AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

You’re Selling Off Principles for Power, and That Means You’ll Wind Up with Neither

Needless to say, I side with Qwinn and Vic in this argument.

695 Donald Carcieri. Hard core conservative up and down the line. Actually vocally against gay marriage. Governor of freakin’ RHODE ISLAND. Won 55-45 in 2002, and was re-elected in 2006. And, incidentially, in 2002 he was NOT the Republican-endorsed candidate during the Republican primary.

In RHODE ISLAND. Which is politically about the same as Massachusetts or Vermont..

My observation has been that hard core conservatives *can and do* win where RINO’s don’t, even where you’d think the area is overwhelmingly liberal. Why? Perhaps because there’s a crapload of people on the Right who won’t come out to vote for a RINO, but who do come out for someone with principles.

Every one of these “nooo not the PURITAH!” arguments assumes that the whole country is to the left of our politicians, and those that stay home when offered only Far Left and Left are some slim minority. BS. Ace, you talk about “costs”, and how -we- don’t acknowledge them – but you don’t acknowledge the cost that when you go with a RINO, you lose a significant chunk of people on the right. You make the facile, media-endorsed assumption that when a politician moves left, he picks up more votes than he loses. Bullshit. And bullshit even in blue states.

So why don’t we see more conservatives like Carcieri being elected? Simple. Because the Republican Party has been largely infiltrated now, particularly in the northeast, where they exist primarily as placeholders to keep more conservative candidates from running. Remember – Carcieri ran against a RINO endorsed by the Republicans in 2002. And Carcieri won in a landslide. Would the RINO have won? I bet you a great deal that he wouldn’t have.

Incidentally, I supposed by your logic that “if you can’t win a primary, how the hell can you win the general” means that you are ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that McCain would’ve won if somehow, after losing the nomination, Hillary had become the nominee (say, Rezko or his credit card fraud or 1000 other reasons had actually buried Obama). Cause, you know, Hillary lost the primary so she’s utterly unelectable nationally and we could’ve put anyone up against her and won. That’s your logic.. I don’t buy it.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 02:04 AM

**********************************************

697 In RHODE ISLAND. Which is politically about the same as Massachusetts or Vermont..

Qwinn,
And RI send Linc Chaffe to the Senate until they booted him out, not for Stephen Laffey but for Sheldon Whitehouse.

Now, I think Chaffe was a douche and the White House was wrong to back him to the extent they did but how exactly are we better off with Whitehouse in the Senate?

I would have loved for Laffey to win but he didn’t.

RINO Republicans held that seat for years but now we have to go find another Democratic seat to win just to get even for that one. How does that help again?

Posted by: DrewM. at November 01, 2009 02:14 AM

***********************************************

699 And Laffey supported civil unions and opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment.

You know how Chafee beat Laffey? Because Laffey called for the city of Cranston to accept consular ID cards from Mexico and Gautemala. Chafee’s campaign called them “illegal immigration cards”. Chafee won the primary because he ran to Laffey’s -right-.

Ironically, the Republican leadership was cool toward Laffey because he was considered “too conservative” for Rhode Island (despite pro-life, pro-marriage, anti-illegal-immgration Cariceri as the governor).

I’m glad you brought the Chafee/Laffey race up. It completely confirms my point.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 02:21 AM

**********************************************

700 Qwinn

But he was enough of a fiscal conservative that the Club for Growth was his biggest supporter.

Again, RI didn’t turn around and elect a social-con or even Linc Chaffe, they went for the very liberal Sheldon Whitehouse (who voted for Comprehensive Immigration Reform).

Again, if a guy like Laffey isn’t conservative enough in a very liberal state, we’ve got some issues.

BTW-Take a look at the list of Senators from RI. Other than the Chafees, the Democrats controlled both seats since the 30’s.

Have Rhode Islanders secretly been yearning for hard core conservatives but accidentally voting for liberal Democrats for going on 70 years?

Posted by: DrewM. at November 01, 2009 02:30 AM

***********************************************

701 “Again, RI didn’t turn around and elect a social-con or even Linc Chaffe, they went for the very liberal Sheldon Whitehouse (who voted for Comprehensive Immigration Reform).”

You’re again making the assumption that Lincoln Chafee would’ve been more electable than a real conservative. I disagree. And don’t be dismissive, Carcieri’s landslide election -and- reelection in the same state deserves more than that.

That assumption is critical to your thesis. Take that assumption away, and your whole argument crumbles.

I am arguing that, yes, a hard core conservative can win in blue states where a RINO cannot. It happens. Those states are blue -because- the Republican leadership has been giving their backing to RINOs for years. My thesis is hardly ever tested, but when a true conservative does manage to get through the Republican anti-purity wall, such as with Carcieri, they tend to go on and win in the general.

You know, come to think of it, RINO is a misnomer. In these states, the liberal Republican IS the real “Republican”. The Republicans always oppose the actual conservatives. I’ll use the term CINO from now on.

I’ve lived in New Jersey most of my life. I have never once had the opportunity to vote for a true conservative. I bet a -lot- that if a real conservative made it to the general, they would win, because there’s a crapload of real conservatives I know around me who won’t bother voting for a CINO.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 02:37 AM

**********************************************

702 And, just to make the point – WHY don’t actual conservatives make it out of the primaries in New Jersey? Because the local GOP is, as I said, nothing but Democrat-installed placeholders set up to keep any real challenge away. They consistently give their backing to the most liberal Republican running in the primary, -and they always go on to lose the general election-. This is by design.

You’d think, after several -decades- of this losing strategy, they would just once throw their backing toward a good, solid, electable conservative candidate, just to see what happened. But they -never- do that. It’s not because they’re overly stubborn or overly stupid. It’s because the system is working exactly the way they want.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 02:41 AM

**********************************************

703 Qwinn,

Here’s the problem…Carcieri might be the second coming of Tom Coburn for all I know but he didn’t actually run for the Senate.

So in the real world the choices were Laffey v. Chaffe and then Chaffe vs. Whitehouse.

Of those 3 actual choices we wound up with the worst of all the possibilities.

All I’m saying is I’d rather have one of the other two in the Senate.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 01, 2009 02:45 AM

***********************************************

704 And if RI is such a hospitable ground for a conservative, why didn’t Carcieri primary Chaffe or run against Reed?

Posted by: DrewM. at November 01, 2009 02:47 AM

***********************************************

706 “And if RI is such a hospitable ground for a conservative, why didn’t Carcieri primary Chaffe or run against Reed?”

Er, because he’s -still- governor of Rhode Island. He term limits out in 2010.

“Of those 3 actual choices we wound up with the worst of all the possibilities.”

Yes, because when you run Left-Lite against Left, Left will always win. That’s my point. And given Laffey’s leftism on social issues and illegal immigration, left enough that -Chafee ran to his right and won the primary on that basis-, we got the expected result.

Look. What I’m arguing against is the thesis that in a liberal state, a “moderate” Republican will always beat the conservative.

This is bullshit. Number one, because the term “moderate” is applied in an utterly ridiculous manner. Take a pure conservative. As an example, his position is that abortion should be banned after the 10th week of pregnancy, except in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother. A LOT, perhaps even a majority of the population, would be comfortable with that. Freakin’ hell, FRANCE is okay with that. Now change his stance on abortion to “I’m okay with abortion up until birth”. Now, through some incredibly bizarre media manipulation, changing a relatively mainstream position to undeniable fully formed baby killing makes him more “moderate” than he was. That is completely ridiculous, but that’s what we’re expected to live with and vote for and acknowledge to be more “moderate” than our guy. Screw that. The pure conservative is -very often- less radicalized and more “moderate”, if that term has any sane meaning, than the RINO’s we’re handed. And while you guys might buy into the “moderate” meme, voters who vote on the issues aren’t going to be impressed.

Face it – a “moderate” position = “the leftist position”. That’s all it means. It doesn’t matter how extreme left it is, it’s still “moderate” as long as the left would be comfortable with it. Stop buying into that bullshit.

Same goes for other radical “moderate” positions like gay marriage and opening the borders. -Those- are the extremist positions. Calling supposed Republicans who buy into them “moderate” is media bullshit, and conservatives destroy themselves when they accept it.

I’ll see if I’m going to get any argument on that point before moving on to the next.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 03:00 AM

**********************************************

708 Hold on, need to rework something. I said:

“Look. What I’m arguing against is the thesis that in a liberal state, a “moderate” Republican will always beat the conservative. ”

That should’ve said:

“Look. What I’m arguing against is the thesis that in a “blue state”, if a “moderate” Republican lost the general, then a more conservative candidate would have lost even more badly.”

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 03:02 AM

**********************************************

709 Drew, in the Rhode Island example, let me just put a straightforward question to you:

Laffey and Chafee both lost in a statewide election in Rhode Island in 2006. Carcieri won reelection in Rhode Island in the same year.

Both governorship and senate races are statewide.

Among the exact same voter base, in the exact same election year, an actual conservative won the governorship, and two RINOs lost to a socialist.

The -same exact voters in the exact same year- decided those election outcomes.

How do your and Ace’s thesis that RINO’s are always more electable than true conservatives in blue states explain that reality?

Qwinn
Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 03:12 AM

**********************************************

710
Good Morning Morons;

Back for another dose of punishment in the “purity thread”. Reviewing most of the comments after I left I find this one directed to me from Tweet:

Vic is far more stringent than me, and I think the desire for purity taken that degree can really hurt us

I guess you missed the post where I said that most of us wouldn’t have a problem with someone who voted with us 80% of the time and with us on the major issues. My point is, and has been, that I will no longer vote for a RINO because they are the lesser of two evils. It hasn’t got us anywhere. Even when we win we lose because the country drifts further and further to the left. So the bottom line becomes what exactly is a RINO?

Yes, that seems to be the burning question and what most of the Morons on here are really arguing about. The term itself was coined by a conservative CA Republican and the acronym, I think, speaks for itself. Republican In Name Only – from the view point of the author a true Republican was a conservative in the Goldwater mold.

Some of the Morons have adopted the position that anyone who is pro-abortion is a RINO or anyone who is for “gay rights” as an agenda is a RINO. I will only say that, in general, RINOness should not be determined by single issues. That being said, there are a few that I think are of such importance that they do form single issues for me.

The biggest single is support for the Constitution as written and interpreted in plain English as it existed in 1789. (the English)

To me this is the most important issue there is. Many of the things that all the Morons care about are encompassed by this. Take the great abortion divide for example. The decision in Roe v. Wade, and its enabling predecessor Griswold v. Connecticut, were both travesties of an activist court who based their decisions on nothing actually in the Constitution.

I think that we could really help ourselves greatly if the pro-life single issue people would forget about pro-life or anti-abortion and all of the rhetoric associated with it. Not because you should abandon your principles, but because it IS a sure loser. The well has truly been poisoned. Instead, you should adopt a strategy of the above issue.

Now true, this will not get you everything in the “social agenda” but it would restore abortion to the States and the voters where it rightfully belongs.

So if you can’t adhere to my first principle of following the Constitution then you must adhere to most of my other underlying principles:

1. Support for the second amendment, or abandon “incorporation”, one or the other.
2. Support a strong military and a big stick foreign policy
3. Support small government and are willing to make a huge effort to roll back Washington. This includes opposition to all forms of socialism, fascism, and communism.

Occasional lapses on the above can be tolerated but if you drop below the 75% level of support for the above you become a RINO. Also, on major bills that go against the above policies such as Cap and Trade, the Stimulus, and Medi-scam you must oppose them. Those bills are so far reaching and transformational that a vote for them overwhelms all else and guarantees your place in RINO-dom.

Now, I don’t think that is too extreme. And I will not support or vote for anyone who goes against those principles.

Posted by: Vic at November 01, 2009 03:17 AM

********************************************

712 “Look. What I’m arguing against is the thesis that in a “blue state”, if a “moderate” Republican lost the general, then a more conservative candidate would have lost even more badly.”

Again, when voters went to replace Jim Jeffords, they didn’t go to the right, they went even further left. Why should we assume that what Vermont was really saying, “Please GOP, nominate someone more conseravative than Jeffords”?

Look at the case in Fl. If Rubio pulls it out, great but if he doesn’t, are we really supposed to draw the conclusion that the majority of Florida voters is more conservative than the GOP primary electorate? Of course not.

In RI, my position is the most conservative candidate possible who could reasonably win. Obviously Carcieri is a proven vote getter so if he wants to run in ’12 against Whitehouse, that would be great.

But there aren’t a lot of states where you have such a proven vote getter who is so out of step with his state (sorry but you can’t say that RI has a history of electing conservatives. Carcieriis is definitely an outlier.)

There are a lot of factors that go into deciding who makes the best candidate…Is it an open seat or a challenge? Who is the opponent? What’s the overall environment? What’s the make up of the district or state?

“Run the most hard core conservative you can find” is not the one size fits all answer to those questions.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 01, 2009 03:22 AM

***********************************************

713 Among the exact same voter base, in the exact same election year, an actual conservative won the governorship, and two RINOs lost to a socialist.

Your focusing on the two RINOs but explain this to me…how can the same electorate in RI elect a socialist and an actual conservative?

The short answer is, electorates can be funny things.

Look at Iowa. They send Charles Grassley and Tom Harkin to the Senate year after year.

Look at Louisiana, they have Mary Landru and David Vitter.

How about Tommy Thompson in WI? Before he was a goofy guy running for President, he was a star conservative Governor in a very liberal state that sent Russ Feingold and Herb Khol to the Senate at the same time.

As I said above, there are a lot of factors that go into a race.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 01, 2009 03:27 AM

***********************************************

714
Drew, this has probably been said over and over again but I will repeat it. The problem with electing liberals as republicans in liberal States is that it gains you nothing and it destroys your brand name.

It gains you nothing because number 1 liberal voters are not fooled by liberal lite, they want the whole banana and liberal lite usually loses, especially in a purple State. Number 2, even if you win when it comes down to the big issues and the critical votes, the liberal Republican will stab you in the back and go with the opposition. The ME sisters are prime examples of that.

When you lose the party brand you start losing your base. When you start losing your base you start losing the non-liberal States, e.g. what has happened in VA and NC.

Posted by: Vic at November 01, 2009 03:30 AM

********************************************

715 The problem with electing liberals as republicans in liberal States is that it gains you nothing and it destroys your brand name.

Posted by: Vic at November 01, 2009 03:30 AM (CDUiN)

This simply isn’t true.

You can’t say that having control of the agenda and the floor in the House and Senate is nothing.

RINOs are more dangerous in the minority than the majority. If the Republicans still had control of the Senate this year, Specter, Collins and Snowe would not have had the chance to vote for the stimulus because MAJORITY LEADER McConnell would have never written it, let along brought it to the floor.

Right now the Democrats have some of the largest majoities in decades in the both chambers yet their base is upset because they can’t even get their #1 dream (single payer) in the discussion other than on Countdown.

American poltics is not played from the 20 yard line to the goal line on either side, it’s played between the 40’s.

We really need to stop pretending that there’s a majority, slim or large in this country that are movement conservatives. There isn’t and there never has been.

It’s great to expand our reach but let’s not forget the reality of the moment (and more or less all of American history) either.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 01, 2009 03:38 AM

***********************************************

716 I get it! So when a RINO wins and a conservative loses, it’s because of the RINO’s more “moderate” positions. But when a conservative wins and RINOs lose (in the same year to the same voters, no less) it’s because of “other factors”. And thus, the assumption upon which you rest your entire thesis requires no further validation.

That’s just pure unfiltered awesome. If I didn’t know better, I’d think you were defending global warmism. When RINO’s win, it’s global warming! When RINO’s lose, it’s just the weather!

“are we really supposed to draw the conclusion that the majority of Florida voters is more conservative than the GOP primary electorate? Of course not”

You were ready to assume that Chafee won the RI GOP primary because he ran to Laffey’s left until I pointed out that he did the exact opposite. I submit that most of your belief in your thesis is born of exactly those sort of assumptions.

That said, I don’t know enough about the FL Rubio dynamic to comment intelligently. If you’d take the time to explain the background behind your comments there, I’d be grateful and happy to address it.

(sorry but you can’t say that RI has a history of electing conservatives. Carcieriis is definitely an outlier.)

Ugh, explaining it one more time, this is because the RNC doesn’t support conservatives in Senate races. The RNC always support what they view as the more liberal candidate. The RNC is what makes conservatives lose Senate seats in primaries.

They have less influence, and spend less money, on state races. Which is why your assumption about RI not having a history of electing conservatives is quite wrong. With the exception of 1991-1995, Rhode Island has elected Republican governors since 1985. That’s 18 out of the last 24 years. What’s the difference between that and the Senate races? It’s the exact same voter base. The difference is that the RNC pours money into the campaign coffers of the most liberal candidate, every time.

But that’s not the only reason. Let me give you MY thesis.

You know -why- a real conservative will win when a RINO will lose? Because no one gets enthused about a RINO. No one. The left hates any RINO to the right of this NY-23 woman every bit as much as they hate Tom Coburn. -They- are the real purists (and we don’t see anyone giving them shit for it, do we? Seems to be working out pretty well for them, isn’t it? Except in the south, where they’ve accepted blue dogs, and look at how it’s helping them now that they’ve “won”.)

The mushy middle that you think RINO’s will attract don’t give a shit about politics. The RINO will still get slandered and reviled by every leftist they know, who still want the Democrat to win, and they don’t hear any counterarguments from the Right because the conservative voters (and they are -everywhere-, yes, even in San Fran – hell, I live 10 miles from Princeton NJ, liberal utopia, and I know a lot of hard core conservatives, we’re a minority, but we exist, and we all have friends in the mushy middle who outnumber both bases) don’t like the RINO either.

That makes a -vast- difference. If you’re a mushy-middle, don’t really care about politics but show up to vote based on your “feelings”, well, if the only enthusiasm they ever see is in their leftist friends who hate the RINO and want the socialist to win, and their conservative friends can’t muster up any enthusiasm to defend the guy they got saddled with, they’ll vote for the only guy any of their friends (or the media) ever says anything good about. But when the conservative base, the ones who actually give a shit, really like the candidate, they’ll tell their friends. And they’ll donate. And they’ll campaign. Now that mushy middle is hearing good things about both guys, and they’ll have -some- basis upon which to vote for the conservative guy. When it’s a RINO, they have -no one- telling them, yeah, vote for the RINO, he’s a great guy. So they won’t.

THAT is at least as good a thesis as yours. And it doesn’t depend on global warming logic.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 03:47 AM

**********************************************

717 Fun factoid…

Since the Senate went to 100 members in the 86th Congress (59-61) the most the Republicans have ever had was 55.

In that same time the Democrats have been as high as 64 and have met or exceeded the 55 seats over 10 times.

Also, in the last 80 years Democrats have controlled the House for 61 years.

Please explain to me how that means we have the luxury of writing off any seats?

Yes, Republicans have done well in the presidency (especially in the last 40 years but we’ve been talking about legislative races).

Posted by: DrewM. at November 01, 2009 03:48 AM

***********************************************

718 If the Republicans still had control of the Senate this year, Specter, Collins and Snowe would not have had the chance to vote for the stimulus because MAJORITY LEADER McConnell would have never written it, let along brought it to the floor.

I would’ve said the same thing about the Medicare Prescription Health Care Plan. And No Child Left Behind. How did those make it on the floor, I wonder?

Only Nixon could’ve gone to China. The same basis concept applies to a Republican majority infested with RINO’s. Bush got some massive socialization passed -because- he had a Republican Congress, and that Republican Congress defines the right side of the debate. If the right side of the debate says “We can keep growing government”, then you haven’t stopped or fixed anything, you’ve just slowed it down. Result: You get blamed for the bad stuff, nothing gets fixed, and Democrats once again get elected in a landslide after each generation forgets why they shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near power.

When the right side of the national debate isn’t even secure enough to argue for smaller government, when there -is- no right side to the debate, there is no point at all in voting. Seriously. Hell, might as well let it go to shit faster and now so the people who caused it have to deal with it, instead of letting the problem get incrementally worse and force our kids and grandkids to bear the burden.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 03:51 AM

**********************************************

719 “Please explain to me how that means we have the luxury of writing off any seats?”

Who has advocated writing off any seats? That’s a serious straw man right there. I’m arguing that supporting RINO’s in blue states is a proven loser strategy.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 03:53 AM

**********************************************

720 Oops, math challenged at 3am, RI has elected Republican governors for the last 20 out of 24 years, not 18.

You referred to this as an “outlier”, for the record.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 03:58 AM

**********************************************

721
You can’t say that having control of the agenda and the floor in the House and Senate is nothing.

It may not be nothing but it isn’t very much when you have a slim majority that includes 5 to 10 major RINOs. That was amply proven during the 6 years of Bush with a Republican majority. I truly think that Bush was actually less liberal than what he is perceived as but because the conservative things he tried to do were blocked at every turn by the RINOs allying with the Dems he looked more liberal.

So you could say the best you get out of ‘control” is gridlock.

MAJORITY LEADER McConnell would have never written it, let along brought it to the floor.

Not necessarily true, example “No Child”, Drug Benefits, et al.

Right now the Democrats have some of the largest majoities in decades in the both chambers yet their base is upset because they can’t even get their #1 dream (single payer) in the discussion other than on Countdown.

