Just how stupid...

[HankB]

. . . Just more of the ongoing effort by "the Republican establishment" to sabotage O'Donnell, I'm sure.

Is Carl Rove part of "the Republican establishment?" Here he is on Hannity last night:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEfH-maWAKI

. . . A centrist RINO is better than a liberal Dem . . .

Mike Castle hardly qualifies as "centrist" with (among other things) his vote for cap-and-tax and an "F" rating from the NRA . . . in fact, I'd rather have an "F" rated democrat than an "F" rated Republican - the latter would vote with the dems, and give them the cover of "bipartisanship" on a bad bill.

[roo_ster]

There's no point to a politics divorced from morality.

I have to agree.

And it turns out that those reports of the NRSC turning away from O'Donnell were complete BS, the NRSC has made no decisions not to support her.  

This looks like something more solid than BS:
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20100913/US.Primary.Rdp/
http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/looks-like-there-is-dissension-in-the-republican-party-tonight/

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

This looks like something more solid than BS:
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20100913/US.Primary.Rdp/
http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/looks-like-there-is-dissension-in-the-republican-party-tonight/

Not really.  Unless we get some specifics, it's just hearsay or rumor that later prove to be false.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

There's no point to a politics divorced from morality.

There's no point to politics divorced from reason.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

or reality  and the reality is that politics ia a business   thats something we need to look at changing but its gonna be an uphill fight  we'll fix the war on drugs first

[Perd Hapley]

The point of the exercise isn't merely to indulge ourselves by throwing tantrums in the primaries.  

Did HTG just say that Republican voters in Delaware threw a tantrum, by selecting the candidate that they wanted?   

Who is this east-coast elitist, and what has he done with Headless Thompson Gunner?

[sanglant]

his avatar is starting to "frank" him.

[HankB]

Did HTG just say that Republican voters in Delaware threw a tantrum, by selecting the candidate that they wanted?   

Who is this east-coast elitist, and what has he done with Headless Thompson Gunner?

Maybe he's just channeling the spirit of the late Peter Jennings . . .

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Did HTG just say that Republican voters in Delaware threw a tantrum, by selecting the candidate that they wanted?   

Ah, read it again.

 

[Ron]

I want the statist anti freedom R's to be the minority under the big tent. Not the ones setting the agenda and cutting backroom deals because they run the show.

I'd rather let the Dems fubar the nation a little longer than have the RINOs pollute the brand any further.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I'd rather let the Dems fubar the nation a little longer than have the RINOs pollute the brand any further.

See, I think that's just weird.  I'm in this game to save and preserve the country, not to further any particular politician or party.  Even if we were "polluting the Republican brand" (we're not), if that's what it took to save the country, then I'd do it happily and consider it a small price to pay. 

I guess it's just a completely different mindset.

[HankB]

. . . I guess it's just a completely different mindset.

I think that most of the rest of us see more downside than upside in an office being held by a "Republican" whose actions have earned him an "F" rating from the NRA.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

And what is Coons NRA rating?

[makattak]

And what is Coons NRA rating?

Ummm... I don't think there's anything lower than F.

[roo_ster]

Ummm... I don't think there's anything lower than F.

Well, in addition to being just as bad as Boxer, Schumer, and Castle, on the RKBA; maybe Coons runs around and actually mugs/shoots/rapes/kills people? 

You never know.  Especially since we have the multiple Kennedy / mondo criminality precedent.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Ummm... I don't think there's anything lower than F.

A quick search didn't turn up anything, so I'll assume that Coons is an 'F', too, just like most Dems.

If Coons is as bad as Castle on RKBA, that's a wash and you look to other issues to determine which one might be better.  Like, say, nationalized health care.  Coons would vote for it, Castle voted against it.

Politics is an incremental game.  You take what you can get, even if it isn't much, and then work for more next time.

[makattak]

A quick search didn't turn up anything, so I'll assume that Coons is an 'F', too, just like most Dems.

If Coons is as bad as Castle on RKBA, that's a wash and you look to other issues to determine which one might be better.  Like, say, nationalized health care.  Coons would vote for it, Castle voted against it.

Politics is an incremental game.  You take what you can get, even if it isn't much, and then work for more next time.

Politics is usually an incremental game. This is the time to swing for the fences. Democrats pushed far too hard these past two years and the blowback will be huge.

The pendulum is swinging back to the right, hard. It's not a time for half-measures.

I just hope the pendulum keeps swinging for 4 more years.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Politics is usually an incremental game. This is the time to swing for the fences. Democrats pushed far too hard these past two years and the blowback will be huge.

The pendulum is swinging back to the right, hard. It's not a time for half-measures.

I just hope the pendulum keeps swinging for 4 more years.

Fair enough.  I can understand and respect that opinion. 

[makattak]

Fair enough.  I can understand and respect that opinion.  

As I can your position. I'm usually of the same opinion that this is generally a necessarily slow and difficult process. I don't expect even if we win the next 3 election cycles that we will be able to fix everything.

I do expect that we will roll back the sudden lurch to the left and start the process of dismantling the leviathan, though. What needs to happen is to make the left fight to protect their position rather than simply trying to stop them.

The right needs to go on offense from this election forward. The process must start now or we are lost.

[AJ Dual]

I understand the point of incrementalisim, and politically "playing it safe" to advance the ball, rather than hail-Mary passes that risk you losing altogether. I've had vicious debates over it in trying to get CCW passed here in WI against absolutists who wanted to demand WI going straight to "Vermont Carry". Claiming that our attempts to push shall-issue CCW were back-door gun registration schemes etc.   When of course the reality was, shall-issue CCW has been a hard enough fight as-is in WI, and Vermont permit-less carry or "constitutional carry" as some call it wasn't even up for a vote. There wasn't even a bill...

(Monkeyleg had it even worse, getting editorial cartoons of himself drawn by "hard core" gun rights advocates over this issue. We both believe they have other motivations, but that's besides the point here...)

Getting sure-bet moderate Republicans elected from the "purple states" or even blue ones to gain control of a House or senate has it's upsides, they'll get the speaker or president of the Senate elected, the GOP will control all the committees, etc. write the rules for the house.

However, OTOH, if after we get all that "control", and the RINO sells out on key votes for tax relief, gun control, illegal immigration... whatever it may be, what was the point?

That's the problem with using moderate/RINO's to gain control of the legislative branch. You get the control, but it's worthless because you get betrayed on the key votes.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

However, OTOH, if after we get all that "control", and the RINO sells out on key votes for tax relief, gun control, illegal immigration... whatever it may be, what was the point?

That's the problem with using moderate/RINO's to gain control of the legislative branch. You get the control, but it's worthless because you get betrayed on the key votes.

The point is that you get some of the key votes to go your way.  Some is better than none.  A RINO who votes your way half the time is better than a Dem who votes your way none of the time.

A conservative supermajority is the optimal outcome.  If that's not on offer, take what you can get.

[HankB]

If we vote for an NRA "F" rated RINO, it won't be long before other RINOs start thinking that "Hey, if the democrat is also an "F" but worse on another issue or two, those stupid goobers who vote GOP will vote for me anyway. So why NOT support a gun ban?"

A RINO who votes your way half the time is better than a Dem who votes your way none of the time

Following this logic I've often voted for someone I'm not really fond of - though it means I hold my nose, suppress that old gag reflex, and come out of the voting booth feeling like I need to go shower.

But at some point, when a politician crosses a line, he needs to be punished at the ballot box. For me, garner an NRA "F" rating as a Republican (you half expect it from democrats) and you've crossed that line, and will not get my vote.

(And that "F" is likely going to be a good indicator that you're pretty bad on other issues, too.)

[MechAg94]

If we vote for an NRA "F" rated RINO, it won't be long before other RINOs start thinking that "Hey, if the democrat is also an "F" but worse on another issue or two, those stupid goobers who vote GOP will vote for me anyway. So why NOT support a gun ban?"
Following this logic I've often voted for someone I'm not really fond of - though it means I hold my nose, suppress that old gag reflex, and come out of the voting booth feeling like I need to go shower.

That means you should have voted in the primary to try to get a better candidate on the ballot. 

[tyme]

I want the statist anti freedom R's to be the minority under the big tent. Not the ones setting the agenda and cutting backroom deals because they run the show.

The obvious rebuttal would be that tea party candidates are not really pro-freedom.

Just about all tea party candidates are in favor of the war on drugs, or consider it an unimportant issue.  Even Rand Paul: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/rand-paul-now-opposed-to-medical-marijuana

Just about all tea party candidates are life-begins-at-conception pro-lifers.  Obviously that's not a problem for many Republicans or many people here, but I consider it an important indicator not just of a candidate's tendency to support freedom, but also of scientific literacy and awareness.

The tea party platform is great on economic freedom, but that's just one part of "freedom".  Even the limited topic of economic freedom comprises several distinct elements: conservative government fiscal policy; corporate person-hood and freedom from onerous government economic intervention, and freedom of natural persons from onerous government economic intervention.  Not all liberals believe that the second part is wise for all kinds of corporations in all industries.  Laissez-faire policies that work well for light industries may not work so well for heavy industries with a large potential for environmental and personal harm.

[MicroBalrog]

Maybe the Tea Party candidates are not all that. I disagree with your description of them as anti-freedom, uniformly conservative movement. But that is not the point.

Individual liberty is not compatible with the welfare state.

The views of libertarians are not compatible with those of the social-democratic left. True, the left is tolerant of certain kinds of minorities, and expresses a support for certain neatly circumscribed freedoms, but it will never accept libertarianism as part of its general coalition, nor is libertarianism compatible with it philosophically.

The conservative movement will not, at present, accept a libertarian at its helm. If the Republicans were offered - the opportunity to achieve what HTG refers to as 'laissez-faire utopia' (there's nothing utopian with it) within an observable timespan, they would recoil in abject horror.

But it will accept libertarians as part of its coailition, and it will work to destroy the welfare state. The welfare state is a far more conservative institution (in the dictionary sense) than anything Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin advocate. Any true debate between conservatives and libertarians will occur after the crippling and destruction of the welfare state - not unlike how the Cold War only truly begun after the defeat of Nazi Germany.