Toomey is serious

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And another note for the Democrat's best friend Don - He is known for supporting two U.S. Senate candidates (Lisa Murkowski in Alaska and Kirk Humphrys in Oklahoma) in 2004 that were known to be the two least electable candidates in their respective primaries. I believe he also supported former Governor David Beasley in South Carolina's GOP Senate primary in the same year when he had some serious electability questions.

Now Don will come up with wonderful excuses for supporting these people and that's fine but the last thing I need is for him to hold the electability argument in anyone's face. Electability is only an issue when it is convenient for Don.

How the hell can anyone who claims to support moderates for good Gov'ts sake support Lisa Murkowski?

Also, to clear some things up about the two big races mentioned, I can't help but notice some missing facts.

The weeping over former Congressman Schwarz is especially amusing to me. We're made to believe that he, like Gilchrist, fell to some fascist in a 2008 primary. Well, that's wrong. Schwarz lost in the primary in 2006. Walberg won the 2006 General election in this "R +2" district by five points - 51% to 46%. That's not a very close race, Don. Sorry.

He then lost in 2008 by three points. I don't think that's that horrible since "R +2" isn't exactly safe GOP land and 2008 was absolutely horrible for this party. We're talking about an economic collapse and a race in Michigan here.


Now the Maryland race was in more friendly GOP territory but the loss wasn't as crushing as we are led to believe. Harris lost by less than a percentage point. If Gilchrist (someone I have said I had no major problems with before he turned into a whiner) hadn't endorsed the Democrat, I have no doubt that we would have kept this seat. Should we have won it fairly easily? Maybe. Please keep in mind that we went down hard in a lot of areas even with Don's "Moderate Hero" candidates.

What's the excuses for Chris Shays? Is it that maybe some people got tired of us (rightly or wrongly) as a party, Don? We have seen in the past two cycles that the public as a whole hasn't spared us whether we be conservative, moderate or even left wingers. Your former idol Lincoln Chafee even went down hard, my friend.

Lets not forget that Moderate Hero John McCain abandoned Michigan, a state he was only trailing by 5 points, and pulled 65% to 70% of there warchest and dumped it into Maine a state he lost by 16 points and caused a 13 or 15 point loss in MI. Walberg probably would have won were it not for McCain's piss poor campaign strategy.

[Keystone Phil]

How the hell can anyone who claims to support moderates for good Gov'ts sake support Lisa Murkowski?

I'm sure Don will give a respectable answer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's keep it to the people that are directly involved in the district.

We sure as hell didn't hear Don whining in 2006 when Schwarz endorsed the Democratic nominee but he has no problem furthering this myth that Pat Toomey directly helps the Dems.

The problem with this district is that Don, Dems and other Toomey/Club for Growth haters will have you believe that this is another area that ought to be totally safe for the GOP. It's not. It's "R +2" based on the source they cited. Give me a break.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How the hell can anyone who claims to support moderates for good Gov'ts sake support Lisa Murkowski?

I'm sure Don will give a respectable answer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's keep it to the people that are directly involved in the district.

We sure as hell didn't hear Don whining in 2006 when Schwarz endorsed the Democratic nominee but he has no problem furthering this myth that Pat Toomey directly helps the Dems.

The problem with this district is that Don, Dems and other Toomey/Club for Growth haters will have you believe that this is another area that ought to be totally safe for the GOP. It's not. It's "R +2" based on the source they cited. Give me a break.

Oh I think it is a factor since having a Presidential candidate abandon a state decreases turnout. There was no excuse to focus on PA and let MI go for Obama by 12 or 13. The states are very similar and both should have been won or lost by similar margins.

[Keystone Phil]

Oh I think it is a factor since having a Presidential candidate abandon a state decreases turnout. There was no excuse to focus on PA and let MI go for Obama by 12 or 13. The states are very similar and both should have been won or lost by similar margins.

I'm not saying it wasn't a factor. I just wanted to keep it as directly related to the actual Congressional campaigns as possible.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How is not directly related to the congressional district when thousands of Republicans stay home cause of the old " My vote won't count anyway" line. That might have put Walberg over the top.

[Keystone Phil]

How is not directly related to the congressional district when thousands of Republicans stay home cause of the old " My vote won't count anyway" line. That might have put Walberg over the top.

I just wanted to keep it about the actual candidates in the Congressional race and how it isn't as Republican as others are saying.

I agree that what you mentioned would have probably put Walberg over the top.

[Brittain33]

The weeping over former Congressman Schwarz is especially amusing to me. We're made to believe that he, like Gilchrist, fell to some fascist in a 2008 primary. Well, that's wrong. Schwarz lost in the primary in 2006. Walberg won the 2006 General election in this "R +2" district by five points - 51% to 46%. That's not a very close race, Don. Sorry.

He defeated a fourth-tier loon of a Democrat who raised approximately $300 for her campaign. The race had no business being remotely competitive.

[Keystone Phil]

The weeping over former Congressman Schwarz is especially amusing to me. We're made to believe that he, like Gilchrist, fell to some fascist in a 2008 primary. Well, that's wrong. Schwarz lost in the primary in 2006. Walberg won the 2006 General election in this "R +2" district by five points - 51% to 46%. That's not a very close race, Don. Sorry.

He defeated a fourth-tier loon of a Democrat who raised approximately $300 for her campaign. The race had no business being remotely competitive.

Try $46,000. 

Sure it shouldn't have been remotely competitive given a week Dem opponent but consider the year, the fact that it isn't a strong Republican district and that the defeated Republican incumbent threw a fit about losing the primary.

[Nixon in '80]

I leave for eighteen hours and everybody moves on without me...

Look, I'm not saying Wayne Gilchrest didn't help get Frank Kratovil elected; he did, much more directly than Pat Toomey. But, had Gilchrest not been defeated in the primary, that seat would still be in Republican hands, and Pat Toomey helped defeat Wayne Gilchrest in the primary. Therefore, it stands to reason that Pat Toomey indirectly helped elect Frank Kratovil.

As for the Club for Growth's philosophy as a whole, it seems to break down like this:

Conservative Republicans > Liberal Democrats > Liberal Republicans

and that's something I just can't support.

[Keystone Phil]

I leave for eighteen hours and everybody moves on without me...

Look, I'm not saying Wayne Gilchrest didn't help get Frank Kratovil elected; he did, much more directly than Pat Toomey. But, had Gilchrest not been defeated in the primary, that seat would still be in Republican hands, and Pat Toomey helped defeat Wayne Gilchrest in the primary. Therefore, it stands to reason that Pat Toomey indirectly helped elect Frank Kratovil.

But that's not really helping the Democrats as much as you guys want us to believe.

We never hear complaints about Gilchrist directly helping Kratovil so spare me the lectures, ok?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whatever, dude.

And for RINOs, it seems like it comes down to this...

Complain about how you're the only electable person and how you have to save the party ----> Run to the Dems when you lose

[Nixon in '80]

I leave for eighteen hours and everybody moves on without me...

Look, I'm not saying Wayne Gilchrest didn't help get Frank Kratovil elected; he did, much more directly than Pat Toomey. But, had Gilchrest not been defeated in the primary, that seat would still be in Republican hands, and Pat Toomey helped defeat Wayne Gilchrest in the primary. Therefore, it stands to reason that Pat Toomey indirectly helped elect Frank Kratovil.

But that's not really helping the Democrats as much as you guys want us to believe.

We never hear complaints about Gilchrist directly helping Kratovil so spare me the lectures, ok?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whatever, dude.

And for RINOs, it seems like it comes down to this...

Complain about how you're the only electable person and how you have to save the party ----> Run to the Dems when you lose

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But it is helping at least a little? Even a teensy bit?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In the case of Gilchrest and a number of others, yes, I'll admit that.

If Gilchrest claims he's saving the Republican Party by helping Kratovil get elected, he's just as full of sh**t as Pat Toomey.

[Keystone Phil]

But it is helping at least a little? Even a teensy bit?

That's what happens in politics sometimes. We make decisions that sometimes gives the opposition some ammo but we have to learn not to run away, cry and side with the opposition simply out of spite.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But, dude, Pat Toomey isn't full of shit. He's defending his principles. You might not like it but that doesn't mean he's full of it.

[Nixon in '80]

But it is helping at least a little? Even a teensy bit?

That's what happens in politics sometimes. We make decisions that sometimes gives the opposition some ammo but we have to learn not to run away, cry and side with the opposition simply out of spite.

So Pat Toomey helps get Democrats elected... thank you, that's all I wanted to hear.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But, dude, Pat Toomey isn't full of shit. He's defending his principles. You might not like it but that doesn't mean he's full of it.
[/quote]

Jay-slash-kay, bro... Pat Toomey isn't full of it anymore than the rest of us are, but the notion that pushing the moderates out of the GOP will strengthen it... well, that's bull.

[Keystone Phil]

So Pat Toomey helps get Democrats elected... thank you, that's all I wanted to hear.

So you want to be a child? Good for you.

Just because Toomey's candidats aren't as electable as others in some districts doesn't mean he helps Democrats get elected.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This isn't about moderates but the Toomey haters and those of us that defend him/the Club for Growth will continue to only see it your way.

RINOs are not moderates.

I think we definitely strengthen our party when people like Lincoln Chafee leave. And guess what? The RI GOP voters re-nominated that joke. He lost in the General and still threw a tantrum about the GOP. He wasn't a Republican. He's gone. I'm glad. Scores of others are as well.

[Nixon in '80]

So Pat Toomey helps get Democrats elected... thank you, that's all I wanted to hear.

So you want to be a child? Good for you.

Just because Toomey's candidats aren't as electable as others in some districts doesn't mean he helps Democrats get elected.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This isn't about moderates but the Toomey haters and those of us that defend him/the Club for Growth will continue to only see it your way.

RINOs are not moderates.

I think we definitely strengthen our party when people like Lincoln Chafee leave. And guess what? The RI GOP voters re-nominated that joke. He lost in the General and still threw a tantrum about the GOP. He wasn't a Republican. He's gone. I'm glad. Scores of others are as well.

Rolling your eyes too much gives you headaches.

Lincoln Chafee, I agree, was a RINO (he was still better than Sheldon Whitehouse, IMO)... he basically lined up with the DNC on everything ... but does Arlen Specter?

If Arlen Specter is a RINO, not a moderate, then perhaps I am too... maybe you all should just kick me out of the party. If you're not going to let a few of us hang around and vote for your candidates and side with you 70% of the time, maybe this party isn't worth saving. If the Republicans are now the party of "The Plank" and the Democrats are the Big Tent, hell, the party's over, so to speak.

This is all coming out very melodramatic in print, so I ask you to reread it with a tone of light sarcasm and levity to really get the mood of it.

[Keystone Phil]

Lincoln Chafee, I agree, was a RINO (he was still better than Sheldon Whitehouse, IMO)... he basically lined up with the DNC on everything ... but does Arlen Specter?

No but I don't think Specter is just a moderate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're not an elected official. You haven't worked to screw the party on several major fronts. I couldn't care less about kicking out someone like that.

[Nixon in '80]

If Arlen Specter is a RINO, not a moderate, then perhaps I am too... maybe you all should just kick me out of the party. If you're not going to let a few of us hang around and vote for your candidates and side with you 70% of the time, maybe this party isn't worth saving. If the Republicans are now the party of "The Plank" and the Democrats are the Big Tent, hell, the party's over, so to speak.

You're not an elected official. You haven't worked to screw the party on several major fronts. I couldn't care less about kicking out someone like that.

Yes, but Arlen Specter and the like represent my views more accurately than "real" Republicans. While I do not live in Pennsylvania, and thus had no hand in electing him, I still feel he is a spiritual surrogate for me. Consequently, when people like him are forced out of the party by people like Pat Toomey with a ferocity usually reserved for the nastiest interparty races, I take it as an assault on my values.

Yes, hard as it is to believe, moderates have values too, values they can hold just as strongly as any "principled conservative" holds his.

When the moderates (or RINOs, or anyone to the left of Bob Dole) are forced out of the party, it becomes difficult for me to continue to identify as, and vote as, a Republican.

Both the far-right and the far-left talk about how the two major parties are clones of each other, idealogically. Well, obviously, that's false, but I sympathize with the sentiment: Nobody represents me. Well, nobody represents me. At least the Democrats are talking about pragmatism and cooperation, while the Republicans assume we'll one day see the error of our ways and become good conservatives. Well, sorry, it ain't happening.

Look, I don't know precisely where this is going, but the underlying message is: Where go the RINOs, so go I (and a voting bloc large enough to swing most elections.)



Well, that was quite the rambling diatribe. Phil, this whole thing is not really directed at you at all, more at them, a disembodied composite of people, statements, and emotions.

I hate them.

[Keystone Phil]

Yes, hard as it is to believe, moderates have values too, values they can hold just as strongly as any "principled conservative" holds his.

You know, this really isn't fair. I've had to do this too many times...