The healthcare bill AND the crap and trade are dead, not because of the Dem version of RINOs (Blue Dogs voting with Rs) but because they have shot their wad with bailouts and the stimulus. The public is rebelling against socialism and communism being pushed at too fast a pace. This worries the Dems who won with small margins in purple districts.

American poltics is not played from the 20 yard line to the goal line on either side, it’s played between the 40’s.

This is a trite phrase coined by Washington insiders and we should stop repeating it. It isn’t true. Those uncommitted “independents” numbers are a lot smaller than the media and the insiders want you to believe.

The simple fact is that the Party who gets their normal supporters to the polls wins. In presidential races it always hinges on a few States. Some of the earlier comments centered on the percentages that McLame lost by and what the outcome would have been if Romney had been the candidate (they said larger loss).

What the poster should have been focusing on is not the overall percentage of loss but the States that switched from the R column to the D column.

If you look at that in the last election you will find that the Rs did not make it to the polls. e.g. The base stayed at home in significant numbers in the States that shifted. They also stayed at home in other States, but the numbers were sufficient to keep them in the R column,

Posted by: Vic at November 01, 2009 03:58 AM

********************************************

723 So when a RINO wins and a conservative loses, it’s because of the RINO’s more “moderate” positions. But when a conservative wins and RINOs lose (in the same year to the same voters, no less) it’s because of “other factors”. And thus, the assumption upon which you rest your entire thesis requires no further validation.

No, I said there were a lot of factors and electorates are strange. I offered no explanation but I’m glad that did stop you from claiming I was wrong.

In fact, I asked you how a conservative won the governorship and a socialist was elected to the Senate. You don’t seem to have an answer for that either.

Ugh, explaining it one more time, this is because the RNC doesn’t support conservatives in Senate races. The RNC always support what they view as the more liberal candidate. The RNC is what makes conservatives lose Senate seats in primaries.

You seem to think the RNC is all powerful here. I’d say the RI GOP has far more influence in these kind of things. As you can see in the case of NY 23, the RNC pretty much supports whomever the locals throw out there. The RNSCC does some candidate recruitment but really, it’s a local party deal.

If the RNC is perpertrating some conspiracy to keep conservative out of the Senate, how do you explain away the inconvient fact that there are, um, some conservatives in the Senate?

As for RI, how come the state GOP nominates RINOs for the Senate and the most awesome conservatives for Governor?

You know -why- a real conservative will win when a RINO will lose? Because no one gets enthused about a RINO. No one.

Let me see if I have the rest of your theory straight…there are actually are huge numbers of untapped conservative voters out there. The problem is they are just not being properly motivated to show up?

That’s simply magical thinking.

Conservatives do well in non-traditional areas when the conditions are ripe for it and there are people ready to take advantag of it (Reagan in ’80, the Gingrich Revolution in ’94). The problem is, the pendulum swings back and you get the Pelosi wave of ’06 and the Obama vicotry of ’08.

There is no great unmotivated and untapped pool of voters, for the most part it’s just the mushy middle swaying back and forth and throwing their support to ‘the other guys’ when the party in power is old, tired or just fucked up.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 01, 2009 04:02 AM

***********************************************

725 “In fact, I asked you how a conservative won the governorship and a socialist was elected to the Senate. You don’t seem to have an answer for that either. ”

Are you KIDDING me? Reread the last half of my post. I gave you a very explicit answer.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 04:04 AM

**********************************************

726 “Let me see if I have the rest of your theory straight…there are actually are huge numbers of untapped conservative voters out there. The problem is they are just not being properly motivated to show up? ”

No. This is totally, completely wrong. Again, please read the last half of my post again. You completely missed the point.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 04:06 AM

**********************************************

728 Are you KIDDING me? Reread the last half of my post. I gave you a very explicit answer.

And it made no sense.

It wasn’t a matter of being excited by a RINO or not, there were already at the poll voting for the great conservative.

Are you saying they split their tickets just to prove a point?

If so, they are childish and fall into the category of people who apparently thought we do have seats to write off.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 01, 2009 04:08 AM

***********************************************

729
Blame Bush.

Seriously, those were two of his biggest agenda items. They had to keep the House vote open for like 3 hours to pass the Medicare drug bill.

Yes, for those two items I do blame Bush. That being said, if we had a congress controlled by true conservatives they would have never passed.

In addition, if the congress had been controlled by true conservatives there would have been no need for Bush’s veto pen which he lost until 2007.

Seriously, without a congressional record to look at totals it is hard to call Bush a RINO, but he did support a lot of liberal stuff, including some like amnesty that were ultimately defeated.

So we do have a pretty good case that he was, in fact, a RINO himself.

Posted by: Vic at November 01, 2009 04:09 AM

********************************************

731 I see. Okay, not a deliberate strawman, but I don’t think they’re saying what you think they’re saying. I don’t agree that the seats should be written off, I think we should fight hard for them with true conservative candidates, but that doesn’t mean I’m unhappy to see the RINO’s go. Ace keeps telling us we don’t see the costs of what we’re advocating, but I think it’s the exact opposite, you guys refuse to see the damage the RINO’s do in exchange for your “control of the House and Senate”, in particular, “who gets the blame when everything goes to crap, which when your own side is stabbing you in the back, it absolutely will”. How much more screwed would we be in terms of getting the blame for the current recession, if we couldn’t legitimately respond “The Democrats have been running things since 2006”?

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 04:10 AM

**********************************************

733 And it made no sense. It wasn’t a matter of being excited by a RINO or not, there were already at the poll voting for the great conservative. Are you saying they split their tickets just to prove a point? If so, they are childish and fall into the category of people who apparently thought we do have seats to write off.

No. You are again completely misstating my argument. Nowhere did I even -mention- “untapped conservative voters”. You made that up out of whole cloth.

I said this:

“The mushy middle that you think RINO’s will attract don’t give a shit about politics. The RINO will still get slandered and reviled by every leftist they know, who still want the Democrat to win, and they don’t hear any counterarguments from the Right because the conservative voters (and they are -everywhere-, yes, even in San Fran – hell, I live 10 miles from Princeton NJ, liberal utopia, and I know a lot of hard core conservatives, we’re a minority, but we exist, and we all have friends in the mushy middle who outnumber both bases) don’t like the RINO either.

That makes a -vast- difference. If you’re a mushy-middle, don’t really care about politics but show up to vote based on your “feelings”, well, if the only enthusiasm they ever see is in their leftist friends who hate the RINO and want the socialist to win, and their conservative friends can’t muster up any enthusiasm to defend the guy they got saddled with, they’ll vote for the only guy any of their friends (or the media) ever says anything good about. But when the conservative base, the ones who actually give a shit, really like the candidate, they’ll tell their friends. And they’ll donate. And they’ll campaign. Now that mushy middle is hearing good things about both guys, and they’ll have -some- basis upon which to vote for the conservative guy. When it’s a RINO, they have -no one- telling them, yeah, vote for the RINO, he’s a great guy. So they won’t.”

