Quotes of the day
posted at 10:30 pm on December 23, 2009 by Allahpundit
“Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), suggested that conservatives need to have a more realistic sense of which races are winnable and with which candidates.
“‘Folks on the right, and frankly I’m one of them in terms of voting record, have to yield to the world as it is and not necessarily how they wish it would be,’ Cornyn told Reuters for a story about centrist Rep. Mike Castle’s (R) bid for Senate next year in Delaware…
“‘The world as it is in Delaware is that if Mike Castle didn’t run, Beau Biden would be the next senator from Delaware,’ Cornyn said, pointing to Vice President Joe Biden’s son, the state’s attorney general and a likely 2010 Democratic candidate against Castle.”
***
“With tea party activists increasingly dictating the party’s agenda, moderate Republicans are getting eaten by their own, and it didn’t take long for some of Graham’s once loyal supporters to turn on him. The Charleston County Republican Party voted unanimously last month to censure Graham on a litany of complaints. They claimed that South Carolina’s senior senator ‘in the name of bipartisanship continues to weaken the Republican brand and tarnish the ideals of freedom, rule of law, and fiscal conservatism.’ The group, closely aligned with the Tea Party movement, accused Graham of holding the GOP ‘hostage’ for engaging on global warming and even lambasted him for having ‘stated on many occasions that his primary concern is to ‘be relevant.” Graham, who won reelection in a landslide last year, isn’t worried. ‘I’ve never felt threatened by people who say that it’s a crime or sin to work with the other side because most Republicans and Democrats understand that for the good of the country you have to do that,’ he said in an interview just off the Senate floor…
“Make no mistake, Graham’s conservative credentials are rock solid. He has a 90% rating from the American Conservative Union. The only difference is he’s willing to look for compromise. ‘Two senators from opposite parties sat down today and discussed solving a problem,’ Graham says with a wry shake of his head, ‘the fact that that’s news is sad. That’s where we’ve come as a country. That’s why the [approval rating of] Congress is at 25%.’”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
***
I’ve got your compromise right here!!
***
SARAH PALIN for POTUS, JOHN BOLTON for VP in 2012. The AMERICA FIRST ticket.
***
Vote out all democRATs, corrupticans, and RINO’s. Vote out all “reach across the aisle” types–unless they are doing so to “cheapshot” one or more of the aforementioned groups!
***
Clear enough?
***
John Bibb
***
rocketman on December 24, 2009 at 1:44 AM
I say that any man who can do a brutal takedown of Eric Holder during a Senate hearing can’t be all bad.
r keller on December 24, 2009 at 1:44 AM
Did it actualy accomplish anything?
It eventualy becomes a question of effectivness… he is a leader of the current GOP… and the GOP has been ineffective for Conservative causes for years.
Romeo13 on December 24, 2009 at 2:00 AM
Dammit, I’m uncharacteristically drunk (it’s the season) and pissed off. I’ve had enough of this bullsh*t. Who decided that the sole objective of a political movement was to simply “get elected” on whatever views the majority happen to hold on the range of the moment?
This attitude is ignorant, short sighted, spineless and BLIND. It does not ask: who and what drives the opinion of Americans? How are they influencing opinion and what can we do to change it? And if we do not tackle those issues then we might as well concede that our principles are worthless and that liberal influence in society is the lone architect of America’s future. Because they hold the monopoly in the media and education system. It is their views which are being propagated, promoted and assimilated. It is they who decide the terms and rules of debate, they who decide the standards of value that define proof, they who distribute the “facts” (true or otherwise) upon which Americans base their decisions and form their attitudes.
If the conservative movement is about nothing more than getting politicians elected then liberalism – as dictated by the media, by popular culture and by public institutions – has won.
We can take that spineless, defeatist attitude…or we can come to terms with the fact that our political movement is about shaping opinion, about winning debate, about protecting the standard of proof, about insisting on the truth and above all, about FIGHTING THE LEFTIST BASTA*RDS WHO ARE ROTTING THIS COUNTRY FROM ROOT TO BRANCH.
