web analytics

Course correction

Some of y’all may remember how I was traumatized in 2006 when I was bullied into voting for Lincoln Fucking Chafee for Senate — after the party utterly shat upon and just squeaked a win over his conservative rival in the primaries. I HAD to vote for him because it was the most important election ever and the Northeast simply won’t support a conservative and what are you, some kinda whiny baby?

Oh, and puuuuuuurity tessssssst!

You know what happened: Chafee lost to a genuine Democrat, quit the party in a cloud of sulfur, and all the fingers on my voting hand turned black, shriveled up and fell off.

I swore my remaining hand would never pull the lever for a politician I hate and no amount of, “be reasonable, Wingnut” would change my mind. (John McCain doesn’t count — I voted for Sarah Palin and he happened to be on the ticket).

Others may come to other conclusions, and I understand their reasoning. I sure as shit don’t want any part of the red-on-red smashmouth slap-fest rolling around the right-o-sphere today.

But for me, I’ve decided that every election can’t be the most important win ever and moving the party to the right is more important than winning. More important even than a majority, with all the controls and committee chairmanships and other legislative goodies that go with.

But I still felt pretty uneasy about that conclusion until I read this excellent piece by Ben Domenech:

Conservatives should not tolerate the likes of Mike Castle because of the simple fact that a 51 member Senate with Mike Castle is a Senate where Mike Castle is the most important vote in the room. As Specter and others before him, that Senator will set the terms of policy debates, determining in advance what can succeed and fail. Those who advance the argument that a majority with Castle is better than being in the minority tend to place priorities on Senate committee chairmanships and staff ratios and lobbyist cash… a list which pales in comparison to the power they would wield as the broker for both sides.

Do read the whole thing.

Comments


Comment from S. Weasel
Time: September 15, 2010, 6:18 pm

I’m sure this is how the Dem base feels about the Blue Dogs. I’m not sure they’re wrong. In as much as I prefer Democrats that act like Republicans, wouldn’t it be better not to have a muddle of leftist righties and rightest lefties making up the constituency that drives our politics.

I’d rather win or lose with a clear message than to squeak into power by pretending to be something we’re not.


Comment from Uncle Badger
Time: September 15, 2010, 6:28 pm

Any American even considering for a moment being swayed by these imbeciles should take a long, hard look at Ye Olde Countrie.

We went through much the same before our last election and had foisted upon us a ‘Conservative’ so wet he could happily have served in the government of that posturing charlatan, Tony Blair.

Just like you, we had to endure the spectacle of ‘Conservative’ pundits telling us all that mattered was getting the Left out of office.

Fine. We did that. Now we have a government of wets, propped-up by an alliance with lentil-munchers and sandal wearers. And still you would think, from the howls of outrage in the Leftist media (which is almost all of it here), that Old Nick was warming his backside by the fire at No 10.

Politicians go native. Every few years, whichever party they pretend to support, they need taking out and culling, to be replaced with people who still remember what the real world is like. Republicans (or Conservatives) are most definitely not excepted.


Comment from Bill (still the .00358% of your traffic that’s from Iraq) T
Time: September 15, 2010, 6:48 pm

Conservatives should not tolerate the likes of Mike Castle because of the simple fact that he has not one single shred of integrity.

There. Fixed it for ya, Mr. Domenech.


Comment from S. Weasel
Time: September 15, 2010, 6:58 pm

I’m surprised to hear you talk about a “cull” of any kind, Uncle B.

In case you don’t follow our politics and know what he’s on about (or just to recap), Tories got the most votes, Labour got second most, and the LibDems came in a distant third — even behind expectations.

But to put together a ruling coalition, Tories got together with the LibDems. It effectively means much of the country’s direction is being dictated by the party that nobody much voted for.

Plus, Cameron of the Tories is a gigantic squish to begin with (which is what “wet” means over here). He will always look more favorably to the left of him than the right of him.


Comment from steve
Time: September 15, 2010, 8:26 pm

Is it redundant to refer to someone as a “weedy wet”?

Inquiring minds, on this side of the western ocean, want to know.

On the political front, I have to agree with that logic. Too often the professional political elite gets all excited about the nicer offices, the committee chairmanship, the additional staff and the more handsome bribes that all accrue upon their ascendancy into the majority.

And as for those of us who carved up chunks of our meger paychecks and coughed up hundreds of hours to put their lying, theiving butts into office….I guess we can all just sit on that big pile of sand with a hammer….

I think I am just about done with that.

I can take being lied to by a Democrat, as they are all unprincipled liars from the outset and I really expect nothing more from them…

But this endless parade of “conservatives”, promising smaller government and lower taxes, while delivering ….well I am beyond disappointed with them.

And if Mike Castle’s defeat starts to bring home, to out political class, the real meaning of “If you are in, you are out!”….that is worth it in and of itself….


