I hate the GOP establishment
The left is what it is, and it is going to try to do what it’s going to try to do. Whereas the GOP establishment? Is far worse, in my opinion. Because, though it pretends to back our principles, it doesn’t — and in fact, establishment Republicans actively attack any and all who do advocate for classical liberal principles as “threats” to their “leadership,” which is in itself a threat to their symbiotic relationship with the left: sure, the progressives rule the roost; but the GOP as an opposition party still gets to play, still gets the perks of leadership, and can still suckle the government teat (while “blaming” big government on the Dems). To them, this is the perfect situation: all the rewards of government, none of the blame of failure.
Watching this loathsome party machine give aid to the Democrats by diminishing every potential conservative candidate who bucks the party apparatus has been quite illuminating. Watching them sniff and sneer and look for ways to demean as “unelectable”, or non-“substantive,” those “extremists” or “Visigoths” who would govern by a set of ready and battle-tested principles — constitutional and originalist principles that, like the Constitution itself, doesn’t require a special priesthood to understand (thus obviating some of the special pleading of the political class, who fancies itself our betters, even as it gives lip service to a representative republican form of government), and so doesn’t require a lot of pre-fabbed pragmatic positions on issues be taken in advance — only serves to remind us why, since Reagan, the GOP has failed us, and why the country continues to move ever more leftward, giving the GOP with each succeeding election leave to pitch us on the American desire for bigger, more expansive federal government.
Because that’s what they want, too. They just want it to be accompanied by lower taxes.
I’m through with them. Johnny Tobin can eat a dick. Eric Kain can have the balls. Davids Frum and Brooks can battle over first entry rights to the squeakhole, while Jen Rubin can have squatters rights over whatever’s left. Honestly, the idea that Palin would fuck up the standard, grade-school version of Paul Revere’s ride that these geniuses relied upon to ridicule her tells you just how much they hope she fails; that is, they were so invested in her proving her stupidity that they themselves were willing to believe that a woman who they KNOW has a hard on for this country didn’t know the popular mythology of, say, School House Rock.
Which tells you much more about this gaggle of pretentious douchebags than it does about Ms Palin.
I’m tired of listening to erstwhile liberals — who’ve since found a niche as conservative pundits — tell me who can and can’t win elections, or why I’m to take John Huntsman and Mitt Romney seriously, while dismissing Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin or Herman Cain. I’m tired of taking advice from the same dickbags who gave me McCain and HW Bush and Bob Dole and “compassionate conservatism” — who told me the era of Reagan was over, and that “conservatives,” to remain anything other than a regional party, had best embrace big government and the social nanny welfare state: that is, to become the Democrats, while the Democrats veer toward socialism. I’m tired of taking counsel from the “major voices” on the right, the same people who just two years ago were smirking at the TEA Party movement and telling us how unhelpful was our willingness to identify Barack Obama for what he is.
The GOP simply wants to keep its power. It, as a national party with a national “message,” cares not a whit about legal constitutionalism, classical liberalism, or the foundational principles of this republic.
As such, it can go straight to hell. I said it before and I’ll say it again, and I don’t much care what anyone else thinks on the subject: I’m tired of rewarding the GOP with my vote just because they recognize that I recognize that the other choice is worse.
The fact of the matter is, BOTH choices are destructive of my liberties and of the greatest country ever devised by man. And I’m not going to contribute to that managed decline any longer.
Frankly, I’d rather just hang back and wait for the revolution.
While I share, the sentiment, I don’t think I’ll like the revolution once it comes.
They don’t even want the power. They just want to keep the offices and perks.
As has been said before: “Republicans, Democrats, same shit, different piles.” Just needed more cowbell.
I’m with you. To repeat what I said on another thread, I think the GOP establishment will put forth another statist candidate, most likely Romney, and I will not vote for that candidate. There will be a strong third-party showing which will result in Obama’s re-election. I will be one of those voting for the non-Romney, non-Obama candidate.
We’re supposed to shut up and do what they want. They are no better than the progressives. As you said, they are worse, because they pretend to be something else.
The country will sink further into depression as a result, but it would do so with an establishment GOP president too, it would just take longer. Either way, there will be some fundamental changes that will have to be made, one way or the other. I’m ready to get it over with. I’d rather be younger and in better physical shape to do what might need doing.
I personally don’t give a tinker’s damn what Tobin, Kain, Rubin, Brooks, Frum, et al have to say anymore. I far more enjoy listening to what is actually being said by candidates instead…
I recall vividly how the Rockefeller Rethugs! despised Ronnie Reagan in the primaries going into the 1980 election; how he didn’t have the proper resume, actor, unpopular, etc.
Sounds an awful lot like what I hear today about certain candidates and potential candidates.
The bottom line is no matter how much the RINO congress yearns for Huntsman, it aint happening; and I predict as time goes on Mittenz star will fade as well.
And regarding “the purity tests of the true!believers!”? Cap’n Ed had something up this morning about the Tea-Party express lady saying that they willingly get behind Romney if he legitimately won the primaries. But what wasn’t said as plainly was that until that happened they’d be supporting actual conservatives instead :)
We either elect someone from outside the establishment, or continue on as we have been. The long slide toward fascism.
Last chance people.
The NARC (Not a Real Conservative) will pretend to be your friend, but is there to sell you out.
RINO (repub. in name only) doesn’t really convey the level of treachery involved.
can we start calling these bastards NARCs?
I agree. But given the choice between ideologically pure lightweights and resumed empty suits, I’d probably rather drink from my toilet bowl than focus my animus exclusively in one direction. It’s simply disgusting that our bench has this little depth.
Reagan was a JFK democrat, then the party moved leftward, prompting Reagan to become a republican. Now that the republican party has moved to the left of a JFK democrat, whats a guy to do?
Seems to me we must have a third party, the existing two have left a huge segment of the population unrepresented.
It’s simply disgusting that our bench has this little depth.
I don’t think we don’t have depth. We’re looking at many factors at play here, two glaringly obvious:
1)anyone “good enough” for the job, isn’t crazy enough to run
and
2) the media favors the nice-talking empty suit
These have always factored in, but I think the media effect is exponential in today’s day and age. Obama put on a $750,000 marketing show in 2008, and no one who voted for him can understand what possibly went wrong. What was the term nishi was always using? OPTICS. His optics were awesome.
I’m tired of hearing that we’re benched by lightweights, a narrative pushed by those who give us the “electable” candidates, and then dutifully repeated by those who, while they may dislike the establishment, nevertheless allow them to drive that narrative.
Here’s the simple truth: if you have the right principles, none of this is very difficult. Palin has the right principles. She can delegate. She would choose conservatives and classical liberals for positions within her administration. And she’s shown the correct instincts over and against her supposed betters.
Incidentally, I’m already sick of hearing every report that mentions Mitt Romney modify him as “Republican Presidential front runner.” More media invention.
Seems to me we must have a third party, the existing two have left a huge segment of the population unrepresented.
Which huge segment would that be though? I, for example, don’t feel particularly represented by a bunch of dimwits who continue to be fixated on social issues while the country implodes. Do we transfer social conservatism to the third party? And if not, how does the math work as to whether we can peel enough Democrats away to compensate for the Republicans who then stay put or disengage from the process? It’s all well and good to talk about this stuff, but without a strong and well-reasoned vision and point of differentiation, it’s all just a juvenile hissy fit.
We’ll be there as soon as we run out of other people’s money. Other people, of course, includes the Chinese.
It’s like Palin won’t stop talking about the evil of gays! And Bachmann, with her constant admonitions that I get myself to church, or else Jesus won’t balance the budget, gets old, after a spell.
“Do we transfer social conservatism to the third party? “
You mean, like, by bus?
Seriously, it’s the fucking social cons that believe in limited government and individual liberty. The question you need to ask is, are you going to join the social cons in a new party, or stick with Daniels in the republican party?
[…] Goldstein lays the treacherous GOP dinosaurs out cold: I’m tired of listening to erstwhile liberals — who’ve since found a niche as conservative […]
“…the standard, grade-school version of Paul Revere’s ride”
And therein lies the problem. Nobody knows History anymore, they know the bowdlerized version, with a small H.
Clean, neat, and utterly useless. Lies. Feel-good bullshit.
When you teach ignorance, you really shouldn’t be surprised when you end up with ignorant idiots.
Republican (or rather, non-Democrat) candidates’ religiousity will become an issue, because the press will make it an issue. Mark my words, at debates, pressers, and mic-in-the-face ambushes, Palin, Cain, Bachmann et al. will get questions like “Why do you oppose gay marriage?” “How much will your faith play a role in how you will govern?” “Would you support a bill that outlawed abortion?” and so on.
These candidates need to take a page from Palin’s book and refuse to play the MBM’s games. Declare the question invalid, as in, “The Constitution is mute on [the topic at hand], so it’s irrelevant what I think. The federal government should stay out of [the topic] entirely and leave it to the States or people’s own consciences.” Repeat ad infinitum or until the MBM gets it.
It’s like Palin won’t stop talking about the evil of gays! And Bachmann, with her constant admonitions that I get myself to church, or else Jesus won’t balance the budget, gets old, after a spell.
You’re parodying happyfeet, not me. Are you trying to suggest that a viable third party is one that consists of conservatives, only, the ones who are more serious about combating the left? Cutting up half of a pie doesn’t strike as anything resembling a serious vision. A strong statement, maybe. But that’s about it.
