Sensible Republicans who prefer victory to purity #PANIC! RT @ppppolls: Christine O’Donnell leads Mike Castle 47-44. http://is.gd/f7Pce
Sensible Republicans who prefer victory to purity #PANIC! RT @ppppolls: Christine O’Donnell leads Mike Castle 47-44. http://is.gd/f7Pce
1) Mike Castle is an incumbent
2) Mike Castle has voted in favor of increased spending and enlarging government
3) How many times does it have to be repeated? Tea Party does not equal Republican…it equals anti-spending, smaller government and throw the bums out.
Tea Party does not equal Republican
Did the word “Tea Party” appear in this tweet? The statement that “sensible Republicans who prefer victory to purity” are surely #PANICKING does not imply that I think Tea Party = Republican. Moreover, I’ve already addressed this issue in detail on another thread in response to this objection by you. It is a simple fact that more of the “Tea Party agenda” will have more of a chance of being considered, voted on, and maybe even passed, under a Republican Congress than under a Democratic Congress.
It is a simple fact that more of the “Tea Party agenda” will have more of a chance of being considered, voted on, and maybe even passed, under a Republican Congress than under a Democratic Congress.
True. But as I responded to you, a large, understated, part of the Tea Party is a rejection of pragmatism. I’ll remind you of a similar rejection of pragmatism from the Left, especially the nutroots, that resulted in candidates such as Ned Lamont. Surely the pragmatic political thing to do would have been to support Sen. Lieberman?
First of all, I remain perplexed as to why you brought the Tea Party into this thread, when I said nothing here about Tea Party in the first place. Interestingly enough, I actually internalized some of the points you and others made previously about that, and so deliberately avoided talking about the Tea Party here, focusing instead on “sensible” versus less “sensible” Republicans.
Secondly, your Lieberman-Lamont point is a very, very poor analogy — shockingly poor, really. It’s actually a somewhat frustrating comment to respond to, because rather than disagreeing with me, it simply ignores everything I said the last time we discussed this. I held forth in great detail about this very point in the prior thread:
I get your point, made subsequently in that thread, about the Tea Party standing for a “rejection of pragmatism.” (Again, that’s party why I phrased this tweet in terms of the strategic aims of “Republicans,” rather than those of Tea Partiers, who arguably don’t have strategic aims beyond kicking ass, taking names, and throwing the bums out.) But you evidently don’t get my point about the difference between challenging a Lieberman or a Murkowski, on the one hand, and challenging a Nelson or a Castle, on the other. The difference is vast. Furthermore, it’s an awfully myopic and unnuanced analysis to just throw around terms like “nutroots” without stopping to consider the historical facts I pointed out in my post. Yes, the Angry Right of today is a lot like the Angry Left of…. 2003 or 2004. Certainly not 2006, by which time the “nutroots” had become strategically a lot less “nutty” than the Tea Party is today (by any conventional definition of political “strategy”). Daily Kos of 2006 would NEVER have endorsed the Dem equivalent of a primary challenge as strategically insane as O’Donnell vs. Castle.
The Republican faithful are supporting Castle, the national Republicans are supporting Castle…what more would you have them do?
Frankly one of the reasons those like me no longer identify as Republicans or give money to the Republicans is because they continue to support candidates like Castle.
The Tea Party would argue that losing Castle’s seat would be worth it in sending a message to the Snowes of the world that cooperating with liberals instead of conservatives will have a price in the future.
what more would you have them do?
Nothing. The point of my post was that “sensible Republicans who prefer victory to purity” must be #PANICKING!!! at this poll result. I wasn’t saying “Sensible Republicans, you should do more.”
