Powered by TypePad

« The Latin Variation Of The Jihadist Fist Bump | Main | FactCheck Shoots Down The 90% Meme »

April 18, 2009

Comments

JM Hanes

bad:

I thought it was amazing that even a "car czar" can now dictate terms to Chrysler. That whole deal is corrupt from top to bottom, like the nightmare of government manipulation come true.

JM Hanes

Rick:

It really hurts that you need the muddle to win elections, doesn't it?

bad

JMH, it's even more amazing that that the dictator is part of a pay to play investigation. What do Chrysler and the banks think of that part of the equation?

clarice

How long do you suppose it will be to the first big knock down scandal of this Administration--not counting of course the scandal that folks like Geithner were confirmed, let alone nominated? With a gang so tone deaf to proprieties and given so much power and so little oversight, it cannot be long.

bad

Take a look at our Energy Secretary if you want to be depressed.

LUN

Rick Ballard

"It really hurts that you need the muddle to win elections, doesn't it?"

Not at all. Both parties have to try and herd the cattle at election time. I just object to McCain style butt kissing of the easily swayed so far in advance. It's not as if they're anything but fickle and very willing to change what passes for a mind at the drop of a dime.

The current "don't make waves" silliness is rather contemptible given the very small stakes involved.

boris

"you need the muddle to win elections"

About once per generation the poor dears briefly open their eyes long enough to see the edge of the abyss. Just hope it happens sooner rather than later.

bad

Clarice, I'm starting to think this administration won't have a scandal. Whatever happens we'll be told it's no big deal.

clarice

Oh, I don't suppose we'll have fair coverage of the scandal, but we don't have fair coverage of the climate debate either and yet somehow enough people know the CW on the issue is bunk that only 30% of Americans now believe in AGW.

JM Hanes

and that the Executive Branch can just turn an industry upside down by fiat, so to speak, without a single written regulation in sight, unconstrained even by any obligation to consistency in how one company and another are treated. When it covers up the kind of sleazy sleight of hand that Barone describes in bad's LUN, it's got to come back to bite them eventually, but Obama's blameshifting skills are formiddable. I'm just hoping for something to coincide with the 2010 election season, because the Democratic Congress is just as dangerous as he is.

Ignatz

You'd have thought so, wouldn't you? I'd have said Bush I lost it all on his own, myself, but within days of the election, there was Ralph Reed, all over the tube, claiming Bush I lost because he neglected his conservative base.

Well the unfortunate fact, and its not a surprising one is that fewer GOP conservatives turn out for mushy moderates, just as fewer GOP moderates turn out for a strong conservative.
What is slightly counterintuitive is conservative Repubs atrract more independents than they lose moderates within the GOP, while consolidating the conservative base.

OTOH, mushy moderate Repubs turn off enough of the base AND independent moderates who apparently figure if they want mush, might as well go for the real Dem thing, to lose.

I'd be glad to modify my premise if there is evidence that GOP conservatives stay home when a moderate runs but GOP moderates do not stay home or switch parties when a conservative does.

bad

OK I'm convinced, scandal is on the way. What will it be? (thinking...thinking)

OMG!!! Hillary and O have an affair!!!

How fun would that be... (for us, of course, cause there's nooo way it could be fun for them.)

bad

But WAIT... Peter Orzag and Janet Napolitano make a better couple. They're so unlikely it would be romantic.

Okay, I'm convinced it needs to be a different kind of scandal 'cause the sort already suggested is ooging me out.

cathyf
OMG!!! Hillary and O have an affair!!!
Oh, c'mon, bad, that's so boring. Where's the, well, bad bad that we know and love?

Hillary and Michelle have an affair.

jimmyk

It really hurts that you need the muddle to win elections, doesn't it?

You may need the muddle, but the muddle is not necessarily the middle in the sense of being centrist. It's people who are not ideologically committed to one side or the other (like the famous Reagan Democrats) and looking to be convinced by one candidate or the other. Mush like McCain, Bush I, and Dole don't convince anyone.

Ignatz, I was ready to agree, but your last paragraph threw me off. Did you get that backwards or do I just need to get some sleep?

bad

cathyf!! The visuals........

JM Hanes

Ignatz

I'm not the one who said conservatives cost GHWB the election, that was Ralph Reed. This moderate, however, has gone to the polls for conservatives, so there's one for your list. I'd just note that I've heard a whole lot more conservatives threaten to stay home, than I've ever heard moderates doing, and Karl Rove's big push required putting specific red meat issues on the table -- which I did not support myself -- in order to get social conservatives to turn out in sufficient force to make a difference. It would be interesting to know what those numbers looked like in 2008.

Ignatz

Ignatz, I was ready to agree, but your last paragraph threw me off. Did you get that backwards or do I just need to get some sleep?

jimmyk,

The frequent premise of GOP moderates is that conservatives are disloyal and childish because they turn out fewer voters when a mush head like McCain runs.
The unspoken, and I believe incorrect, implication is that moderates in the GOP don't do that when a conservative runs.
If there is evidence they don't do the same thing they accuse conservatives of doing I'll consider reevaluating my premise.

Ignatz

I'm not the one who said conservatives cost GHWB the election, that was Ralph Reed.

JMH,

The original statement I believe would more accurately indicate Reed was stating that Bush cost himself the election by governing as a moderate and neglecting his base.
I think that is a rather large distinction and precisely the problem with moderate GOP candidates. They think conservatives are bought and paid for by the GOP and can be ignored with impunity because they're as principless as the candidates themselves.

Ignatz

Nite all.
BTW, I love disagreeing with you JMH, cause you always make me reexamine things and are always fair about it, but gotta go pick up my daughter.

Pofarmer

Geez bad, just the schtoooopidity of the policies these guys are implementing should be scandal enough.

boris

"a whole lot more conservatives threaten to stay home, than I've ever heard moderates doing"

The moderate version is "those Schiavo dittoheads are a drag on attracting enough hip young moderates to win elections"

Frankly the conservatives (1) can actually deliver on their promise if they choose but (2) generally vote anyway and (3) while moderates may think their version is "nicer" it really isn't.

bad

C'mon Po, humor me... Imagine....

JM Hanes

Ignatz:

Your argument is getting a little convoluted, isn't it? You started out saying that moderate Republicans lose elections, which certainly wouldn't be because moderates stayed home would it? When a conservative Republican wins, it certainly wouldn't happen if moderates were staying home or switching parties either. Doesn't that really suggest that it's conservatives who think that moderates are "bought and paid for" not vice versa? Saying that when conservatives stay home, it's the candidate's fault seems a distinction without a difference here.

bad

Sweet dreams, Ignatz.

JM Hanes

Ditto here, Ignatz!

JM Hanes

bad:

I think cathyf's vignette is about all the imagining anyone could need -- or stand -- for the night!

Captain Hate

If anybody here is taking that obese ignorant whore Meghan McCain seriously we're in deeper shit than I want to contemplate. To hell with her and her valley girl ethos.

JM Hanes

Do you have a daughter Captain Hate?

Stephanie

The Meagan way is NOT the way to woo the hip crowd or the centrists. Her way is the Wigeral way and the hip crowd and centrists are cool to the faux hipness. Obama was elected; because in large part, it was cool to vote for him and the public put their fingers in their ears to his shortcomings. Meagan can tat til the cows come home, but as long as she espouses adopting the signifiers of hipness as opposed to being hip, her way is failure.

This will be insensitive and offensive, but here goes... there is a term that the twenty somethings use called a wigger... it is a derogatory term bastardized to signify a white person acting black to be cool. Just as a white person can't be black, adapting black cultural signifiers only succeeds in labeling you as a wannabee not the real thing. And a large modicum of ridicule for being a wannabe **gger. Meagan's way is the same problem for republicans. That is why I call her a Wigeral...

You aren't hip if your hipness consists of screaming "but I'm hip, too!! See I have tats and piercings and listen to punk!" Hipness that is hip is a self evolved style that is adopted by others. And that is where the tea parties come in...

The tea parties are a threat; because, they are a possible new avenue of co-opting the hipness of the new trend to be an O fan. If it becomes the in thing to do, then the liberals have lost....

And the republicans can't co-opt the tea parties, or be seen to be co-opting them either (which is why that talking point is being pushed) or the movement will suffer from the weight of the GOP's baggage, as sold by the MSM. Republicans can only profit once the movement itself reaches full flower and endorses them, not the other way around...

Patience will reward the republicans.

But that is just my two cents on the problem.

MayBee

I don't think there needs to be any one way. There are only two parties, and each has to carry a wide disparity of opinion to win.

It seems the guiding electoral principle should be, "are we better off with this sector, or without it?". Because alone, the proponents of any one philosophy can't win an election.

Nobody has to do what Megan McCain says to do, and nobody has to do what Eric Cantor wants. Is there any compromising to be done, however, that can keep us from 8 years of Obama and Pelosi?

jimmyk

Is there any compromising to be done, however, that can keep us from 8 years of Obama and Pelosi?

Compromising doesn't work in political campaigns any better than it works in dealing with terrorists. The time for compromise is after you get elected, in the legislative process (if necessary). The best way to keep us from 8 years of Obama and Pelosi is to strike a clear, coherent message. Convince the muddle of your position, don't muddle your position. Compromising turns your message to mush, as McCain discovered.

boris

"keep us from 8 years of Obama and Pelosi?"

One that has worked a few times is a candidate that both ends of the GOP spectrum can trust. RR and GWB had that quality in different ways. No question of core principles but expressed prudently rather than pragmatic or rigid.

That may be harder to achieve anymore. The entire US spectrum is spread out so far that even within the GOP from one end to the other there is little common ground.

More than compromise what's needed is common ground. Kinda seems like Meg has set sail for LaLa Land instead.

narciso

I thought this thread, had gone the way of the Norwegian blue parrot. well you know my candidate preference, but I was originally for Giuliani, so I made allowances because of his strong foreign policy and pro law enforcement stands. The thing is Meghan McCain "Kim Bauer of the GOP" doesn't focus on any notably conservative stance on those area or economics, so really what good is she on other areas. She's not getting a 6 million dollar advance to expound on those weighty topics, but to be the female Scott McClellan. I might be wrong, ubt I don't think so.

Ignatz

Your argument is getting a little convoluted, isn't it?

Well, I did say it was counterintuitive.
The answer lies in the independents not within the party.
What little data I've seen suggests moderate and conservative GOPers support dissimilar candidates pretty similarly. IOW, they both stay home at roughly similar rates.
The difference is independents apparently are more willing to support a conservative who truly offers an alternative to the Dem candidate than they are a moderate who offers only a squishier version of the Dem.

I suspect Independents may be overweighted with disaffected Repubs and semi-libertarians, or perhaps they are simply less idealogical than even GOP moderates and are simply looking for someone with strong principles.

Captain Hate

Do you have a daughter Captain Hate?

I just saw this; two of 'em.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame