Nevermore shall we hear the plaintive call of 'Reluctant Nay'

[Associate Justice PiT]

And isn't that wonderful news?

Is this about Yankee? If so, you are a terrible person.

[Associate Justice PiT]

And isn't that wonderful news?

Is this about Yankee? If so, you are a terrible person.

I would not say so. As conservatives, we needed someone, at that critical juncture, to stand up for the basic principles of free enterprise, the market economy, and pure fiscal sanity. For him to have signalled "reluctance" in opposing the ludicrous piece of legislation that was the Fuel and Power Act was tantamount to saying that his support of those principles was equally ambivalent.

I have have long had great respect for Yankee and his service, and I thank him for it, but the fact is that it had simply become too milquetoast, both in the Senate and as leader of the Federalists, who now are, and I don't think anyone would deny this, interminably moribund. Regardless, I doubt we will see anyone who will come close to his political longevity- and he managed to survive Operation Cottonfield, mind you- any time soon, if ever. I wish him the best.

     I wonder who the longest-tenured current officeholder is now. Yankee held that distinction by a huge margin. Before him it was Dibble, and before Dibble it was opebo.

[Associate Justice PiT]

And isn't that wonderful news?

Is this about Yankee? If so, you are a terrible person.

I would not say so. As conservatives, we needed someone, at that critical juncture, to stand up for the basic principles of free enterprise, the market economy, and pure fiscal sanity. For him to have signalled "reluctance" in opposing the ludicrous piece of legislation that was the Fuel and Power Act was tantamount to saying that his support of those principles was equally ambivalent.

I have have long had great respect for Yankee and his service, and I thank him for it, but the fact is that it had simply become too milquetoast, both in the Senate and as leader of the Federalists, who now are, and I don't think anyone would deny this, interminably moribund. Regardless, I doubt we will see anyone who will come close to his political longevity- and he managed to survive Operation Cottonfield, mind you- any time soon, if ever. I wish him the best.

     I wonder who the longest-tenured current officeholder is now. Yankee held that distinction by a huge margin. Before him it was Dibble, and before Dibble it was opebo.

I think it's Homelycooking followed by Bgwah.

     I would have guessed Bgwah, but hats off to homelycooking. For a cabinet member to hold that distinction is damn impressive.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I think it's funny Simfan is pulling the card of "Yankee doesn't stand up for our principles" when Simfan likely votes more often for candidates outside of his own ideological background than he does for those within it.

How many candidates are there that come from my "ideological background" in the first place?

You can dress it up in nuance all you like, but you're a right-winger: there are plenty.

Of course I'm a right-winger. That doesn't obligate me to vote for JCL.

Uh, in this game and in this dynamic, it kind of does. Of course, that's the true problem with the Right in terms of internal structure and order. It's not Yankee that's the problem with respect to how he votes in the Senate: it's individuals such as yourself that comprise the half-dozen special snowflake factions among the Right that all feel entitled to unique treatment and platforms, or else they take their ball and go home. I remember the far left having this problem a couple of years ago, until my glorious reign bashed some skulls and ended most of that (no one can ever truly please the softcocks nor the purist of loons, unfortunately).

I'm sure that most voters on the left would have just as much trouble voting for someone comparable to JCL from their own side of the aisle. There isn't one, though, because JCL is sui generis. This is someone who managed to serve through an entire session of the Senate while remaining completely oblivious to its rules. Of course, with better organization, the Federalists might have found  a more competent candidate - not necessarily a less radical one, but someone who is, errr, more with it - to run in the first place.

     Any issues that most people have with JCL (not necessarily yourself) pertain to his views, as these issues well predate his stint in the Senate. In terms of somebody's ideological views, there is most definitely a high-profile member of the Labor Party who is analogous to him. Yes, this person has enjoyed significant electoral success, unlike JCL.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I think it's funny Simfan is pulling the card of "Yankee doesn't stand up for our principles" when Simfan likely votes more often for candidates outside of his own ideological background than he does for those within it.

How many candidates are there that come from my "ideological background" in the first place?

You can dress it up in nuance all you like, but you're a right-winger: there are plenty.

Of course I'm a right-winger. That doesn't obligate me to vote for JCL.

Uh, in this game and in this dynamic, it kind of does. Of course, that's the true problem with the Right in terms of internal structure and order. It's not Yankee that's the problem with respect to how he votes in the Senate: it's individuals such as yourself that comprise the half-dozen special snowflake factions among the Right that all feel entitled to unique treatment and platforms, or else they take their ball and go home. I remember the far left having this problem a couple of years ago, until my glorious reign bashed some skulls and ended most of that (no one can ever truly please the softcocks nor the purist of loons, unfortunately).