I’m not saying they’re some magical source of commited conservatives who’ve been sitting things out. I’m saying that a shitload of these voters don’t vote for anything having to do with politics or political positions at all. They vote for who they see their friends get excited for. Unless they’re one of your magical “proven vote getters”, no one ever gets excited for a RINO. That is why they have been losing forever in the northeast. But when you run a real strong conservative, then all those real conservatives in Rhode Island – get really excited about it, and they mention it in passing to all their mushy-middle, couldn’t really care less about politics friends who still feel obligated to vote by all the stupid MTV drives.

When a RINO is running, all that mushy middle ever hears is leftists screaming rage about the RINO, and the media’s usual hit jobs. When it’s a conservative, that mushy middle at least hears -someone- saying good things about them, and ups the chances they might pull that lever about tenfold. THAT is what makes the difference.

Note that what I have just re-explained here has absolutely NO relation whatsoever to what you described my argument to be.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 04:16 AM

**********************************************

734 In addition, if the congress had been controlled by true conservatives there would have been no need for Bush’s veto pen which he lost until 2007.

Vic,

Look at the numbers (or the link) I posted about the history of the Senate. How in the world does it make any sense to say that people have been voting Democrat in huge numbers for a very long time because the Republicans aren’t tapping into some mythical pool of conservative voters?

I wish there were a majority in this country for lower taxes, less spending and federalism. The problem is, there’s is zero empirical evidence that there is. While we should try to build one, we shouldn’t pretend that it exists and we just aren’t tapping into it.

Yes, polls say lots of people call themselves conservatives. It doesn’t mean the same as what we mean. If it were true, Obama wouldn’t have been elected, hell McCain wouldn’t have been nominated.

You want to see that self-identified conservative number go in the tank? Put out a poll that says conservative means…slashing government programs, including SS and Medicare (it’s the only way to actually cut spending), eliminating farm subsidies, federal highway programs, student loans and a whole host of other Great Society programs we’d all love to see go and that 60% or whatever Pew found recently would be cut in half if not more.

I’m off to bed. Even with the time change it’s way too late.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 01, 2009 04:16 AM

***********************************************

735 no one ever gets excited for a RINO

Then how do explain the Chafee clan holding that seat for close to 30 years?

How do explain Chis Shays holding his seat for 22?

Arlen Specter (before switching) holding his for 28 years?

Olympia Snow for 15?

Susan Collins for 12?

Hamilton Fish for 26?

And on and on and on….

There are lots of RINOs who managed to hold their seats for a good long time, excitement or no.

But my question still is, why did the same voters who elected a great governor, elect a socialist Senator at the same time? Excitment really shouldn’t have played a role right?

There were already at the poll, they were already committed to a Republican and yet….

Posted by: DrewM. at November 01, 2009 04:23 AM

***********************************************

736 Heh. Well, since you can’t respond to my -actual- argument after misstating it, let’s leave it at this (based on your last post there): you are raging at us for writing off RINO candidates, and we’re raging at you because you’re writing off conservative ideas.

And if this doesn’t mean that you think conservative ideas are a sure fire loser and we have to basically lie our asses off in order to win elections:

“You want to see that self-identified conservative number go in the tank? Put out a poll that says conservative means…slashing government programs, including SS and Medicare (it’s the only way to actually cut spending), eliminating farm subsidies, federal highway programs, student loans and a whole host of other Great Society programs we’d all love to see go and that 60% or whatever Pew found recently would be cut in half if not more.”

…then I don’t know what it could possibly mean.

No wonder you’re perfectly happy with writing off anyone who actually advocates them. But don’t yell at -us- about what we’re going to “write off”, mmkay? Cause you’re selling off principles for power, and that means you’ll wind up with neither.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 04:27 AM

**********************************************

737 “There were already at the poll, they were already committed to a Republican and yet….”

Because they never heard any of their friends who actually -care- about politics say anything nice about Chafee or Laffey. They had lots of conservative friends who care about politics say nice things about Carcieri. What is it about this point that is so hard to understand? I’ve repeated it three times now.

As for how did Specter hold his seat? C’mon, man. After seeing the Specter/Toomey primary, do you really have to ask that question? I’ve already answered it several times as well.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 04:29 AM

**********************************************

738
Look at the numbers (or the link) I posted about the history of the Senate. How in the world does it make any sense to say that people have been voting Democrat in huge numbers for a very long time because the Republicans aren’t tapping into some mythical pool of conservative voters?

You can’t just take the raw numbers throughout history for Dems and Republicans and draw a lot of conclusions about conservative v liberals from it.

If you look at Dems in 1850 they were “conservatives” vs the Republicans who were the big government liberals.

It wasn’t until Woodrow Wilson and William Jennings Bryant that the Dems started becoming liberals. Unfortunately, even though the Repubs still pretty much controlled things in Washington, they were still liberals as well.

No, Washington did not grow to the size it is now solely because of the Dems. It wasn’t until the 60s that the conservative voice started being heard to try to roll back the tide of creeping socialism and communism.

Posted by: Vic at November 01, 2009 04:38 AM

********************************************

739 Here, just so it won’t get misinterpreted again:

The RNC, which has largely historically been funded by the conservative base precisely because so few of us realized that they’ve gone totally RINO themselves and always support the RINO (and thank God that myth is now dispelled) made up for the “no one ever says anything nice about them” by pouring money into the RINO’s coffers for campaign ads. Yay, the mushy middle now gets to hear something nice about the Republican candidate.

When the candidate is an -actual- conservative, the RNC funding isn’t necessary. The grass roots conservatives campaign, donate, and say nice things to all their friends about the candidate. That’s how Hoffman just got where he is, without RNC funding.

The game is changing right now though – or at least, the only way we’re getting out of this rut is if it does in this way. People need to (and I think are) realizing that the RNC only supports RINO’s, and are no longer sending their money to the RNC and instead directly to the candidates they actually like. This is a -good- thing, and you shouldn’t be arguing against it.

The RNC’s funding and power comes from the conservative base. It always has. The same is true of the DNC and their hard left base. People who actually care about politics gravitate to one of those two camps. People who don’t care about politics don’t – or people who don’t decide to start ignoring politics, take your pick. This is true everywhere, blue states and red. There’s reasons for the ideological polarization we can discuss, but I think it’s delusional to believe it doesn’t exist.

When you support RINO’s, you are supporting a set of political positions that has no base willing to campaign and fund for them. This is political suicide. You want candidates that the base will fund and root for? Give them candidates they -can- fund and root for. But don’t delude yourself that there’s some vast mushy vaguely red middle that absolutely loves those RINO positions and will fund and campaign and cheer them on to all their friends. -That- is about the smallest minority you could find in this country – people who passionately care about an exceptionally inconsistent political ideology shared by, well, almost no one who actually gives a shit about politics.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 04:38 AM

**********************************************

740
I wish there were a majority in this country for lower taxes, less spending and federalism. The problem is, there’s is zero empirical evidence that there is. While we should try to build one, we shouldn’t pretend that it exists and we just aren’t tapping into it.

There is a lot more evidence to that point than there is for a majority wanting higher taxes and spending.

In any case there is two elections worth of solid empirical evidence that running RINOs is a losing proposition.

Posted by: Vic at November 01, 2009 04:41 AM

********************************************

742
I think you guys think that there’s some vast difference between a conservative in Kansas, and a conservative in New Jersey.

