Uh oh: Top NRSC lawyer headed to Alaska to advise Murkowski?
posted at 12:01 pm on August 26, 2010 by Allahpundit
Sean Cairncross, the general counsel of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, is headed to Alaska at the request of Sen. Lisa Murkowski to help provide guidance to the GOP incumbent finds herself trailing attorney Joe Miller by roughly 1,600 votes…
Committee sources insisted that too much should not be read into Cairncross’ presence in Alaska — only that the NRSC is an incumbent-retention committee and, as such, provides assistance when Senators ask for it.
As evidence that the committee is not putting all of its chips on Murkowski, a GOP source tells the Fix that Rob Jesmer, the bespectacled executive director of the NRSC, spoke by phone with a top Miller aide yesterday — making clear that if he wins the election the committee will support him wholeheartedly.
Let me get this straight. After taking loads of abuse from the grassroots for endorsing Charlie Crist before Rubio’s campaign got off the ground, and with Murkowski already pointedly refusing to rule out a third-party bid if Miller’s (shrinking) lead holds up, John Cornyn and the NRSC are … sending their top lawyer to help her out? And framing it explicitly in terms of retaining incumbents? Do they really have no idea of how bitterly ferocious the backlash will be among the Republican base — especially, but not only, among Palin’s supporters — if they’re seen as tilting the election to Murkowski? And how embarrassing it’ll be if they try to do so and fail and then get knifed in the back when she bolts to run as a libertarian?
In fact, didn’t Cornyn vow last year, after the Crist debacle, that they’d be staying out of contested primaries from now on? Why should that promise apply only to financial contributions instead of to in-kind contributions like legal services too? What am I missing here?
Update: Ace argues that this is much ado about nothing, and surely represents some sort of attempt by the NRSC to make a deal with Murkowski to get her to drop out. To be clear, though, I’m not suggesting that they’re trying to get her to run as a libertarian; I’m suggesting that they may be advising her on how to challenge the primary results via a recount, court battle, etc. That’s why I mentioned them getting knifed in the back if they try to help her win the primary and fail.
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 3 4 Next »
*Chuckling* must.resist.going.there!
Bradky on August 26, 2010 at 1:43 PM
I think miller should start letting it out that if the election is stolen from him he will go 3rd party.
fight fire with fire.
Lisa can not win without conservatives. No moderate stands a chance in hell of winning a 3 way race. the race will either go to the Dem or the conservative. Name me one election with 3 candidates with one of them a moderate Rep where the mod rep won. crist is sinking. anderson sunk like a stone in 1980. Perot would have won if he wasn’t a nutcase or at the least beat Bush a sitting president.
the only thing a mod rep running as a 3rd party can hope to do is play spoiler whereas the conservative still stands a chance of winning without moderates.
unseen on August 26, 2010 at 1:43 PM
I get your point..I was mainly meaning HA..:)
Dire Straits on August 26, 2010 at 1:44 PM
+1..Excellent post..:)
Dire Straits on August 26, 2010 at 1:46 PM
WTF? It’s almost like the NRSC wants a civil war.
If Murkowski ends up “winning” after the NRSC “helps out counting votes” I can guarantee you that all hell will break lose.
It’s time for the Establishment GOP to embrace the Tea Party. If not, the GOP will be screwed just like the old Progressive Conservatives in Canada.
Norwegian on August 26, 2010 at 1:46 PM
I am reminded of the debacle when the national party rallied around the useless sellout Specter over Towmey years ago. We all saw how well that worked and this type of interference by the national party over the will of the local voters is why no one gives them money any longer.
JIMV on August 26, 2010 at 1:48 PM
You’re a fuc\king idiot. Malkin hired Allah when she decided to create this blog, as I understand it.
He is HotAir.
You can fire him when you come up with the money to buy it from Townhall. Until then, STFU.
Jaibones on August 26, 2010 at 1:49 PM
Are apropriaters in decline?
Schadenfreude on August 26, 2010 at 1:50 PM
And, another establishment GOP loser acting badly. McCollum in Florida may endorse the democrat candidate for governor, rather than jump on board with the guy who beat him. These people really are despicable whining dirt bags who so clearly deserved to lose their party primaries. Voters are smart.