You don’t do that by promoting and electing squishy RINO moderates who have sacrificed themselves on the altar of shallow liberalism and who see in politics about as much philosophical depth as a high school popularity contest. You do it by changing public opinion with eloquent arguments, common sense and the objective truth. That’s why one Sarah Palin is worth a hundred thousand Lindsey Grahams to the conservative movement. That’s why her book is so valuable. That’s why she’s worth more to America out of office than in.
Sharke on December 24, 2009 at 2:01 AM
Oh and I forgot to add…THAT’S WHY THE LEFT IS SO AFRAID OF HER!
Sharke on December 24, 2009 at 2:02 AM
/stands up and applauds…
Could you imagine if we had a politician who ran on actualy making the Government SMALLER?
Landslide? or would they be buried by the MSM and other politicians, who just argue over WHO gets to decide which part of the Government THEY want to grow…
Romeo13 on December 24, 2009 at 2:07 AM
That politician’s opponants would attack by trying to pin down what section of government would be cut, and then creating fear about any specifics. To seriously cut government, the people need to be willing to give up entitlements. That’s a difficult road to hoe–the people end up arguing over whose sacred cow gets gored.
Revenant on December 24, 2009 at 2:15 AM
I seem to recall that he shredded Sotomayor during her confirmation hearings as well. A lot of people here raved about his performance and seemed to forgive him for past indiscretions!
Then he voted to confirm her and maligned her critics. It was all just a dog and pony show.
FloatingRock on December 24, 2009 at 2:27 AM
Right on!
…although I’m actually still Palin-neutral.
FloatingRock on December 24, 2009 at 2:31 AM
Pro Crap and Tax? CHECK
Pro Amnesty for illegal aliens? CHECK
(calling us “loud folks,” BONUS)
Pro anti-first-amendment “CFR?” CHECK
Umm.. Lindsey Graham is like the guy R. Lee said won’t give you a “reach around.”
shorebird on December 24, 2009 at 2:50 AM
Sharke and Subhunt are spot on.
I wonder if these guys tolerate moderate loyalty and lack of commitment from their staff, or whether they’re “purists”…
Chris_Balsz on December 24, 2009 at 3:31 AM
Cornyn is right, we aren’t going to get strict Conservatives elected in Delaware. In states like that we need to do the best we can, though if the best we can do is Snowe or Collins-types, I’d just as soon let the Dems have it.
States like South Carolina and Texas, however, are a different story. We shouldn’t be sending folks from there to Washington who are more than willing to compromise away their principles for the sake of getting things done.
xblade on December 24, 2009 at 3:32 AM
CPAC organizers ban gays from speaking to appease theocons.
Spathi on December 24, 2009 at 4:04 AM
Unless they are closeted at no one knows of course.
Spathi on December 24, 2009 at 4:04 AM
Fact of the matter is that conservative candidates can win more races than they are given the opportunity to. Although I’ve pulled the lever for quite a few candidates that were RINOs over the years, I won’t be doing it in the future for the following reasons:
1) I want to send a message to the R-party leadership that they need to start searching for, cultivating, and running more conservative candidates.
2) A line must be drawn somewhere. The republicans of today are dramatically more liberal than those of the 60s. In another decade we’ll be faced with the choice between marxists democrats and liberal progressive republicans. We must stop voting for republican candidates who think the government is the answer to all our problems.
3) It may be petty, but I feel like I’ve been had. I’m mad and they’ll need to earn my trust by articulating principled conservative arguments.
4) I want to see fire-breathing freedom-loving government-hating candidates who are willing to put a choke hold on government, wrestle it to the ground, and pound it into submission. The nancy-boy compromising bunch of republicans we have now will simply show up and compromise our freedoms into extinction.
5) There is no compromise with the devil. It might sound like a good idea but the bill always comes due. We are in the place we’re at now because of countless compromises that have been made by republican politicians.