I'm sure that most voters on the left would have just as much trouble voting for someone comparable to JCL from their own side of the aisle. There isn't one, though, because JCL is sui generis. This is someone who managed to serve through an entire session of the Senate while remaining completely oblivious to its rules. Of course, with better organization, the Federalists might have found  a more competent candidate - not necessarily a less radical one, but someone who is, errr, more with it - to run in the first place.

     Any issues that most people have with JCL (not necessarily yourself) pertain to his views, as these issues well predate his stint in the Senate. In terms of somebody's ideological views, there is most definitely a high-profile member of the Labor Party who is analogous to him. Yes, this person has enjoyed significant electoral success, unlike JCL.

I feel like if this person had put themselves out as well as JCL has, I don't think they would enjoy nearly the success they have. The fact is JCL had a chance to govern, and chose to embrace something I suspect he knew would not pass, and that's all.

     JCL was lucky to even have an opportunity to hold federal office. This other person gained office fairly easily. While we can discuss how well each of them did once there, I think it is important to note the difference in electoral success between them, going back to Nix's claim that a left-wing JCL would not fare well with the Labor base.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I think it's funny Simfan is pulling the card of "Yankee doesn't stand up for our principles" when Simfan likely votes more often for candidates outside of his own ideological background than he does for those within it.

How many candidates are there that come from my "ideological background" in the first place?

You can dress it up in nuance all you like, but you're a right-winger: there are plenty.

Of course I'm a right-winger. That doesn't obligate me to vote for JCL.

Uh, in this game and in this dynamic, it kind of does. Of course, that's the true problem with the Right in terms of internal structure and order. It's not Yankee that's the problem with respect to how he votes in the Senate: it's individuals such as yourself that comprise the half-dozen special snowflake factions among the Right that all feel entitled to unique treatment and platforms, or else they take their ball and go home. I remember the far left having this problem a couple of years ago, until my glorious reign bashed some skulls and ended most of that (no one can ever truly please the softcocks nor the purist of loons, unfortunately).

I'm sure that most voters on the left would have just as much trouble voting for someone comparable to JCL from their own side of the aisle. There isn't one, though, because JCL is sui generis. This is someone who managed to serve through an entire session of the Senate while remaining completely oblivious to its rules. Of course, with better organization, the Federalists might have found  a more competent candidate - not necessarily a less radical one, but someone who is, errr, more with it - to run in the first place.

     Any issues that most people have with JCL (not necessarily yourself) pertain to his views, as these issues well predate his stint in the Senate. In terms of somebody's ideological views, there is most definitely a high-profile member of the Labor Party who is analogous to him. Yes, this person has enjoyed significant electoral success, unlike JCL.

There are a couple of relevant differences here, though. First, TNF has an excellent command of the Senate's rules and, more generally, the norms that a Senator needs to abide by to get his proposals passed in some form. Consider how many TNF bills have passed with Federalist votes. Can you imagine JCL pulling that off? If JCL were capable of legislating as effectively as TNF, most Atlasians would see JCL differently, even if his substantive policy wins were very limited.

The second difficulty that JCL faces is that his most unpopular views have to do with familiar wedge issues that cut uncomfortably close to voters' sense of identity. Opposing gay rights or supporting science classes in creationism causes more discomfort among people than support for revolutionary violence against the rich for reasons that pretty obviously have nothing to do with how distant those views are from those of the median voter.

Another good example: JCL's advocacy for his version of Austrian economics sets off obvious alarm bells in most voters' heads because it closely resembles forms of crank-ery that we encounter frequently elsewhere.

Moreover, TNF can express his views articulately. We are all familiar with his characteristically feisty rhetoric, but he can also spin compelling, evidence-based arguments when that is what the situation demands. I have never seen JCL do the same. I am reasonably confident that this isn't just a function of my ideological priors differing from his, because other posters on the right - including DC, Simfan, Dallasfan, and you - consistently make credible and interesting points that I disagree with just as strongly.

     I see what you say, and I would like to thank you for your in-depth post on the matter.

     With that said I think there is also a difference in the backing they have received from their own parties. The Federalists, and that includes myself, need to be better at supporting our own people and dealing with the partisan back-and-forth. That is a part of the difference that has been understated so far. That's why I suggested that we should have a permanent Public Relations Corps.