I hope he wasn’t including me in that. I have lived all over the U.S. and one thing that struck me is that the stereotypes you see on TV simply do not exist.

I was surprised when I was in Saratoga Springs. I had always assumed it would be a hot bed of liberalism. Outside of Skidmore, it was like many places I had been in the South. (That was in the early 70s)

I think that we are noticing now with the detailed election maps that we are not a blue State Red State divide so much as a urban suburban divide. It has probably always been like that, but because we got all our news and brain programming via the TV, we just didn’t know it.

What we see now is States that have large urban centers, or a lot of urban centers go blue, those that don’t have that so much go red.

Posted by: Vic at November 01, 2009 05:02 AM

********************************************

743 Nope, Vic, wasn’t addressing you on that. I think that believing that way is a requirement for the “blue states need RINO candidates” logic, though.

And I agree with you that it is mostly an urban/suburban thing. Which, actually, I believe is a way in which demographic trends are -favoring- conservatives right now. Just thought I’d mention that since someone upthread (might’ve been Ace himself, actually) was basing an argument on demographic trends not being in our favor. I think the urban/suburban demographic is a more important indicator than skin color demographics, personally.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 05:06 AM

**********************************************

744
I think the urban/suburban demographic is a more important indicator than skin color demographics, personally.

That very well could be. I think the problem we are going to have in reversing the trend is to kill the urban environment of socialism/communism we must take the rein of political power.

We can’t do that until we take the urban environment. It is a vicious circle.

That’s why ultimately I think it is going to come down to another convention. If the delegates and marching orders come down from the State Houses and they reflect a more balanced environment, we would have a chance.

Posted by: Vic at November 01, 2009 05:15 AM

********************************************

747 A point I missed earlier:

“As for RI, how come the state GOP nominates RINOs for the Senate and the most awesome conservatives for Governor?”

You apparently also missed where I pointed out, repeatedly, when first bringing Carcieri up, that Carcieri was -not- supported by the GOP. His primary opponent got their support. He won -despite- them.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 06:14 AM

**********************************************

755 Jaynie59:

I’m not from Rhode Island. I’m just aware of the political situation there. I’m from New Jersey, though, so I know what it’s like living in a northeastern blue state.

As for your arguments re: abortion, I’m sorry, but there’s just SO much I gotta argue with you:

1) Overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn’t outlaw one single abortion. It would allow the -states- to decide. -That- is the small-federal-government, constitutional position. If you are really for smaller government, then the absurd “emanations and penumbras” arguments that vastly expanded the scope of the federal government should concern you, even if you liked the outcome.

2) I actually agree that the rape and incest exceptions are inconsistent with the pro-life argument. That’s why I personally don’t support such exceptions. The only valid exception is a threat to the life of the mother – when it’s a life versus a life. No one argues against that exception, despite frequent pro-choicer strawmen.

3) I’ve had to say this so many times it’s become painful: the abortion question is NOT a libertarian question. It’s a philosophical question (and no, it’s not a religious question, I am not religious myself – more on this in a moment). If you believe abortion is murder, then it is -of course- within the bounds of government intervention. Are conservatives obligated to agitate against all homicide laws to keep their small government cred? I believe abortion is homicide, therefore I put it in the same category as all other laws against murder. Laws against homicide wouldn’t bother even the staunchest libertarian, that’s outright anarchist.

You pointed out the rape/incest inconsistency among conservatives who are scared of being labeled “extremist” for holding an ideologically consistent position. Well, do you agitate against all homicide laws?

And to address Susan Lee’s point: the question of whether an infant qualifies as a human life can be argued on both secular and scientific terms. In fact, on both secular and scientific terms, the pro-lifers are on far firmer footing than the Magical Vaginal Canal of Ensoulment pro-choicers.

Your pro-choice position is just as much “putting morals in politics” as the pro-life position. You want to unilaterally declare that a fetus is NOT a human life (despite the fact that it is human and it is alive), and that everyone who believes it is must tolerate what they consider mass murder.

Think for a moment about every other example in history where people have decided that some segment of the population doesn’t qualify as human. Such arguments do not have a very proud pedigree. Look up the Lincoln-Douglas debate sometime, and replace every instance of the word “slavery” with “abortion”. It is actually stunning in how it mirrors the debates we’re having today, arguing the exact same issues.

If someone decides blacks, or jews, aren’t fully human, is it “big government” to extend them protection? Why then is it fascist to want the exact same protections for the unborn?

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 08:05 AM

**********************************************

756 Incidentally, the main arguments and political pressure to outlaw slavery in the United States came explicitly from the churches. Imagine if they had been shouted down due to “separation of church and state” argumentation. The fact that they weren’t is in fact overwhelming evidence that the claim that the US was ever -meant- to have a “separation of church and state” in the manner in which liberals insist is both factually incorrect, and not desirable anyway. I’m not religious, but I’m really -really- glad the religious were allowed to fully participate in the politics surrounding slavery. I don’t think you’d like a country a couple of generations after religious arguments became barred from the public square, as liberals insist they must be.

Or as my brother frequently tells me is his favorite line from a friend who had just traveled abroad in Eastern Europe: “I am atheist, but after what I just saw, I realize I have a very vested interest in everyone -else- not being atheist.”

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 08:30 AM

**********************************************

758
Good Morning Morons

Back from nap and breakfast.

Caught a little bit of F&F Weekend addition while eating. They had a small discussion on the NY-23 issue. I take back what I said yesterday about them being a little more conservative than the liberal weekday F&F.

In introducing the topic, Clayton Morris referred to Dede Scuzzy as a “moderate conservative”. Alisyn Camerato came back and corrected him and said she was a “moderate Republican”. He appeared a little put off with the correction but then he came back with his explanation of what had happened.

Dede had been attacked by more “conservative conservatives” from outside the district who were concerned with her stance on abortion, gay rights, and “a few fiscal issues”.

So he continues to play the BS myth that that Dede was a real Republican and it was the religious cons who did her in. At the same time he also promulgates equating Republican with conservative.

When the supposedly “conservative” Fox pushes this kind of shit it just tells me more and more conservatives have no voice in the news business on TV. That makes it even more imperative that we Morons get our message straight and make sure that word gets out.

And for what a “conservative” and RINO is, look at my posts earlier last night.

Posted by: Vic at November 01, 2009 08:49 AM

********************************************

759 “I don’t think it is the government’s business what a woman and her doctor decide to do about a pregnancy. Where in the Constitution does it state the government has a right to make those kinds of decisions?”

AGAIN: IT IS NOT A LIBERTARIAN QUESTION, damnit. If you believed a fetus was a human being, then of course you would the government should intervene, on the very same basis as all other laws against murder. It has absolutely nothing to do with small governmentism.

It really is obnoxious to see this same argument trotted out again and again, and no matter how many times we point out the obvious fact that your entire premise that government has no right to get involved relies 100% on the assumption that your own “moral beliefs” are 100% indisputable fact.

That said – the federal government doesn’t generally have jurisdiction over homicide law – the states do. Yet another reason Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the matter returned to the states as the -Constitutional- position.

I ask -you-… on what Constitutional grounds does the federal government tell the states that they -cannot- legislate against abortion?

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 08:50 AM

**********************************************

760 Oh, and to the slew of “small government is inconsistent with abortion laws” posters that have posted recently:

I take it, then, that you are perfectly okay with partial birth abortion? Abortions in the 9th month of pregnancy? Abortions done on the basis of the child’s gender, as is often done in China? An absolutely fully formed infant, in fact, -more- fully formed than many preemies who are accorded full human rights as soon as they exit the uterus? You are okay with the common forms of abortion which involve either half-delivering the child feet first, then sticking a spike in the back of the neck and into the skull and vacuuming the brains out until the skull implodes? Or the other method, which basically involves using what amounts to garden shears to cut off every limb off of the torso of the thrashing child, and then removing the severed limbs one by one?

Be careful, now, you indefeatable champions of consistency. Cause if you -are- okay with laws against ninth-month abortions, then your entire “the government has no basis for enacting such laws” arguments are completely and utterly destroyed.

And if you -are- okay with those very late term abortions, then -you- are the extremist. I mean seriously seriously extremist. The vast majority of Americans are repulsed by abortions that late in a pregnancy. The partial birth abortion ban got massive support everywhere, even in blue states, and that’s even with extremist liberals doing their best to lie about what the procedure entails.

And yet, if you’re a “pure conservative”, you’re an extremist, but if you then switch to 9th-month baby killing as perfectly okay, you’re suddenly a “moderate”. What a freakin’ crock.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 09:03 AM

**********************************************

761
They just had Major Garret on F&F talking about NY-23. He finally put out the word on what it was all about. He said Obama lured the old Republican out of the district with the appointment to be war secretary. The feeling being that Obama had won the district and that they could possibly take that district which was a traditional Republican district.

With the appointment of Dede as the candidate they sensed a weak Republican with little support among the base so they poured in resources. When Hoffman entered the race and started getting outside support things started turning around for the Republicans. Dede has dropped out and it appears that the Republicans will win the seat and defeat the Dem plans.

Of course Clayton Morris had to chime in at the end about “conservative conservatives” once again. I am going to have to try to watch all of the morning talk shows to see the spin. Especially the one with Rush.

Posted by: Vic at November 01, 2009 09:11 AM

********************************************

765
On the abortion issue; my two cents and largely a repeat of a post I did last night. (Long but bear with me)

Abortion policy has split the country and the Republican Party. In my opinion it IS a religious issue, or in the case of the very few people who oppose it and who are not religious, a philosophical issue as Qwinn says.

For over 2000 years people were not considered people until they were born. Indeed, in some cultures they were not considered people until they reached a certain age after birth. You can still see evidence of that in the way some countries count infant mortality.

All that being said, it IS a hot button issue for some people. A single issue that determines whether or not a person will vote for a candidate regardless of all other issues. The bad thing about that is that these single issue voters lie on both sides of the issue. There are femi-nazis, as Rush puts it, who will not vote for a candidate who does not fully support abortion at all stages for any reason. There are those on the other side who will not vote for a candidate who will allow abortion at any stage for any reason.

The actual facts are that there are very few people who fall in either of those categories. I generally do not trust polls but after seeing years of these polls I believe that in general the American public would prefer allowing early stage abortion to occur and later stages to occur in the event of the mother health. Note that I left out incest and rape there. Any pregnancy that occurs from rape or incest should be known at the early stages.

In any case, given the general acceptance of abortion by society, I think this is a loser of an issue for conservatives and Republicans, particularly in the more secular regions of the country.

Adoption of my single issue item from last night:

Candidates must support and defend the Constitution as written AND as interpreted in plain English of the 17th century. And if not, then they support my core conservative principles > 75% of time and in all cases for major far sweeping legislation.

If we did that it would take the abortion club off the table for the Dems at the same time it would allow victory for conservative candidates who supported the Constitution as written. Get enough of them and a president to go with them and Roe will be rolled back. After that the abortion controversy will be back in the hands of the States where it belongs. Where the voters can decide for themselves what they want to do with this “philosophical” issue.

As I recall, before Roe, nobody felt too much about abortion, other than a few liberal network TV people who liked to do scary shows about “coat hanger” deaths. These shows were all liberal BS lies but without an internet to refute them not everyone was in the know. The facts are that before Roe, most States allowed abortion in the first trimester and in the event of the mother’s health (and not mental health).

If we eliminated Roe things would likely go back to that, although I do not think as many States would go back to a total prohibition.

Posted by: Vic at November 01, 2009 09:46 AM

********************************************

776 Because they never heard any of their friends who actually -care- about politics say anything nice about Chafee or Laffey. They had lots of conservative friends who care about politics say nice things about Carcieri. What is it about this point that is so hard to understand? I’ve repeated it three times now.
Qwinn,

I’m sorry but that’s nonsensical.

You’re saying these people are psyched to go voter for a great conservative governor on the Republican line but because they never heard anyone say anything exciting about Chaffee, these awesome conservative voters suddenly default to the more liberal Democrat (that you call a socialist)?

How does that make the slightest bit of sense?

Are you saying RI voters have zero common sense but rely mainly on who excites them? The have no ideological consistency? They are just adrenalin junkies?

Look, I’ll buy excitement can impact turn out but it doesn’t explain that type of ticket splitting when they are already at the polls.

And again, you vastly overestimate the role of the RNC in state elections. The RNC is a creature of the state parties.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 01, 2009 11:53 AM

***********************************************

777 I’d like to see a better source than the link PoP offered for Skozzafava’s endorsement of Owens. It doesn’t give any direct quote to support that claim, and it is a full-press endorsement of Owens, so fawning that frankly I don’t trust it at all.

If Skozzafava -did- in fact lend her support to Owens, then damn, that pretty much demolishes the whole “conservatives should just shut up and vote GOP” meme.

Qwinn
Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 11:55 AM

**********************************************

778 “You’re saying these people are psyched to go voter for a great conservative governor on the Republican line but because they never heard anyone say anything exciting about Chaffee, these awesome conservative voters suddenly default to the more liberal Democrat (that you call a socialist)?”

DUDE, WHAT THE FREAKING HELL.

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THIS. THEY ARE NOT “AWESOME CONSERVATIVE VOTERS”. They are completely disinterested mushy-middle non-political people who only vote for the people who they hear nice things about at the dinner table. You keep trying to force this f’ing claim in my mouth that they are actually conservative ideologically when I haven’t said -anything- like that and have in fact explained the exact opposite like 9 times now. Enough with the freaking straw man arguments, FFS!

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 11:58 AM

**********************************************

779
There is a lot more evidence to that point than there is for a majority wanting higher taxes and spending.

In any case there is two elections worth of solid empirical evidence that running RINOs is a losing proposition.

Vic,
There is a ton of evidence that people are willing to vote for higher taxes (for others at least) and increased spending…it’s called the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Now, I think those are secondary and indirect reason but Obama ran on raising taxes on the “rich” (he lied about the middle class but was up front on the $250, 000 level.

Congressional Democrats ran on raising taxes through letting the ‘Bush tax cuts’ expire.

And they all ran on increased spending, er ‘investments’.

And look at the last time Republicans (conservatives included) tried to cut spending a tiny little bit…the government shutdown in the 90’s. They got rolled.

Again, the majority of American voters simply do not hold the same views as movement conservatives. We should try to convince them but there’s no evidence that we are there now or will ever be successful.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 01, 2009 12:01 PM

***********************************************

780 God, Drew, what the hell, man? Why are you being so deliberately obtuse? I’m saying nothing more complicated than “Real conservative candidates bring out real conservative grass roots campaigning, whereas RINO’s do not”. And that grass root campaigning will reach a lot of non-ideological voters. The sort of non-ideological voter who doesn’t care enough to actually inform themselves on the issues but are willing to listen to those people close to them who -do-.

This is not f’ing complicated, but you are gonna -cram- the “all these mythical conservative ideologues” meme into my mouth no matter what it freaking takes, aren’t you?

It’s seriously getting infuriating. How many f’ing more times are you going to play that shit?

Qwinn
Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 12:02 PM

**********************************************

784 To what flenser just said, I’ll add this: If you’re the small government type who wants to keep abortion legal, don’t expect the warm welcoming embrace of Democrats either. You almost certainly think you’re a libertarian because you’ve been utterly brainwashed into the whole “keeping abortion legal is a libertarian cause” meme. That’s BS, but whatever. There -is- a libertarian party out there… sure, it doesn’t amount to shit, but that’s your party. Make something of it, or take pride in your “independence”, but don’t come into ours and trash the hell out of it because you can’t accept the fact that those who think abortion actually -is- homicide can possibly really believe what they’re saying, so they must be power mad fascists.

Qwinn
Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 12:12 PM

**********************************************

794 Qwinn,

I see what you are saying about moderates being excited, I was sloppily using ‘conservative voters’ when I meant ‘voting for a great conservative’. I do apologize for that. I will try and learn my lesson and not have a debate at 4 in the morning (no matter what the clock says).

The bottom line is I still disagree with you that ‘excitement’ is a prime motivating factor. I think it’s a reflection of the overall environment…usually a ‘throw the bums out’ moment like in ’94 or a ‘this isn’t working anymore’ like in 06 and 08.

I think ‘excitement’ when it plays a role it’s a symptom of something bigger, not itself.

And again, I think you are vastly overestimating the role of the RNC here. You still havn’t explained how if the RNC is dedicating to killing the chances of conservatives winning Senate seats, there are conservatives in the Senate.

It’s simply beyond their perview to do more than support the choice of the state party or the RSCC.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 01, 2009 12:38 PM

***********************************************

795 “I see what you are saying about moderates being excited,”

What?

*cry*

I never said that either.

“The bottom line is I still disagree with you that ‘excitement’ is a prime motivating factor.”

Or that.

It’s the conservative ideologues who get excited about a solid conservative candidate. Those conservative ideologues talk about how much they like that candidate at the dinner table, during after school events, at the PTA, etc. The mushy headed “moderate” – i.e. totally disinterested in politics who only votes because he gets guilted into it – hears those good things and that creates a 10-20% chance they’ll actually vote for him.

That mushy headed non-ideological voter is -never- going to vote for the Republican when all he hears the few times he turns on the news is “Republicans are racists” and his ideologue lefty friends frothing at the mouth like they always do, when his conservative friends just snort in disgust hearing the same name. Mushy headed voter -never ever ever- hears a good word about the RINO, except, possibly, from campaign ads put out by the RNC, which may work to some degree and does have an impact in a primary, but isn’t anywhere near as good as hearing his conservative friends defend and boost their guy every bit as passionately as the frothing leftists defend -their- guy.

I never ever said the moderate would be “excited” about the conservative guy. They’re not excited when they vote Democrat either. They hate politics. They only vote at all because of those stupid MTV GOTV efforts specifically aimed at exactly them, because Democrats understand this dynamic, they know they have the media, and they know the typical ignorant disinterested person will vote Democrat when the Republican is a RINO who excites no one.

Now do you understand? *sobs in despair*

Qwinn
Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 12:47 PM

**********************************************

796 “You still havn’t explained how if the RNC is dedicating to killing the chances of conservatives winning Senate seats, there are conservatives in the Senate”

You brought up Rubio. I did some reading about what’s been going on with him since you mentioned him. Can you really know what was done to him in the primary, with the state party trying to bar him from even getting on the primary ballot, and how the outrage of local conservatives kept him in, and still think that question needs answering?

Qwinn
Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 12:49 PM

**********************************************

797 Qwinn,

So you’re argument is if conservatives are excited they are the prime motivator for moving mushy middle types and if we don’t excite conservatives they won’t evangelize the mushes?

Posted by: DrewM. at November 01, 2009 01:02 PM

***********************************************

800 Qwinn,

As far as I know the RNC hasn’t taken a stand on Rubio.

The RSCC has but they are not the same thing.

Also, it’s very unusual for the RSCC to get involved in open seat primaries. They will support sitting Senators who are getting primaired. And that’s never going to change. Think of it this way, a sitting Republican Senator is essentially a member of the RSCC. What organization is going to support someone challenging one it’s members?

Now, the RSCC has made a huge mistake in going with Crist but that’s not part of a larger conspiracy to keep conservatives out of the Senate. Again, the RNC doesn’t even enter into the picture.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 01, 2009 01:05 PM

***********************************************

804 “So you’re argument is if conservatives are excited they are the prime motivator for moving mushy middle types and if we don’t excite conservatives they won’t evangelize the mushes?”

That is definitely the closest you’ve come to restating my argument accurately, yes. But if you respond now with any argument that implies “those excited moderates won’t blah blah blah”, I’ll have to kill you.

Ideologues are the only people who really care about politics enough to campaign and donate to candidates. This is true from the left and the right. When RINO’s run for an office, you piss their support and funding away. There are not nearly enough passionate people who share the bizarrely inconsistent political views of the typical RINO to make up for it. As the Republican candidate goes left, the funding and grassroots campaign structure dries up. This is something Ace and you have completely ignored in your thesis that RINO’s are more electable than conservatives in blue states.

So, just to drive the point home:

Mushy muddle-headed politically ignorant Joe showed up to the Rhode Island polls in 2006. He’s looking down the list at a bunch of names he might have heard of 3 times in his life.

“Chafee? Yeah, I think I heard of him. Sally my hyper democrat girlfriend says he’s the spawn of Satan, but she says that about anybody who has an “R” next to their name, so I kinda expect that. But when Joe my Republican brother mentioned him, he looked like he was going to puke too. Guy must be real scum. Voting for the other guy.”

“Carcieri? Oh, I heard about him! Sally says he’s Satan-spawn too, but Joe -loves- him. Okay, here’s what I’ll do to make everyone happy, I’ll vote for the Democrat against that Chafee guy that no one likes, but I’ll vote for this Republican Carcieri cause Joe really likes him. So one of each! Cause I’m like, independent, and stuff! Rawr! *flex*”

Get what I’m saying now?

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 01, 2009 01:20 PM

Advertisements

November 2, 2009 , 4:45PM - Posted by | Conservatism, Republicans

1 Comment

  1. […] You’re Selling Off Principles for Power, and That Means You’ll Wind Up with Neither… […]

    Pingback by It Happened, Therefore it Will Never Happen Again « AmeriCAN-DO Attitude | November 3, 2009 , 4:37PM


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: