Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: charby on May 21, 2014, 08:58:12 AM
-
Looks like the TEA Party got their ass handed to them last night. So who was saying we need more conservative candidates??
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-receive-boost-in-senate-primaries/2014/05/20/0f745eb0-e02a-11e3-9743-bb9b59cde7b9_story.html
Even Mitch McConnnell took the opposition to the wood shed:
In Kentucky, McConnell’s weak poll numbers and voters’ overwhelming dissatisfaction with the Senate he helps lead made him particularly vulnerable to a conservative primary challenger. But after spending years deftly navigating his party and more than $10 million on his primary campaign, McConnell handily defeated Matt Bevin, 60 percent to 36 percent.
Any prediction of the rest of the primaries to occur in the next few weeks?? [popcorn]
-
That's probably a much smaller margin of victory he's had than in prior primaries, if he's had opposition at all. One can hope that smart candidates will recognize that and take it to heart in their behavior.
-
Rinos will continue to win- until the teat runs dry.
There are too many social conservatives that luvs their farm welfare and socialist security for a true conservative to win in certain parts of the country.
-
I think the TEA party has influenced some entrenched GOP patricians to move to the right a bit on the issues.
Whether or not they can be trusted* not to move back towards the left once they're elected remains to be seen.
* - trust a politician? :facepalm:
-
Rinos will continue to win- until the teat runs dry.
There are too many social conservatives that luvs their farm welfare and socialist security for a true conservative to win in certain parts of the country.
Maybe they need to do it with baby steps to conservatisms in stead of full battle rattle like the open carry crowd does with long arms?
The socialist didn't infiltrate with one or two elections, took them several elections and at lot of baby steps to socialism.
-
McConnell was a long shot, given his deep pockets and the amount party establishment was willing to spend on him. $10million to win a primary. In Kentucky. He bought it fair & square.
And about half of the gaffers last go 'round were GOP establishment picks. It is selective memory to only recall the TP candidates who mis-step.
Here's the thing: the GOP is not in the foreseeable future going to get the gimme-dat crowd vote. Alienating their more conservative base of actual working folks just convinces them not to come to the polls.
Also, you will get more establishment candidates in states like Kentucky that have open primary voting.
-
McConnell was a poor target for the Tea Party from the get-go. It's a damn fine line, and a blurry one to boot, but a lot of the things that McConnell has done to anger the far-right were more along the lines of realpolitik in Reid's Democrat dominated Senate, rather than outright RINO'isms.
When Ann Coulter stands up for a guy in writing, it's time to move on and spend your efforts elsewhere.
As Charby notes, it's mainly persistence that got the hard Left where they are today. And that's always been a handicap of the Right. We/they have too much of a "I wanna go back to my life now"-reflex when it comes to politics, because our worldview values minarchy and things that run themselves or that don't need "running" at all.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/05/21/mcconnell-primary-tea-party-lessons-learned/9357247/
USA Today weighs in.
-
McConnell was a poor target for the Tea Party from the get-go. It's a damn fine line, and a blurry one to boot, but a lot of the things that McConnell has done to anger the far-right were more along the lines of realpolitik in Reid's Democrat dominated Senate, rather than outright RINO'isms.
When Ann Coulter stands up for a guy in writing, it's time to move on and spend your efforts elsewhere.
As Charby notes, it's mainly persistence that got the hard Left where they are today. And that's always been a handicap of the Right. We/they have too much of a "I wanna go back to my life now"-reflex when it comes to politics, because our worldview values minarchy and things that run themselves or that don't need "running" at all.
Also in Georgia TEA party lost
And in Georgia, Democrats were banking on Republicans nominating a candidate so far to the right that he or she would alienate suburban centrist voters. But the two contenders considered to have the broadest general-election viability — businessman David Perdue and Rep. Jack Kingston — advanced to a July 22 runoff, complicating Democrat Michelle Nunn’s path to victory.
-
Valuing
centrists moderates Democrat-Lite GOP candidates for their "electability" is what got us Dole, McCain, and Romney.
However, as Roo points out, the system is rigged. Incumbents very rarely lose, and elections can generally be bought.
-
I think I heard some talking head, or a post here, refer to this election as "The Establishment Strikes Back".
This reaffirms my view that our politics is no longer a left/right continuum or even a left/right-statist/libertarian quadrant. It's a sphere containing the insiders, with the rest of us an amorphous mass on the outside. The Tea Party and 2010 mid-terms put some pressure on the surface of the sphere, and now it's pushing back to restore itself.
-
When Ann Coulter stands up for a guy in writing, it's time to move on and spend your efforts elsewhere.
This. We've been terrible about choosing which fights to pick. The local example in North Carolina is Thom Tillis in who beat Greg Brannon a few weeks ago.
NC has been enjoying a conservative revolution these past few years, and Tillis is right at the heart of it. He's the majority leader in the General Assembly, and he and the governor have spent the last few years pushing through some pretty serious conservative reforms in the state budget, welfare, taxation, self-defense and firearms laws, voter ID, education spending, and so on.
Brannon is a successful businessman with no political experience or track record. I'm sure he's a good guy, but there's nothing in his resume that suggests he'd make a good senator.
It would have been an easy no-brainer choice for Tillis, except that certain Tea Party leaders, mostly out-of-state bigmouths like Glenn Beck, tried to make this a big must-win Tea Party vs GOP race. Brannon was cast as the true conservative Tea Party candidate and Tillis as a closet-progressive establishment insider. It was obviously a bogus narrative and it went over like a lead balloon here locally, but what really gets me is that it was all just a colossal waste. If it had worked, what did we stand to gain? What's the point of replacing a solidly conservative, experienced, effective politician with a probably conservative, definitely inexperienced, probably ineffective businessman? Better to spend the time and money somewhere else.
It also goes to show how the facts on the ground often look substantially different than the picture the national media and pundits try to paint. I don't have any first-hand knowledge of the "Tea Party losses" in Georgia or Kentucky, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were similarities to NC, issues that aren't apparent from the views presented nationally.
As always, don't trust what you hear from the media, particularly when they're pushing opinions about Republicans and/or the Tea Party.
-
Anecdote time-
The two WI senate seats have been held by democrats for decades- Russ Feingold, Heb Kohl.
Russ has had a few serious challenges (he should have been easy to beat at any election) but the (r) party always seemed to pick a squishy conservative to run, which was soundly beated in the general election.
The (R) party finally wisened up and put a conservative (TEA) into an election beat Feingold soundly.
The next senatorial election, Kohl retired, and instead of choosing one the TEA candidate or one of the more conservative candidtates, they picked former governor Tommy Thomson. Thompson was a governor during some boon years in WI and could afford to be a tax and spend republican. People must have been nostalgic when they voted for him in the primary.
Thompson got trounced in the general election by a far-lefty moonbat- Tammy Baldwin.
-
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/05/20/todd_akin_was_not_a_tea_partyer_and_the_tea_party_is_not_costing_republicans.html
Todd Akin a Tea Partyer? Not So Much.
I'd say you can only blame "the Tea Party" for a net loss of two Senate seats since 2010. That's a period during which it helped send Mike Lee, Ron Johnson, Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul to the upper House—during which "establishment" candidates like Denny Rehberg, Heather Wilson, Rick Berg, Josh Mandel, George Allen, Tommy Thompson, Carly Fiorina, and Dino Rossi totally failed to win seats.
Read all of it for more depth.
-
McConnell was a long shot, given his deep pockets and the amount party establishment was willing to spend on him. $10million to win a primary. In Kentucky. He bought it fair & square.
When people say things like this, and unfortunately, when it rings true, it pretty much bodes poorly for the future, as it is saying:
The average voter is so damn stupid that whoever spends the most on advertising, wins.
If that is the case, they didn't buy it, idiots sold it.
-
When people say things like this, and unfortunately, when it rings true, it pretty much bodes poorly for the future, as it is saying:
The average voter is so damn stupid that whoever spends the most on advertising, wins.
If that is the case, they didn't buy it, idiots sold it.
Human nature, always has been always will be.
-
When people say things like "he bought the election" or "he stole the election", more often than not, they're just making excuses for why their guy couldn't win.
Money matters in politics, but votes matter more. A successful candidate can attract both.
Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not trying to accuse anyone here on APS, or making any specific claims about the McConnell race. Just making a general observation about human nature and the cogdis that often occurs when the "better" candidate loses.
-
When people say things like "he bought the election" or "he stole the election", more often than not, they're just making excuses for why their guy couldn't win.
Money matters in politics, but votes matter more. A successful candidate can attract both.
Yup. There are several billionaires who have attempted to run for office using their own money that found that out the hard way.
-
The Tea Party died quite a while ago. They just don't know it yet.
-
The Tea Party Conservatism died quite a while ago. They just don't know it yet.
FTFY.
Seriously, I agree with Charby.
Looks like the TEA Party got their ass handed to them last night. So who was saying we need more conservative candidates??
The sad reality is, the reason we only get centrist RINOs is because they are more electable then actual conservatives. Americans [as a group] do not want conservative politicians.
-
FTFY.
Seriously, I agree with Charby.
The sad reality is, the reason we only get centrist RINOs is because they are more electable then actual conservatives. Americans [as a group] do not want conservative politicians.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't think it's supported by the evidence. There haven't been many conservative politicians for them to support, aside from some hopelessly inept outsiders who torpedoed themselves. The more conservative folks actually do rather well when they aren't morans.
-
FTFY.
Seriously, I agree with Charby.
The sad reality is, the reason we only get centrist RINOs is because they are more electable then actual conservatives. Americans [as a group] do not want conservative politicians. want socialism of one flavor or another. They just don't know it.
FTFY
-
FTFY.
Seriously, I agree with Charby.
The sad reality is, the reason we only get centrist RINOs is because they are more electable then actual conservatives. Americans [as a group] do not want conservative politicians.
I think this may be true.
If Tea Party candidates can't make it in the GOP, then it may be time for the GOP to change or die.
If Tea Party candidates can't make it in the US, then it may be time for the US to change or die.
A nation that prefers self-destruction to electing icky so-cons is not worth preserving by electing not-so-icky Charby-approved "moderates."
-
A nation that prefers self-destruction to electing icky so-cons is not worth preserving by electing not-so-icky Charby-approved "moderates."
Dude I can't stand Theocrats, Religious Zealots and the Morality Police.
Unfortunately many TEA party moonbat/so-con candidates can be lumped into one or all of those.
-
Dude I can't stand Theocrats, Religious Zealots and the Morality Police.
Unfortunately many TEA party moonbat/so-con candidates can be lumped into one or all of those.
B.S. Left-wing fear-mongering has you so pwnd. President Santorum will not bust down anyone's door to catch them in the act of sodomy, much less use the IRS to persecute GLADD or GLAAD, or whatever it is. No Tea Party Theocrat Congress is going to force school children to pray to Jesus for the strength to kill Wiccans. The alternative to abortion on demand is not a return to fainting couches and corsets.
What is really happening here is that Tea Party-ites and so-cons tend to be far too reasonable for those who insist on radical and absurdist social policy (same-sex marriage, baby-killing, etc). "Keep the government out of our bedrooms" was not enough, so we are now in the throes of "endorse our homosexual relationships by law."
Setting aside the million-or-so innocent human beings murdered by abortion each year, the big-picture problem with the twin triumphs of the social leftists is the victory of feels over reals. Good luck having any kind of sane fiscal policy, or a healthy free market, or fourth amendment rights, from a populace that can be fooled into thinking marriage can exist without the complementarity of the sexes. Or even that the government must pretend that it can. Or that humans in the womb are just potential lives. These are gross fallacies, and we've begun to believe them. You build on a foundation of sand, if you hope to have any good government and freedom from such benighted voters. If we are ever to have clear-eyed fiscal policy, realistic assessment of our government's over-regulation, sane foreign policy, it will never come from such people.
-
People who don't support the freedom of gays to marry will also lose their gun rights in the long run. Seems fair to me.
-
People who don't support the freedom of gays to marry will also lose their gun rights in the long run. Seems fair to me.
People so deluded as to believe "gay marriage" can exist in the real world will not be able to sustain an appreciation for human rights.
-
People so deluded as to believe "gay marriage" can exist in the real world will not be able to sustain an appreciation for human rights.
And yet I sustain an appreciation for human rights.
-
And yet I sustain an appreciation for human rights.
I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about a whole group of people, over a long span of time. As I said earlier, it's the victory of feels over reals. If we wish for realistic policy, fake marriages are one thing that has to go. Legally speaking.
American homosexuals will probably always have the freedom to "marry." The question now is whether we are so insane as to play along, and give them legal recognition. And keep persecuting those who don't play along. ;/
-
I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about a whole group of people, over a long span of time. As I said earlier, it's the victory of feels over reals. If we wish for realistic policy, fake marriages are one thing that has to go. Legally speaking.
American homosexuals will probably always have the freedom to "marry." The question now is whether we are so insane as to play along, and give them legal recognition. And keep persecuting those who don't play along. ;/
So what's fake about them, besides the fact they don't meet your own approval?
-
I heard mark Kevin point out that nearly every Repub Presidential candidate since Reagan opposed Reagan and his supply side economics. Nearly every one of those candidates lost. The ones who won you could say they did not really win on their own merits but due to other reasons.
There really aren't many small govt conservative candidates who are very well spoken. It is rare to find a small govt conservative candidate who really believes it and doesn't back off as soon as someone challenges them.
I am curious how many Democrats crossed over to vote for McConnel.
-
B.S. Left-wing fear-mongering has you so pwnd. President Santorum will not bust down anyone's door to catch them in the act of sodomy, much less use the IRS to persecute GLADD or GLAAD, or whatever it is. No Tea Party Theocrat Congress is going to force school children to pray to Jesus for the strength to kill Wiccans. The alternative to abortion on demand is not a return to fainting couches and corsets.
Actually I agree with this in broad strokes.
While I'm certainly in the social libertarian camp, the ability of the hard-right to actually DO ANYTHING about what they perceive as "immorality" is rather limited, if not completely absent in a society that otherwise has freedom of movement and association. They'd have to enforce said morality door-to-door which is a logistical near-impossibility.
By just one example, the polygamist families that really want to be polygamist seem to be able to get away with it, even living relatively openly in metropolitan areas where it's not one of those creepy polygamist towns out in the desert. They even have basic cable reality TV shows documenting their lives.
That's not to say some rogue DA can't dredge up the old (or new) state-level laws on sodomy and go issue a warrant to a willing PD to issue a no-knock on some gay couple's home, but then the answer already presents itself with the before mentioned polygamist communities. Live in an area with majority or critical mass of people who approve of your lifestyle and won't stand for such governmental interference.
Whole thing goes back to my posts about how the whole gay marriage debate is a failure, on both sides. With both of them fighting over control of the government like a prize, either way, everyone loses in the end because all it does is empower the government. A government that can either ban gay marriage, or establish it by fiat is not one I'm comfortable with having power over a whole host of other issues, no matter what the outcome is.
OTOH, the Left's supposed support for "social freedom" (not really, just their version of it, femnazi's and SJW's are as much, if not more of a threat to your unfettered access to hookers and Pr0n than the religious right is...) and economic control, they can and do achieve that, because their collectivist ideology which is obsessed with the "rights of groups" devolves quickly so that no one individual is ever safe, and they get control over the bottlenecks and choke-points of banking, industry, and infrastructure in ways that actually DO limit freedom in measurable material ways.
When there's no viable Libertarian alternatives, there are times when refusing to vote GOP over concerns they'd become the "morality police" is not very rational. (Libertarian feels-b4-realz) The patient in the form of the American Body-Politic is hemorrhaging, and we're losing the Republic, if we haven't already, we need triage. Worrying about that is like bickering about what kind of stitches to use while the victim bleeds out onto the pavement. Put a goddamn bandage on first. Especially when there's not even a suture kit nearby.
If the morality police does come knocking, use the money you should have from the saner fiscal policy to circle the wagons, BitTorrent and TOR to get your porn, and their lax gun laws to shoot back at them.
-
So what's fake about them, besides the fact they don't meet your own approval?
Yeah, 'cause marriage didn't really having a specific meaning until I dreamed up my crazy hetero rule, and retroactively worked into virtually every culture, since the dawn of time.
-
People who don't support the freedom of gays to marry will also lose their gun rights in the long run. Seems fair to me.
Just how are the two supposed to be connected?
Either may happen without the other ... or both ... or neither.
-
Just how are the two supposed to be connected?
Either may happen without the other ... or both ... or neither.
Because it will continue to be an issue that costs the GOP elections
-
And stop playing the left's game.
Left -"We want gay marriage!!" Conservative- "We don't care about that issue."
Left - "We want SJW issue dejure." Conservative - "We don't care about your feelz."
Pick 3-4 issues and hammer them. Ignore the other made up ones.
Balanced Budget
Tax Reduction
Regulation Reduction
Job Growth
Ignore the rest. Or answer, "I support the party platform." End. Period. Full Stop.
-
Because it will continue to be an issue that costs the GOP elections
What will cost the GOP elections is the lack of true conservative candidates.
Or are republicans not allowed to be conservative on social issues ...just economic ones? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :facepalm:
-
Yeah, 'cause marriage didn't really having a specific meaning until I dreamed up my crazy hetero rule, and retroactively worked into virtually every culture, since the dawn of time.
So...basically, they don't meet your own approval. Gotcha. ;/
Seriously, what skin is off your back if they call it marriage? Absolutely nothing, is what. It neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg, so there isn't really any reason for you to worry about it, aside from being a busybody.
-
What will cost the GOP elections is the lack of true conservative candidates.
Or are republicans not allowed to be conservative on social issues ...just economic ones? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :facepalm:
Keep believing what you want. There's plenty of conservative candidates. Seems they don't make it past primaries in a lot of elections
-
Because it will continue to be an issue that costs the GOP elections
No.
Its a red herring issue at best.
There are many states that have passed gay marriage bans by popular vote or referendum, these bans tend to be wildly poipular at state levels. The only major pushback is coming from appointed activist federal judges.
Pick 3-4 issues and hammer them. Ignore the other made up ones.
Balanced Budget
Tax Reduction
Regulation Reduction
Job Growth
Ignore the rest. Or answer, "I support the party platform." End. Period. Full Stop.
That, right there.
-
So...basically, they don't meet your own approval. Gotcha. ;/
Seriously, what skin is off your back if they call it marriage? Absolutely nothing, is what. It neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg, so there isn't really any reason for you to worry about it, aside from being a busybody.
Ah, nice strawman. It's not like we've hashed out these issues in the past. It's clearly just bigotry on the part of those of us who oppose government recognition of homosexual relationships because you've never heard any other argument.
As I have said before (but not as succinctly) I support government recognition of marriage. A marriage represents the union of a male and a female for the formation of a stable family unit. For that reason we limit government recognition to that basic unit for the encouragement of stable families for the continued existence of our Republic.
Any other coupling does not have (1) the long history of creating a stable family situation (the studies on alternative family structures are mixed, at best) nor (2) does any other relationship provide such a clear distinction to limit the government recognition.
Recognizing homosexual relationships in the place of marriage cannot (logically) stop there. IF marriage is not between a man and a woman and just any two people who "love" each other (if you'll note, in the eyes of the state, they should not care whether you "love" your spouse or not) then why does the definition of marriage have to stop at two people? Logically, if the complementary of the the sexes has been discarded, the justification for two is gone.
It also removes the logical justification for preventing consanguineous marriage. In fact, it demands it. (Why can't a brother and sister get married- the danger to the children. What about two sisters? Err... ok, I guess they can get married. Now, by equal protection, we can no longer, logically, prevent a brother and a sister. Unless, of course, they just don't meet your approval.)
Further, if, as many supporters of government benefits for homosexual relationships will retort when told that marriage is about family and children, what about infertile couples!!!??11?$?!@?
The government intruding on people's lives to ascertain if they are infertile or not is an unacceptable breach of their privacy. Of course as we've thrown privacy out the window, go ahead and limit marriage to only fertile couples. I'd prefer not stigmatize the infertile further and go on a witch hunt after them, but have at it.
Now, some supporters of government benefits for homosexual relationships are fully logically consistent. (Micro being one of these, as we've hashed these arguments out a few times.)
But government benefits for homosexual relationships completely undermines any limitations on the definition of the word "marriage".
As for this part:
Seriously, what skin is off your back if they call it marriage? Absolutely nothing, is what. It neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg, so there isn't really any reason for you to worry about it, aside from being a busybody.
The state has already shown that it has no interest in banning gay marriage as it has in polygamous marriages. Gay people can call themselves married in every single state in the union and no jackbooted thugs will break down their door and drag them off to jail. Polygamous marriages do not have that same assurance. Some are tolerated, but not all.)
To anticipate the next question, "but how does government recognition of homosexual relationships as "marriage" affect your marriage?"
It doesn't. My marriage is unaffected by most societal problems. My marriage is also unaffected by high marginal tax rates on high income earners. I'm still opposed to those tax rates. My marriage is also unaffected by allowing consanguineous marriages. I'm still opposed to them. My marriage is also unaffected by the wholesale slaughter of the unborn. I'm still opposed to it.
My opposition to homosexual marriage is not because there are immediate personal effects (although with the current witch hunts and lawsuits, there will very likely be personal costs not far down the road.) My opposition is that it is detrimental to society to further erode the foundation of the family.
In that vein, "gay marriage" isn't really the problem. It is but a symptom and a continuation of the degradation of the family that began over half a century ago with the liberalization of divorce laws.
As fistful has already pointed out, it is a matter of putting emotions ahead of logic or, as he put it "feels b4 realz". As we continue to put emotions ahead of logic, we will continue on the path to the demise of this once-great Republic.
-
While I'm certainly in the social libertarian camp, the ability of the hard-right to actually DO ANYTHING about what they perceive as "immorality" is rather limited, if not completely absent in a society that otherwise has freedom of movement and association.
This, but the left has gotten most people to the point where they see refusal to fund or otherwise support a behavior as an outright crusade against it.
-
What with many of the modern ills of society and the demise of the family being laid at the feet of divorce, abortion and gay marriage, it would be interesting if there was actual non-biased sociological data supporting these contentions. I wonder if there is any and I have not researched this. I certainly respect that some people have philosophical, moral or religious beliefs against any or all of these three things, but some of these arguments against it seem to be 'feelz b4 realz', unless of course there is a data consensus supporting these arguments.
-
As a Christian the only criteria I hold for politicians are their economic positions and their stance on life.
In other words they must be pro economic liberty/anti statist and pro life/anti abortion.
None of the other social issues really are anything we should be using the power of the state to try and enforce.
Like fistful I find the whole redefining of marriage by government fiat an exercise in Orwellian government programming. But that genie is out of the bottle and it is a waste of time battling on that front.
Cultural Christianity imposed by the state is just about dead in this country and I for one will not miss it in its passing. Christ never intended for his Kingdom to be imposed on others using the coercion of the state.
-
Cultural Christianity imposed by the state is just about dead in this country and I for one will not miss it in its passing. Christ never intended for his Kingdom to be imposed on others using the coercion of the state.
There is no morality in any forced action. No one can claim charity when the "giving" was done at gunpoint, nor can one claim virtue in avoiding bad behavior solely to escape Earthly consequences.
-
What will cost the GOP elections is the lack of true conservative candidates.
Or are republicans not allowed to be conservative on social issues ...just economic ones? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Keep believing what you want. There's plenty of conservative candidates. Seems they don't make it past primaries in a lot of elections
Really? Where? ???
The great bulk of the repukeagain party has taken a decided dodge to the "statist/left" recently. Even Bushie the Younger was no conservative.
We must live on different planets. [tinfoil]
-
Keep believing what you want. There's plenty of conservative candidates. Seems they don't make it past primaries in a lot of elections
Really? Where? ???
The great bulk of the repukeagain party has taken a decided dodge to the "statist/left" recently. Even Bushie the Younger was no conservative.
We must live on different planets. [tinfoil]
You're either delusional, or deliberately being obtuse. I'm not sure which, but its expected behavior
-
You're either delusional, or deliberately being obtuse. I'm not sure which, but its expected behavior
He just needs to look at who didn't win primaries in multiple states in the last couple elections cycles.
For example the last republican governor primary in Iowa, for 2012. 1 moderate social/fiscal conservative (Branstad), 1 social con/fiscal con (Roberts) and uber social/fiscal con (VanderPlaats). Guess who won by a landslide in the primary, it wasn't the social cons.
-
He just needs to look at who didn't win primaries in multiple states in the last couple elections cycles.
For example the last republican governor primary in Iowa, for 2012. 1 moderate social/fiscal conservative (Branstad), 1 social con/fiscal con (Roberts) and uber social/fiscal con (VanderPlaats). Guess who won by a landslide in the primary, it wasn't the social cons.
I'm not saying you point is not valid, but your example is not the best without numbers. Your point is skewed by the fact that the social conservatives had two candidates splitting their vote while the moderates have a clear choice.
(Also, I don't disagree with Fitz that the candidates are not there. There are plenty of social conservative candidates. Unfortunately, most are not the best advocates for their positions at least partly due to the fact that most people who deeply care about their family are unlikely to risk putting them through what a political campaign has the potential to do to them.)
-
I'm not saying you point is not valid, but your example is not the best without numbers. Your point is skewed by the fact that the social conservatives had two candidates splitting their vote while the moderates have a clear choice.
(Also, I don't disagree with Fitz that the candidates are not there. There are plenty of social conservative candidates. Unfortunately, most are not the best advocates for their positions at least partly due to the fact that most people who deeply care about their family are unlikely to risk putting them through what a political campaign has the potential to do to them.)
Terry Branstad 114,450 50.3%
Bob Vander Plaats 93,058 40.9%
Rod Roberts 19,896 8.8%
Terry was a 4 term governor that had been out of office for 12 years, he didn't seek re-election in 1998. I think the only reason he ran for gov again is to keep Vander Plaats from winning the primary and then losing in the general election to the nitwit (democrat) who was in office seeking re-election. Bob is not a very popular person except with the extreme far right, he has the Dutch Reform vote locked up. Dutch Reform is the biggest religion of the religious right in Iowa, followed pretty close by the Pentecostals and E-free folks.
-
Ah, nice strawman. It's not like we've hashed out these issues in the past. It's clearly just bigotry on the part of those of us who oppose government recognition of homosexual relationships because you've never heard any other argument.
Yes, it is. I've heard every damn argument there is. Boiled away, they all come down to gag reflex. Nothing more.
All of the "detrimental to the family" stuff is absolute crap, and there are absolutely no studies or data that actually backs that up. The biggest threat to the family unit has been government interference, in the form of welfare and various other subsidies that make it easier to not be involved in one, not gay *expletive deleted* marriage, which hasn't even been a thing for most of the time that the family unit has been going down hill, and which you seem to assume a priori, without any proof or reason, can't form a stable family unit. So yeah, it is bigotry. Sorry to call it out like that, but that's what it is.
Edit: Oh, and I also have no problem with polygamy, either. So you're attempt to justify gay marriage ban because we might also have to allow polygamy doesn't work. Generally speaking, there are all sorts of different marriage arrangements that can work out given consenting adults, and I see absolutely no reason to put a stop to any of them other than pearl clutching.
-
You're either delusional, or deliberately being obtuse. I'm not sure which, but its expected behavior
What an uplifting and cheerful retort.
You REALLY see a whole slew of conservative republicans just waiting in the wings to be elected and save this country from fiscal collapse? [tinfoil]
-
Regolith, you've got it all backward. You begin your thinking with the notion that homosexual relationships are included by default, and then anyone who says otherwise needs to disqualify them.
No one need explain why homosexual relationships cannot be marriages. Rather, it falls to such as yourself to explain how they can be. This is what ought to happen before the law recognizes them as such. We (humans; not just Christians or right-wingers) have known for thousands of years (i.e., all of recorded history) that marriage is a union between two (or sometimes more) people of the opposite sex. The relationship between the sexes is that on which marriage has always been based. To begin including relationships that lack that element is, frankly, nonsense. It is nonsense, because no sense, no reason, has been given for including them. The specious "reason" presented is that men and women are interchangeable; therefore gender is a non-issue. This is, of course, absurd.
To put it another way, we should need more than just your approval, before we add homosexual couples to those that get government recognition. But in typical leftist fashion, you want government to just get involved in everything. :P
-
What an uplifting and cheerful retort.
You REALLY see a whole slew of conservative republicans just waiting in the wings to be elected and save this country from fiscal collapse? [tinfoil]
No, I see a slew of them not making it past primaries. And if you don't see it, then see my previous comment.
I'm not cheerful, particularly about this. The GOP and conservatives have blinders on.
Or , we see them get torpedoed and marginalized, and their supporters blamed when they lose.
-
When did "Civil union" get replaced by marriage for the non-hetero folks.I seem to remember civil union was the buzzword a few years ago.
I too believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.I was fine with different terminology for a different set of circumstances.Still am.
Maybe it seems a bit pedantic but my offense is taken because of the corruption of the word marriage.
-
We (humans; not just Christians or right-wingers) have known for thousands of years (i.e., all of recorded history) that marriage is a union between two (or sometimes more) people of the opposite sex. The relationship between the sexes is that on which marriage has always been based. To begin including relationships that lack that element is, frankly, nonsense. It is nonsense, because no sense, no reason, has been given for including them. The specious "reason" presented is that men and women are interchangeable; therefore gender is a non-issue. This is, of course, absurd.
Except, of course, all those times in human history, including ancient history, where same-sex marriages have been recognized. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions)
To put it another way, we should need more than just your approval, before we add homosexual couples to those that get government recognition. But in typical leftist fashion, you want government to just get involved in everything. :P
That's downright Orwellian. Government regulates who can get hitched by excluding some consenting adults, people get upset about it, and then you turn it around claim that stopping the government from regulating who can get hitched is getting the government INVOLVED. ;/ ;/ ;/
It was already involved. This is weakening it's involvement.
It would be nice to get the government out of the marriage business completely, but I don't see any big push on that any time soon. In the mean time, government needs to stop interfering with the relationships of consenting adults.
-
When did "Civil union" get replaced by marriage for the non-hetero folks.I seem to remember civil union was the buzzword a few years ago.
I too believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.I was fine with different terminology for a different set of circumstances.Still am.
Maybe it seems a bit pedantic but my offense is taken because of the corruption of the word marriage.
in a lot of places, civil unions were gaining steam.
The homosexual lobby objected fairly strongly to the different terms, and promptly didn't get the recognition they wanted as a result.
Shot themselves in the foot, IMHO.
-
in a lot of places, civil unions were gaining steam.
The homosexual lobby objected fairly strongly to the different terms, and promptly didn't get the recognition they wanted as a result.
Shot themselves in the foot, IMHO.
I can understand that.Seperate but equal,isn't.Too bad though,a little flexibility and we could all be happy.
-
I can understand that.Seperate but equal,isn't.Too bad though,a little flexibility and we could all be happy.
I can understand it too. But I also know a few people who vehemently opposed civil unions and now are lamenting the lack of benefits/protections afforded to married couples which would have applied to them.
Bed made, etc.
-
Personally I don't really care if the government expands the legal definition of marriage except inasmuch as it is used as a weapon against people who have a moral objection to gay marriage.
Except, of course, all those times in human history, including ancient history, where same-sex marriages have been recognized. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions)
The listed examples were - with very few exceptions - not the same thing as legal same sex marriage. They were almost all legal same sex relationships (not even necessarily sexual), but distinct and separate from man/woman marriage.
It was already involved. This is weakening it's involvement.
I don't understand how this is weakening its involvement. Broadening, yes, but not weakening in any regard.
-
I don't understand how this is weakening its involvement. Broadening, yes, but not weakening in any regard.
It's chipping away at the state's power to decide who can and can't get married, weakening their control. Simple.
After all, it used to be that a white person and a black person couldn't get married. This is part and parcel with that, loosening and weakening the government's ability to control.
-
No.
Its a red herring issue at best.
There are many states that have passed gay marriage bans by popular vote or referendum, these bans tend to be wildly poipular at state levels. The only major pushback is coming from appointed activist federal judges.
That, right there.
Hyper liberal California passed a gay marriage ban by popular vote.
-
No, I see a slew of them not making it past primaries. And if you don't see it, then see my previous comment.
I'm not cheerful, particularly about this. The GOP and conservatives have blinders on.
Or , we see them get torpedoed and marginalized, and their supporters blamed when they lose.
Most peoe who are in favor of limited government are not vile, amoral, sociopathic shitweasels and thus are bad at being politicians. There's nothing inherintly unelectable about their positions, they just suck as politicians.
-
It's chipping away at the state's power to decide who can and can't get married, weakening their control. Simple.
After all, it used to be that a white person and a black person couldn't get married. This is part and parcel with that, loosening and weakening the government's ability to control.
You said: "This is weakening it's involvement." Allowing same sex marriages gives a few percent more people a chance to register their marriage with the government. That is mission creep, not weakening government's involvement in marriage.
-
It's chipping away at the state's power to decide who can and can't get married, weakening their control. Simple.
After all, it used to be that a white person and a black person couldn't get married. This is part and parcel with that, loosening and weakening the government's ability to control.
:rofl:
It's greatly increasing the state's ability to force people to violate their most fundamental beliefs. If the state recognizes marriage at all, it should do so only to incentivize it as a positive behavior in child rearing. There is nothing about the marriage contract that cannot be duplicated with a couple of other legal documents, except for the state's ability to force people to recognize homosexual relationships as no different than heterosexual ones.
I love the libertarians who, in the name of saving gay folks the horror and indignation of filing slightly different legal paperwork than hetero couples, are more the happy to vastly expand the state's power, engage in state sponsored social engineering at gunpoint, and violate the most fundamental of human rights.
-
It's chipping away at the state's power to decide who can and can't get married, weakening their control. Simple.
After all, it used to be that a white person and a black person couldn't get married. This is part and parcel with that, loosening and weakening the government's ability to control.
Can you tell me what happened to a mixed race couple at that time and what happens to a homosexual couple right now?
One is "the government dictating who can be married" and one is "the government doesn't give you extra stuff for your relationship."
-
Except, of course, all those times in human history, including ancient history, where same-sex marriages have been recognized. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions)
:rofl: Yes, I recall going through that list before. As I recall, it's ridiculously small, and includes very few instances in which a homosexual relationship was regarded as equal to a marriage. So, billions of humans, over thousands of years, thousands of cultures and religions, and they all but unanimously thought of marriage as something that happened between opposite sex partners. Why, it's almost as if marriage makes sense that way, and not the other [homosexual] way. :O It's almost as if gender were something that simply exists, not just something enforced by culture or religion. You may have heard the phrase "exception that proves the rule." Besides, dude, I never told you there weren't exceptions.
That's downright Orwellian. Government regulates who can get hitched by excluding some consenting adults, people get upset about it, and then you turn it around claim that stopping the government from regulating who can get hitched is getting the government INVOLVED. ;/ ;/ ;/
Orwellian? You're asking government to call things marriages, when they clearly, as a matter of plain fact, are not. Then you have the nerve to call us bigots, when we point this out.
You're asking for a new class of relationships to be added to those which the government already recognizes. I say "recognize," because our government can't be said to actually regulate marriage, except maybe in the case of minors. Would government stop a man from being married to his mother? Or stop a man from having six wives? I don't see it doing anything but withholding recognition.
The point being, you want government to do something it wasn't already doing. You should have to explain why. I need not offer an explanation, except in the sense that it falls to the non-delusional to help the delusional (you) see reality.
It was already involved. This is weakening it's involvement. getting it in involved in the previously (since Lawrence v Texas) unregulated.
Fixed.
It would be nice to get the government out of the marriage business completely, but I don't see any big push on that any time soon. In the mean time, government needs to stop interfering with the relationships of consenting adults.
And demanding that government get involved in homosexual relationships is so totally the way to make that happen. :rofl:
I hear a lot more public support for the total deregulation of marriage than I've ever heard for same-sex marriage. There was never a "big push" for same-sex marriages until people starting telling bizarre tales, twisting truth, and calling people bigots when they wouldn't fall for it. The same could have been done for deregulation, but that wouldn't serve the left's agenda. And let's be clear that this is the left's agenda. Homosexuals, like any of their other victim classes, are but useful tools.
-
No, I see a slew of them not making it past primaries. And if you don't see it, then see my previous comment.
I'm not cheerful, particularly about this. The GOP and conservatives have blinders on.
Or , we see them get torpedoed and marginalized, and their supporters blamed when they lose.
:facepalm:
I think we're talking past each other.
I see you don't think that the conservatives are going to win -- I actually agree with this.
(INSERT HOMER SIMPSON D'OH! HERE)
...Dang. It's been a long week .... =(
-
You may have heard the phrase "exception that proves the rule." Besides, dude, I never told you there weren't exceptions.
A point of clarification. The reference quote is old and meanings of words often change over time even in small ways. The phrase "the exception that proves the rule," if rendered in today's parlance would read more like "a rule must pass a test to be proved true." In other words the word "exception" really ought to be changed to "the test."
This old saying bothered me for a long time until I found out what the true original meaning was.
Just my 2 cents. :cool:
-
Conjecture:
What I hear some saying is that the Republican party is simply too dumb to actually put forth candidates which are as conservative as the voting public really wants. That the weak centrist RINO's they field get weak votes, but a strong conservative would get a stronger vote.
This is wrong.
The Republican party studies their market carefully, just like any sensible business does. And they have determined the opposite - that strong conservative candidates are less electable then weak willed centrists. Their leadership aren't idiots - they field candidates who have the best chance of being elected. Consider it a reflection of the state of the modern American voting public.
-
It's chipping away at the state's power to decide who can and can't get married, weakening their control. Simple.
The state (via judicial activism) is the one deciding that homosexual couples can "get married." The only way it has gained any popular support is through people getting tired of leftists whining about the issue, and calling everyone bigots.
And yes, it is most certainly judicial activism, when courts blatantly change the meanings of words and institutions. It is the most judicially activist of judicial activism.
After all, it used to be that a white person and a black person couldn't get married. This is part and parcel with that...
This parallel is false, and should be mocked wherever it shows its stupid face. Marriage has not, for millennia, been limited to same-race partners. It's a limitation that has popped up here and there, but it has never defined marriage in the way that a union of opposite-sex partners defines marriage.
As someone once pointed out, just because one person's check bounced when the $5,000 was improperly missing from his account, that doesn't mean that everybody can write rubber checks and have them honored. I.e., maybe black people were at one time not given their due. That doesn't mean that white homosexuals in 2014 get the same thing. Or, rather, they do get the same thing - the same right to marry folk of the opposite sex that everyone else gets. That's what the right to be married means - the right to be married to someone of the opposite sex. Just like the right to bear arms means the right to bear arms, not the right to balance a rifle on your noggin, by it's little bird cage flash hider, and have it never fall off. That would be impossible. Much like "gay marriage."
-
:facepalm:
I think we're talking past each other.
I see you don't think that the conservatives are going to win -- I actually agree with this.
(INSERT HOMER SIMPSON D'OH! HERE)
...Dang. It's been a long week .... =(
Yeah. But they DO exist, which is what I was getting at
-
Conjecture:
What I hear some saying is that the Republican party is simply too dumb to actually put forth candidates which are as conservative as the voting public really wants. That the weak centrist RINO's they field get weak votes, but a strong conservative would get a stronger vote.
This is wrong.
The Republican party studies their market carefully, just like any sensible business does. And they have determined the opposite - that strong conservative candidates are less electable then weak willed centrists. Their leadership aren't idiots - they field candidates who have the best chance of being elected. Consider it a reflection of the state of the modern American voting public.
I'm not so sure. After all, wasn't Ron doing better in the preference pools against Obama than any other GOP choice?
-
A point of clarification. The reference quote is old and meanings of words often change over time even in small ways. The phrase "the exception that proves the rule," if rendered in today's parlance would read more like "a rule must pass a test to be proved true." In other words the word "exception" really ought to be changed to "the test."
This old saying bothered me for a long time until I found out what the true original meaning was.
Just my 2 cents. :cool:
I was not using it in the most exact sense, no.
But it does prove my point that people like Regolith can only find such a tiny number of examples, when people have been getting married for thousands of years, worshiping millions of gods, in all manner of social, economic, religious and political situations. But marriage keeps coming up heterosexual.
How amazing!
-
Conjecture:
What I hear some saying is that the Republican party is simply too dumb to actually put forth candidates which are as conservative as the voting public really wants. That the weak centrist RINO's they field get weak votes, but a strong conservative would get a stronger vote.
This is wrong.
The Republican party studies their market carefully, just like any sensible business does. And they have determined the opposite - that strong conservative candidates are less electable then weak willed centrists. Their leadership aren't idiots - they field candidates who have the best chance of being elected. Consider it a reflection of the state of the modern American voting public.
And yet they keep failing miserably. Plenty of sensible businesses fail badly.
That said, I agree that demography and cultural decline away from personal responsibility (among other problems) doom America as a free nation.
-
No, I see a slew of them not making it past primaries. And if you don't see it, then see my previous comment.
I'm not cheerful, particularly about this. The GOP and conservatives have blinders on.
Or , we see them get torpedoed and marginalized, and their supporters blamed when they lose.
And that's because the vast majority can't pull in the funding like the incumbent RINO's can.
-
I'm not so sure. After all, wasn't Ron doing better in the preference pools against Obama than any other GOP choice?
Indeed. Ron was both the most interesting candidate and the only candidate able to bridge political divides and have some truly diverse support.
It has come down to who can rally the base and get turnout. The party that rallies the base, wins.
The Dems will get 90%+ of the black vote even if Obama & Hilary & Biden are filmed sacrificing black babies to Moloch on the White House lawn. And the "war against women" deal had almost all the single women looking for a sugar daddy in Uncle Sam to protect their right to erase the mistake they made after drinking too much and sleeping with a loser in a state of inebriation. And the cries of "Racist!" are never ending. And they are the generals of the FSA.
And how did the GOP rally the base? 2008: McCain, who despises the base and has made no secret of it. 2012: Romney, who has video evidence of him debating Ted Kennedy as the "almost as liberal" candidate and set up socialized medicine in Taxachussetts.
McCain and Romney and the like may be in-line with teh big donors to the GOP, but they will never turn out enough of the base to win POTUS.
-
Meanwhile... The GOP establishment and a lot of republicans said things like "I'd like Ron, but he's kinda crazy with the drugs and the foreign policy"
Sigh.
-
Indeed. Ron was both the most interesting candidate and the only candidate able to bridge political divides and have some truly diverse support.
It has come down to who can rally the base and get turnout. The party that rallies the base, wins.
The Dems will get 90%+ of the black vote even if Obama & Hilary & Biden are filmed sacrificing black babies to Moloch on the White House lawn. And the "war against women" deal had almost all the single women looking for a sugar daddy in Uncle Sam to protect their right to erase the mistake they made after drinking too much and sleeping with a loser in a state of inebriation. And the cries of "Racist!" are never ending. And they are the generals of the FSA.
And how did the GOP rally the base? 2008: McCain, who despises the base and has made no secret of it. 2012: Romney, who has video evidence of him debating Ted Kennedy as the "almost as liberal" candidate and set up socialized medicine in Taxachussetts.
McCain and Romney and the like may be in-line with teh big donors to the GOP, but they will never turn out enough of the base to win POTUS.
Don't forget Bush the First and Dole. And Dubya expanded the fed.gov more than Clinton.
-
Don't forget Bush the First and Dole. And Dubya expanded the fed.gov more than Clinton.
Dubya won reelection, so you can't list him among GOP failures to rally the base.
-
Meanwhile... The GOP establishment and a lot of republicans said things like "I'd like Ron, but he's kinda crazy with the drugs and the foreign policy"
Sigh.
and our establishment approved drug policy and foreign policy is going along so swimmingly...
-
Dubya won reelection, so you can't list him among GOP failures to rally the base.
GW one first against Al Gore and did seem to combine some socon and fiscon chops in the same package. Gore was sort of "Clinton III: Charismatic Vacuum." Then he won in the middle of the GWOT Global War To Civilize Goat Herding Pederasts against Kerry. While GWB was mishandling the strategy and objectives, Kerry looked ready to hand over foreign policy to our enemies.
-
Dubya won reelection, so you can't list him among GOP failures to rally the base.
9/11 got him re elected.
-
9/11 got him re elected.
:facepalm: He won two elections, so you can't demonstrate from that any failure to rally the base. As for 9/11, it also set the stage for everything that turned so many against him, or at least weakened his appeal. The Patriot Act, the Iraq war, the non-capture of bin Laden, the TSA, Dept of Homeland Color-coded Threat Levels, and so on.
Roo_ster was talking about RINO candidates failing to rally the base. We can speculate about how Bush may have performed in that other, non-9/11 universe, or whether he would have had a better re-election through moar conservatism, but that's just talk.
-
Reading these comments make me wonder: how do people here define the Republican or Democratic base?
-
Reading these comments make me wonder: how do people here define the Republican or Democratic base?
Ditto, probably personally biased as all get out.
-
Ditto, probably personally biased as all get out.
Sure.
But it's also based on the fact that McCain, Romney, et al, lost. So either the base didn't turn out, or the swing voters didn't go for them. Either way, a losing strategy.
-
Maybe Mr. Santorum's new book (which I will look for at the library) is correct: the new base of the Republican party is blue-collar whites in the South and Midwest.
-
How much does the candidate, or his position, really matter though, and how much of it is about what the establishment press thinks we should talk about? I think the E.P. still decides what news we're going to discuss, even if they no longer have a monopoly on how it's reported.
Would Paul, or anyone else, have been sabotaged just as effectively as Romney? Here's just one example. The "war on women" meme began with Stephanopoulos asking a question, from the clear blue, about regulating birth control. Could he not just as easily have started the ball rolling, had Paul been sitting there, instead of Romney? All they found on Romney was "binders full of women." Surely, they could have found something equally as nontroversial and non-misogynistic from Ron Paul.
-
Question: Even if the Establishment Repubs won the primaries, what guarantees that the winner will get the Tea Party votes needed to win the election?
The Tea Party may yet flex their strongest muscles by staying on the couch....
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
-
Question: Even if the Establishment Repubs won the primaries, what guarantees that the winner will get the Tea Party votes needed to win the election?
The Tea Party may yet flex their strongest muscles by staying on the couch....
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
Obviously, nothing. Anachronism notwithstanding, the Tea Party has been sitting out presidential elections since 2008.
-
Question: Even if the Establishment Repubs won the primaries, what guarantees that the winner will get the Tea Party votes needed to win the election?
The Tea Party may yet flex their strongest muscles by staying on the couch....
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
And then the establishment blames voters for not getting excited about their guy
-
Hmmm, what to make of this then:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/05/27/316525123/oldest-serving-member-of-the-house-loses-to-tea-party-opponent
-
It's almost as if we shouldn't make sweeping generalizations about a national movement based on local elections that may or may not be decided based on the national movement angle...
-
Hmmm, what to make of this then:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/05/27/316525123/oldest-serving-member-of-the-house-loses-to-tea-party-opponent
Obviously a statistical outlier, which should needs to be be ignored....
-
It's almost as if we shouldn't make sweeping generalizations about a national movement based on local elections that may or may not be decided based on the national movement angle...
Lets see what happens after next weeks primaries. I know some are going to be interesting, like Iowa where one person has to get at least 35% of the vote to declared the winner if there is more than two on the ballot. If not then it goes to convention.
-
Conjecture:
What I hear some saying is that the Republican party is simply too dumb to actually put forth candidates which are as conservative as the voting public really wants. That the weak centrist RINO's they field get weak votes, but a strong conservative would get a stronger vote.
This is wrong.
The Republican party studies their market carefully, just like any sensible business does. And they have determined the opposite - that strong conservative candidates are less electable then weak willed centrists. Their leadership aren't idiots - they field candidates who have the best chance of being elected. Consider it a reflection of the state of the modern American voting public.
Ayup. Successful politicians are not stupid. They know their trade well. They know which voting blocks can be relied on to win elections. And they know which blocks can't be relied on. Increasingly, as conservatives, we're moving ourselves into the 'unreliable' category.
Put yourself in the politcritter's shoes. Take a good look around on conservative forums, or blogs, or whatever, and ask yourself if these are the voters you'd want to stake your career (and reputation, and family fortune) on as a politician. The answer, if we're being honest, is probably a great big NO.
-
Ayup. Successful politicians are not stupid. They know their trade well. They know which voting blocks can be relied on to win elections. And they know which blocks can't be relied on. Increasingly, as conservatives, we're moving ourselves into the 'unreliable' category.
Put yourself in the politcritter's shoes. Take a good look around on conservative forums, or blogs, or whatever, and ask yourself if these are the voters you'd want to stake your career (and reputation, and family fortune) on as a politician. The answer, if we're being honest, is probably a great big NO.
Indeed. Politicians are amoral creatures concerned only with gaining power and the fortunes and privilege it brings.
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/207443-is-it-ted-cruzs-texas-now
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) wasn’t up for reelection this year, but his presence was felt up and down the GOP primary ballot in the Lone Star State.
The only candidate Cruz endorsed won her primary fight on Tuesday, while incumbent candidates he ignored went down to defeat.
More generally, the upstart candidates who toppled Lieutenant Gov. David Dewhurst and 91-year-old Rep. Ralph Hall appealed to the same state conservatives who see Cruz as a hero.
“[Cruz] provided a playbook for conservative candidates to overcome the establishment,” said Texas-based GOP strategist Matt Mackowiak, who advised John Ratcliffe’s campaign, who beat Hall. “In every race, there was a Cruz dynamic.”
“He showed that if you raise enough money to be competitive, and if you run a good campaign and really mobilize the conservative base in Texas, that it can be done,” Mackowiak continued.
Yeah, that is about it.
Also helps if the IRS doesn't leak your tax records.
Longtime Texas GOP observers have noticed the sea change, too. They say the grassroots now controls the GOP.
“Things certainly have changed. The conservative grassroots activists have come to dominate the party establishment, offsetting or pushing aside some of the more traditional business/donor community,” said Texas Republican strategist Ray Sullivan, a former top aide to both Gov. Rick Perry and former President George W. Bush.
Sullivan said grassroots groups are much more organized and unified than in the past. They can also depend on help from national groups like the Senate Conservatives Fund and the Club for Growth.
“The conservative factions largely within Tea Party brands have become very well organized and have a significant amount of influence in Republican primary elections,” he added.
Still gotta do the work.
Sen. John Cornyn was another member of GOP leadership who initially seemed ripe for an upset. Instead, he never attracted a serious challenger.
Still, some say Cornyn has changed since Cruz arrived in Washington, which would be another testament to how he is changing his state’s political leadership.
Cornyn moved to polish his conservative credentials and became more intractable on areas he once reached across the aisle on, such as immigration, as his primary approached.
And here is the kicker: Even limited success and the threat of a TEA Party challenge puts some steel in the spine of the GOP invertebrates.
=============
The funny thing is, if the news media gave the news straight, Texas's views and politics would be the median for the USA(1). As it is, Iowa's views & politics are smack dab in the middle. What that means, of course, is that the more MSM influence erodes, the less they can skew the country leftwards. So there is some hope.
(1) Interesting study done to see how news media bias effects views. Conclusion: MSM bias is effective. Those who got politically neutral / objective news views' were significantly to the right of those who got undifferentiated MSM news content.
-
=============
The funny thing is, if the news media gave the news straight, Texas's views and politics would be the median for the USA(1). As it is, Iowa's views & politics are smack dab in the middle. What that means, of course, is that the more MSM influence erodes, the less they can skew the country leftwards. So there is some hope.
(1) Interesting study done to see how news media bias effects views. Conclusion: MSM bias is effective. Those who got politically neutral / objective news views' were significantly to the right of those who got undifferentiated MSM news content.
Texas is only part of the country, don't forget about the New England Republicans.
-
Texas is only part of the country, don't forget about the New England Republicans.
Maybe the northeastern TEA Party candidates can get an endorsement from NorAID and do alright?
"Hi, my name is Peter King, and I approved this message."
-
Hmmm, what to make of this then:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/05/27/316525123/oldest-serving-member-of-the-house-loses-to-tea-party-opponent
Heh...
Ostensibly he switched parties because "The Democratic Party left him..." a-la Zell Miller (who didn't actually switch), but forgive me for wondering if that it's more a finger in the wind kind of thing, and he saw the electoral trends for his state.
And CBS had done a bunch of bits propping up the guy, how long he'd served etc. I'm immediately suspicious of any "conservative" for whom the MSM is willing to stoop and give the "aw shucks"-folksy down home Norman Rockwell-esque warm & fuzzy news treatment to. :-X
-
The pig castrator won in Iowa last night. They are saying she was successful at combining Tea Party and Republican Establishment Appeal.
I predict she gets her ass handed to her at the general election.
Smear campaign has already started by the left http://www.rightwingjoni.com/
-
Smear campaign has already started by the left http://www.rightwingjoni.com/
That's some pretty weak tea. I'm surprised they put up the "Missed 100 votes in the senate" Given that "I'm voted present" Obama is sitting in the White House.
"Iowa ranks 37th in funding per pupil" ?!?!? What's the test scores and graduation rates? Those, to me, would be a better indicator of performance not "We threw more money at schools and teachers then anyone except Illinois and look what that got them."
I predict she'll be your next Senator.
-
That's some pretty weak tea. I'm surprised they put up the "Missed 100 votes in the senate" Given that "I'm voted present" Obama is sitting in the White House.
"Iowa ranks 37th in funding per pupil" ?!?!? What's the test scores and graduation rates? Those, to me, would be a better indicator of performance not "We threw more money at schools and teachers then anyone except Illinois and look what that got them."
I predict she'll be your next Senator.
Iowa Tea Party folks are pissed she won, said the Establishment paid for it. I guess Sam Clovis was their man.
-
I predict she'll be your next Senator.
Nope the Democrats will be out in voting force, Brailey will win. The more populated areas of Iowa are very Democrat, only time GOP candidates win is when the D is a turd in those areas.
-
Smear campaign has already started by the left http://www.rightwingjoni.com/
Do you think that if her primary opponent had defeated her, the Democrats would not have started a smear campaign just as fast?
-
Do you think that if her primary opponent had defeated her, the Democrats would not have started a smear campaign just as fast?
They probably had preloaded smear campaign for all of the folks who were running in the primary. I think there was 6 people on the ballot.
-
Isn't it the duty of all Iowa Republicans to enthusiastically vote for her despite her not being the establishment pick?
Isn't that the way it works?
When libertarian/conservatives have statist establishment picks foisted upon us we are browbeat into voting for them, for the good of the country/party of course. To hell with your principles correct? It's all about getting the power at all costs.
-
Isn't it the duty of all Iowa Republicans to enthusiastically vote for her despite her not being the establishment pick?
Isn't that the way it works?
When libertarian/conservatives have statist establishment picks foisted upon us we are browbeat into voting for them, for the good of the country/party of course. To hell with your principles correct? It's all about getting the power at all costs.
"BOOM!"
-
A bit of a drift...
It surprises me that Iowa elected and reelected both Harkin and Grassley. Same electorate, two very different Senators. I must reflect on this...
-
Given Obamacare and the various scandals, the R's and quite a few I's are motivated to vote for more Right/libertarian candidates. The D's not so much since Obama is not running.
-
Isn't it the duty of all Iowa Republicans to enthusiastically vote for her despite her not being the establishment pick?
Isn't that the way it works?
When libertarian/conservatives have statist establishment picks foisted upon us we are browbeat into voting for them, for the good of the country/party of course. To hell with your principles correct? It's all about getting the power at all costs.
This right here.
-
Isn't it the duty of all Iowa Republicans to enthusiastically vote for her despite her not being the establishment pick?
Isn't that the way it works?
When libertarian/conservatives have statist establishment picks foisted upon us we are browbeat into voting for them, for the good of the country/party of course. To hell with your principles correct? It's all about getting the power at all costs.
I think she was the establishment's pick.
I didn't vote for her, I voted for another guy because I felt he would make a better Senator than the rest of the ticket. http://www.mattwhitaker.org/
-
Eric Cantor: RINO, Establishment "R" gets taken off at the knees by a Tea Party candidate.
Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
-
Has a sitting House majority leader ever been primaried out before?
-
I can't wait to hear MSNBC claim the voters were intimidated by the Las Vegas killings.
-
Eric Cantor: RINO, Establishment "R" gets taken off at the knees by a Tea Party candidate.
Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
I think he would have lost to just about anyone who ran against him.
-
Oh, the butthurt that is going on because Cantor got creamed. The pundits are dreaming up all sorts of reasons. The people in his district say, though, they dumped him because he didn't represent them and he and his staff are arrogant a******s.
It's amusing to read how the Tea Party are a bunch of extremists, when the true extremists are the Democrat Party and the RINO's. Ruling by fiat and in spite of what the Constitution says, is extreme in my view.
-
It's amusing to read how the Tea Party are a bunch of extremists, when the true extremists are the Democrat Party and the RINO's. Ruling by fiat and in spite of what the Constitution says, is extreme in my view.
Not that amusing, really. Extremism of the darkest and bloodiest kind became a central plank of the Dem. party decades ago.
-
Mickey Kaus was a media booster of center-left Democrat politics from back before Clinton was elected POTUS. He is definitely not of the right, but is much more concerned about working and middle class folks than Dem or GOP leadership seems to be.
Anyways, he posits a "bottom-up" bipartisanship of the working & middle classes instead of the "top-down" DC/NY/LA sort we have with Dem & GOP leadership, the MSM, and the financial sector.
He sees the Cantor upset and Brat as a sign that such a thing is possible. He wrote the following before Cantor lost yesterday
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/10/the-benefits-of-beating-cantor/
Bottom-Up Bipartisanship? Yesterday Dave Brat, the conservative economics professor who is challenging Majority Leader Eric Cantor in today’s primary, sent out what I assume will be his final pitch to voters. Here’s a sample:
“The entire amnesty and low-wage agenda collapses if Cantor loses — all the billions of special interests dollars, all the favors, all the insider dealing — all of it is stopped in its tracks tomorrow if the patriotic working families of Virginia send Eric Cantor back home tomorrow.
Tomorrow, the middle class has its chance to fight back.
Tomorrow, the people of Virginia can show up to the polls and defeat the entire crony corporate lobby.
Tomorrow, we can restore our borders, rebuild our communities, and revitalize our middle class.”
Notes: 1) This is a pitch — against a “low wage agenda” and “crony corporate lobby” — that can appeal to Democrats as well as Republicans. Maybe partisanship will eventually be transcended, not at the top, with David Brooks, Gloria Borger and Jon Huntsman imposing a Beltway consensus they hammer out at an Atlantic panel, but at the bottom, where less sleek figures like Brat, Phyllis Schlafly and Jeff Sessions, can make common cause with Democratic workers who’ve gotten the short end of previous top-down triumphs such as global trade and Reagan’s 1986 amnesty, as well as of ineluctable technological trends like automation. 2) Perhaps not coincidentally, Democrats can vote in the Cantor vs. Brat primary. …
-
A bit of a drift...
It surprises me that Iowa elected and reelected both Harkin and Grassley. Same electorate, two very different Senators. I must reflect on this...
We have Ron Johnson and Tammy Baldwin- you couldn't pick any two members of the Senate which are further apart politically or philosophically- both were elected in back to back elections.
-
Not that amusing, really. Extremism of the darkest and bloodiest kind became a central plank of the Dem. party decades ago.
I bet hard core Democrats also deny that they are also extremists.
-
Thad Cochrane, ostensibly conservative candidate, is being funded by Bloomberg.
http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/2014/06/latest-filing-for-cochran-pac.html
-
Thad Cochrane, ostensibly conservative candidate, is being funded by Bloomberg.
http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/2014/06/latest-filing-for-cochran-pac.html
In a recent interview Cochran shows he wasn't even aware that Eric Cantor lost his seat!
INTERVIEWER: What happened in Virginia the other day, does that concern you for your chances here in this run-off?
COCHRAN: I don't know what you're talking about. What happened in Virginia?
INTERVIEWER: With Eric Cantor losing his seat.
COCHRAN: Well, I haven't followed that campaign very closely at all.
INTERVIEWER: Really?
Later, the interviewer says, "Well, Eric Cantor lost his seat as the Majority Leader." To which Cochran replies, "Well, it happens. Some win, some lose."
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/13/thad-cochran-apparently-didnt-know-that-eric-cantor-lost/?wpisrc=nl_fix
-
In a recent interview Cochran shows he wasn't even aware that Eric Cantor lost his seat!
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/13/thad-cochran-apparently-didnt-know-that-eric-cantor-lost/?wpisrc=nl_fix
INTERVIEWER: Are you aware that Generalissimo Franco is still dead?
COCHRAN: I hadn't heard of his passing.
-
In a recent interview Cochran shows he wasn't even aware that Eric Cantor lost his seat!
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/13/thad-cochran-apparently-didnt-know-that-eric-cantor-lost/?wpisrc=nl_fix
It's about time we had some Congress-folk that were out of touch with Washington.
-
It's an interesting study of media coverage.
Back in May, the media line was that the Tea Party was down and out. Tits up and dead as a doornail. Why? No real reason, we won some, lost some others, and none of it was big or trend-setting or anything. They just wanted to write that story, so they did.
Today the media line is that the Tea Party is an evil and terrifying force, able to take down the the biggest incumbents at any time. Why? No good reason for that, either. Cantor is a big scalp, but not a particularly challenging candidate. He was a terrible campaigner and politician back home and nobody liked him. All he had was money, and money doesn't win elections, candidates do. But the media wanted to write the Big-Bad-Tea-Part story, so they did.
It's all just grist for the mill. If the Tea Party was down and out, we wouldn't have won anything in May or June, but we did. If we were invincible, we'd have been able to beat Lindsey Graham (a real challenge - he's a much better politician and campaigner than Cantor). The truth is somewhere in between the extremes, but who wants to write about that?
Anyway, the moral of the story is to ignore all media crap about the Tea Party.
-
The Tea Party was resurrected so that folks would not have to talk about the immigration issue (illegal & otherwise), which is in large part why Cantor lost.
Hell, now even libertarian open-borders buffoons are doing their best not to talk about that and concentrating on berating Brat for not referring to nutty trannies by their preferred mode/name.
-
Given how Cochran won the run-off, I would not be surprised to see the seat go to a Democrat simply because the Tea Party voters will stay home.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/26/pruden-race-baiting-and-betrayal-in-mississippi/
-
Read a story on how much big bucks the gop estab and their supporters spent on primaries to thwart conservative candidates. The amount of money was staggering as was the joy the establishmentarians got from their success this primary season. Much more joy expressed than when beating democrats. Pretty much tells the tale as to whom they view as the greater threat. Looks more and more like govt party vs the rest of us.
As for sen thad maybe he can get his new best buddies to vote for him.