Rep. Michael N. Castle’s upset loss in the Delaware Republican Senate primary Tuesday sent another shock wave through the party’s dwindling moderate ranks and had Democrats crowing that the Republican Party’s big tent had collapsed.
Read the original:
Moderates See Castle Defeat as Part of Purge
Tonight … on “Mythbusters” … we’ll look at myths about today’s Republican Party. Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman will look at what’s right … and what’s not right … about the party of the right. With recent election results … and even more recent primary results … there has been a lot of discussion about what actions the Republicans should take. The conventional wisdom … Is that the Republican National Convention? Ha ha. Very funny. The conventional wisdom is that if the Republican Party swings hard to the right, they’ll alienate most Americans and ensure that Democrats will retain power. We’re going to build a Republican Party that’s a Big Tent Republican Party. Then we’ll test how well it works. We’ll start with the base. There’s the gun owners. You know, the Second Amendment crowd. Over here, we have some who are proud of their country. Typical conservatives. Okay, that’s a start. This sounds a lot like the TEA Party or the Sarah Palin crowd. But aren’t we going to include more than just stereotypical conservatives? How about some independents, like those that helped elect Obama? You can’t win without them. Let’s throw in some Charles Johnson types. That’ll keep the religious right in check. We can’t leave out the Ron Paul group. Ron Paul! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!1!!!11!! There are the old guard. The establishment. They used to be called “Rockefeller Republicans.” And they crap themselves every time a candidate supported by the TEA Party is successful. Those scared of Sarah Palin? Got them covered, too. Can’t let her take charge of things, can we? What about those moderates that try to balance conservative principals with cooperating with liberals? Everyone knows that compromise is the way to go. As long as by “compromise with” we mean “give in to” liberals. What do you think? Do we have enough of a big tent crowd? We have those scared of Palin and the TEA Party, moderates, Ron Paul supporters, Obama voters, the Charles Johnson crowd… Let’s try this group out and see how it does. Tory? Go run an election with this crowd? OOF! OUCH! Tory’s election day performance with a Republican Party that compromised true conservative beliefs and included nutcases from all over the spectrum … didn’t go so well. Well, there’s your problem! This Republican Party we put together doesn’t stand true to conservative principals. Instead, it’s a large group of a bunch of small groups. Since they don’t share the same principals, they are always fighting each other. This Republican Party looks like Democrats Lite. That’s why the GOP lost the White House in 2008. Sure, the Republican candidate had some good qualities, is a war hero, and is an honorable man and a fine American. But he isn’t true to the conservative principals of Goldwater or Reagan. And he got his clock cleaned. Jamie and I have been exposed to this Big Tent Republican Party for too long. We need to scrub ourselves clean. While Adam and Jamie remove the stench of moderates, we’ll leave you with this reminder: conservatives will be attacked by Democrats, and by some Republicans. And, you won’t win every battle. But, you’ll come out stronger for it.
Read the original post:
Mythbusters: Republicans
Lisa Lerer / Business Week : Jim DeMint’s Path to Power
The very responsible, level headed, non-partisan New York Times wrote an article encouraging Americans to give those scandalous Tea Party ruffians what-for at the ballot box by voting down their candidates. In the article, they referred to Tea Partiers as the, “new fringe in American politics, ” accused them of having the “basest political instincts,” said they had a “toxic message,” and said they engaged in “extremism.” You’re probably thinking, “Ok, Hawkins, that sounds like about what we’d expect from the New York Times . So, where’s the story?” Here’s the story: The same New York Times that’s accusing the Tea Party of being fringe extremists was running this kooky ad with the article, Continue reading at Right Wing News .
Originally posted here:
The New York Times: Don’t Be Fringe Like Those Nazi Tea Partiers
Glenn Greenwald / Salon : The misguided reaction to Tea Party candidates
Shushannah Walshe / The Daily Beast : Palin’s Wins Stoke White House Run
Finally! A guest on The Daily Show that disagreed with Jon Stewart that is articulate and capable! Last night, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair came on the program and had a conversation with Stewart free of denigration and cross-talk and in my opinion, Blair came out on top. The audience even enthusiastically applauded Blair at times, particularly when he said you can’t compromise with people like the Taliban and that if leaders like those in Iran say they’re going to destroy Israel and are trying to get nuclear weapons, you should be worried. Stewart also made a number of blunders. He said that the violence in Iraq is motivated by nationalism against occupiers (it’s not), that Saddam had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or the ideology we’re fighting ( he did ), that Saddam was one of the few in the Middle East not trying to get nuclear weapons ( he was) and that, and this is the real kicker, toppling the Taliban and Saddam Hussein “did not mitigate the risk” and regime change in Iran won’t either. Watch the extended interview after the jump (you have to click on the “full episode” to watch the first of the three parts) and to see more of my comments: The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c Exclusive – Tony Blair Extended Interview Pt. 1 www.thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party Jon Stewart also said he believed that Ahmadinejad was just being loud and boisterous when he says he wants to destroy Israel. So, basically, Ahmadinejad is like the braggart friend that we all have who brags about how he could beat up the body-builder next to him and how he could score with Katy Perry. I probably don’t need to elaborate on how well Tony Blair handled this. He rightly characterized Stewart’s position as believing we can “manage” situations like these, but the cost should this “management” fail is too high to take a gamble like that. And most importantly— Jon Stewart says he believes the Iranian regime cares only about its own well-being and isn’t apocalyptic or really going to do anything that bad—but why does he believe this? I hear this line of thinking all the time. Why do people assume that our enemies are lying when they say they’re going to do something and are trying to create weapons to carry out their stated objectives? I’m going to call Dr. Phil and hopefully, I’ll come back with an answer.