Yes because more bitter partisanship and less compromise is exactly what we need. God damn stupid F*ing factions.
dcl, that’s exactly why I voted for Bennet over Romanoff in the primary here in Colorado. Nothing in this country is going to get solved if both parties elect a bunch of rigid ideologues who are unwilling to compromise, particularly about things like, I don’t know, actually getting the federal budget under control instead of just grandstanding about it with a view to the next election. Actually, I suspect nothing in this country is going to get solved, period, but it’s definitely not going to get solved if it’s partisan/ideological trench warfare as far as the eye can see, with the “message” being sent to the “Snowes of the world” (on both sides) that if they dare to compromise on anything ever, they will pay the price at the polls.
On that point, BTW, I will simply reiterate the point that gahrie refuses to address to acknowledge, which is that to demand greater purity from “the Snowes of the world,” in states like Maine, is to demand that states like Maine elect two Democratic senators. You’re never going to get a non-RINO senator from a place like Maine or Delaware. Your options are to accept the benefits that come with having their vote on organizational matters (which are crucially important to how business is done in Congress) while recognizing they’re not going to tow the party line, or nominate someone who would hypothetically tow the party line if they could ever get elected, which they can’t, because IT’S MAINE.
Brendan, that’s a much more erudite and well written statement of my thinking. But F* factions goes much better on a t-shirt.
I can see it now. Alexander Hamilton getting shot by Aaron Burr while saying “f*ck factions!” or perhaps “f*cking factions” or perhaps “F* factionalism”. Not sure… hmm. But seriously, the tea baggers are exactly the type of groups that Hamilton was deeply worried about.
But seriously, the tea baggers are exactly the type of groups that Hamilton was deeply worried about.
Really?
Because in my opinion if Hamilton was alive he would be a tea party member.
By the way Brendan..which is more “awfully myopic and unnuanced”…teabagger or nutroots?
On that point, BTW, I will simply reiterate the point that gahrie refuses to address to acknowledge, which is that to demand greater purity from “the Snowes of the world,” in states like Maine, is to demand that states like Maine elect two Democratic senators. You’re never going to get a non-RINO senator from a place like Maine or Delaware
A year ago people were saying a Republican will never win the Kennedy seat.
By the way Brendan..which is more “awfully myopic and unnuanced”…teabagger or nutroots?
I wasn’t saying your use of the term “nutroots” was myopic and unnuanced, I was saying your faulty analysis of the political history of the “nutroots” was myopic and unnuanced. I think that’s clear from context. I note you haven’t responded to that point, BTW.
A year ago people were saying a Republican will never win the Kennedy seat.
If so, those people were stupid. A sufficiently moderate candidate can win anywhere, as, e.g., Scott Brown and Ben Nelson prove. However, if people had said that a hardline conservative Republican will never win the Kennedy seat, they would have been right. Brown is, of course, every bit as much of a “RINO” as Snowe/Collins/Castle. He proves my point, not yours. A Scott Brown-type Republican is the only type of Republican who can win in a state like Massachusetts. Delaware is a state like Massachusetts, and Mike Castle is a Scott Brown-type Republican.
Here is an example of what a sensible Republican doesn’t look like btw:
“Republican candidate says Girl Scouts promote secret feminist agenda”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfmoms/detail?entry_id=72169&tsp=1
No, the only thing Girl Scouts promote is the eating of delicious cookies (which are making America fat…)
gahrie, #11: Because in my opinion if Hamilton was alive he would be a tea party member.
Are you kidding me? What is it with tea party people and their sympathizers that they have to have such a radically uninformed view of history? That statement is shockingly uninformed. I mean… whiskey rebellion? National bank? Strong national government?
Please simply reply that you’ve hit the bottle a little too heavily and misspoke.
David K: I’ll match you with absolutely anything coming out of Alvin Greene’s mouth……
Alexander Hamilton would probably be in the hills of Idaho plotting a second revolution. Not one of the Founding Fathers would tolerate the everyday tyranny we endure.
“David K: I’ll match you with absolutely anything coming out of Alvin Greene’s mouth……”
Bullshit response. Either what Hans Zeiger said is bad or not. Flailing around and pointing fingers at other politicians is a complete cop out. Quit trying to weasel your way out of legitimate examples of bad behavior by Republicans.
How many times do I have to say it..I’m not a Republican anymore. I don’t answer their phone calls, don’t read their mail, and given a rational opponent, wouldn’t vote for them.
Jefferson would be planning a second rebellion. Hamilton would be mostly fine with the way the US has turned out. Have you read the federalist papers? The hoi polloi basically scared the crap out of him. And for just the reasons that has generated the tea bagger movement. And yes, I did in fact just call the tea baggers an uniformed bunch of easily swayed red necks that are being manipulated into a faction voting against their own personal self interest by the malevolence of Sara Palin and Glen Beck.
And now I can really never run for public office… Dammit, must remember to pander to stupid people…
So while I’m ruining any electoral chances I might ever have, I might as well mention that the tea baggers are basically the KKK rebranded. And apparently un-able to afford fancy white robes due to the economy. Because if gahrie is allowed to hold the uninformed opinion that all Muslims are terrorist waiting to convert us all to Islam in our sleep and piss all over everything that America holds sacred, than I can hold the opinion that all tea baggers are racist jingoistic xenophobes. At least my opinion has some rational basis in fact.
Was that too much? That might have been too much… oh well…
Gahrie: Seriously, you seem to know nothing about Alexander Hamilton. Please, stop now, you are embarrassing yourself.
dcl #20 – I must be missing something … the Tea Party movement is a reaction to the hoi totoi … as far as I can tell from many sources, the TEA Party doesn’t have any uniform – as contrasted with the Obama Purple Shirts …
#21 – your projection system appears to be on overload … I have yet to see gahrie say/type/utter anything about all Muslims being anything … I *have* seen him point out, as do many other rational folk, that the Koran does not give reason for optimism about Islam’s interactions with the rest of the planet …
More importantly, for the Tea Party to be in any way similar to the KKK takes a leap of faith and projective idiocy beyond Irish Trojan precedent … there *is* considerable similarity between Obama’s Purple Shirts and the The Red Shirts were one of a number of paramilitary organizations, such as the White League in Louisiana, that arose in the continuing insurgency of white Democrats in the South in the 1870s. Such groups acted as “the military arm of the Democratic Party.”[1] … complete with the beating up of at least one black male (just ask Kenneth Gladney) …
^ Really? Really. Really?!
@Jim Kelly – Piece of advice, just let Alasdair rant. He’s nuts. Not quite Sandy “The moon landing was faked” Underpants nuts, but he’s up there. Alasdair is, actually, a prime example of a non-sensible Republican. He’s a blind party adherent who values ideological purity and willfully distorts reality to fit with his world view. I am more than guilty of feeding the troll that is Alasdair on occasions but i’m working on ignoring him instead. You should too. Unlike AMLTrojan, Joe Mama, and even on rare occasion gahrie, Alasdair pretty much never contributes anything of value to the debate.
David K – I can understand you being embarrassed by your party’s history, both current and past history … if it was mine, I would be embarrassed, too …
Out of curiosity, what in #24 has *anything* to do with the GOP ?
Stop trolling Alasdair.
David K:
You attack Alasdair and call him a troll but say nothing about dcl’s rants?
@gahrie – What about dcl’s rant? He’s absolutely right that if you are going to label all muslims as extremists based on the actions of the few that he should be able to make the same accusations against the Tea Baggers. I’ve made the same point myself yet you refused to acknowledge it.
@Alasdair
“I have yet to see gahrie say/type/utter anything about all Muslims being anything”
He’s said so multiple times in previous threads. And he’s been called on it and never once changed his tune. And these aren’t even threads that you could reasonably have not known about since you’ve commented in some of them. Proof that you will ignore that which does not fit your world view and pick and choose pieces that do, no matter how twisted the logic to support them. You’re a partisan hack and a troll, and damnit if I didn’t let myself get suckered in again. Time to go do something that is better use of my time than trying to reason with you. Like watch paint dry or grass grow.
The KKK is a reactionary movement fed by xenophobia that tends to explode during times of economic crisis. How does this not describe the Tea Baggers? Because at this point you would be laughed off the national stage if you ran around burning crosses on the front lawn of Muslims, Mosques, and Mexicans? No, instead we’ll just take a nice piss on the Lincoln Memorial, Dr. King, and the Constitution.
WTF is this purple shirt movement you are talking about Al. Are you off your meds again? Sure seems like the tea baggers have a uniform to me: t-shirts about guns and shooting the president. For all Glen Beck’s ranting and raving about the return of fascism to America he must never look in the mirror. Because it takes far less insane leaps of logic to make the same inferences, innuendoes, and insinuations about him and Sara than it does about Obama and the Dems.
And gahrie, it’s because I pointed out that I was likely being a bit hyperbolically excessive in my previous statement. I know, and freely admit, that I can and do cary the hyperbole a bit far on occasion. But I am not categorically unwilling to change my mind or adjust my position, based on a pragmatic and factual understanding of the situation. AML can and has managed to change my mind on things. Because, in general, he is not an lunatic off playing in no facts just feelings land. Though, AML, I still maintain that if you are living in Fairfax there is no reason to spend the money on private school for the wiper snapper, this isn’t CA… Where doing so is basically mandatory if you want him to have a good education. (I was thinking of going on to make this a political point, but I think I shall leave off here.)
Oh, one final point. Why should I bother gahrie? Having a good vent at your utter irrationality generally makes me less cranky–you know, better than yelling at the TV I actually get to yell at one of the lunatics perpetuating the crap. And lets face it, even when I make measured logical arguments based on facts your reaction is the same. There is no reason to be measured and calm with you because it makes no functional difference in your willingness to accept reality or facts so I might as well have a nice rant on occasion carry things a bit too far and see if I can refine my thinking about stuff a bit. Thanks Brendan at #9 by the way. That was helpful.
Seriously, what’s my motivation for not having an occasional rant, carrying things a bit far and seeing what makes actual logical sense? It certainly makes no difference in the likelihood that anything other than the Glen Beck show is going to penetrate your inordinately thick skull. So, like I said, why bother not ranting?
Because it reduces the likely hood AML will take my argument seriously? Knowing AML in the real world, I don’t think either of us really take each other’s blog comments as 100% serious statements of position any more. Because in most cases they probably are not. And I’m almost certain he doesn’t take anything I say here all that seriously anymore. If I really want to try and convince him of something I’ll give him a call and we’ll go have a beer. I think he is completely wrong about urban planing and he thinks I am completely wrong about it also. But, the disagreement is not actually about the planning, it is in how the problem is framed. We both recognize that there is a total crisis of rush hour traffic in the DC area. AML contends that we should try and solve the issue with an LA style freeway solution. That is, he wants to pragmatically treat the symptom of the problem. I contend that such a solution is untenable because it is physically impossible to build roads fast enough to keep pace with increasing demand, and that increased road networks also serve to increase urban sprawl which magnifies the traffic problem leading to more roads. That is, I argue that trying to treat the symptom will only magnify the problem. To truly solve the problem, I contend, we must change the way we approach, think about, and use transportation in this country. Basically it comes down to he wants to fix the bottle neck at seven corners and I want to change the way people think about getting to work and achieve energy independence. A point that AML doesn’t necessarily disagree with, but he also thinks that it doesn’t help him get through seven corners. And understanding that difference helps us come to a better understanding both of each other and of the problem. And if more liberals and conservatives had those kinds of constructive conversations perhaps things would get done. Instead of the mentality that any Republican that has lunch with a Democrat should be immediately voted out of office. Which serves NOTHING.
One final note, I hope that I have fairly characterized AML’s position, vis-a-vi traffic. If not do please let me know.
Ahh, the very point of Loyapolosa Sausage Fest 2010.