Should we just retreat?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Actually, Gilchrist was probably a good guy to primary, based on the odds

Yeah. Right up until you remember that something like half the district is the Eastern Shore. Not quite as utterly stupid as the the primarying of the last Democratic rep for Western Maryland back in the early '90's (because nothing as far as primaries go can ever be quite that stupid) but it's up there.

[Lunar]

Actually, Gilchrist was probably a good guy to primary, based on the odds

Yeah. Right up until you remember that something like half the district is the Eastern Shore.

Well the Republican almost won, no?  The unexpected endorsement of the defeated Congressman of both his Democratic opponent and Barack Obama could be viewed to have tipped the scales.  Perhaps if they waited until 2010 to do it, it would have been smarter.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You did say when the results were coming in that you would've voted for Harris.

Ok...so...how does that make me a big supporter of ousting Gilchrist?

Come on. You can do it. Just admit that you're wrong. I wasn't a big supporter of ousting Gilchrist.

OK you were a supporter, not a big supporter. Is this the dumbest semantic argument ever?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You mentioned five seats (not counting the NM U.S. Senate seat that we would have lost anyway). That equals a ton?

It's seats you had no business losing, and how many has the Club for Growth won for you? On a whole the CfG is obviously hurting the Republican Party.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Seeing the news in Pennsylvania is just depressing.

The animals are gnawing and licking their frothy rabid chops, all aiming to tear our valiant hero, Arlen Specter, to pieces.

The conservanuts are intent on destroying every moderate they can regardless of the consequences.

The Democrats show no mercy regardless of whether one is a moderate or a far-right extremist.

What is our hero to do?

You know.. I just watched a show on Discovery about Humboldt Squid...

They are intelligent creatures that communicate in pretty complex ways and even work together when hunting for food.  They are quite docile and friendly towards humans, most of the time.

Except when there are fishing boats up above.  Many divers dive under the fishing boats to observe the bizarre behavior that the squid exhibit when they are being hunted from above.

They get really pissed off and start attacking the humans and go on a cannibalistic frenzy, tearing eachother apart and eating eachother.

While they're busy destroying eachother, the fishermen above just keep picking them off.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

For the record it's amusing how Phil claims to not be an extremist and just a mainstream conservative, but love the Club for Growth who focus on not electing mainstream conservatives but rather people like Bill Sali.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Actually, Gilchrist was probably a good guy to primary, based on the odds

Yeah. Right up until you remember that something like half the district is the Eastern Shore.

Well the Republican almost won, no?  The unexpected endorsement of the defeated Congressman of both his Democratic opponent and Barack Obama could be viewed to have tipped the scales.  Perhaps if they waited until 2010 to do it, it would have been smarter.

Nominating a candidate from the Baltimore suburbs was playing with fire. The Eastern Shore's attitude is very provincial, especially towards the Western Shore. Obama's only effect was boosting black turnout, since he lost the district by 20 points.

[minionofmidas]

Of course, in so far as I understand this right, the Club for Growth didn't go "Lessee, who's a RINO blocking a safe seat that ought to elect one of ourn? Wayne Gilchrest comes to mind. Let's draft someone to primary him." rather it goes "OMG there's a primary race in a safe seat between someone we like and someone we don't like! Let's throw money at it!"
It amounts to much the same thing in most respects (although not if there's no primary challenge in the first place). The first approach would be more honest, including to themselves - it would bring more clarity about what they are, in fact, doing.
It would also help avoid tactical blunders like this one.

[Keystone Phil]

OK you were a supporter, not a big supporter. Is this the dumbest semantic argument ever?

I really didn't care and no, it's not a semantic argument. You said I was a big advocate for replacing Gilchrist. You're wrong and you refuse to admit it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know exactly how many they won. I haven't been obsessed with it as much as some.

Yeah, we have no business losing some of them. Maybe the crybaby primary losers endorsing the Dems should be partly to blame.

For the record it's amusing how Phil claims to not be an extremist and just a mainstream conservative, but love the Club for Growth who focus on not electing mainstream conservatives but rather people like Bill Sali.

Oh, you want to get owned on this one again?

BRTD, tell me how I'm an extremist. Give me the issues. You're obviously hinting at me being an extremist in your comment. You know it isn't true so you use some half assed connection to prove it.

I was never a fan of Sali but that doesn't mean every conservative that the Club endorses is extreme. Not surprising that you are being disingenuous yet again. A+ for effort, Zach.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The thing is this though, it was a three-way race. The third candidate was a conservative from the Eastern Shore, who would've likely won.

Basically there was a race between a centrist from the right part of the district politically, a mainstream conservative from the right part of the district politically, and a far right-winger (From what I read, Harris was possibly the single most conservative member of the Maryland Senate and was frequently on the losing end of XX-1 votes.) from the the wrong part of the district politically. And who does the CfG back? They NEVER take electability or pragmatism into account.

Also why the CfG doesn't really actively recruit candidates, they did sort of take the first approach by hinting that they would back a challenger to Gilchrest and thus attract one who might not have ran otherwise. The CfG frequently issues "RINO Watch" type stuff and hitlists to attract people they then fund. They tried the same thing against Walter Jones too but failed (Kind of amusing they went after a guy who endorsed Ron Paul, but then again, neither Paul or Jones is the type of economic conservative the CfG likes.)

[minionofmidas]

Doesn't really contradict my argument (maybe it wasn't worded well), which is basically that a little more clarity about what they themselves are would, you know, help them.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

OK you were a supporter, not a big supporter. Is this the dumbest semantic argument ever?

I really didn't care and no, it's not a semantic argument. You said I was a big advocate for replacing Gilchrist. You're wrong and you refuse to admit it.

Even if it wasn't one of your big concerns, here's what it comes down to: Who would you have voted for in that primary if you lived in the district?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know exactly how many they won. I haven't been obsessed with it as much as some.

The answer is none, the CfG has really only backed the more electable candidate once (AK-AL) and in that case they lost and held the seat anyway. There's reason why Alaska was basically the only time ever the CfG and RSCC or NRCC were on the same side.

Yeah, we have no business losing some of them. Maybe the crybaby primary losers endorsing the Dems should be partly to blame.

OK, blame Gilchrest there, but there's still the others I mentioned.

For the record it's amusing how Phil claims to not be an extremist and just a mainstream conservative, but love the Club for Growth who focus on not electing mainstream conservatives but rather people like Bill Sali.

Oh, you want to get owned on this one again?

BRTD, tell me how I'm an extremist. Give me the issues. You're obviously hinting at me being an extremist in your comment. You know it isn't true so you use some half assed connection to prove it.

You're missing the point, which is that the CfG doesn't even represent your own interests by what you claim.

I was never a fan of Sali but that doesn't mean every conservative that the Club endorses is extreme. Not surprising that you are being disingenuous yet again. A+ for effort, Zach.

Uh yeah. Please give me an example where the CfG didn't back the biggest right wing nutjob possible. See my post above too for a great example.

And please don't argue that Toomey wasn't extreme. His ratings from conservative advocacy groups were usually >95 and his ratings from liberal advocacy groups was usually <5.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Doesn't really contradict my argument (maybe it wasn't worded well), which is basically that a little more clarity about what they themselves are would, you know, help them.

They don't just go after safe seats though. Rhode Island 2006 comes to mind. Sure that seat was lost anyway but they were still trying to remove a guy who did have a chance of winning and would've done better without the damaging campaign against him and would've even been the favorite in any normal political climate in favor of a guy who had no chance in hell of winning under any circumstances.

[Lunar]

CFG does do some good things, like this:
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2008/08/new_ad_in_alaska.php


Parnell would have been more electable than Young

[Keystone Phil]

Even if it wasn't one of your big concerns

So this is your way of admitting you were wrong. Pathetic how you can't just say it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would have been undecided for a good amount of time but end up voting for Harris (that was his name, correct?).

That's not the point though. Your point was that I was a big proponent of ousting Gilchrist. This. Is. Not. True.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The answer is none? Really? Tom Coburn? Only back the more electable candidate once? I remember a primary to Lisa Murkowski and, again, Coburn. I'm sure there's more. I won't rely on you for honest answers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I remember Nym mentioning another Republican that ended up backing the Dem.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think they're extreme.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I guess in a race between a RINO and a conservative, the conservative is the "biggest right wing nutjob possible" by default. Not really a good point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Give me some extreme positions that he has held.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

CFG does do some good things, like this:
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2008/08/new_ad_in_alaska.php


Parnell would have been more electable than Young

I mentioned that as the exception.

One exception does not disprove the rule.

[minionofmidas]

CFG does do some good things, like this:
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2008/08/new_ad_in_alaska.php


Parnell would have been more electable than Young

I mentioned that as the exception.

One exception does not disprove the rule.

It's not even an exception. It would be an exception only if they were actually intending to lose the Republican Party seats, rather than just blind to the possibility of it happening.