I could care less about how “realistic” Cornyn feels it is, or how “sad” Grahm is that senators don’t talk. If these guys feel that conservative ideas and solutions can’t win, they need to be thrown off the bus to make room for candidates who are willing fight for the truth. The time for compromise is over.
ClanDerson on December 24, 2009 at 4:18 AM
Sharke. This guy is drunk and writes a piece truly worth reading. I’m not in the tank with Sarah so much, I think she’s much more effectual outside of office at this point than in. If she’s the winner of the Republican ticket against Maobama, she can definately count on my vote, even though I’m now a Libertarian/Goldwater Conservative.
Point being, here’s a drunk conservative with completely rational points. Compare that to the twits that comment on the HuffingtonPravda( You rethuglican, you repuke, you neanderthal, all the while never actually addressing the point). Liberalism is truly a mental disease of setting one’s head in the sand with any regard to reality. Thanks Sharke, and don’t get TOO loaded. Bottoms up, and MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!
adamsmith on December 24, 2009 at 5:45 AM
Let’s not make the same mistake the liberal leadership on the Dem side did…helping Blue Dogs get elected, only to see them stand in the way of passing the leadership’s agenda, and being slowly picked off (recruited) by the GOP.
What really needs to happen is, we need to put social issues on the back burner and run on a platform of fixing the economy/tax code, shrinking government and reclaiming a strong foreign policy. More people will be on board with this strategy than if we keep harping on the red herrings of abortion, etc.
frode on December 24, 2009 at 7:05 AM
I prefer more conservative people, but in the end the voters will decide who they want to represent them and in some parts of the country some of those people might not be as conservative as the purists would like. In fact a lot of the Tea Party people are not conservative, they are libertarian and could care less about abortion or same sex marriage.
But, Graham, for all his faults is voting no on this bill today and if there were just a couple more people like that we would have dodged this bullet they call health care reform.
I tried to call Bayh’s office and the phones were down. As if he cared what the rest of us think.
Terrye on December 24, 2009 at 7:08 AM
Isn’t this how we ended up with McCain as the “only” “republican” who could beat Obama? Yeah… thanks Sen. Cornyn, but your kind of thinking is how we ended up with the liberals running the show and conservatives so pi$$ed off they’re talking about creating their own party.
The people are practically shouting from the roof tops that they do NOT want RINOs ruling their party. The tea party movement, health care town hall resistance and historically low ratings for Obama are not evidence of how the people want less conservative candidates and more compromise.
In fact, it’s just the opposite. I’m just afraid this momentum is going to be wasted. It’s clear that until those who claim to be “republicans” wake up, pull their heads out and recognize how wrong they are about the will of ordinary Americans, this country is going to repeat the mistakes that got us stuck with what will one day be termed the worst administration and Congress in history.
Mad Mad Monica on December 24, 2009 at 7:15 AM
Monica:
Not one Republican voted for this bill and that includes McCain and while it is true that McCain did not win the election, he polled a lot better than anyone else did.
Instapundit had a link to Hillbuzz and some strategists talking about the effects of all this and there was a democrat over there saying they think it will work for them because they are counting on the Tea Party people splitting the right. In other words, the Democrats are hoping for repeats of NY23.
This morning McCain himself said that this vote would pour gas on the fire of the Tea Party movement and I think he is right about that. I just hope that the Democrats are wrong in how that effects future races. I hope that the Tea Party people will continue to pressure Republicans to vote no on bills like this and that they will run in primaries on the Republican ticket rather than splitting the vote.
Terrye on December 24, 2009 at 7:25 AM
Working with the other side is working with the suicidal and the evil. I say no thanks.
You don’t work with the other side you crush them. THIS IS POLITICS! (kicks someone in a hole)
- The Cat
P.S. As to people turning on Graham, he turned on us first.
MirCat on December 24, 2009 at 7:31 AM
Lindsey, there’s a difference between “working with the other side” and “going along with whatever the other side wants to do.” The first is your job as a Senator; the second is abdicating your responsibility as a Republican representative.
Kafir on December 24, 2009 at 7:32 AM
With the East Anglia email scandal exposed, now is the time for all Republicans from Graham to McCain to reject A.G.W. They can do so gracefully, saving face by saying they were relying on flawed “science” and move on.
Buy Danish on December 24, 2009 at 7:36 AM
We always play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. WAKE UP Republicans…it’s a street fight.
FinianWarrior on December 24, 2009 at 8:00 AM
‘Two senators from opposite parties sat down today and discussed solving a problem,’ Graham says with a wry shake of his head, ‘the fact that that’s news is sad. That’s where we’ve come as a country. That’s why the [approval rating of] Congress is at 25%.’”
————
It’s not YOUR JOB to solve problems, “Senator.” It’s YOUR JOB to GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR WAY!
fossten on December 24, 2009 at 8:25 AM
Yeah, Graham, like the liberals and the president really talked to you guys about the stim and health care. When are you going to get a brain and figure out they only want that from our side when it’s to their benefit not yours.
Kissmygrits on December 24, 2009 at 8:27 AM
The last people I’ll take counsel from right now is Graham, Cornyn or McCain. They can go screw themselves.
Fletch54 on December 24, 2009 at 8:32 AM
Compromise in and of itself is not a bad thing. However, in this case, it’s always the Republicans (or more accurately, conservatives) who are asked to “compromise” (read: totally abandon conservative principles and agree with the liberals). Why is that no one ever asks liberals to compromise?
NoFanofLibs on December 24, 2009 at 8:53 AM
Its not news that Cornyn and DeDe Graham are RINOs. What is somewhat shocking is their utter lack of political saavy. To start in again with the RINO bleat 24 hours after the Senate has voted to make the USA officially a socialist country is the ultimate in tone deafness. Really, ladies, if you are ever going to even pretend to be for limited gov’t and against socialism, now would be the time.
If you were wondering, however, what the GOP plans to offer in 2010, here is your answer: RINO-ish moderation.
james23 on December 24, 2009 at 8:53 AM
I’m one of those who expects the Republicans to retake the House in 2010. I’ve been saying, all along, I hope the Republicans are taking notes. Obviously Graham and Cornyn aren’t. The Democrats did what it took to get their agenda accomplished and where did it get them? Republicans, perhaps for one of the few times they can rememberr, have the opportunity to win this on their terms and gain some dignity. Too many RINOS make the party look like Democrat lite, who needs that. If you want healthcare, you want the free kind, Democrat lite guys give you the kind that you pay for. Republicans give you options to buy your own health care and make it available to everyone but will tell you there’s no free rides.
Wake up or the Democrats will have more people giving them cover for their policies.
bflat879 on December 24, 2009 at 8:54 AM
Bravo Sharke! You’re more lucid and principled while drunk than these RINOs are straight.
And yes Ms Lindsey G…it’s about principles…just what yours are, I can’t figure out, but your show trials aside, I’m not liking what I see. “Fair weather conservatism” maybe?
ornery_independent on December 24, 2009 at 8:59 AM
Us shaping public opinion is great. So long as public opinion continues to have a role in shaping what actually happens politically.
We need to both influence people and win elections.
Sekhmet on December 24, 2009 at 9:01 AM
He only betrays you all on the big issues, hence the 90% rating. The GOP is going to shove big government down your throats and you WILL like it. Just like you liked it during the Bush terms. How do I know you liked it? You kept voting for them.
True_King on December 24, 2009 at 9:15 AM
This is not a party gradually building momentum towards fulfillment of an agenda. This is a party looking for an excuse to abandon the agenda.
Chris_Balsz on December 24, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Bowing to all these alleged political realities has gotten us so far in recent times, eh? “Conservatives” porking up like Democrats during their majority. And now the Dems have carte blanche to sink us. Well done, I say!
Nope. The moderates among us need to come to terms with the fact that true conservatives – of which there are more being created daily with every Democrat move – are have drawn the line in the sand beyond which they will not move. Man up, Moderates. A new day is dawning. Can’t y’all feel it?
mugged on December 24, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Will this stop the purity tests? Nope. Rather the “We must burn the village to save it” mentality will continue.
And they said hell was imaginary.
DanStark on December 24, 2009 at 11:30 AM
I can understand how the most dedicated conservative politician would see that the present Republican Party is in no shape to draft and pass the bulk of our agenda; that we can’t expect delivery on our program for years; that the role right now is to agitate, inform, inspire, and then pressure whoever gets elected; to tolerate indifferent or even hostile Republicans between election campaigns; and always rememeber that the Mafia can disappear a RINO but politicians have to REPLACE them with somebody better, and so hold fire until that alternative is at hand.
But what we see here is a party that is run by pols hostile and indifferent to the conservative agenda. There is no push at all to become the vehicle for reform. The nostalgia is for 2005, not 1984. The goal is power without strings, and the grudging tolerance is for anybody shoving for less government payola and regulations.
In the first case, a conscientious conservative might see the sense in a tactical pause or operational realignment of priorities for a given year, because there is a shared commitment to strategic goals.
In the second case, the current case, if we give an inch to help the Party, we will be making a STRATEGIC concession. We will be told that by agreeing conservatism was harmful, or even, not immediately useful, we admitted it should not be on the table.
In that environment there’s no point in going along to get along.
Chris_Balsz on December 24, 2009 at 12:41 PM
So, in order to win elections we ought to give up our VALUES?
Ummm, sorry, not going to happen.
I believe, barring the life of the mother, that abortion is wrong. When I was in my 20′s and having been raised by a liberal feminist I thought that “men shouldn’t even have a voice” in the matter – then I learned to think for myself.
I have never been a “gun nut”, until, during Hurricane Katrina only LEGAL GUN OWNERS had their firearms confiscated. And after Virginia Tech is when I bought my first private firearms (I have firearms as part of my job).
I don’t have kids, and hence don’t have a “dog in the fight” on education reform – until the new Soldiers who came to my unit showed a profound lack of understanding of the Constitution, U.S. history (especially as it relates to the U.S. military actions), or the idea of rights and responsibilities.
Now I think we should abolish the Dept of Education, and go to vouchers nationwide – copying the Belgium model.
And the list goes on and on – so, no, I won’t trade my “right to peaceably assemble” or “pettition my gov’t for redress” or my RIGHT to own firearms to defend my home or the RIGHT to pray any damn place I so please.
It’s simple, there is right and wrong – the moral relativism is how our country got so screwed up in the first place.
Steven
LSBeene on December 24, 2009 at 1:11 PM
we voted for graham the conservative not the weak kneed moderate that he’s turned out to be.we have to be rid of these rinos.
badpenny on December 24, 2009 at 3:20 PM
“Dammit, I’m uncharacteristically drunk (it’s the season) and pissed off. I’ve had enough of this bullsh*t. Who decided that the sole objective of a political movement was to simply “get elected” on whatever views the majority happen to hold on the range of the moment?”
I’m with you, Sharke, and my compliments. Anybody that can write drunk and not make one spelling mistake is A-OK.
gary fouse on December 25, 2009 at 1:42 PM
The world as it is includes abortion (including, in Virginia, abortion after birth), joblessness caused by government intervention in the financial and automotive marketplaces, high taxes caused by a government which wishes to deny workers the toil of their own hands and to force the redistribution of same, a world where the government would force us to do business with private concerns we’d normally have nothing to do with…
I could go on, but like the Republicans of yore who fought against slavery even when it was part of the world as it was, I’d prefer to fight on for a new world not blemished by the problems the liberals have brought to it. If you are not with us with respect to individual liberty, you are against us.
As Thomas Jefferson said in his first inaugural address, the best sort of government is
If you are not for this type of government, you are against it.
unclesmrgol on December 25, 2009 at 11:23 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2