Rational Thought on August 26, 2010 at 1:51 PM
The vote is split down the middle — both sides need each other — a lesson the base and the rest of the GOP need to relearn quickly.
Bradky on August 26, 2010 at 1:52 PM
You are on a roll today Jaibones. Did the city add another cent to the local sales tax or something? *just kidding*
Bradky on August 26, 2010 at 1:54 PM
Send them Mail
info@nrsc.org
Let them know what you think abut them sticking their snout into the race after the locals have spoken.
JIMV on August 26, 2010 at 1:55 PM
Gotta slap the dunces to keep them awake, as you know. Can’t just let them sit in the corner and nap.
Jaibones on August 26, 2010 at 1:56 PM
Seriously, why are you so passive about the power structure playing their self-preservation games?
Jaibones on August 26, 2010 at 1:57 PM
JohnGalt23 on August 26, 2010 at 1:43 PM
castle has less than 50% support as does coons. which means both are not a sure thing.
If you look at the poll you see that one of thedifferences between castle and O donnell is those wanting a differnet candidate. O’donnel get (10%) wanting someone else and Castle gets 5%
If the choice is between R and D in the general those people wanting a different candidate will most likely vote for the R in this anti-dem year or at worse stay home.
the poll shows that castle is not a sure thing. he is below 50% a flashing sign of possible danger to come.
In races where all candidates have less than 50% support the potential for a late swing is much greater than those races where one candidate has a > 50% support. and those swings are usally brought about by enthusisam of supporters. castles does not have that type of rah rah support.
the race is wide open. castle gives us a liberal GOP senator. christine gives the GOP a conservative.
unseen on August 26, 2010 at 2:00 PM
Just waiting for the absentee ballots to get counted. I’m not sure it is so much self-preservation than a hail mary from Murkowski. Sort of like “Get someone up here to lay out my options”
Bradky on August 26, 2010 at 2:01 PM
Please buy a blog, just not this one.
Cindy Munford on August 26, 2010 at 2:04 PM
So the NRSC is sending a lawyer to help a candidate who inherited her seat, in fact was appointed by her corrupt father!
Has she ever run and won on her own?
Need to ask why I don’t give money to the establishment rather to candidates directly?
The Demorats and Republican Partys have been workin together for years to fleece the working Americans, right Juan McCain?
dhunter on August 26, 2010 at 2:05 PM
The vote is split down the middle — both sides need each other — a lesson the base and the rest of the GOP need to relearn quickly.
Bradky on August 26, 2010 at 1:52 PM
Nope that’s the big lie. the GOp is not made up of 50% mod and 50% conservative. Gallup shows conservatives are about 73% of the GOp while the moderates only make up 24% of the GOP. Or in other words the moderate part of the GOP is the minority part of the party yet it has a majority of the levers of power of the party. the moderates need the conservatives to win primaries. the conservatives do not need the moderates. In the general pop 40% are conservatives 35% are moderates and 21% liberal. Or in other words in a 3 way race the moderate will always lose unless a conservative votes for them or a liberal votes for them. . The liberal will always lose unless a moderate votes for them. conservatives can win with no help from either moderates nor liberals.
Conservatives do not need moderates they simply need moderates not to vote for the liberal. If moderates stay home the conservative wins. If Lisa runs 3rd party she loses. If Criust runs 3rd party he loses.
unseen on August 26, 2010 at 2:11 PM
And in all the years I’ve read this blog, I cannot recall any posting from you whatsoever, so either you’re a new troll or you’re just a boring writer.
Either way, there are about a gajillion other blogs out there, so go find another one to whine on.
Mary in LA on August 26, 2010 at 2:11 PM
Rush talking about this now
unseen on August 26, 2010 at 2:17 PM
Suggest you read this analysis.
http://themoderatevoice.com/32534/gallup-poll-repubicans-lose-in-all-demographic-groups-except-conservatives-churchgoers-and-seniors/
Bradky on August 26, 2010 at 2:19 PM
O/T: Bristol Palin will be on the next season of “Dancing With The Stars”. Sarah will be there to watch and support her.
silvernana on August 26, 2010 at 2:20 PM
*heavy sigh*
Hope she can dance at least tolerably well.