I think one of the big problems is where conservative ideals meet up with political reality, aka the Washington Schmooze Machine.
Robert Reich was complaining about the way defense industries lobby, using Lockheed Martin as an exemplar. A lot of what he said I agree with, until he hopped teh crazy train to “lobbying the government to spend more of our money with our money”. But until he went down the “with our money” path (Really, Bob: how much of our money are you spending, propagandizing? Right.) what he was really talking about was paid schmoozing. But what would happen if we could somehow banish paid schmoozing? Yeah, that’s right: unpaid schmoozing. Or, rather, the schmoozing would be paid for, only differently. No money would exchange hands anymore, and people would be paid simply for their ability to bend the ears of politicians, which means they’d become professional golfers. And of course, if you could act as a paid intermediary to swap voting blocs for congressional votes, so much the better.
This stuff isn’t going away anytime soon, I think, so Jeff’s path of least action is probably the wisest.
“The federal government should stay out of [the topic] entirely and leave it to the States or people’s own consciences.” Repeat ad infinitum or until the MBM gets it.”
Yes!
Then repeat it some more until even the NRC gets it…
On the flip-side, though, hardly anyone knows History any less.
FTFY.
And therein lies the problem. Nobody knows History anymore, they know the bowdlerized version, with a small H.
Clean, neat, and utterly useless. Lies. Feel-good bullshit.
Big time.
Simple. I think that’s the key. It’s very very simple. Like the Dr. Seuss version of history. No complexity whatsoever. I call it Disney history.
Jeff, I made similar, if less erudite, comments over at Rachel Lucas’ place during the 2008 campaign, stating that I would not vote for McCain. Then, of course, he picked Palin and average guy Joe the Plumber had his anus intruded by fuckers whose sole purpose in life was to remove all obstacles to the deification of St. Barry. As you might imagine, my comments were not well received by lots of people ostensibly from my side of the political aisle.
Look, I blame myself for the current establishment GOP. I voted way too many times in my life for the barely lesser of two evils. So often, in fact, that the GOP took my vote for granted and offered me the rhetorical finger when I complained. “Who else are you gonna vote for? The Democrat?” Well no, but there are other options. And since it looks like the gentry Republicans are hell bent of following the Democrats into socialist hell, I might as well enjoy my next few years in the political wilderness while I help build a new party whose first principles are individual liberty and reduced government intervention.
Republicans always back the guy whose “turn” it is. I guess its Romneys turn and he sucks. If you want to know how he will govern see Scott Brown. They are the same guy.
Actually, mojo, it’s feel-bad bullshit. See, Zinn, Howard.
Are you trying to suggest that a viable third party is one that consists of conservatives, only, the ones who are more serious about combating the left?
Um, clarification requested. Are we talking about a viable 3rd party or a viable alternate 2nd party?
That’s up to the GOP. I think it’s time they follow US for a while.
Personally, voting for another big government GOP guy doesn’t strike me as a vision, either — and as a statement, I don’t particularly like what it says.
“Social” Conservatives (whatever the hell it is we mean by that –usually people who either enjoy going to church more than the rest of us, and who don’t telling us that they wonder why we don’t go more; or else people who are impolite) in their opposition to our judicially erected peculiar institution) are largely a problem because the media tells us so.
From their point of view, the country is imploding because of social issues. I think they’re as serious as Abe is about fighting the Left, even if they don’t share his priorities.
We’e all purists in our own way.
I’m talking about a third party that kills the GOP as it is now constituted, and becomes the 2nd party.
For irony, we can call it the Whig party.
Regardless of what strategy will perhaps restore this failing little country, we’re going to have to deal with the 800lb gorilla:
We want what we think is free shit and we’re afraid to stand for a principle that rejects that desire because we’ve trained one another that that desire is moral in its sacred but wholly projected altruism. Our feckless herd instinct is why Palin is so vilified and it’ll also serve nicely to keep systems in place until the moment of their collapse. Which they are and we still refuse to see it…a quarter quadrillion dollars too late.
Statistically a very substantial majority of us want Social Insecurity, Medifail, impossibly bankrupt and corrupt federal lenders, a phenomenally dysfunctional banking and monetary empire, and our shitty government schools and we like thinking like little church boys about what is in effect the new State morality of redistributing damn near everything.
Regardless of party we got what we wanted. So it shall be.
It’s the only hope and with the Tea Party, we came as close as we ever have. Time to do it again.
One of the things I think we’re going to learn in the next 18 months is who the GOP is.
Abe,
Sarah Palin, when she was governor of Alaska, vetoed a bill that denied health benefits to same sex partners of public employees. Palin vetoed the bill because it was contrary to the Alaska Constitution.
Palin supported amending the Alaska constitution so the bill could then be signed into law.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Sarah_Palin_Civil_Rights.htm
As long as Mrs. Palin continues to demonstrate fidelity to the law and supports the process by which laws are changed, I have no problem with her.
It doesn’t matter if one is socially conservative, liberal, libertine, progressive or libertarian. What matters is subverting the legal process in order to force a belief system on people.
If the primaries are again manipulated to produce a republican candidate that is unreliable with regard to the principles of the base, like McCain, Romney, and Gingrich, then the base must organize an effort to elect someone outside the establishment in the general.
The only person in the field right now, firm in his conservative principles with the potential to gain wide appeal to the base and independents, is Cain.
For myself, as the field is now and even if Palin joins the contest, I’m voting for Cain in the general election, regardless who wins the primary. Even if it’s as a write in.
Why History? Why not history?
Who insists on History? Who on history?
Could it be that if History, it’s done already lost.
Darth has a good point. They should all just call such gotcha questions, “distractions”, like Obama was so fond of saying. Then if the MBM tries to play the TRANSPARENCY! or HYPOCRISY! cards they just need to answer such inquiries with the question of why the same standard applied to Obama doesn’t apply to them.
Reverse the squirm…
Palin’s pretty good at this already.
Right. Storm the primaries and if they give us another McCain, stay home or write in Zombie Reagan.
sdferr!
Glad to
seeread you again my man. Here’s hoping life has been treating you well.Blake, well said.
There you go with Hegel! (seconding Bob here)
If the primaries are gamed in such a fashion it will virtually guarantee a 3rd party candidate; regardless of whether that will almost cetrainly ensure an Obama victory.
Like Ernst said, voters, especially conservatives, will learn a lot about the GOP over the next 18 months. If they move in the Rockefeller direction? That’ll be bad for them in both the short and long term.
“Storm the primaries and if they give us another McCain, stay home or write in Zombie Reagan.”
NO! NO! Storm the primaries, and if they give us another McCain, TEA parties need to organize for a third candidate that when he wins(or at least gains more votes than the republican), will make the republican party obsolete.
Palin is right now giving a workshop on bypassing the establishment.
Hmm, I’d forgotten about the Hegel fixation on History as some kind of predestined outcome we mere mortals were required to help bring about. Because despite apparently being all-knowing and all-powerful, History can’t do a damn thing for Its own damn self.
Kinda like Allah, now that I think of it.
Welcome back, sdferr.
smitty
link
Thanks, LBascom.
history — reporter reporting
History! — Professional Journalist Opining
Abe, I had a LeftLibProgg tell me that the Constitution is outdated and inadequate today, useless to our government, because it was written by and for a time when people were more concerned with morality and ‘faith’, and none of that stuff matters anymore.
With that belief set becoming more popular, are you positive you want to throw Godbotherers under the bus? Because they might just take their Constitution with them.
“For irony, we can call it the Whig party.”
BULL MOOSE!!
Here it is.
http://www.tweetdeck.com/twitter/manuleletausala/~WoEI7
John Adams was Right.
I recall vividly how the Rockefeller Rethugs! despised Ronnie Reagan in the primaries going into the 1980 election; how he didn’t have the proper resume, actor, unpopular, etc.
OK, so what can we actually *do* to get a Reagan 2.0 in the 2012 primaries?
And don’t tell me “3rd party”. Those are JOKES, and that is a recipe for failure.
And don’t tell me “let it get worse before it gets better”. Because more often than not it doesn’t get better. I don’t want America going gracefully into permanent decline like the UK, or off the cliff like Weimar Germany. I’m already on anti-depressants so please don’t drive me to suicide.
“John Adams was Right.”
Yes, where “moral”=taking personal responsibility for your life, and “religious”=belief that individual liberty comes from a source higher than government.
Good to see you, sd.
And the fish, were they biting?
McCain 2012: I promise not to lose as BADLY as some others will!
“McCain 2012: I promise not to lose as BADLY as some others will!”
Seriously Jeff, Let’s get behind a real Republican candidate like 1980. I was but a wee lad then, but I remember it. It can be done. Either that or we all end up like a patriot’s “Heaven’s Gate” overdosing on….well, we have to figure out what our cyanided beverage of choice will be.
“OK, so what can we actually *do* to get a Reagan 2.0 in the 2012 primaries?
And don’t tell me “3rd party”. Those are JOKES, and that is a recipe for failure.”
Third party comes only if we don’t get a classically liberal candidate in the primaries. Don’t tell me a groundswell movement can’t challenge and beat two weak establishment candidates in these days of TEA parties, internet and twitter. I’d just tell you I think you’re wrong.
Or maybe, like Tailgunner Joe, we can drink ourselves to death.
*I think the GOP establishment will put forth another statist candidate, most likely Romney, and I will not vote for that candidate.*
No offense cranky but are you insane? A retarded chipmunk would be better than our current sitting greatest black president of all time. The only way I could see myself not casting a vote to get rid of the current Bonehead in chief is if the GOP nominated a. Mullah Omar b. Barbara Steisand c. Satan. And quite frankly, I think Satan would know a helluva lot more about running a country/realm/supernatural dimension then JugEars the Clown.
I thought about saying a “retarded chimp” but recognized the racist undertones and do not wish to be denounced.
Curmudgeon,
All I can say is vote for an actual conservative in the primaries, and try and convince others you know to do the same.
Because I can’t see Romney or Huntsman dominating the process in the south, or west-save fro CA and UT.
Don’t tell me a groundswell movement can’t challenge and beat two weak establishment candidates in these days of TEA parties, internet and twitter. I’d just tell you I think you’re wrong.
The recent election results in NY-26 bear re-examination. Dupes will be dupes, and 3rd parties are for dupes.
so what can we actually *do* to get a Reagan 2.0 in the 2012 primaries?
Git off yer ass, pick a candidate and go to work?
OK, so what can we actually *do* to get a Reagan 2.0 in the 2012 primaries?
I honestly don’t think we’ll get an acceptable candidate for President in 2012. The Tea Party stood down to catch its breath in the inter-election period, and the Establicans have used the time and space to get back on offense. They haven’t learned a damn thing from the last couple of cycles, except to the extent that they’ve identified Tea Party candidates as enemies to be neutralized.
I continue to focus my efforts on Congressional races, and on State-level legislative elections. I think that’s where we stand to make the best progress, with the best chances for success. Another class of OUTLAW! freshman Congressmen could boot the old guard and install some leadership with the fortitude to defend our principles. It could also show the donors which way the wind is blowing, cutting off a lot of fuel for the Establishment. Plus, a bloc of OUTLAW! Legislatures and Governors can do a lot to push back on Federal overreach, while a firmly OUTLAW! Congress can handcuff whatever lame-ass cartoon the Establishment puts in the Oval Office. Hell, with a bit of luck, the OUTLAWS! can force a steady diet of shit down the cartoon’s throat for four years.
Should these efforts fall short, and our countrymen reject the ideals of independence, personal responsibility, and limited government, then my efforts will turn away from prevention in favor of mitigation. Which is to say, setting up a place in the country and making sure that I spot the fecal matter before it strikes the rotary ventilator. I don’t want to do that, though; it plays hell with my usual sunny disposition.
it only confirmed that the ny gop is run by rino idiots.
Git off yer ass, pick a candidate and go to work?
OK, first, which one? Is Sarah in? Should Michelle bow out in favor of her, or vice versa? Is Pawlenty salvageable? Does Herman Cain have enough clout? Do any of them have the warchest needed?
I think the insane thing to do would be to continue to vote for statist Republicans who are doing the same damn thing to the country that the Democrats are, just more slowly. If there is no sharp demarcation between political philosophies, what’s the point in caring about them?
I once believed in voting for the lesser of two evils. Now, I would rather vote for the candidate who best represents my beliefs on government and governing.
Romney leads by following.
Romney will only be as good as Congress. It would take the Senate flipping and the House getting more conservative for Romney to be conservative.
I can’t bring myself to vote for Romney. Romney is a GOP insider who is a squish on the 2nd Amendment, (at best) for ethanol subsidies, believes in Global Warming and is responsible for RomneyCare.
MBM is already touting Romney’s “formidable organization” and “ability to raise campaign funds.”
When MBM starts talking up a GOP pretender, it’s time to consider that MBM is in the tank for President Obama. Therefore, any candidate MBM starts calling “the clear frontrunner” should raise a lot of red flags.
The Dem ran on Obama stealing from Medicare. The Republican phoned it in, thinking she couldn’t lose. And a second Dem faked membership to an organization that shows how disillusioned are some with both parties.
Hardly a ringing endorsement of the Democrats.
Squid is pretty much correct Curmudgeon, save for the damage Baracky can do via executive order.
But as far as the candidates? I personally like Cain and Bachmann at this point, as far as actual conservatives go who are in the race. I believe Pawlenty might deserve a cautious consideration of what he has to say, but am wary of the baggage he carries from his time as Minnesota’s governor.
And Palin is fine in my book, but I’m truly unsure of whether she’s running or not. I think her decision will depend a lot on how Cain or Bachmann appear to be doing in the primaries.
If the RINOs are running away with it, then she’ll probably enter the race.
Forget about Bachmann, I like her but she’s not got a shot. Plus she is like a poor man’s Palin anyway, with the same (albeit accentuated) negatives and the same (albeit, diminished) positives, in terms of campaign persona.
Palin, Cain, Perry.
If you can’t do any of those 3, maybe Santorum – but if you can’t do any of the 3 above, you won’t manage him either.
Then go with Pawlenty as a last ditch. Romney and Huntsman are ‘stay home’/3rd party territory.
Those 2 don’t respect us enough to even lie to us.
“Dupes will be dupes, and 3rd parties are for dupes.”
Voting for RINO’s is for dupes.
Do you think Romney is going to dismantle Obamacare and reverse the increasing scope of government?
Think he’s going to tell the AGW crowd to get lost, or take a hard line on illegal immigration?
I don’t believe it. So I’m not going to give him my vote.
Winning the election only matters if the winner does what you voted for.
The Dem ran on Obama stealing from Medicare.
And the Commiecrats will do the same nationally. And many dupes will fall for it. Can our patriot champion overcome that? (This is not a rhetorical question).
The Republican phoned it in, thinking she couldn’t lose.
And even our champion might have a gaffe or a miscalculation. Even Uncle Ron had gaffes—many of them. If you are expecting a perfect champion, be prepared for disappointment.
And a second Dem faked membership to an organization that shows how disillusioned are some with both parties.
As if the GOP establishment candidate won’t do the same in your 3rd party scenario?
Hardly a ringing endorsement of the Democrats.
When have I ever endorsed the Commiecrats???
I tend to think Squid is correct, in that there is no acceptable candidate who can transcend the negatives they have already accumulated, deserved or not. I think gaining seats in the House and getting a majority in the Senate is about the best we can expect right now.
However, the election is a long way away given our 24 hour news cycle. It’s practically an eternity. If the facts on the ground change, expect late entries into the race.
I’d be happy to get behind a real GOP candidate, provided the candidate isn’t a Democrat wearing a R in front of his name.
It seems to me that that’s all the GOP is going to offer us, though. If they can help it, I mean.
I’ll vote conservative / classically liberal throughout the primaries, and I’ll do my best to advocate for those kinds of candidates. Meanwhile, people will go read sites that just two years ago, after having told us how McCain was eminently electable, and our best chance at the presidency, were telling us to embrace Obama — counseling us to see past our disagreements and realize he just wants what’s best for the country, just like we do! — and they’ll listen to that same counsel yet again, convinced that this is the best, most pragmatic way to win elections.
Once again, we’re to sacrifice our principles to get power, the pragmatists tell us, so that our side can make a difference. For the greater good!
Which, that recipe for governing seems vaguely familiar to me…
Voting for RINO’s is for dupes.
In a primary, yes totally. In the general? It’s called making the hard choice for damage control, as opposed to treating politics like it is fantasy football…
Do you think Romney is going to dismantle Obamacare and reverse the increasing scope of government? Think he’s going to tell the AGW crowd to get lost,
If enough partiots in the House and the Senate are there to lean on him, yes. Flip-floppers and fence-sitters can be pushed around.
or take a hard line on illegal immigration?
No less a guy than Tom Tancredo did in 2008, and endorsed him when Tanc bowed out. Tanc understood that politics isn’t fantasy football.
have any of you ever attended an AIP/Constitution Party gathering? I have. It’s well meaning, but delusional. The Losertarians are even worse–beyond legalizing pot, they have nothing coherent to state.
3rd parties are for dupes.
Yes.
So are 1st and 2nd parties.
It’s like with poker. If you don’t know who the dupe is, it’s you.
If you don’t know who’s money you’re all stealing…
Here’s an idea: let’s try saying, “they are fucking lying.” Instead of staying on the defensive, show some sack and take it to them.
I’m game. The truth sells, even when the truth is that the emperor is naked, and he’s banging you while you’re asleep.
Perhaps I’m being pollyannish, but I really believe that Romney and Huntsman won’t get the nomination; regardless of what the national GOP stomp their feet about regarding “electibility”.
I watched this same dance in 1980 with Reagan and Bush the elder, with many of the same lines being repeated. The one difference is that Reagan had a lot of western conservatives on board with him. I see a similar dynamic now, with southern conservatives playing the role of the western ones. And although RINOs may appeal to some of the CA “Ahhhhhnuld conservatives”, a larger number of them will get on board with a real conservative.
I know the media keeps saying Cain, Bachmann, or Palin are “unelectable”, but we’ve got a long way to go. I counsel patience, and watch as the battle-space shapes up.
It’s called making the hard choice for damage control
I don’t want our over-reaching federal government to undergo controlled damage, I want it to undergo maximum damage.
How it’s damaged does not matter. Kill the beast.
Here’s my political goal: Great reduce the scope, influence, size and ability of the federal government.