I do not have a problem with moderates. I may not always agree with a moderate but I'm never going to always agree with anyone! I do not like RINOs. Two very different things. Don't assume that I think moderates aren't principled.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, yeah? That's not what I've been seeing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But I am part of "them" and I'm afraid you confuse "our" efforts to seriously challenge RINOs as a threat to moderates.

Lincoln Chafee wasn't a moderate but plenty of you were tricked into believing he was. I hate that. And look what he goes and does to us. Him, Gilchrist, Schwarz...

Those are the types you ought to be especially angry at, my friend, as a proud moderate Republican.

[Nixon in '80]

Yes, hard as it is to believe, moderates have values too, values they can hold just as strongly as any "principled conservative" holds his.

You know, this really isn't fair. I've had to do this too many times...

I do not have a problem with moderates. I may not always agree with a moderate but I'm never going to always agree with anyone! I do not like RINOs. Two very different things. Don't assume that I think moderates aren't principled.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, yeah? That's not what I've been seeing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But I am part of "them" and I'm afraid you confuse "our" efforts to seriously challenge RINOs as a threat to moderates.

Lincoln Chafee wasn't a moderate but plenty of you were tricked into believing he was. I hate that. And look what he goes and does to us. Him, Gilchrist, Schwarz...

Those are the types you ought to be especially angry at, my friend, as a proud moderate Republican.

Again, I would like to reiterate that this was not directed at you, and you are not them. They are people like Ann Coulter who legitimately want people like me to leave the party so that they can nominate Duncan Hunter for President with no opposition.

I do not disagree that Chafee and Gilchrest are probably better suited for the Democratic Party than the GOP, but I would still rather have a liberal Republican than a liberal Democrat any day.

The problem is when people like John McCain become the targets. As you most likely know, the Club attempted to persuade Jeff Flake to primary McCain in 2004, but Flake declined.

Some may call McCain a conservative, some a moderate, but few outside of CARLHAYDEN would call him a liberal or RINO (well, maybe officepark, but he would probably call Robert Taft a RINO).

If anyone with an ACU rating below 75 is a liberal... well, I just don't know.

[Keystone Phil]

The problem is when people like John McCain become the targets. As you most likely know, the Club attempted to persuade Jeff Flake to primary McCain in 2004, but Flake declined.

Some may call McCain a conservative, some a moderate, but few outside of CARLHAYDEN would call him a liberal or RINO (well, maybe officepark, but he would probably call Robert Taft a RINO).

If anyone with an ACU rating below 75 is a liberal... well, I just don't know.

Well, those people have been wrong on people like McCain and I've always said so.

[Nixon in '80]

The problem is when people like John McCain become the targets. As you most likely know, the Club attempted to persuade Jeff Flake to primary McCain in 2004, but Flake declined.

Some may call McCain a conservative, some a moderate, but few outside of CARLHAYDEN would call him a liberal or RINO (well, maybe officepark, but he would probably call Robert Taft a RINO).

If anyone with an ACU rating below 75 is a liberal... well, I just don't know.

Well, those people have been wrong on people like McCain and I've always said so.

And that's why you are not them.

[Brittain33]

We never hear complaints about Gilchrist directly helping Kratovil so spare me the lectures, ok?

People are welcome to complain about Gilchrist, and that's fine. The fact is, there is always a possibility the loser in a primary is going to do something like this. It's not a personality defect on Gilchrist's part, but a predictable cost of what the Club For Growth was attempting to do. No incumbent can be expected to go quietly when he is targeted, and that goes equally for a conservative incumbent who then runs as a third party or who endorses a conservative third-party spoiler out of the same motives.

The Club For Growth is responsible for the outcomes of its endeavors. Gilchrist owed no one anything. This is why when they first started playing around with primaries, trying to unseat Marge Roukema, they worked with the Bush Administration to get her an appointment to a federal sinecure. Unfortunately that didn't work out, but it's the kind of planning you need to do if you don't want your stealth move to blow up in your face, like the MD-01 primary did.

[Brittain33]

Sure it shouldn't have been remotely competitive given a week Dem opponent but consider the year, the fact that it isn't a strong Republican district and that the defeated Republican incumbent threw a fit about losing the primary.

Considering all of those facts, most of which were predictable, you end up with Rep. Schauer. This doesn't redeem the Club For Growth's efforts or Walberg's attempts to graft his style of conservatism to a centrist district.

[Keystone Phil]

It's not a personality defect on Gilchrist's part, but a predictable cost of what the Club For Growth was attempting to do. No incumbent can be expected to go quietly when he is targeted, and that goes equally for a conservative incumbent who then runs as a third party or who endorses a conservative third-party spoiler out of the same motives.

How is it not a personality defect? All you're giving is some lame excuse for him being a baby. The conservative that argued about saving the party and electability but decides to run as a third party candidate would be just as much of a crybaby.

Just because the Club for Growth did something doesn't mean the response was right.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nice attitude. We should have just crowned him Congressman for life. 

This is exactly the arrogance that we don't need in Washington or anywhere in politics. I remember hearing about that from a certain crowd in the past year...

Sure it shouldn't have been remotely competitive given a week Dem opponent but consider the year, the fact that it isn't a strong Republican district and that the defeated Republican incumbent threw a fit about losing the primary.

Considering all of those facts, most of which were predictable, you end up with Rep. Schauer. This doesn't redeem the Club For Growth's efforts or Walberg's attempts to graft his style of conservatism to a centrist district.

I don't know why them being predictable is a reason to dismiss them (other than you just being...yourself).

The Club for Growth doesn't need redemption because they did nothing wrong. They backed someone more in line with their views. Schwarz would have been running against Schauer in 2008 and would have had a slew of reasons as to why Schauer was the worst person alive. You can count on it. However, he had to be a whiner and back him for personal revenge. So he's either a sore loser or Schauer really did match his views more (something he obviously wouldn't admit in 2008) and didn't deserve to be our nominee.

Walberg barely lost in a bad year yet we had to hear how horribly out of touch he was as a Congressman. Maybe, just maybe, a bad year swept out a Republican. Look at Chris Shays and others. There was no Club for Growth to blame there and guess what? Shays lost. Moderates and RINOs aren't automatically spared.

[Brittain33]

How is it not a personality defect? All you're giving is some lame excuse for him being a baby. The conservative that argued about saving the party and electability but decides to run as a third party candidate would be just as much of a crybaby.

Just because the Club for Growth did something doesn't mean the response was right.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it's predictable. Criticizing Gilchrist won't make a difference--the point is that it's an outcome you have to prepare for.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nice attitude. We should have just crowned him Congressman for life. 

[/quote]

You'd like to study political science, right? Are you familiar with the dynamics surrounding the overthrow of PMs in parliamentary systems, particularly Westminster? Getting the person out of office is only part of the occasion. You have to make sure they are defeated in such a way that they don't take you out on the way down. This is why John Major replaced Margaret Thatcher--the people who took her out, like Heseltine, bore the curse of Brutus and were tainted by association.

I repeat, you have to get out of the mindset of what is fair or unfair. This is about effectiveness. There are ways to replace a moderate with a conservative, and it's ok to do so, but you have to pick the right conservative and do it effectively. You can not expect people to simply back out and accept having their career ended, so you have to plan around it. If you fail to do so, you are incompetent, even if that's unfair.

What, in the above paragraph, do you disagree with? If you identify that, I'll understand where you're coming from.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Considering all of those facts, most of which were predictable, you end up with Rep. Schauer. This doesn't redeem the Club For Growth's efforts or Walberg's attempts to graft his style of conservatism to a centrist district.

I don't know why them being predictable is a reason to dismiss them (other than you just being...yourself).

I am not "dismissing them." You're saying that because you aren't understanding what I am saying, so you take it as something different, and pointless, and responding accordingly. It's ok, I forgive that, but we need to work through it. I am saying they are factors you have to plan for if you want to succeed. I am saying that whining that someone is being a baby does not accomplish anything, because people behave the way they do. Primaries are as much about human behavior as they are about numbers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They backed someone more in line with their views, and got someone diametrically opposed to their views. Gilchrist can be a sore loser or not but IT DOESN'T MATTER because the outcome is that Kratovil is the Rep. Sore losers can be neutralized or made less sore. In part, this is the responsibility of the candidate who unseats them.

I don't see why you won't recognize that the Club For Growth can, on occasion, make tactical mistakes even if we accept their overall mission is acceptable. Are they above criticism? Do you think they have the perfect recipe for seating conservative politicians, but "no one could have predicted" that the moderates they've unseated and the Democrats and independents who won't support their candidates aren't going to help them stay in office?

The Club For Growth could accomplish their goals better. That's what this is about. The way they're doing it now, they're making things worse for their cause. It does not have to be that way and you don't have to accept Rep. Gilchrist if enough people in the district done. In the end, though, democracy will happen, and the CFG can't undo that.