Comment from Uncle Badger
Time: September 15, 2010, 8:54 pm

Hmm… good question, steve. I’d have said no.., a wet can be wet without being a weed. It’s nice alliteration, anyway 😉


Comment from Mark
Time: September 15, 2010, 9:42 pm

I actually voted for Palin/McCain via write-in. Not sure if or how the Supervisor of Elections actually counted it, since they DEFINITELY did not list it that way in the election results. But then it was a moot point with the overwhelming win by The One in Florida anyway…


Comment from Ric Locke
Time: September 15, 2010, 11:01 pm

The most *ahem!* interesting thing, in the apochryphal Chinese sense, was the instant response from the Establishment Republicans. Several people have noted that in his entire visible career, Carl Rove *never* went off like that against a Democrat.

We’re taking notes, we are.

BTW what’s Brit for “pissed off”?

Regards,
Ric


Comment from Uncle Badger
Time: September 16, 2010, 12:18 am

Ric – jolly well pissed off, I say, old boy!


Comment from Monotone (The Elderish)
Time: September 16, 2010, 12:19 am

pissed off is the “british” pissed off. its a british phrase.


Comment from Monotone (The Elderish)
Time: September 16, 2010, 12:22 am

but what uncle B said works too.


Comment from Uncle Badger
Time: September 16, 2010, 12:29 am

Mon… Shhhh! They don’t know 😉


Comment from Monotone (The Elderish)
Time: September 16, 2010, 12:37 am

ahh…. right…. shh…. got it. 😉


Comment from Enas Yorl
Time: September 16, 2010, 2:30 am

Wait, what?? You guys are supposed to have the super-posh version of “pissed off”!

*illusion shattered*


Comment from TexMex
Time: September 16, 2010, 2:47 am

Speaking of Sarah Palin, I couldn’t imagine after seeing her have to carry water for McCain then going back to Alaska in 2008 that she would be leading the charge to elect conservatives in 2010. I mean, I knew she was something different, but I didn’t think she’d turn the shittiness of 2008 into a training ground for 2010. Maybe 2012?

Who knows. What I do know is: I’m glad Sarah Palin is on our side and she’s got a pair of brass ovaries. I like that lady.


Comment from The Dread Pirate Neck Beard
Time: September 16, 2010, 3:08 am

It’s the classic fight between the GOP loyalists and the conservatives. I really think the only way to end this sort of thing is to do what those unelectable upstarts did in the 1850s and split the party.


Comment from Rich Rostrom
Time: September 16, 2010, 7:28 am

It’s more complex than the triumphalist “insurgents” are saying. Castle was a centrist, not a liberal. This has not stopped the ranters from calling him a Commie, or saying his voting record was the same as Obama.

Christine O’Donnell has no substance. The other Tea Party Senate candidates have real life stories: Federal Magistrate judge and decorated combat soldier; practicing physician; schoolteacher and grandmother of ten; National Guard officer and state legislator; Supreme Court litigator; butt-kicking prosecutor. O’Donnell is like Jesse Jackson – she never ran anything but her mouth.

And when she runs her mouth, weird things come out of it. Like stories about mysterious stalkers hiding in the bushes and burglarizing her house. Or claims that in previous elections she won counties that she actually lost. Or that six months after getting fired from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute she was still so upset and distressed that she couldn’t sleep and often broke into tears.

Her campaign lied about Castle. Repeatedly, blatantly, uanshamedly. There are plenty of real sticks to beat him with; as a centrist, he’s about as far left as Republicans get. But that wasn’t enough to get the Angry Right fired up, so they made stuff up. That’s what got Rove and company so sawed off.

Castle won about a dozen elections in Delaware. While O’Donnell and McCain were losing in 2008 by over 100,000 votes, Castle was winning by almost 100,000 votes.

Her “great triumph” is outpolling Castle 30,000 to 27,000. There will be 250,000 votes in the general election. I doubt that margin will scale up.

Oh, and she’s a young-earth creationist. Public advocate of “equal time for creationism” in the 1990s. That’s rather bizarre in a Catholic, but she got paid for it. Most of the Tea Party are not social conservatives, much less religious fundamentalists. But the MSM will hang her on the Tea Party like a rotting albatross.

I just hope she doesn’t take Sarah Palin down with her.


Comment from Bill (still the .00358% of your traffic that’s from Iraq) T
Time: September 16, 2010, 8:45 am

This has not stopped the ranters from calling him a Commie, or saying his voting record was the same as Obama.

Castle has a decidedly Lib voting record, but you’re right, his voting record is *not* the same as Obama’s — Obie voted “Present” most of the time…


Comment from QuasiModo
Time: September 16, 2010, 10:39 am

OT: I’m surprised you haven’t done any spoofing on the democrats new logo: http://bit.ly/bV6UPZ …the comments are pretty good there 🙂


Comment from S. Weasel
Time: September 16, 2010, 10:59 am

I think the message of this election, Rich, is that many would even prefer incompetent nutjobs from the hinterlands in Washington than members of the same-old, same-old cozy DC cocktail circuit. The insane can do less harm than the corrupt.

I can’t believe they’re letting those comments stand, Quasi. In fact, they’re utterly insane to allow comments at all. I’d goof on the thing, but it’s sort of self-mocking, innit?


Comment from Argentium G. Tiger
Time: September 16, 2010, 11:19 am

What QuasiModo said, I was thinking along the lines of a big squishy turd shaped like a “D”.

Or for truth in advertising along what Uncle Badger says, both the House and the Senate buildings with a LOT of that substance coming out of the doors/windows, and lifting their roofs off.

Oh, and since this is my first post here, a big hello to both S.Weasel and Uncle Badger!


Comment from QuasiModo
Time: September 16, 2010, 11:53 am

“I can’t believe they’re letting those comments stand, Quasi. In fact, they’re utterly insane to allow comments at all. I’d goof on the thing, but it’s sort of self-mocking, innit?”

Yeah, the comments over there are great, aren’t they?…they must have just posted it and ran away to be leaving them up there.

One of the supposed ‘rules for radicals’ is to ridicule your enemies…I don’t think they can be ridiculed too much…they earned it.

Anyway, they’ll be needing T-Shirts and coffee mugs for the coming election season so that’s an opening for you to sell some merchandise, no?


Comment from Some Vegetable
Time: September 16, 2010, 12:48 pm

Christine O’Donnell has no substance +1

…many would even prefer incompetent nutjobs from the hinterlands in Washington than members of the same-old, same-old cozy DC cocktail circuit. The insane can do less harm than the corrupt. +9

The election of Obama really was about “hope and change” (and ABC – anybody but Clinton). People were tired of Washington. We’d had the Republicans and they failed us. I like Bush but he never even scalded a pig let alone vetoed one.

What you will have this year is (see ODonnell) “Anybody but the same old bastards who have gotten us into this fine mess”.

What Washington hasn’t recognized yet is that this is the same anger that got us Obama ; it is the second warning to the government, not its first.

I am concerned that we are headed down a path towards worse rather than better government.

Perhaps my view is biased by the fact that I’m currently reading The French Revolution – by Hippolyte Taine. However I need to point out that Obama doesn’t parallel the ancient regime, but rather the first blushes of the revolutionary party, doing what it thinks the people need.

. . . in all that relates to political institutions and social organization its proceedings are those of an academy of Utopians, and not those of practical legislators.—On the sick body entrusted to it, it performed amputations which were as useless as they were excessive, and applied bandages as inadequate as they were injurious. With the exception of two or three restrictions admitted inadvertently, and the maintenance of the show of royalty{here please substitute American Democracy}, also the obligation of a small electoral qualification, it carried out its principle to the end, the principle of Rousseau. It deliberately refused to consider man as he really was under its own eyes, and persisted in seeing nothing in him but the abstract being created in books. Consequently, with the blindness and obstinacy characteristic of a speculative surgeon, it destroyed, in the society submitted to its scalpel and its theories, not only the tumors, the enlargements, and the inflamed parts of the organs, but also the organs themselves, and even the vital governing centers around which cells arrange themselves to recompose an injured organ.

The American people do not want nor need the elaborate theories of Rousseau practiced on them. They want, as did the French people, lower taxes and bread.

Having said all this, I don’t know what other course we have. I suspect, that after this period of disruption gets too bad, we’re going to get our Napoleon.

/rant off


Comment from S. Weasel
Time: September 16, 2010, 1:51 pm

I’m inclined to agree with you, Some Vegetable. This year’s election isn’t so much a fix as much as a tornado blowing through the trailer park of government.

I don’t know if things will get better as a result, but I am enjoying the sheer destructive energy of it.


Comment from Oldcat
Time: September 16, 2010, 3:35 pm

Sorry Rich, but the fact that Castle is refusing to support the Republican nominee now shows that those who voted for anyone rather than him were right all along.

He’s a time server, and not a good party member. He would have betrayed them if elected just the same.

The way I look at it, someone who has been around as long as Castle has two strikes against him. Someone the Democrats don’t want to knock off has a few more. And I certainly would take the veiws of the ‘establishment’ of the party in a state where the Dems are in so solid.

I’m in California myself, where the Republicans are dead as a party, so we are reduced to taking anyone off the street. Am I in love with Arnold, Carly, or Meg? No, but they are better than the Dems, and everything here needs to be turned on its head. Some Repubican party flack who is content with the status quo isn’t an option out here.


Comment from Monotone (The Elderish)
Time: September 16, 2010, 4:11 pm

I’m hoping the dems paid someone to do that to their site. thanks for the link Quasi. thats great lol….


Comment from Oldcat
Time: September 16, 2010, 4:14 pm

Its the Democrats Mono. I’m sure they have some kind of government grant for it.


Comment from Ric Locke
Time: September 16, 2010, 4:21 pm

Instead of rearranging the deck chairs, they’re sending a crew up to change the chop on the funnel.

S. Weasel, will you be critiquing the new logo from a graphic design standpoint? I think it’s perfect, myself.

Regards,
Ric
(link is shameless blogwhoring, no known malware there)


Comment from Monotone (The Elderish)
Time: September 16, 2010, 4:27 pm

ah, your probably right… still, don’t know who designed that logo but its quite pathetic. And VERY open to photoshopping… 🙂


Comment from Festive Protrudence
Time: September 16, 2010, 4:32 pm

I got into a discussion thread on this subject on Ace’s after McCain was video’d by the local liberal newspaper (but I repeat myself) speaking and apparently encouraging a group of illegal immigrants who were for the DREAM act – (for those that don’t know, that’s a bill that if passed would allow residency to those that can prove they’ve managed to break our laws by staying in the country 5 years without being caught and then allow them to either go to college or join the military.)

There were arguments for both sides comparing the Hayworth vs McCain fight to the O’Donnel vs Castle; I can see arguments both ways.

But, sometimes I really do think it’s more worthwhile to let a Marxist / Socialist win as opposed to hiring on a moderate like John McCain or Mike Castle, and the reason is: It is exactly because of Republicans that are for liberal taxing and spending that cause people to quit the party. When you have republican representatives that spend nearly as bad as democrats, people are going to be turned off and vote democrat to get away from it. In other words, people like McCain are The Reason that we have the Biggest Leftist Evar serving as president right now. It was senators and congressman like McCain and Castle that spent like drunken sailors up until 2006. (2006 on was dems doing what they always do)

The idea that we should put in a Republican moderate just so we can win doesn’t hold water. When people work ‘across the aisle’ to pass socialist laws, the blame should be saddled exactly where it belongs, with liberal democrats. Having liberal republicans muddies the message of the party and ends up backfiring, bigtime. We need real conservatives showing up as candidates to show the citizens why it really is the right way to run the country. Electing moderates simply enables the liberals.

Meanwhile here in Arizona, even though McCain was pretty much a shoe-in against a disliked opponent, a trust fund baby lib by the name of Glassman from my town, he’s doing his best right after the primary to once again piss off the base.

I almost wish Glassman would win, just so it was a Democrat addressing the illegals like they are constituents instead McCain the sorry sack.


Comment from Mazzuchelli
Time: September 16, 2010, 6:01 pm

Fine, but what about your chickens?


Comment from steve
Time: September 16, 2010, 7:41 pm

I am still chuckling to myself….

I was just over at Ace’s and there is a post there with a shopped Dem logo at the bottom that says “D-….See Me After Class”

So….building on this staggeringly successful roll-out of this “exciting” new logo….

….Can we simply scrap the current Death Pool and start a new one….

I want to take the Dems new logo…..

And Weasel already has my address….if she sends me a new box of Dix, today….I’ll bet they still don’t make it to me before they haul that stoop-it logo down….

(This is gonna make New Coke look like the biggest marketing success in history….)


Comment from Nina from GCP
Time: September 17, 2010, 12:21 am

We’re taking notes, we are.

Oh yeah we are. Copious notes.


Comment from Pablo
Time: September 17, 2010, 5:18 am

Some of y’all may remember how I was traumatized in 2006 when I was bullied into voting for Lincoln Fucking Chafee for Senate — after the party utterly shat upon and just squeaked a win over his conservative rival in the primaries. I HAD to vote for him because it was the most important election ever and the Northeast simply won’t support a conservative and what are you, some kinda whiny baby?

I did the same thing, and you know what I wound up with? Sheldon Whitehouse and a deep longing for Steve Laffey.

Maybe I should move.


Comment from musical mountaineer
Time: September 20, 2010, 4:28 pm

Ben Domenech may be right about this, but he’s a snarky, sarcastic, disingenuous little shit. He’s also a plagiarist who brought shame on the National Review and was dumped as a result. This is the second time I’ve seen his name in a year. He must figure it’s rehabilitation time. But his stuck-up attitude and pissant smear tactics made him some enemies in the long-ago blogosphere, including me. Poor bastard will hopefully be hounded to his grave.

Write a comment

(as if I cared)

(yeah. I'm going to write)

(oooo! you have a website?)


Beware: more than one link in a comment is apt to earn you a trip to the spam filter, where you will remain -- cold, frightened and alone -- until I remember to clean the trap. But, hey, without Akismet, we'd be up to our asses in...well, ass porn, mostly.


<< carry me back to ol' virginny