So how the hell am I a ‘dupe’ anyway? If we cannot get a bunch of politicians who will dismantle it floor by floor, then get a bunch who will tack on a couple shoddy new additions and send the whole thing careening into rubble.
And that is a hard choice, but I’ve made it. Accept no substitutions. No half babies. No 6 centuries of damage control.
Doing damage control is managing decline.
What do you think we should do about the housing market and underwater mortgages?
or maybe it was greta
*I once believed in voting for the lesser of two evils*
While I completely agree with wanting to vote for someone with values the most similar to your own, from my perspective, I could not ever vote for someone with values so completely #$@#’d up as Obamas. McCain was my least favorite candidate for president and I knew he would be ineffective, but I still volunteered, donated a little money and went and voted for him. I would have preferred someone else but at that point, the only other person to cast a vote for was Obama. The last thing this country (and the financial markets) need is another 4 years of Obama scaring business and trying to turn this country into his version of socialist utopia. I’m afraid too many people will feel similarly to the way you do and refuse to hold their nose and vote, if its a candidate you’re not particularly pleased with. I can safely say, there isn’t one republican in the expected field who I wouldn’t vote for, if it came down to them and Obama. Even Gingrich, who is like nails on a chalkboard to me.
With that belief set becoming more popular, are you positive you want to throw Godbotherers under the bus?
While using the law rather than the culture for Godbothering holds no appeal for me, what I’m saying is less pointed than that. Whatever political sacrifices on principle you’re willing to make in the short run via some third party, in the long run you have to be able to make the math work. I was tossing Social cons out as an example of an obstacle to electoral success vis a vis suburban voters in states like Pennsylvania and New Jersey who are easily reachable on taxes, immigration, foreign policy and the like, while simultaneously noting that the cost in terms of a loss of social conservative voters may very well mitigate or overwhelm whatever gains are made in that regard. Math is hard. Venting on blogs about flawed or flat out defective candidates and worldviews is easy.
Crap, my clever response, which I forgot to throw in there, was supposed to be “There’s only evil in this race and its a democrat”. Sigh.
I was tossing Social cons out as an example of an obstacle to electoral success vis a vis suburban voters in states like Pennsylvania and New Jersey who are easily reachable on taxes, immigration, foreign policy and the like, while simultaneously noting that the cost in terms of a loss of social conservative voters may very well mitigate or overwhelm whatever gains are made in that regard.
It’s not just hard, it’s impossible.
No really – because you’re trying to model society here. It’s like trying to model the weather. No one can do it.
Model and predict 50 million individuals?
We cannot model and predict 1 individual. We can’t even claim to understand what it’s principles of operation are, let alone quantify and calculate them.
Such political ‘math’ is less jibber-jabber than then just venting.
Math is hard. Venting on blogs about flawed or flat out defective candidates and worldviews is easy.
THANK YOU! Why 3rd parties are a joke, in a nutshell. Co-opting them, on the other hand, leads to unbeatable coalitions.
Hear! Hear! I refuse to vote for a candidate if the best he’s got going for him is that he’s the lesser of two evils. Especially as the Republicans are so very good at finding a candidate who is ever so slightly less evil than his opponent. “Vote for me and you won’t be totally screwed, you’ll just be mostly screwed”, just doesn’t cut it.
Take our illustrious House Speaker. Boehner knows that the economy is in the toilet because of out-of-control government spending, but the best he can come up with in his Pledge to America is to “put common-sense limits on the growth of government”, and we’re supposed to be impressed with that? The distance between his attitude toward Big Government and Nancy Pelosi’s is so small you’d need an accurate micrometer to measure it, and both might as well be on the dark side of the moon they’re so far from me.
What we really need are candidates who will pledge to get government out of our bedrooms, out of our boardrooms, out of our kitchens, out of our wallets, and out of our friggin’ hair. Then don’t tell me that such candidates are “unelectable”. When someone says that they’re only proving that they’re part of the problem.
” Math is hard”
Well, not all math:
Then don’t tell me that such candidates are “unelectable”.
I’m not. I bet anything I’m backing your primary candidate. But don’t tell me that you prefer to pout and hold your breath until you(r country) turn(s) blue, because you didn’t get the exact primary candidate you wanted. That’s frankly childish.
Does the primary process suck? Oh my yes. It is front loaded, and the state winner takes all delegates (even when winner ekes out the slimmest of pluralities in a state). So help work to change it.
That’s why I’m so thankful for Karl Rove. And why I know that what I do here has little practical real world value.
And yet, still I go on.
California is a great example of what happens when you elect a RINO. Did Arnold advance conservative principles and bring California back to financial stability? I mean, he was a Republican, right?
Yea, the Republican won! He caved to the public unions, encouraged illegal immigration, got behind every environmentalist cause out there, refused to endorse the voters voice on gay marriage, sat out the water wars in the central valley, shut down off-shore oil drilling, humped his maid like a Kennedy, and left us in such dire straights a democrat won the next election.
But hey, at least we had a republican governor for awhile there…
California is a great example of what happens when you try to short-circut the process, like the jagoffs in the Cali GOP did. I would have preferred no special recall election and perhaps a Governor McClintock in 2006.
California is also a great example of what happens when the greedhead business class in your GOP is so enamored of its cheap gardeners and maids that it brushes off those pesky social conservatives, imports an underclass that votes it out of power, and proves Lenin right.
LBascom, That’s why I voted libertarian in the CA election.
Whitman was merely Arnold in a skirt.
I think conservatives in CA are ahead of the curve when it comes to GOP pretenders like Romney. We’ve already danced with that partner and our feet are bloody from the high heels of these skirt wearing RINO’s.
I couldn’t vote for Whitman either. You’d have a hard time convincing me we’ll be worse off with Brown, I don’t believe she would have done much different. Plus, when worse comes, and it will, there will be no republican camouflage to hide behind. The dems own their policies in this state now.
California is a bad example because the doom is palpable. Better to let Democrats be at the helm and store cans of gasoline for the hoped for post-apocalyptic awakening. Either you’ll have the means to get around by car or to light your neighbors on fire if a dystopian shithole doesn’t beat the stupid out of them.
The doom is palpable for the whole freak’in country.
Well said.
Unfortunately, there still seem to be many who subscribe to the syphilitic camel theory. Thus continuing to affirm the establishment GOPs continued leftward tilt.
True. But California is first in the queue for the guillotine.
I’m tired of holding my nose when voting. It’s that simple. No one has to do the same. Feel free to help elect yet another shitty GOP candidate if that’s what you think is the pragmatic thing to do.
As long as you do that, though, nothing will ever change.
Indeed.. Call me Pollyanna, but I’m really hoping that with the TEA Party in the mix the MSM and establishment Republicans are going to have a much harder time pushing yet another RINO to the fore. I really hope I’m right, because if I’m not I fear we’re deeply into that “awkward stage” Claire Wolfe talked about: “America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”
Nah, California is too big to fail. Just ask Romney.
Romney’s the frontrunner for the GOP because all those establishment types owe a shit-ton of political favor to the companies set to make a shit-ton off of any kind of implementation of Robamacare. Mandated coverage, exchanges, all that shit is worth BANK, and these motherfuckers are scared shitless that some tea party grandmom is going to get into office on repeal instead of replace. Romney is the front runner because he won’t ever EVER talk repeal, just “repeal of those portions of the bill that no one read that are bad”.
He’s horseshit and should be treated as such.
jen the rube on santorum
link
Ah! This is what the InstaPundit calls the Syphalitic Camel Rule, i.e., “I’d vote for a syphalitic camel if it runs against Obama.” I certainly can sympathize with that sentiment, but if we keep voting for the Republicans’ syphalitic camels they’ll keep nominating syphalitic camels. Problem is, the Republicans’ syphalitic camel really won’t be much better than the Democrats’ syphalitic camel (is that racist? Whatever.). So what do you gain? The pleasure of saying “Yes, he’s a syphalitic camel, but by god he’s our syphalitic camel”? Should we settle for such pyrrhic victories?
Somehow we’ve got to break out of the cycle of swapping their syphalitic camel for our syphalitic camel. That’s just rearranging the proverbial deck chairs. If we can’t break that cycle now, with the power of the TEA Parties, when will we do it? Because frankly, I’m getting tired of being humped by syphalitic camels.
Amen, Jeff. The GOP has gotten its last vote from me, at least until candidates like Palin are denounced for being too far left. I re-registered as a Libertarian earlier this year, and have every intention of voting that way unless something drastic happens.
I’m not too proud to pimp my own work, so here is my take on this topic, in case anyone is interested.
This is probably the point where I should tell you to fuck yourself. There’s nothing childish about opposing the destruction of this country. There’s nothing childish about refusing to be a part of the retarded status quo. You’re not working to change anything if you’re willing to acquiesce, bend over and take it again and again from the same old political machine. The country is turning blue, the point is to do something to change that. And if we fail? Well, sometimes it’s better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
I re-registered as a Libertarian earlier this year, and have every intention of voting that way unless something drastic happens.
Even in local and state races?
Tell me you have something more coherent to say than “Legalize pot, maaaaaan…”. Because the LP is about little more than that.
I thoroughly disagree. What you do here is let everyone know that we’re not alone and that if we’re a little bit crazy it’s a very good kind of crazy. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m eternally grateful for the moral support I find here. And the immoral support doesn’t hurt either!
Curmudgeon, I’m so glad you asked:
My only interest in legalizing pot is that we spend a shitload of money prosecuting and incarcerating people who use a substance no more harmful than alcohol. I’ve never touched the stuff, and don’t particularly care to. That being said, I don’t believe there is any legitimate reason for it to be illegal.
If you really think that the LP is just about ‘Legalize pot, maaaaan…’ then you are unfamiliar with the party platform and the people that we consider our intellectual leaders. I’m fairly certain that Locke, Jefferson, Hayek, and Friedman were not in it for the weed.
And I’d also like to say Amen, Swen. “sometimes it’s better to die on your feet than live on your knees” is exactly how I feel now.
Sadly, yes. We’ve got to break the cycle of stupid and we’ve got to do it now. I see Iron308 beat me to the syphalitic camel rule (Nice shootin’ Tex, is that the 1000 yd target? If so, very nice shootin’!) and that’s the cycle we need to break. We can’t continue to vote for a Republican just for the pleasure of electing a Republican. By now we should know just how fleeting that pleasure can be.
Voting for RINO’s in the face of impending economic doom is just choosing a lingering death for the country over the faster death the Democrats offer. But make no mistake, it’s death either way. Whether we put no limits on the growth of government as the Democrats wish, or “put common-sense limits on the growth of government” as Boehner has pledged, the growth of government will destroy this country as we know it. If the choice is between slow death and fast death, then I choose “none of the above”. In so doing I may “waste my vote” but at least I won’t sell my soul.
What you propose is overhauling the entire Federal government, its Treasury, and the monetary system the entire cesspool depends on. Do we have the will for that when we can’t even hire a decent President?
We’re all full of solutions, Abe. None will take effect but one. The whole mess will fall in a heap because it is insolvent, whether by design — see Obama, Barry — or by the natural consequence of not the math but the arithmetic. But again, that will thing rears its ugly head.
There has to come a point where “the lesser of two evils is still evil” matters.
For me, 2008 was very nearly that point. If Mildred Romneycare or any other ’08 leftover gets the nomination in 2012, there will be no looking back.
the frumpster’s advice:
link
suck an andy sullivan dude
Curmudgeon, Sam Adams had the perfect thought on people like you:
We don’t contemplate replacing the current government lightly.
The Patriots were never the majority. Simply the majority of those who would do what was necessary.
There’s the rub, isn’t it? Can we change the political equation enough to save the country, or are we doomed to economic disaster? Most days I’m convinced that we’re doomed, but I refuse to give up without a fight.
As Paul Ryan said, “If we continue down our current path, then a debt-fueled economic crisis is not a probability. It is a mathematical certainty.” But turning from the current path, making the deep spending cuts that would be required to avert disaster, would be extremely painful for most everyone. I think the Republican establishment have made the quite conscious determination that making such cuts would be political suicide, so they’ve decided that the best course to insure their political survival is to continue down the road to ruin while preparing to blame the coming disaster on the other guys.
They’ve chosen their political survival — no matter how tenuous — over the survival of the country as we know it, and they’ve done it consciously and deliberately. They know Ryan is right, they know that we’re quite likely headed into a fiscal calamity that will make the Great Depression look like a day at Disneyland — and the rest of the world will surely follow if they don’t tip first — but they’re going to let it happen. Boehner will get all teary, quiver his lip, and swear that he tried, he really tried, to “put common-sense limits on the growth of government” but those Democrats just wouldn’t cooperate. Meanwhile the Democrats will be busy trying to create the socialist utopia they think they can raise from the ashes of this once great country, telling everyone that if they only do it harder and faster it will work this time.
The establishment Republicans would rather be the biggest fish in a suddenly much smaller pond than do the right thing. But some will argue that we should vote for them because they’re marginally less evil. They’re better because they’ll only stand by and let the country become a dystopian hell, they won’t actively try to create
hell on eartha socialist utopia.A pox on both their houses and a pox on anyone who argues that we should continue to vote for the lesser of two evils. We’ve got to vote for real change, because the lesser of two evils is too evil to contemplate. It may well be too late to avert disaster, but voting for RINO’s will only help insure disaster.Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Andrew goes 70mm.
This is probably the point where I should tell you to fuck yourself.
I guess this is the point where I tell you to GROW THE FUCK UP.
There’s nothing childish about opposing the destruction of this country.
YES! That’s why I am going to work in my party primaries to try to prevent some douchenozzle like Mitt Romney from being nominated! What are YOU going to do? Decide what the American Independent / US Taxpayers / Constitution Party gets called? Try to get one of your candidates elected dogcatcher, if you are lucky?
There’s nothing childish about refusing to be a part of the retarded status quo. You’re not working to change anything if you’re willing to acquiesce, bend over and take it again and again from the same old political machine. The country is turning blue, the point is to do something to change that.
Wow, your armies of bogus strawmen I must sweep away! Try doing some thing that some chance of *success*, like taking back the GOP. Have you ever worked on a county committee? Watched a polling station? Walked a precinct? Worked to get a ballot initiative passed, if your state has that mechanism? Donated cash?
In my more fatalistic moments I lean toward Emiliano Zapata’s formulation, but I strongly prefer the Heinleinian “It’s better to live on your feet than die on your knees”. I think he meant that as long as we’re on our feet we have a chance of living. On our knees we’d might as well be dead.
good chunk
Mauch Chunk
geoffb, I’m confused, is Andrew talking about the President or Mrs. Palin?
I see that Andrew mentions Mrs. Palin by name, but I swear The Excitable One must have had Palin on the brain while typing an article about The Won™
“She’s dangerous; she’s shrewd; she’s an exhibitionist.”
as andy does beagles
We don’t contemplate replacing the current government lightly.
OK SDN, tell me how we realistically keep a douchenozzle like Mitt from taking the nomination? How do we realistically take back the GOP? Because I can tell you that has a higher probability of happening than some joke 3rd party ever getting off the ground. Does the “Reform” party ring a bell?
OK, you 3rd party dreamers, tell me what would have happened to Uncle Ron Reagan had he mounted a 3rd party challenge in 1976. He came damn close to toppling RINO Gerald Ford in the 1976 primaries, you know. Would he have won in 1980? Or would he, having burned his bridges, become a mere historical footnote, a la John Anderson?
You’re very good at putting words in people’s mouths, and at reading minds. You don’t know me at all, but you certainly are willing to tell me what I think. What makes you think I’m the disciple of some third party? (I’m not, I advocate that the TEA Parties should take over the Republican Party and reform it. Third parties have been a losing proposition and we can’t afford to lose this one.) What made you think earlier that I’d stay home and pout childishly if my one true candidate wasn’t nominated? (I actually see several Republican candidates and potential candidates I could support.) What makes you think I haven’t done all those things that have some chance of success? (I’ve been active in politics ever since I went door-knocking for the Young Republicans in college 40 frickin’ years ago, and I’ve done most of the rest of your list of good deeds at one time or another.)
Not that I feel the need to defend myself from you since you’re mostly arguing with the voices in your head. Bully, bully for you for working to keep a “douchenozzle like Mitt Romney from being nominated!” I say that honestly, because I’m doing the same thing. But somehow I get the feeling that if such douchenozzles are nominated you’ll step right up and vote for them because it’s your party right or wrong. I. Will. Not. Wrong is wrong and we’re just as doomed with a RINO in the White House as we are with Teh Won.
Charging in calling people names when you have no idea where they’re coming from is not the preferred method of making friends and influencing people, but I’m the one who’s “childish” and should “grow up”? Piss off fool. I’m sure you can find a venue where your mindless allegiance and phony bravado is appreciated.
If you really think that the LP is just about ‘Legalize pot, maaaaan…’ then you are unfamiliar with the party platform and the people that we consider our intellectual leaders. I’m fairly certain that Locke, Jefferson, Hayek, and Friedman were not in it for the weed.
The best LP candidate for President, Ed Clark, got a whopping 2% of the vote in 1980. Since then, the LP candidates have won a fraction of even that. To say nothing of winning any local offices, let alone state ones.
Even Ron Paul (LP Candidate 1988) wised up and realized he had to fight within the GOP. And he has had much more success that way.
You’re very good at putting words in people’s mouths, and at reading minds. You don’t know me at all, but you certainly are willing to tell me what I think. What makes you think I’m the disciple of some third party? (I’m not, I advocate that the TEA Parties should take over the Republican Party and reform it. Third parties have been a losing proposition and we can’t afford to lose this one.) What made you think earlier that I’d stay home and pout childishly if my one true candidate wasn’t nominated? (I actually see several Republican candidates and potential candidates I could support.) What makes you think I haven’t done all those things that have some chance of success? (I’ve been active in politics ever since I went door-knocking for the Young Republicans in college 40 frickin’ years ago, and I’ve done most of the rest of your list of good deeds at one time or another.)
All right, all apologies then. I thought you were heading off to 3rd party cookooland. I apologize for misreading you.
Check out this pair!
Now there’s some world-class projection. Everything he accuses Palin of he’s guilty of in spades. Just replace “Palin” with “Sullivan” in that screed and you don’t even have to change the gender! The head Trig Troofer accusing someone else of being “incapable of telling fantasy apart from fact”? Good god that’s rich that is.
Should a real conservative who believes in limited government with enumerated powers get elected, what’s the over/under on the numbers of months (days?) it takes the establshment to declare them a failure because the problems caused by 70 years of nanny-statism haven’t yet been fixed?
Should a real conservative who believes in limited government with enumerated powers get elected, what’s the over/under on the numbers of months (days?) it takes the establshment to declare them a failure because the problems caused by 70 years of nanny-statism haven’t yet been fixed?
THIS. We didn’t get here overnight. We won’t get back to where we should be overnight either.
I guarantee it takes a lot longer if you keep kicking the can down the road.
why do rinos kick our people out so fast? does it really damage the “brand”? what is this “brand” that rinos want to protect?
I guarantee it takes a lot longer if you keep kicking the can down the road.
I guarantee it will take even longer than that if you waste precious time, money and energy on a 3rd party.
Jeff, I’m largely in agreement with you. Voting for the lesser evil has brought us were we are today. I think it is the political equivalent of trying to cure the body politic wth leeches.
I no longer worry about whether Social Security will be there when I turn 67. (It won’t be.) I think the problems we face are much, much bigger than that.
Now Showing in EnemaScope !
How can you take the country where you want it to go if you can’t make a major party go there? You can’t.
The GOP is not fixed, but a lot of great seeds got planted last November. There’s more that have to go. I see Jason Chaffetz is going to primary Orrin Hatch. This is a good thing. More, please.
I bet that’s what the Whigs said, once. And really, do people vote for the party or the candidate? If the conservative / classical liberal is running not as a Republican but under some other name in a national presidential election, why would anyone not interested in a RINO vote for the GOP candidate?
As I said earlier, the goal is to take over the party by showing it that many are leaving it in droves, and are willing to take their votes elsewhere. I don’t vote for a party. I guess I just don’t have that rah-rah team spirit David Brooks demands.
Breaking the Republicans into pieces (by forcing formation of a third party) seems, at first read, the way to go, and much fun, as they that pull the strings deserve to be strung (up). We can’t really afford to stand around and watch ’em screw up our Republic, more slowly but just as surely as our adversaries. That said, we must be mindful that our opponents will take full advantage of the ‘free time’ they will have whilst we are imploding to consolidate their own power and finish their agenda of far-Left CHANGE. It’s a Catch-22: we stand to lose either way: by taking the time to hammer out a new party, breaking the coalition that is now known as Team R, or by continuing to lend support to that Frankenstein party and hold together all of it’s fault-ridden pieces.
Unknown to us is how much time is left on this Republic’s countdown timers we’re racing: the obvious far-Left CHANGE, the ever-accruing debts, ‘peak oil’, name your poison.
So then we go the revolutionary / secessionist route.
70mm? Hell, he’s barged into IMAX territory. Someone who still claims, however sly, that Bristol Palin is Trig’s mother has no business calling anyone “a farce”.
what i’d like to see is a primary challenge to boner, cantor and/or mcconnell in 2012. shake it up.
On my bad days I don’t think we have to worry much about a real conservative being elected. If a real conservative is nominated the Republican establishment will do everything they can to cut the candidate off at the knees. Look at the whole Lisa Murkowski debacle. I don’t think it’s too hard to imagine the Republican establishment mounting a write-in campaign or backing a third party run for Mittens or some other RINO more to their liking if Palin, Cain, or Bachmann were to win the nomination. They’d rather split the vote, lose to Obama, and keep their lips clamped on the government teat than have a real conservative in the White House who threatens to spoil their whole sweet deal.
On good days I think we can still get a lot of conservatives elected to Congress and if we can claim serious majorities in Congress the occupant of the White House can go back to diddling the hired help. On really good days I think we might even overcome the Republican establishment and put a fiscal conservative in the White House, but those days are few and far between.
[Sigh] But mostly I’ve got to agree with the S&P when they downgraded our fiscal outlook to negative. They said they don’t believe that Congress will get its act together in time to avert fiscal disaster. Rand Paul’s balanced budget plan failed by a vote of 7-90. Seven Senators were willing to do what’s right. What are our chances of turning that around? There’s not enough Senators up for election to turn that around.
We’ve got to try, but I fear we’re doomed, and the occupant of the White House is largely irrelevant to that doom. Congress is the problem and the Republican establishment in Congress, John Boehner and his cronies, are a big part of the problem. As I said on my first post on this thread, I think they’d rather be the biggest fish in a much diminished pond than do the right thing and take the chance of losing their positions and power. They know we’re doomed and they’re going to let it happen.
Jeff was right, soup lines followed by pitchforks, and then funny hats. Interesting times we live in, and they’re about to get a whole lot more interesting.
The only winners in that fight would be the United Nations. That’s just exactly what they are savoring, hoping for to happen. They would occupy us with ‘peackeeping’ forces, round up the ‘troublemakers’ and generally have a field day reducing our way of life to third-world status. Most nations would ‘volunteer’ to come here and ‘help’ keep unruly Americans from killing each other. The Left would join them, encourage them, accept United Nations control of our cities. The ‘good guys’ would be reduced to living as Red Dawn survivors, with no help on the way.
Unpleasant.
[…] I, Outlaw The GOP simply wants to keep its power. It, as a national party with a national “message,” cares not a whit about legal constitutionalism, classical liberalism, or the foundational principles of this republic. […]
From 1976…
Eerily on target, except we wouldn’t have Mexico or Canada as allies. And China would not be as an enemy, just an aggrieved debt collector.
Look, the Proggs took the Democrat party. Someone mentioned JFK, and how he’d be a wingnut teabagger today. (I might be embellishing.)
The GOP needs flushing. It needs restoration. Building a new party that has a prayer is right near imfuckingpossible.
The primary season must make an inescapable statement, like the last general election did. This ball is already rolling and has already racked up electoral success. Without any viable alternatives, why abandon it now?
If we can’t straighten the GOP out, we can’t straighten the country out. Which is weird for me to say, as I’ve never been a member of the GOP. We live in interesting times.
I don’t think it’s too hard to imagine the Republican establishment mounting a write-in campaign or backing a third party run for Mittens or some other RINO more to their liking if Palin, Cain, or Bachmann were to win the nomination. They’d rather split the vote, lose to Obama, and keep their lips clamped on the government teat than have a real conservative in the White House who threatens to spoil their whole sweet deal.
OK, two thoughts here:
1. Really, now? When Ronald Reagan won the nomination in 1980, the GOP establishment fell in line. They are wimps, when you get down to it. Put up a fight? Not in them. Even when they do spoil matters, like that DeeDee Scuzzyfatass lady in upstate New York, they do so in passive, not active, ways.
2. If they actually *were* active enough to go 3rd party, good, their loss. 3rd parties have always (1) been co-opted by one of the other two parties (Agrarian Populists and “Progressives” by Democrats, 1968 American Independents and Perot-nistas by Republicans), and / or (2) imploded when the cult of personality did (Teddy Roosevelt, George Wallace, Ross Perot)
So let THEM go Third party. They will suffer the consequences, assuming the gutless wonders have the fortitude, which they most likely don’t.
I bet that’s what the Whigs said, once.
Sorry, but the size of government, as much as it may rile you or me, is not as gut wrenching an issue as slavery was. To most people, rightly or wrongly, it is just numbers. I can see the “multicultural” crap, if it grows, to be something to have a Civil War about, but not much else.
And really, do people vote for the party or the candidate?
Having run into oh so many people who are actually pretty reasonable but have a knee jerk sheeple brainwashing that “Democrats gooooood–care about little people, Republicans baaaaaad–care about big business….”, I am surprised you even can ask that question. A lot of people are party hacks.
On the flip side, a Party can become so tarnished that people leave it in disgust. I remember Labor stalwarts George Meany and Lane Kirkland disgusted with their “Democrat Party of Acid, Amnesty and Abortion”, and events like that do shape the consciousness of a generation and are probably where the “Angry White Male” working-class GOP votes come from.
If the conservative / classical liberal is running not as a Republican but under some other name in a national presidential election, why would anyone not interested in a RINO vote for the GOP candidate?
That has yet to happen, unless you think the George Wallace in 1968 and Ross Perot in 1992 were “The Real Deals”.
As I said earlier, the goal is to take over the party by showing it that many are leaving it in droves, and are willing to take their votes elsewhere. I don’t vote for a party.
How about taking over the Party by taking over the Party, a la the Tea Party movement?
I guess I just don’t have that rah-rah team spirit David Brooks demands.
Don’t you dare lump me in with that RINO pussy.
The S&P says we’ve probably got until 2013 to get our fiscal act together or face a debt crisis. Moody’s once estimated that the crisis would hit between 2013 and 2018, but now concur with S&P. According to Moody’s what’s needed is to reverse the expansion of our debt. I’d guess they don’t mean a plan to balance the budget in 25 years — which would require that Congresses far in the future keep promises made now, but rather a plan to balance the budget and start paying down the debt, in the near future. Something like Rand Paul’s balanced budget plan that just failed by a vote of 7-90. That vote tells me that they’re not even remotely serious about doing what needs to be done.
So.. I think we can set the timer to 2013. By then we should be seeing the beginning of the end in the form of spiraling costs of servicing the federal debt — Moody’s warns that a loss of investor confidence would induce a “debt shock”, driving the interest on the debt high enough to consume all non-military discretionary spending, and that this could happen very quickly once it begins. The 2013 date assumes the idiots can manage to keep it together until after the next election. They’ll surely want to do that but they’ve got failshit written all over them and once the investors start balking there’s not a hell of a lot they can do about it. Except print more money — QE3, QE4, etc., they don’t need to seize your 401k, they’ll just inflate it away — there’s a cheery thought.
With China now divesting it’s holdings in US securities, we could see that debt shock much sooner if other creditors follow suit. Seriously, the more I read about the potential repercussions of out of control federal debt the scarier it gets. Unlike Greece ain’t nobody gonna bail us out. More likely we’ll take the rest of the world down with us. That’ll be fun.
Under normal circumstances, sure. But under normal circumstances, you don’t have a third party candidate that is the preferred candidate of the base of the second party.
Meaning, these aren’t normal circumstances.
Now you’re just making my point for me.
They wouldn’t need much guts and they don’t need a formal third party, all they’d need to do is stroke The Donald a bit and he’d run as a third party candidate and probably pay for it himself. There’s already considerable fear that His Royal Hairness will run as a third party spoiler, wouldn’t take much to make that come true. Like Perot and Nader, that would be a huge turd in the punchbowl. Forming a third party would be beside the point — does anyone even remember what Perot and Nader’s third parties were? But running The Donald would certainly torpedo the Republican candidate.
I don’t know how loyal Romney is, but I wouldn’t put it past Newt to run as an independent either. His ego is certainly big enough and he was soundly rejected by the establishment. He bears grudges, I could see him running as a dog-in-the-manger candidate. I’m not so much concerned that the Republican establishment would break off and form a formal third party, I really don’t see that happening either. I’m more concerned that they would do the cowardly thing and work behind the scenes to encourage some spoiler.
Somehow, I just can’t see them falling in line to support the Snowbilly in a run for the White House. They’d surely pay lip service if she was nominated, but they’ve got way too much invested in seeing her fail to give her their hearty support. Also, they probably remember what she did to the Alaska Republican Party. Cut off the graft and corruption? They’d kill to keep that from happening, but all they’d really need to do is get the Hair Apparent or Newt a couple of gigs on Fox News. Their ego would do the rest.
my dad is holding out for Rudy.
The United States, again a leader, this time leading the world to forced austerity measures that would find NO government payments to ANYONE for ANYTHING. All of a sudden, we’re back in 1885. And the meek inherit the earth.
Damn. I’ll miss air conditioning. It was 96 degrees fondly Fahrenheit here today.
Jeff, are you smelling the smoke from the burning Ponderosa pines in eastern Arizona? I read that the smoke haze made it to Iowa already.
The Red-nosed Reindeer or the Red-nosed former New York Mayor? I could be convinced to write in the reindeer if Romney gets the nomination. Sadly, I think the former New York Mayor truly is unelectable. At least he didn’t do well in 2007 and we’re even farther down the road from his glory days now. Still, I’d rather see him nominated than the putative front-runners.
Rudy is at the bottom of the list for me. He’s a gun controller, and unacceptable. Flush, rinse, repeat.
Mittenz or Huntsman aren’t going to be the Rethug! candidate for POTUS in 2012. Regardless of how Mittenz does in NH, he won’t survive a turn through the south. Heck, after Ahhhhnuld, neither of those RINOs might get the primary voted of California!
With “D” you get smart thrown in for free…..and it’s worth every cent.
If that’s true then it’s already too late.
I tend to think it’s not true. Reagan spent 15 years or more railing about the size of government. By the late 70s, conditions were such that people were ready to listen to him. I’d like to think the manifest failure of the Hope and Change iteration of the Squarely New Great Deal Frontier Society, coupled with the media’s shameless Officer Barbrady-ing create an audience more receptive to small government message.
Besides, we’re enslaving future generations with our unsustainable spending.
Sorry, but the size of government, as much as it may rile you or me, is not as gut wrenching an issue as slavery was. To most people, rightly or wrongly, it is just numbers.
Slavery, when we fought a war over it, to most people was not as gut wrenching of an issue as slavery was.
Today you have not only pretty complete concensus but a social propriety formed around condemning it as the epitome of evil.
Some people then were all hot and bothered and willing to fight, just like some people now. And most people then didn’t want to be involved, just like they don’t now. It was not some gut-wrenching moral issue that fueled the civil war, most of the country did not want to fight it. Some people took the initiative to fight it anyway. But bet lots of the bastards didn’t care and just wanted to go home. Lots of bastards fought it not to free the darkies, but just to go burn and smash up the south. Some of them soldiers just wanted coin and didn’t care who they were shooting.
Like I said above with modeling society and political math. People will put together a narrative about something like the Civil War, and say ‘it was about this’, much like they do with elections. Like saying Ny-23 or whatever is referendum on medicare. Or the WI SC race was all about Walker’s union bill. But life is not so neat. It’s very, very, very much like the little crap incomplete atmosphere models and the conclusions people draw from those. Put it this way, I’ll start listening to the professional strategists when they start predicting accurately, rather than just spinning descriptions of past events and throwing darts in the dark with monkeys.
Which political Nostradamus can best a weatherman? Weathermen suck.
The idea of such a civil war, as some gut-wrenching national struggle of self reflection or some such, is the Disney history version mentioned above. The truth is both far larger and far smaller – far larger, too large to ever comprehend, in that it involved millions of people, and a person’s brain can not fully concieve of it’s own lonesome self, let alone fully account a million others just as complex. Far smaller in that for any one of the people alive at that time, it was much more comprehensible, sympathetic, and personal. But different for every damn one.
And since LOTS of people are stupid, and or mis-educated, misinformed or prejudiced, don’t expect all of it to make a damn lick of sense either.
To mix my cliche’s – politics makes strange bedfellows, and war is politics by other means. Meaning – war makes strange bedfellows. By it’s nature it’s a mass movement, and by the nature of mass movements, it’s not in pursuit of 1 goal – action happens at the convergance of multitude disparate interests. No war can ever be fought for just 1 reason, as war takes thousands and thousands cannot be made to all agree on any 1 damn thing.
At any rate, to get back to the topic – it is not just numbers. It’s drug raids, it’s mercury lightbulbs, it’s bankrupcy, tax-funded abortion, immigration, sustainable (and sustained) ghettos, it’s dead teenagers in the desert. It’s much more than just numbers.
The numbers are just one way to account for it, one set of signs to signify it. Most people don’t get hot and bothered by numbers, so the numbers are just numbers to them – they don’t carry that significance and retain the impact of the underlying reality. But the underlying reality still has all it’s impact.
Like I’ve said before, we don’t need to convince everyone on everything. We just need to win. Look to Wisconsin.
Pure hypothetical, as an illustration (I don’t know that it’s true): many many times a progressive view did not enjoy majority support but still won. Say, 5 years from now, 55% of WI favors public bargaining…. but the public unions still can’t bargain. Don’t confuse concensus with reality.
Reagan spent 15 years or more railing about the size of government.
And it still GREW LARGER in his 8 years in office. I think that’s worth noting.
What’s been done, hasn’t worked.
And what you willfully refuse to acknowledge is that slavery is slavery, whether you call the slave pen a plantation or a collective. And you’re right, to most people it’s just numbers. Of course, in 1776, most of the colonists didn’t care about who was ruling them. What was important was that minority who were willing to fight for freedom. You wouldn’t have been one of them.
And what you willfully refuse to acknowledge is that slavery is slavery, whether you call the slave pen a plantation or a collective. And you’re right, to most people it’s just numbers. Of course, in 1776, most of the colonists didn’t care about who was ruling them. What was important was that minority who were willing to fight for freedom. You wouldn’t have been one of them.
I have said again and again how disgusted I am with Romney and the RINOS. But I have also said again and again that the way to take back the GOP is, in fact, to take back the GOP. 3rd parties are a joke.
And go fuck yourself, you self-righteous prick.
OB/GYN, heal thyself.
Paternity suit?
The GOP: the remoras in the political shark tank.
In 2008, I voted for the Mike Rowe/Joe Paterno ticket. According to some, I threw away my vote on something even worse than a 3rd party. According to me, I voted for two men I respect, and I did not prostitute myself by voting for a guy who promised to fuck me a little bit more gently than the other guy.
It’s true, I wound up getting fucked hard by the Marxist who doesn’t believe in lube, but every one of us who stayed home, voted 3rd party, spoiled our ballots, or otherwise protested was sending a message to the GOP that business as usual was no longer acceptable. In 2010, we made our displeasure known by way of electing a truckload of new faces, further promoting the idea that business as usual was no longer acceptable. The old guard is proving terribly stubborn, though, and I fear a few more lessons will be required before they accept that we don’t want what they’re selling any more.
I continue to work to convince the Establicans that their time has passed, and it’s time to get back to their roots. To the extent that they come around, I will vote for those candidates I find acceptable. But if the Establishment puts Romney at the top of the ticket, it’s the Dirty Jobs/Nittany Lions ticket for me again in 2012. If that makes me a self-righteous prick, well, I’ve been called worse. At least I’ll be able to go fuck myself secure in the knowledge that I didn’t aid and abet a party that’s willing to sell out my children’s future, while pretend to stand for something it abandoned long ago.
“tell me what would have happened to Uncle Ron Reagan had he mounted a 3rd party challenge in 1976”
What if games are dangerous. You must assume to play.
Besides, it’s not 1976. When people had four TV stations, their only source of news was the MSM, and the national debt was 35% of GDP.