Originally posted here:
Jon Stewart Meets His Match With Tony Blair
David Karki In response to Dan’s hard backhand to the ad court, I offer this forehand smash up the line: What others – usually self-congratulatory “moderate” independents – in condescending tones call “purity,” I call core principles. And you’re darn right I’m going to cast a very withering glance when someone uses the labels and images and ideas of those most dearly held core principles as disingenuous cover for the implementation of policies that actually would annihilate them. Is purple glue all that holds us together? I’m sorry if this passion bothers all you superior moderates out there on your higher plane of existence, far above a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal like me. Frankly, it bothers me just as much that you don’t appear to believe in anything enough to risk ruffling feathers over it and elevate “getting along” above all else. Especially when getting along with the radical left that’s been in charge since 2006 essentially amounts to consorting with the enemy. And I guess that’s where the moderates and Dan part company with me and the tea partiers. It appears that where we most fundamentally differ is in our view of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid: We view them as the greatest domestic threat to all America stands for and has been in its 234 year history. Moderates, apparently, do not. We view them as single-minded radicals for whom the ends justify the means, who will stop at nothing to implement their destructive ideas. (Hence my frequent usage of Kyle Reese “The Terminator” quotes, which Dan finds so amusing.) Moderates, apparently, naively think the left is still well-meaning but misguided and can be reasoned with. Given this dichotomy, it makes sense why many feel a counter-balance to Obama’s radicalism is needed, if for no other reason than to stop his exponential expansion of government and achieve a stalemate. Why many desperately wish the GOP would stop being a going-along-to-get-along enabler and start being an opposition party, so we might have a choice instead of an echo, as well as a means to stop this runaway freight train of unaffordable trillions in spending. And why those, like Mike Castle, who have voted for those expansions and spending more often than not (i.e. crap and tax) find it hard to win primaries even against supposedly inferior candidates. Suffice it to say, infuriating one’s own base by often voting against them isn’t a great way to keep one’s career going. (And yes, Castle IS a liberal. When you vote how he does, you’re on the left side of center. Maybe it doesn’t make him a Democrat per se, but it certainly puts him outside the party whose primary he just failed to win…which is why he just failed to win it.) As for O’Donnell, any conservative would have a hard time winning in a blue state like Delaware. But if you’re not going to try in this year, of all years, when Obama is leading the Democrats off a cliff, when are you ever going to try? And if it’s such a long shot, wouldn’t you want to use an ostensibly dispensable candidate rather than waste a more robust one? Since, in my view, Castle would vote like a Democrat anyway, I don’t see where there’s anything to lose. Had he won, the seat would effectively already be gone. Castle, Coons, what’s the difference? And I don’t see why Castle’s lone valuable vote for Senate control is a big deal. The only real difference would be if Obama gets any more Supreme Court picks. Other than that, a 51-49 minority opposite a Republican House works just as well for me. The House won’t pass anything the Democrat Senate or Obama wants, the GOP will have an unbreakable filibuster, and most importantly Obama won’t have a GOP Congress to run against in 2012. A 51-49 or 52-48 GOP Senate would leave all the power with the liberal types like Castle, Snowe, Collins, and McCain who would sandbag and backstab their own party to endless praise and plaudits from the liberal media. The way the Senate works, a strong minority beats a razor-thin majority every day of the week. Finally, as to O’Donnell not being fit for the Senate: Are you kidding me? The 100 biggest pompous arrogant blowhards in America could only be improved by her presence, no matter who or what she is. Or isn’t (an Obama enabler), which is what really matters. Don’t buy that? Here are three words for you to chew on: Senator Al Franken. Now THERE’S a reason to wince every time a Senator is seen or heard, Dan. See, as a Minnesotan, I know first-hand that electing real clowns like him and former Governor Jesse Ventura isn’t the end of the world. America will go right on as it always has, because it’s her people that make it work, not its government! So what if she is a “phony baloney poseur”? She’ll be right at home with 99 more who are much worse than that! (And from a tea party perspective, it’s the Rumsfeld tactic: going to war with the candidates we have, not the ones we wish we had.) It’s that condescending, patronizing elitism that needs to be taken down, that black-balling of undesirables from the exclusive members-only Incumbents Club, which needs to stop most of all. Babylon on the Potomac needs a fumigating, and I don’t especially care if O’Donnell the modern political equivalent of Bluto in Animal House – one way or another, the Dean Wormers and Marmalards and Niedermayers of Washington DC need to have a giant cake float with the words “EAT ME” on it driven through their Election Day homecoming parade and watch it be ruined. And come this November, God willing, it’s going to happen. The big black Deathmobile is going knock Obama and his teleprompters off the risers. (Remember, the line “I hate those guys” should be on them for him to read.) And if we catch some equally egotistical moderates and independents up in the wash, well, so be it. I for one won’t lose any sleep over it. We need to destroy this myth that government is something more complex than nuclear physics, which only a small elite cadre can possibly manage or run – a myth made up solely to protect incumbents and all others who rely on their never-ending careers to keep their cushy paper-pushing jobs. And a myth which has resulted in the instantaneous, hateful, knee-jerk smearing of O’Donnell simply for the supposedly grievous offense of not being one of them. Though I suppose it does serve one useful purpose: turning O’Donnell into a martyr and a cause célèbre, which might just help her win where the odds are otherwise against it. So keep it up, moderates, and you might just inadvertently make your worst nightmare come true.
View post:
Confessions of a ‘conservative’ purity litmus tester (and yes, we do still have the Vikings)