Mary in LA on August 26, 2010 at 2:24 PM
Bristol, I mean.
Mary in LA on August 26, 2010 at 2:24 PM
Bradky on August 26, 2010 at 2:19 PM
suggest you read this
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx
unseen on August 26, 2010 at 2:25 PM
Bradky, if you are figuring “Republicans are down, therefore Democrats will win,” you and Gallup are making the same mistake: Confusing Republicans with conservatives.
Don’t do that. ;-)
Mary in LA on August 26, 2010 at 2:26 PM
Bradky on August 26, 2010 at 2:19 PM
A. The article is from May 2009. The landscape has changed just a bit (Tea Party ascendance, Healthcare debate, rising anti-incumbent sentiment, etc.)
B. That author didn’t know the difference between an authentic allahpundit quote and a Michael Steele quote in a QOTD, on this very blog:
You need better source material. This stinks.
cs89 on August 26, 2010 at 2:30 PM
Bradky on August 26, 2010 at 2:19 PM
again nothing in you link shows how a moderate running as a 3rd party has a chance in hell of winning.
unseen on August 26, 2010 at 2:30 PM
Mary, Unseen & SCS89
If it was as simple as you make it the conservatives shouldn’t have gotten schwacked in 2008.
Confusing conservatives with ideological purists seems to be a mistake you are making. there is a difference.
But go ahead with the slash and burn strategy if you are committed.
And a conservative running as a third party has little chance of winning.
Parse it whatever way you like – the two groups need each other. Not sure why that is so distasteful to you.
Bradky on August 26, 2010 at 2:37 PM
What conservatives got whacked in 2008?
There were almost none running.
sharrukin on August 26, 2010 at 2:39 PM
So you expect Gov. Crist to do well in November?
Cindy Munford on August 26, 2010 at 2:41 PM
This was from May, 2009.
Today is not then.
Schadenfreude on August 26, 2010 at 2:42 PM
This is what I mean about ideological purity. Most GOP identify themselves as conservative. Heck even I do. But the purists try to paint everyone who disagrees with them as moderate or whatever.
That is not a viable approach when each individual may have their own idea of who is “in the conservative club”. It only divides – party unity is not a dirty word.
You see it here in every thread – someone who takes a position different in small degrees from what a “Self professed conservative” deems acceptable and they are dismissed as RINOs, etc.
Bradky on August 26, 2010 at 2:43 PM
If it was as simple as you make it the conservatives shouldn’t have gotten schwacked in 2008.
Bradky on August 26, 2010 at 2:37 PM
ROFL the conservatives did not get “schwacked” in 2008 nor 2006. the GOP moderates got “schwacked” they got killed in 1992 1996 when they ran a moderate. The GOp went conservative in 1994 and won the house. In 2000 and 2004 bush ran as a conservative and won. He governmend as a moderate in 2006 and 2008 and got his party destroyed as conservatives stayed home. like I said the moderates can not win without the conservatives.
And a conservative running as a third party has little chance of winning.
reagan in 1980, rubio, and hoffman was winning when the race was a 3 way race until the moderate threw her support to the liberal. If Dede would have stayed in the race hoffman would have won hands down.
unseen on August 26, 2010 at 2:44 PM
No why would I? Maybe not following your point.
Bradky on August 26, 2010 at 2:45 PM
You know what’s sad, is Cornyn was our former Attorney General, and a really good one. He was pretty good before, but has gone full on stupid in the last few years.
I’m hoping We can get him out of there next go-round.
Michael Williams, who was looking to replace Kay Bailout Hutchison, who promissed to resign after the primary, whether she won the Governor’s race or not (and the backed away from that) is a fine man.
Williams was Railroad Commissioner (basically the job Plain had as energy commissioner in Alaska, but bigger) Great guy.
http://williamsfortexas.com/
gary4205 on August 26, 2010 at 2:46 PM
You call yourself conservative?
I really doubt that!
sharrukin on August 26, 2010 at 2:48 PM
But you prove my point very well about how the party is not united.
Bradky on August 26, 2010 at 2:50 PM
No, maybe I am confused. He’s supposedly a moderate so I thought you would think he would take votes from Rubio.
Cindy Munford on August 26, 2010 at 2:51 PM
someone who takes a position different in small degrees from what a “Self professed conservative” deems acceptable and they are dismissed as RINOs, etc.
Bradky on August 26, 2010 at 2:43 PM
small degree? What do you consider small degree?
abortion?
$4 trillion in addtional government spending?
big government vs small limited gov?
2nd amendment?
while I’ll agree that the term RINO is thrown around carelessly. i think some of the big issues clearly define who is and isn’t a RINO.
Lisa agrees that there should be governmental healthcare, she voted for all of bush’s budgets, she voted for TARP, she is for abortion, She is for big government.
Maybe a REP can get away with not toeing the party line on one or two of those issues but all of them?
I still think Reagan was right 80% should be the cut off line. after that you are part of the other party.
unseen on August 26, 2010 at 2:52 PM
Of course the party is not united. It is controlled by an elite who despise the members who they demand vote for them.
Hardly a situation that will promote unity.
sharrukin on August 26, 2010 at 2:53 PM
I don’t see him winning but he could pull enough to hurt Rubio. The green party cost Gore the election in 2000 and only had a few thousand votes. Same idea – not a fan of third parties.
Bradky on August 26, 2010 at 2:53 PM
Whether or not they succeed in helping Murkowski, it will be bad that the NRSC stuck their thumb in Alaska’s primary election results. Whereas the “Bush stole the election” mantra is dubious, the entire charge would be made real in Miller’s case. That’s not the sort of thing to bring out the vote, a corrupted general election ballot. The anti-incumbent voter disposition applies to Cornyn and the elected Republican ingrates who fail to publicly acknowledge that their NRSC efforts are simply for their own personal self preservation, to augment their own RINO bandwagon with spare wheel progressive votes.
maverick muse on August 26, 2010 at 2:55 PM
here is the thing. the moderates know that within a two party system the only way for them to gain power is to be part of the two party system. the liberals have taken over the dem party so that’s out. the moderates only chance for power is the GOP. If conservatives take over the party the moderates have no party and then must choose between libs and conservatives. they know they could not win as a 3rd party.
unseen on August 26, 2010 at 2:57 PM
Delaware’s biggest electoral prize may go to Rep. Mike
Oh, it gets better. Castle literally votes with the democrats 100 percent of the time.
Word has it, if he wins, he will switch parties almost immediately. There is also a fairly believable rumor that a deal has been struck, and not long after that, Castle will step down, so Joe Biden’s son Beau can be appointed to the seat.
What Is Mike Castle REALLY Up To In Delaware?
This seat, BTW is the one Joe had.
This is a special election too, so the winner will be seated IMMEDIATELY and be a part of the lame duck Congress.
Christine O’Donnell will be the vote to stop a LOT of nonsense and chicanery.
People need to help Christine every way possible!
Donate here:
Sock it to Joe
gary4205 on August 26, 2010 at 2:57 PM
Point being, at the very moment to circle the wagons promoting Miller to win the seat in the general against opposition, on cue, stage left, here come the NRSC saboteurs.
The elitists telling the local voters to STFU, step aside and let Washingtonian “betters” make the decisions. NRSC has come to represent what’s wrong with our federal government. They refuse to listen to constituents, making every authoritarian effort to cut off “representational governance”.
maverick muse on August 26, 2010 at 3:00 PM
gary4205 on August 26, 2010 at 2:57 PM
I am not surprised. Polls show Odonnell has a chance to win. I would take that chance over the certainity of a Castle victory.
unseen on August 26, 2010 at 3:01 PM
The majority of incumbent Republicans have a long, “distinguished” moderate record. That’s a big “IF conservatives take over the party” of GOP needing grassroots to happen. And the progressive NRSC fence sitters are not happy with grassroots direction going against the “moderate” RINO flow.
maverick muse on August 26, 2010 at 3:10 PM
I agree the two groups need each other.