Now we have the internet, 24 hour news stations from all over the world just a mouse click away, and a debt of 95% of GDP.
We’re in deep shit, and it’s do or die time. Pledging to go down with the two party ship is a sure way to die.
It’s true, I wound up getting fucked hard by the Marxist who doesn’t believe in lube, but every one of us who stayed home, voted 3rd party, spoiled our ballots, or otherwise protested was sending a message to the GOP that business as usual was no longer acceptable.
That attempt at a message was futile.
In 2010, we made our displeasure known by way of electing a truckload of new faces, further promoting the idea that business as usual was no longer acceptable.
*This* message, however, is not futile and has tangible and real results!!!
The old guard is proving terribly stubborn, though, and I fear a few more lessons will be required before they accept that we don’t want what they’re selling any more.
I am all for defeating the old guard, and replacing them and putting them out to pasture. Everytime an NRSC or NRCC kid calls my home or when I get letters from them, I tell them “No money for RINOs” or write back same.
However, there are messages that *Work* (that is, they have tangible results) and those that don’t, even if the latter make you feel good.
“tell me what would have happened to Uncle Ron Reagan had he mounted a 3rd party challenge in 1976?
What if games are dangerous. You must assume to play.
Sorry, history IS a good teacher. The more things change…
Besides, it’s not 1976. When people had four TV stations, their only source of news was the MSM, and the national debt was 35% of GDP.
Now we have the internet, 24 hour news stations from all over the world just a mouse click away, and a debt of 95% of GDP.
We’re in deep shit, and it’s do or die time. Pledging to go down with the two party ship is a sure way to die.
The Presidential / Congressional electoral system has not changed, and it virtually guarantees two parties. Take back one and crush the other. You are tilting at windmills if you think a 3rd party will work.
I find insults to be highly persuasive. Oh, wait, it’s just the opposite.
“history IS a good teacher”
What if games are not history.
“The Presidential / Congressional electoral system has not changed, and it virtually guarantees two parties”
Maybe, but Zachary Taylor was a whig, and Lincoln was the first Republican.
I find insults to be highly persuasive. Oh, wait, it’s just the opposite.
Arrogance and condescension are even less persuasive: “What was important was that minority who were willing to fight for freedom. You wouldn’t have been one of them.”
“history IS a good teacher”
What if games are not history.
OK, what if Ron Paul had stayed a Libertarian Party hack? Empirically, he gets more influence, and results, within the GOP. Period.
“The Presidential / Congressional electoral system has not changed, and it virtually guarantees two parties”
Maybe, but Zachary Taylor was a whig, and Lincoln was the first Republican.
Sorry, this isn’t 1860, and we are not on the brink of civil war. We are, however, on the brink of Eurosclerosis stagnation and decline. And a revived GOP has a better chance of turning the tide than a 3rd party fantasy.
This isn’t even 1968 in terms of unrest, when the last 3rd party truly struck a responsive chord, to be co-opted by Uncle Ron 12 years later.
Metaphor: Taking back the GOP means trying to woo the gal of your dreams and risking massive rejection. A 3rd party means staying in your room and jacking off to nude pics you might have of her.
You have to see that saying stuff like this makes it less likely that people will think about your underlying argument.
The only difference between today’s GOP and the Democrats is degree.
Teddy Roosevelt was a founder of progressivism and a Republican.
Both Bushes were progressive at heart, so was Reagan, so was Nixon, so are most of the leading GOP candidates today. They aren’t as extreme as Obama, but they still favor a strong, central nannystate. Voting for them just means we have time to smoke another before we reach the precipice.
Fuck that. Either turn the train around or go ahead and run it off the cliff so we can start putting it back together.
Listen, Curmudgeon. If you want to extol the usefulness of voting for yet another Dem-lite candidate the GOP forces us to accept — for the sake of “electability” — meaning yet again we vote for a Dole, or a McCain, and we lose, and we then bemoan the loss and tell ourselves we must move even further left; that is, if you want to do the same thing we’ve been doing hoping that this time it might turn out different; fine. Go for it. Do what you have to do.
Some of us feel silly doing that again and again. Almost as if there’s a giant prank happening, and the ghost of Andy Kaufman is laughing at us. And we just don’t want to invest any more time and effort into a party that continues to mock what we believe in, even as they demand our vote in a kind of blackmail move to keep someone even worse [read, aggressive in the speed with which they wish to enslave you] out of office.
“OK, what if Ron Paul had stayed a Libertarian Party hack?”
Curmudgeon, another what if? Stop, please. How about if we play what would you do if…?
Say Republicans get McCained in the primaries, where the candidate is selected for the base. The TEA party people start protesting, and a grassroots selection of a classic Liberal is put forward. Polling(for what it’s worth) shows D-48%, RINO-28%, CL-23% and the only one whose numbers are rising, though slowly.
You fucking Hate the Cain people for doing another stupid Ross Perot, but there it is. It’s 8 months til the election.
What are you going to do?
Oops, strike Cains name, I meant the classic liberal candidate.
Listen, Curmudgeon. If you want to extol the usefulness of voting for yet another Dem-lite candidate the GOP forces us to accept
Shallwe not put words in my mouth, or read into my posts?
May we see who the GOP nominee is first, before we make our self-fulfilling prophecies?
And shall we work for a worthy GOP candidate?
Good faith and all that.
And if you are saying the game is too rigged, then you really leave us no other choice than armed insurrection (How did the Montana Freemen or various other militia things in the 1990s work out?) or despair and suicide.
Forgive my naivete if I keep on trying for something else.
#177: At that point, start a CL for GOP nominee campaign 4 years hence. And get totally wasted.
Curmudgeon, I’m sure you saw how the Democrats kept black leaders in the back of the bus prior to 2008. I have little doubt that when Obama is out of office that pattern will reassert itself unless black voters have made it clear they’re willing to entertain alternatives to voting Democrat all the time.
Your “no money for RINOs” messages are hardly the clue-by-four the GOP establishment will require to get their attention. Rather, I suspect they get quite a chuckle out of such things. After all, where else are you going to go?
If Ross Perot hadn’t run and H W had been re-elected, that would have could have meant Clinton v. Quayle in 96 and Clinton still in the White House on 9/11.
You think something like that would have been better? You think we would be in a much better situation now?
Your comments, you mean. Sorry, I can’t keep up with every single ongoing conversation. But the gist of what you’re saying is that a 3rd party is a losing proposition. And my answer is, that depends on the object of the game you’re playing.
I’ve been working for a worthy GOP candidate since I defended Limbaugh for correctly identifying who Obama was — defended him from precisely the same GOP types who come out a year or so before the election to play kingmakers and wrangle in the “extremists” and Visigoths of the base. I’m saying that if we don’t get one, count me out this time.
You said “naivete,” but what I think you were going for was “super awesome pragmatism!”
“At that point, start a CL for GOP nominee campaign 4 years hence. And get totally wasted.”
Annnd, that pretty much is what SDN said you’d do in #161.
“If Ross Perot hadn’t run and H W had been re-elected, […] think we would be in a much better situation now?”
What if the Republicans had a prior example of a viable 3rd candidate, saw how Perot changed the dynamics, and said “fuck Bush, I’m voting for Perot!”?
What if is fun!
You know what would be fun? Looking at Perot’s famous charts and see how close his predictions were.
I mean, he tried to tell us…
yea let’s run as a tea party candidate then hire a cocktail party consultant:
link
I was there, Entropy, and with all due respect your mistaken in saying Reagan grew the government.
At least according to Heritage foundation
http://www.heritage.org/Research/taxes/BG1414.cfm
Or, surprisingly, Voice of America?!?
You’ll have to show me how Reagan “grew” the Federal civilian government…
Bob, I think he mighta meant the deficit, which did indeed grow under Reagan. Along with every other president in modern history. This shows 1957 as the last year the deficit didn’t increase.
Maybe so Lee.
Which it would have come back under control if the Democrats hadn’t reneged on their promise to follow through with large spending cuts if Ronnie signed the tax reform act of 1986; the one the lefties often like to cite when they want to have it both ways and accuse Reagan of presiding over the largest tax increase in American history-as well as increasing the deficit. The defecit increase, by the way, was due to the modernization of our military; the fruits of which we in part are still reaping today.
The Dems swore they’d cut spending as part of a two pronged approach to eliminating the deficit. But of course, the electoral demagoguery of the tax increase was too much for them to resist-just like “mediscare” today…
So I don’t put that all on Ronnie Reagan, who actually shrunk the civilian Federal government. There are some important historical contexts and mitigating circumstances that the figures alone don’t capture.
[…] Jeff Goldstein Watching this loathsome party machine give aid to the Democrats by diminishing every potential conservative candidate who bucks the party apparatus has been quite illuminating. Watching them sniff and sneer and look for ways to demean as “unelectable”, or non-”substantive,” those “extremists” or “Visigoths” who would govern by a set of ready and battle-tested principles — constitutional and originalist principles that, like the Constitution itself, doesn’t require a special priesthood to understand (thus obviating some of the special pleading of the political class, who fancies itself our betters, even as it gives lip service to a representative republican form of government), and so doesn’t require a lot of pre-fabbed pragmatic positions on issues be taken in advance — only serves to remind us why, since Reagan, the GOP has failed us, and why the country continues to move ever more leftward, giving the GOP with each succeeding election leave to pitch us on the American desire for bigger, more expansive federal government. […] […]