastic.
"I will back the primary winner in the general against the Commiecrat no matter what. Will you?"
When I vote in the primary, I vote as a Republican, for the candidate I think would serve the best interests of my party. (Those are: first, to get elected, and second, to govern as conservatively as possible...obviously, what's possible in Massachusetts is not the same as what's possible in Utah.) When I vote in the general election, I vote as a resident of my city, my state, or my country. That means I vote for the candidate I think would do the best job in office. That's my responsibility as a citizen.
So...no. I will not back the Republican "no matter what." I almost always judge the Republican to be the best candidate. I would have voted for O'Donnell, for Miller, for Buck, for Angle, and for Mourdock despite my reservations about all of their candidacies, because even after that they were still better than the Democrat alternatives. Had I been voting in Missouri in 2012, though, I would have voted for Jonathan Dine instead of Akin or McCaskill.
Posted by: Demosthenes at March 19, 2014 11:08 AM (kNw9i)
Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at March 19, 2014 12:11 PM (Nhmit)
Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at March 19, 2014 12:15 PM (Nhmit)
Posted by: Death Is Not The Worst Of Evils at March 19, 2014 01:58 PM (nbGZj)
This purist (in RINO's minds can't win) centrist (can win) debate is far from new written about on the 'blogs' for ever and ever. It is like this;
1) True conservative whose message of small government, tax cuts, etc. IS WHAT we want but he can't win
2) Centrist who wants to do centrist things can win.
3) Suppor the Centrist cause.........power
4) If the Centrist even wins he proceeds to betray conservatives and actually does centrist things cause he wnats love and acceptance from media and the left (among other reasons)
5) Conservatives stay home next election and lose
6) Back to 1) for the next election
Posted by: bobbymike at March 19, 2014 02:14 PM (9trNv)
Posted by: Rupert Pupkun at March 19, 2014 04:34 PM (hqY5F)
Posted by: Fen at March 20, 2014 02:19 AM (a422o)
Totally agree. Thats why you need to woo me to vote for your crap party. Give key congressional positions to Tea Party members. Do it for party unity, bitch.
Also, start building that damn border wall right now.
Posted by: Fen at March 20, 2014 02:21 AM (a422o)
Posted by: Demosthenes at March 20, 2014 09:26 PM (kNw9i)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.4342 seconds, 463 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Biff Boffo at March 19, 2014 05:54 AM (YmPwQ)