Where I disagree is when the “moderates” say the “conservatives” need to “reach out to the middle,” i.e. adopt primarily moderate strategies.
2008 was, IMO, a demonstration of a moderate of sorts (McCain certainly wasn’t a social con) who despised the base he needed to pull out a win. Hardly a recipe for victory.
We do need each other- but if a demonstrably smaller part of the coalition (moderates) tell the larger portion (conservatives) we have to do most things there way, it becomes very hard to build movement cohesion.
IMO.
cs89 on August 26, 2010 at 3:11 PM
We do need each other- but if a demonstrably smaller part of the coalition (moderates) tell the larger portion (conservatives) we have to do most things there way, it becomes very hard to build movement cohesion.
IMO.
cs89 on August 26, 2010 at 3:11 PM
agreed the moderates should be given the same voice any other minority should be given. Respect them, listen to them but do not let them set the agenda. in short its time for the moderates to hand us the keys to the car and sit in the back seat and play with their DS while the adults drive us to the promise land.
unseen on August 26, 2010 at 3:17 PM
The picture of Murkowski looks like a cross between Sandra Bernhard and a Stepford Wife.
dthorny on August 26, 2010 at 3:20 PM
gary4205 on August 26, 2010 at 2:46 PM
I used to think Cornyn had been a good TX A.G., until his record came back to bite him in a judicial scandalous blast from the past, too late except for voter memory to recall next round. And at the moment even I’ve forgotten what it was. Dismissed charges against a murderer who went on to murder more before being apprehended again? Something along that line.
I’ll have to look him up. How do you know him?
maverick muse on August 26, 2010 at 3:20 PM
You are sheer ignorance on parade.
Read my other post. Castle votes with Obama and crew 100% of the time. 100%
ObamaCare, Cap and Tax, Card Check, you name it, this clown loves it.
He is also looking to switch parties, and is rumored to have struck a deal to step down so Biden’s son can be appointed.
This guy is a career politician. A hack.
Past that, polling shows that Christine O’Donnell will indeed win in November.
Only a total moron would back Castle.
gary4205 on August 26, 2010 at 3:23 PM
Only a total moron would back Castle.
gary4205 on August 26, 2010 at 3:23 PM
Some people stop looking after seeing the R or D behind their name. If castle wins the nomination fine he is probalby a little better than coons but not by much. He will gove the leadership to mitch in the Senate etc.
voting for someone in the primary on the basis of if they can win in Nov is the way to defeat.
unseen on August 26, 2010 at 3:31 PM
All day, every day!
gary4205 on August 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM
Just from word of mouth and Tea Party stuff. “Bing” him and Tea Party and some killer videos will come up.
He’s a lot like Allen West. Powerful speaker. Big man too. My only pick in the guy is he wears bow ties!!!
Seriously, he is a true Conservative.
gary4205 on August 26, 2010 at 3:35 PM
Oh yeah. Voters MUST be more informed and more discerning.
I’ve always voted Republican in the general, because the worst GOPer is still better than the best Marxist-democrat, but in Mike Castle’s case, I’m not so sure.
A lot of folks nationwide put out effort to get Joe Miller elected (which is why the GOP will destroy itself with this move if they do what we fear)
We need to now turn that effort towards helping Christine.
gary4205 on August 26, 2010 at 3:39 PM
That lawyer better be going up there to explain in small easy to understand words why her time is over, and that she will be expected to close ranks and campaign for a party victory.
Time for these mirror-gazing self-centered clowns to get a clue.
MarkT on August 26, 2010 at 3:40 PM
We need to now turn that effort towards helping Christine.
gary4205 on August 26, 2010 at 3:39 PM
agreed gave $25 to her today
unseen on August 26, 2010 at 3:53 PM
Alaskan Republicans need to make their voices heard via their local Republican Central Committees which should be working with the Alaska Republican Party to make sure the votes are being counted fairly in each area.
If Alaskans don’t like what they see as they get more involved with their local Republican Central Committees, then they need to make appropriate replacements in the next election.
The Alaska Republican Party should be making sure that there is no chance of fraud as the votes are counted.
Alaskans may also want to volunteer to monitor the vote counting in their districts.
It will be harder to steal an election if lots and lots of voters are watching closely to protect the integrity of their elections.
wren on August 26, 2010 at 4:01 PM
Sore-Loserman?
Angry Dumbo on August 26, 2010 at 4:16 PM
I understand your point, but it works both ways. Many nominal Republicans (I say nominal because why declare yourself a staunch Republican if you are with the Democrats on half of the issues?) not only don’t call themselves conservatives, but in fact hold conservatives in contempt.
Mostly these are liberal twits like David Brooks and that ugly chick from the Post, but note that Mark Kirk from Illinois is boldly running as a Democrap. He hates conservatives and doesn’t even pretend to be one, although he declares himself a “fiscal conservative”. (He isn’t.)
Jaibones on August 26, 2010 at 4:20 PM
I think where we see it a little differently is that getting legislation passed requires some horse trading and compromise. Moderates help bring the necessary Dem votes on board at times. Without them it is gridlock.
Add to the equation that some states are simply not all that conservative. Getting a GOP senator is an accomplishment in itself but when you get one like Scott Brown it is a plus. But for purposes of re-election he couldn’t possibly stay hard core to the conservative line.
I always look at things in terms of strategy and results. Reagan was the master of both and I’m afraid we have forgotten that lesson.
Bradky on August 26, 2010 at 4:39 PM
It’s one thing to have moderate senators from blue states; it’s quite another to think you’re going to win a national election by mirroring the attitudes of those moderates.
ddrintn on August 26, 2010 at 6:29 PM
Doesn’t yet apply to Murkowski but still makes me chuckle:
Sorry You Lost Your Primary, Now Sit Down and Shut Up
MikeZero on August 26, 2010 at 6:35 PM
NRO Corner
email from Joe Miller to his supporters.
Wethal on August 26, 2010 at 6:37 PM
He needs to get her to pledge that she will not destroy absentee military ballots simply because they have an APO/FPO return address.
DSchoen on August 26, 2010 at 6:39 PM
Holy Smokes, haven’t these NRSCC and the House equivalent learned their lesson? We all QUIT funding them when their brains got stuck on STUPID. We want STUPID gone from elected office. We are cleaning house here (or rather the Senate, pardon the pun). I am SO GLAD I throw away all those letter I get from these idiots asking me to fund their stupid.
Lessons learned, support the candidates DIRECTLY!!!!!!!!!
karenhasfreedom on August 26, 2010 at 6:59 PM
No we need to clean house on the republican side and toss the garbage (cino/rinos) out on there ears and let them join the dims!
grapeknutz on August 26, 2010 at 7:07 PM
Hopefully, it’s the same guy that advised Coleman.
Jorge Bonilla on August 26, 2010 at 7:21 PM
So Huckabee gets into the act.
ddrintn on August 26, 2010 at 8:11 PM
I can just see it now. We’re witnessing a Scozzafava redux.
gryphon202 on August 26, 2010 at 8:19 PM
What’s with all of the irritating “question” headlines? Is HotAir stating facts? Or is it trying to imply something without stating a fact? Will I continue to read HotAir at the end of a long day? Or will I be forced to go elsewhere to get my news? Is this site a tabloid? Or did someone just graduate from journalism school and think these question headlines are really cool? Stay tuned to find out? Or maybe not?
frizzyb on August 26, 2010 at 8:27 PM
I don’t think we can know what Alaska voters will do, they are outside the norm down here. They may get mad enough to do just the opposite of what happened in NY23. Makes me crazy what all these ruling class repub jerks are doing. How I hope they all get what they deserve.
wi farmgirl on August 26, 2010 at 8:45 PM
Is this the Civil War in the Republican Party which the MSM is now trumpeting?
Dhuka on August 26, 2010 at 8:48 PM
I think your right on the money.
wi farmgirl on August 26, 2010 at 9:16 PM
For example? What moderate helped bring what Democrap “on board” what intelligent conservative legislation?
Jaibones on August 26, 2010 at 9:52 PM
You’re an idiot. If you don’t like it here, go away.
ladyingray on August 26, 2010 at 11:26 PM
I agree he’s an idiot, but an easy google search shows posts back to at least January 2007.
ladyingray on August 26, 2010 at 11:33 PM
Murkowski on the Senate seat that she is about loose,
“But its my precious”
Hellrider on August 27, 2010 at 1:02 AM
AP, I think your instincts are spot-on about this one. It really doesn’t matter why the NRSC is rushing to Murkowski’s side. In doing so at all, they’re pointing a howitzer at their foot and firing it. Leave it alone, guys. No one thinks you’re showing up to advance the GOP voter’s interests. Sometimes it’s best to let the bronco buck around for a while before trying to get back on him. And sometimes, you just have to bow out gracefully and let another horseman get it done.
J.E. Dyer on August 27, 2010 at 1:12 AM
“DISASTER!” I’m so glad I’m not an atheist. And a drama queen to boot.
leftnomore on August 27, 2010 at 5:55 AM
Jaibones, In the last 30 years the GOP was at its most effective under Reagan and from 94-98. Reagan and Gingrich had conservative ideals which people were drawn to. But not all were done completely to the party line. They gave in areas where some compromise could be made and held fast on the “no compromise” areas. Gingrich had agreement with Clinton to support a massive overhaul of social security but when the Lewinsky story broke that fell apart.
McCain is an easy example of someone that has been effective. He has a 85% lifetime rating as a conservative but is largely reviled by the people who claim to be the base. His relationships with Lieberman and Clinton were helpful in many cases. Landrieu, he and the gang of 14 helped stop the senate from doing away with the filibuster. Had they not done that the dems would have cap and trade, card check and some other onerous legislation pased.
Everyone makes mistakes, McCain-Feingold was his but that is now overturned. On the immigration issue he cautioned restraint and supported the Bush-Kennedy bill which was the last serious attempt to address illegal immigration. The rhetoric that some republican conservatives (Vitter) used hurt the party in it being portrayed as anti-Hispanic. Had they simply put a better message that addressed the need to remember that millions of legal citizens of Hispanic heritage would benefit we may have gotten somewhere with the message. It was mischaracterized as amnesty when in fact required a 13 year wait before attaining citizenship – none of the people affected would be eligible to vote before 2020. All the polls that cited 70% support for better control at the borders also showed 58% support for a path to citizenship. I think we lost the house in 2006 in large part to how the party handled it.
In my opinion both parties are being led by petty adolescents with a take no prisoners attitude. The first one to figure out that some compromise is needed to actually pass effective legislation will be the winner of the ideological agenda for the next 20 years.
That is why I think that the GOP should be staying up late at night worrying that Hillary might just make a run at it in 2012. I’m not a Clinton fan and never voted for either but they are political masters at triangulation. Pres Clinton is viewed favorably now largely because he read the tea leaves and compromised on a lot of pretty good legislation with the GOP. Obama is too arrogant to make that turn. His strategy after the Nov elections will be to be the no president and point the finger back at the GOP. That might just get him reelected in 2012 and cause the house to flip back to the dems.
Not sure I have entirely answered your question but that’s the way I see things. Again I look at strategy and results not bs things like worrying about whose head will explode if someone is elected or whatever.
Bradky on August 27, 2010 at 7:32 AM
Trample the weak, hurdle the dead.
gary4205 on August 27, 2010 at 8:32 AM
Yet another sickening story abuout elites protecting their own…. too many damn lawyers…..
ultracon on August 27, 2010 at 8:32 AM
Bradky on August 27, 2010 at 7:32 AM
You are of course welcome to your opinion. However, on McCain…
It appears at least possible that he strongly considered Lieberman for his VP.
You don’t see how a candidate apparently willing to share his office (and give possible succession, given age) with a liberal-on-all-but-defense is viewed with suspicion by the base?
I actually like Lieberman, he’d be better than Biden any day. But he’s not a Conservative, and neither is any candidate who’d put him one heartbeat away from the Oval Office.
cs89 on August 27, 2010 at 8:50 AM
Considering and doing are two different things. The fact that he picked Palin instead of Lieberman reflected well on his judgment. How you can write him off simply because he considered something is kind of puzzling. Palin, for example had a commission look into an energy study and part of the direction was to see how cap and trade could help the state.
Hysterics can say “Ah on that one misjudgment she should be written off”. Same idea imo.
Bradky on August 27, 2010 at 8:54 AM
Bradky on August 27, 2010 at 8:54 AM
I’m not “writing him off” because he considered something.
I’m using that example as a counter to you’re argument that “McCain’s really conservative- why does the base despise him?”
A. He’s not that conservative (a lot of that 85% rating is from earlier in the career, and he’s made some big calls badly).
B. It appears that he actually despises the base more than vice-versa: Even with his “mavericky” history, he won the nomination and came darn close to getting the White House. A good percentage of the conservative base voted for him- don’t have the numbers at hand, but he probably got more “conservative” votes than “moderate” votes, when he courted the latter throughout his career. (See NYT profiles pre-nomination: McCain used to be the lib media “golden child” on the GOP side).
cs89 on August 27, 2010 at 9:10 AM
He probably would have won had it not been for the economy collapsing.
I don’t really get influenced by what the media says or doesn’t say nor do I think it makes all that much difference to most voters.
In any event being despised by many in his own party didn’t help him in ways besides votes. Lukewarm support probably impacted his fundraising efforts as an example.
But as his recent primary showed he still commanded 70% of the GOP votes. That is a pretty good testament that he is representing his constituents well.
Bradky on August 27, 2010 at 9:15 AM
I would guess it’s to advise her to drop out. It’s already sounding ridiculous and very much a sore loser type deal.
AnninCA on August 27, 2010 at 10:06 AM
Since most of the absentee ballots are from military folks wouldn’t it be better to let them be counted and then expect her to drop out assuming she doesn’t overtake Miller?Even if they were not military folks we should let the election process play out fairly. If she was more votes down than the number of absente ballots out there I’d agree with you.
Bradky on August 27, 2010 at 10:20 AM
Bradky on August 27, 2010 at 10:20 AM
I’d have zero problem with her issuing a statement to the effect of “It’s not over, we’re still counting votes. However, after a fair count is complete, I look forward to the winning GOP nominee proceeding to victory in the fall. I think we will prevail, but if Miller wins the nomination I will support him to defeat the Democrats in Nov.”
The fact that she’s allowing the Libertarian rumors to swirl speaks poorly of her, IMO, even though I think such an effort would be doomed to failure.
cs89 on August 27, 2010 at 11:22 AM
Same here. In fact, I have been giving her way too much credit, I guess.
Looks stinky.
AnninCA on August 27, 2010 at 11:27 AM
This situation may really galvanize voters. If the traditional GOP types cannot back more conservative members, cannot lose graciously, then they really aren’t a lot different from Obama’s administration, which also ignores voters.
That’s the message I’m getting, anyway. I can’t see how that serves them well.
AnninCA on August 27, 2010 at 11:28 AM
Ed Gillespie explained ages ago that the party “is” the incumbents (of the incumbents, for the incumbents). If it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be the party (we’re far removed from the 1800′s smoke-filled rooms with a cabal operating thru the incumbents). Which is why a party will never support a challenger in a primary (it can’t and survive).
Which is why we need folks like The Club For Growth and now the Tea Party to drive change. Elting Morrison observed that only external forces can change a closed society.
Which is why the current political system with increasing centralization is doomed. Once elected, even revolutionaries find themselves ground under by the perqs. If Mr. Reagan didn’t succeed at shrinking government and increasing liberty, why should we expect lesser souls? Where I consider liberty inversely proportional to the number of pages of (all) regulation – which at their least harmful are just pre-made / forced purchasing decisions for the middle-class (which is what has consumed all the income rise for the last two decades for us).
aritai on August 27, 2010 at 11:29 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »