Ballot box revolt: It’s the power the people have to use
posted at 6:30 pm on September 19, 2010 by J.E. Dyer
I’ll issue one more caveat about liking the heck out of Karl Rove. I think his expertise is not as applicable as it has sometimes been to the predicament voters find themselves in this year. But I don’t accuse Rove of being what we used to call – with a sneer – a “Rockefeller Republican.”
Probably the most dissonant point he made in the past week is the one about Republican “strategy.” Along with many others, I thought, before the Tuesday primary, that Delaware voters would follow a conventional route and approve Mike Castle. Even though he’s a RINO, he has looked more likely than Christine O’Donnell to beat Democrat Chris Coons.
But Rove didn’t just expect them to do that: he wanted them to do that. The RNC was urging voters to do that. From the perspective of electoral strategists, strategic voting is a sound practice that voters need to be sold on. Vote for a RINO to get a Senate majority – that’s their plan.
And it’s a perfectly logical one if the objective is to get a Republican majority in the Senate. But that wasn’t the objective of the Delaware voters when they went to the polls on Tuesday. Their objective was to vote for the platform they want, and not for the continuation of the platform that has produced our current conditions. They were less concerned with positioning the GOP for a Senate majority than with registering what they want to hear from a candidate, and the direction they want our lawmaking to go.
What Rove and those in the GOP leadership need to understand is that a citizen’s vote is the main tool he has to express himself politically. There comes a time when he has to use it for his own purposes, rather than as someone else’s tactical tire-tool; and 2010 is one of those times.
I can’t count how often this year I’ve heard the following expressed one way or another: “Things have got to change. I don’t even care if I’m voting for the candidate who supposedly can win. I’ve got to vote for the candidate who’s saying what I believe in, and let the rest take care of itself. We can’t keep voting for the same old people. Maybe it’ll take some time to get some leadership for a new direction, but it will never happen if we keep bringing back all the folks who got us into this mess.”
There is wisdom in this. The conservative right has a number of people in political leadership who have good ideas and real promise, even though none are looking dominant in the presidential category today. I don’t think that’s really a problem. Republicans – in fact, conservatives as a whole – have to unite around a core set of governing principles before a single national leader will emerge.
I think many high-information voters see things this way: if we can retake the House and achieve a blocking minority in the Senate – both of which are increasingly probable, even if O’Donnell loses in Delaware – Congress can act as a check on Obama until January 2013.
On the other hand, a RINO-heavy Congressional majority would be likely to set Obama’s course in stone – e.g., with only marginal changes to Obamacare, with some version of amnesty and some version of cap-and-trade – and actually make the Obama agenda harder to decouple from down the road.
The Republicans who would take over as a majority in 2011 just aren’t convincing to a lot of voters. The voters aren’t stupid; they’re using their votes for their own purposes. It’s not a knock on Karl Rove that his electoral advice has been overruled. It’s a signal that something much bigger is going on, and the rules have gone out the window. Expertise with running campaigns is secondary right now. In first place is a candidate’s message – and the people are listening with a very critical ear. They’ve left their party’s, and nation’s, direction on autopilot for a long time now, but they’re no longer willing to. Their vote is the one thing they have direct, personal control over, and they’re using it to do what they want to do.
Cross-posted at The Optimistic Conservative.
This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.
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
O’Donnell is an ‘end justifies the means’ Republican? The entire democrat party is a ‘end justifies the means’ party. The democrat party and their RINO enablers have destroyed this country.
What you don’t get is people are looking for candidates they can trust to represent them in Congress. Represent them … not get elected and suddenly forget what constituents are and what the Constitution is.
People are sick and tired of “bipartisanship” because for the most part it only goes one way. People don’t want “feel good” Senators who just want to get along.
People who favor pseudo-Republicans and don’t care when the Constitution is ignored in favor of “bipartisanship” are the ones with no credibility.
Oh … they’ll insinuate you’re gay? You really are “bizzarro”.
darwin on September 20, 2010 at 8:08 AM
-
Did I miss something? Did that happen…? Link?
RalphyBoy on September 20, 2010 at 8:10 AM
And, many if not most, voters ‘purpose’ is to keep our country reflecting our basic values and who we are at heart. Everyone will tolerate some variation on this theme, some will tolerate more than others. This time the voter senses too great a pendulum swing to the left. The voter can, and will, be uncomfortable with too great a swing to the right too, if it comes.Those who say it’s the economy are only seeing half the picture.
jeanie on September 20, 2010 at 8:18 AM
Rove needs to shut up about Delaware. The more he tries to explain his immediate diarrhea of the mouth after it was announced that O’Donnell won, the more he looks like a vindictive idiot.
People are forgetting that O’Donnell wants to fill the seat held by Biden. Just how hard could that be???
joedoe on September 20, 2010 at 8:24 AM
Rove was working for castle and his guy lost.A blemish on his record,that means less money on the next gig.He worked for a looser,he cant have that and he is po’d.Punched in the ego.
Farfed on September 20, 2010 at 8:50 AM
There’s one more thing at play, which no one wants to talk about. The Democrats so over-played there hand, since Obama was elected, they can no longer talk about “extreme” with a straight face. They can’t talk about bi-partisanship with a straight face either. They showed the American people what unfettered Democratic power is and the people are scared to death. They also realize that RINO’s will only help the Democrats not slow them down a bit. So, the Democrats are as much responsible for the tea parties and these elections as the Republicans are. If the Republicans don’t do the right thing, this time, they’ll be out too. One thing about the tea parties, this election, they’re doing their job, getting rid of squishy Republicans and voting against radical Democrats.
bflat879 on September 20, 2010 at 8:52 AM
People have learned a hard lesson over the past 30 years, that they no longer HAVE a voice at all in their government. They no longer even count. It’s the lobbyists who write legislation; and it’s the political strategists who govern, with an eye towards getting more money from those lobbyists. Their contempt for “the people” could not be more clear. “The people” have been cut out of the system altogether.
Karl Rove is the poster boy for that system, as is Rahm Emanuel; David Brooks and Charles Krauthammer represent the other leg of the three-legged stool–lobbyists, strategists, press–that have worked for 30 years now to keep the two political parties in power, shutting out the people altogether from the equation.
WE. ARE. SICK. OF. IT.
You’re so right about the motivation for the Tea Party Movement, and the reason it has sparked an uprising and a revolution against the status quo, and the voter’s outrage at being cut out of their own system of government. I am not even a “member” of the Tea Party, but I certainly feel their rage, and am voting for what I want, not what political strategists like Karl Rove want. After all, Rove’s “strategy” during Bush’s administration was so “successful” it led to the Democrats taking over Congress in 2006. So, why on earth should ANYONE listen to Karl Rove?!
mountainaires on September 20, 2010 at 8:59 AM
Yes, Dems are the ‘end justifies the means’ party, and people like you are now acting just like them. You really don’t care to learn about her ethical lapses, nor her mental problems, and you’ll berate anyone on the Right who does care about them.
Miss O’D used a proxy to insinuate that Castle was gay. If you believe it was done independently of her, you’re foolishly gullible. She has a track record of lying, and of personal attacks against anyone who challenges her, and for some stupid reason (which is that easily manipulated partisans don’t exist only on the Left,) people who normally would be critical of such behavior are letting her be their Pied Piper, and they follow her every move by doing anything to change the subject.
This isn’t reasonably disputable. I know what it’s like to argue with Leftists, and you O’D sychophants are behaving exactly like the bad-mannered Kos Kids. No interest in how she lied about being in the Master’s program at Princeton; no concern that she stiffed some of her campaign workers in 2008; no interest in her signs of being clinically delusional. She denies the obvious, and then tries to make the topic the motives of those who bring up factually-based unplesantries about her.
Ever heard of shoot the messenger? LOL I know you so well, I can predict with 100% accuracy I’ll have that experience in regards to this post from someone like you! :)
Bizarro No. 1 on September 20, 2010 at 9:22 AM
You didn’t read what I said. The day of the polished, groomed politician whose had every skeleton in their closet covered up by the media is over. People want representatives they can trust … not just traitorous crooks who look good in $3000 suits with finely manicured hair.
People don’t care anymore. They don’t care if someone isn’t perfect, or went to Harvard. They want real people … like them.
darwin on September 20, 2010 at 9:33 AM
Look bud, I’m simply telling you what going on. If you don’t like it drive to Delaware and start bitching at the people there.
darwin on September 20, 2010 at 9:34 AM
Here’s some evidence: Castle is gay and unmanly
In a video posted at Liberty.com, a female newscaster praises O’Donnell, then suggests that her September 14 GOP primary opponent, Rep. Mike Castle, is gay.
“Isn’t Mike Castle cheating on his wife with a man?” an unseen voice asks.
“That’s the rumor,” the gleeful newscaster responds.
In denying any involvement in the rumor, O’Donnell continued to repeat the claim.
“I think that that’s a very tacky approach,” she said last Thursday on WGMD’s radio show the Dan Gaffney Show. “I never said that Mike Castle was gay … I don’t endorse putting out rumors that Mike Castle is gay.”
And in an interview Thursday on the Mark Levin Show, O’Donnell repeated the suggestion: “You know these are the types of cheap underhanded, unmanly tactics that we’ve come to expect from Obama’s favorite Republican, Mike Castle. You know I released a statement today saying, Mike Castle this is not a bake-off. Get your man pants on.”
I don’t appreciate hypocritical people who would rightfully lambaste such juvenile behavior if a Leftist acted that way; I expect them to hold O’Donnell to the same standards. Instead, they’ll act like Kos Kids and personally attack people like me with rationally inapplicable labels like, “ruling elite,” “sexist,” “you’re part of the establishment,” “you’re attacking Miss O’D only because you’re angry Castle lost,” “you want Coons to win,” etc., only because we state we have a problem with her moronic, poorly disguised antics.
Bizarro No. 1 on September 20, 2010 at 9:48 AM
You’re hysterical.
darwin on September 20, 2010 at 9:50 AM
I read what you said, and it’s stupid and intellectually offensive, as is your defense here. I agree with you that Miss O’D's minions are “real” just like her – they support her with the fervor they do because they are shamelessly unethical, as their Empress is.
You are repeating that past and present ethical lapses don’t matter, as long as your candidate fits the Right’s version of PC. You’re no different from Leftists who do the same thing for their side’s candidates.
I expect better from the Right, especially from Miss O’D and many of her supporters who claim that they want to represent Jesus in the way they carry themselves. Looking at their example, I guess Jesus was big into ad hominem! :)
Bizarro No. 1 on September 20, 2010 at 9:58 AM
i.e. “I’ll attack you personally and shoot you for being the messenger of a message I have no intelligent rebuttal for. “ – darwin, the partisan hypocrite
Bizarro No. 1 on September 20, 2010 at 10:02 AM
This problem isn’t restricted to DE; it’s gone countrywide. If you criticize Miss O’D, legitimately or not, you are serving the Left, according to big dopes like Mark Levin
You people are despicable.
Bizarro No. 1 on September 20, 2010 at 10:04 AM
I don’t think “the right” really cares what you expect. I know I don’t. You guys are so predictable … you have your standard attacks and “Jesus” is always one of them.
By the way … I meant hysterical as in “funny” … you know, like a barrel of monkeys.
darwin on September 20, 2010 at 10:10 AM
The experts tell us that the voters in Delaware nominated a candidate that voters in Delaware won’t vote for.
Think about it.
hawksruleva on September 20, 2010 at 10:22 AM
That’s right – if you see someone on the Right like me who doesn’t share your proclivity for double standards, you’ll verbally abuse them. You can’t reasonably this charge and have no interest in doing so anyways, which is why you keep attacking instead. Anything to keep you from facing the ugly truth about yourself, which is that you are not a good person.
btw, can you explain how expecting self-proclaimed Christians to act like Christians instead of Kos Kids is deplorable?
Bizarro No. 1 on September 20, 2010 at 10:22 AM
From your comments, I guess calling people minions of the Empress isn’t ad hominem. Calling someones comments stupid and intellectually offensive isn’t ad hominem. Saying people are shamelessly unethical isn’t ad hominem.
Or should we not hold you to the standard you claim to expect?
hawksruleva on September 20, 2010 at 10:28 AM
Very nice, J.E. It looks like the Vulcan mind-meld is going National.
Robert17 on September 20, 2010 at 10:28 AM
Believe me, I’m devastated. You are skilled at impugning people … you’ve left me stunned, unable to respond effectively. Maybe I can attack you with Jesus.
No, can you explain why you care whether Christians act like Christians? Further … to be “Christian” means to walk in Christ’s footsteps which for 99.9999999999999% percent of the people on the planet is virtually impossible, at least at the moment.
darwin on September 20, 2010 at 10:30 AM
Stating that people who are apathetic about their abusiveness are abusers is not a personal attack against them, is it?
When correctly labeling someone is an attack against their character, let me know…
Bizarro No. 1 on September 20, 2010 at 10:33 AM
Concern troll. Flush it.
SurferDoc on September 20, 2010 at 10:33 AM
Wait. Let me get this straight. You’re saying that this is a slur against Castle?
What response should she have given? Unless O’Donnell is feeding questions to the reporters, I don’t see how you can say that she’s questioning Castle’s sexual orientation, or even trying to use it as an issue. If anything, the whole line of questioning took time away from O’Donnell’s message.
Her characterization of Castle’s tactics as “unmanly” isn’t a homophobic comment unless you see everything through that prism. By that standard, all Old Spice commercials “Smell like a MAN, MAN!” would be accusing thier clients of being gay.
hawksruleva on September 20, 2010 at 10:35 AM
You’re a nut.
Wow! That was easy! I have correctly labeled you therefore it is not an attack against your character.
darwin on September 20, 2010 at 10:38 AM
You just can’t help but incriminate yourself! The more you try to dig your way out of that hole, the deeper you are going. You’re clueless, inept and delusional, just like your Empress.
You make excuses for those on your side who misbehave, and you have a bigger problem with people stating the truth about those misbehavers than you do with those who are misbehaving, and you lay this out for all of us to see. You aren’t virtuous on a personal level, which is why you and the ethically-challenged Miss O’D attract each other like magnets.
Bizarro No. 1 on September 20, 2010 at 10:41 AM
Please see comment above yours.
darwin on September 20, 2010 at 10:43 AM
You’re either really stupid and/or in denial; I see no good reason to have a discussion with you at this point in time.
Bizarro No. 1 on September 20, 2010 at 10:43 AM
Logic failure who cares more about winning than truth. Mock it.
Bizarro No. 1 on September 20, 2010 at 10:44 AM
Wow, that’s, umm, interesting. How did you determine that your labels are correct? I could easily toss out a few labels for you right now, and as long as I think they’re correct, I wouldn’t be attacking your character. That’s your standard. I guess your next argument is the rubber/glue defense.
If “Empress” is a correct label for O’Donnell, then why are we arguing about her nomination by the voters of Delaware?
hawksruleva on September 20, 2010 at 10:45 AM
You don’t understand how I was using “correctly.” Calling a nude woman nude is not a mischaracterization; saying that that nude woman is wearing clothes is, however.
No, I don’t believe you’re bright enough to understand that responding to a factual allegation with a personal attack on the alleger, who backs up his allegation with evidence, is logically unacceptable.
You care about logic as much as the average Obama supporter does.
Bizarro No. 1 on September 20, 2010 at 10:50 AM
Ok, so if I say “Bizarro No. 1 is not gay”, then I just attacked your sexual orientation? If I say you’re not martian, am I questioning your species?
Again. When reporters bring up questions about Castle’s orientation, how should O’Donnell have responded?
You’re basically saying she’s great at manipulating the media and subtly crafting her message to plant seeds in the minds of the public, and that her ability to artfully choreograph attacks were what cost Castle his nomination. Are you trying to imply that she’s an highly skilled politician?
hawksruleva on September 20, 2010 at 10:52 AM
Experience.
Having lived long enough, I recognize BS when I see it, just as I recognize people who aren’t asking questions sincerely.
The way I see it, if my assessment of someone like you is wrong, you’ll prove it to me. I see you going in the opposite direction. Too bad! :)
Bizarro No. 1 on September 20, 2010 at 10:54 AM
Ok, so “Empress” is provable in the same way that “nude” is provable. You’re saying that O’Donnell is, in fact, an Empress? Could you tell me what the precise measurements of “intellectually offensive” and “stupid” were?
Are you denying that you’re engaging in personal attacks? Or just saying that you don’t hold yourself to the standards to which you hold others?
hawksruleva on September 20, 2010 at 10:55 AM
Do you read what you write? That’s some pretty deep Bullshyt right there. Perhaps you’ve lost perspective. A vacation would probably help you.
darwin on September 20, 2010 at 10:57 AM
I think Bizarro is lost in some kind of bizarro illogic loop.
darwin on September 20, 2010 at 10:58 AM
Ok, so to you, a fact is established by your personal BS detector going off or not going off. Got it. I guess you also have a sophisticated internal measurement for determining if someone is stupid, or a minion. What’s your definition of stupidity? Someone who doesn’t agree with you?
hawksruleva on September 20, 2010 at 11:00 AM
Do you know what “innuendo” means?
Miss O’D is highly manipulative, and a lot of people who are easily manipulated are falling under her spell. I don’t respect such people.
If her minions on the Right would just be honest and admit that she is mentally and ethically unsound, and that because they like her politics, they choose to overlook her foibles, I could live with that; at least they’d be being intellectually honest.
What I can’t live with is people denying/pretending that she isn’t highly manipulative and dishonest. It’s insulting to the intelligence the same way Clinton’s denial of pot usage was.
Bizarro No. 1 on September 20, 2010 at 11:02 AM
It happens a lot when liberals engage in debate. If they don’t use their primary tactic of constantly shifting arguments that don’t respond to rebuttal, they get betrayed by the incoherence that characterizes their world view.
hawksruleva on September 20, 2010 at 11:03 AM
You are trying to apply moral equivalency between me and Miss O’D's sycophants. It doesn’t wash.
If I bring up facts about her imperfectness, and instead of dealing with those facts on an impersonal level, her defenders attempt to make it personal by focusing on my motivation for bringing up those facts in lieu of any discussion of the facts I brought up, bad communication is occuring. That wouldn’t be my fault.
If you believe that considering people who try to change a subject by getting personal are idiots is in the same category as trying to change a subject you find unpleasant by making the other person’s motives the focus of the conversation, you don’t understand the difference between aggression and self-defense, and it proves you’re a hopeless cause.
Bizarro No. 1 on September 20, 2010 at 11:18 AM
Yes. I think she was pretty clear in distancing herself from those charges, and from that issue. Again. How should Miss O’D have responded to those questions?
I don’t know much about O’Donnell’s politics or foibles. I do know that she was voted to be the GOP Senate candidate by the voters of Delaware, instead of Mike Castle. Neither nominee was before the voters of that state for the first time, meaning they voters had previous opportunities to learn about them. Delware weighed the information and made their decision. I support it.
hawksruleva on September 20, 2010 at 11:20 AM
Try to prove that I’ve been illogical here w/o committing a logical fallacy yourself. How much are you willing to bet me you can’t?
I will take your inevitable declination of my offer as an implicit submission, loser! :)
Bizarro No. 1 on September 20, 2010 at 11:23 AM
So you’re morally and intellectually better than the people who voted for Miss O’D. Got it. Your “facts about her imperfectness” are nothing like personal attacks. Got it.
hawksruleva on September 20, 2010 at 11:24 AM
I am sorry, but I don’t believe you are conversing with me in order to establish the truth; I believe you have ulterior motives.
I’d answer that question, but only when someone I respect intellectualy asks me. That person is not you! :)
Bizarro No. 1 on September 20, 2010 at 11:26 AM
I said, implied, or believe that? Gawd.
Well, we’ve established here that you are at the very least stupid. I don’t care to exercise my brain to determine if I believe you are in denial, too. You simply are not worth my time! :)
Bizarro No. 1 on September 20, 2010 at 11:29 AM
That curly 80’s hair.
That virginal seductive stare
that strips my conscience bare
it’s witchcraft.
Castle hadCooms has no defense for it.The tea is too intense for it.
What good would commonsense for it do?
‘Cause it’s witchcraft!
Wicked witchcraft.
And although I know it’a strictly taboo
when you arouse the need in me
my heart says “yes indeed” in me
Proceed with what you’re lead in ‘me to!
It’s such an ancient pitch
but one I wouldn’t switch
‘Cause there’s no nicer witch than you!
Mr. Joe on September 20, 2010 at 11:33 AM
You mean, prove AGAIN? One of your arguments is that “I never said that Mike Castle was gay” means you’re saying he’s gay.
You say that your arguments are fact-based. Your basis for fact is the ever-reliable personal BS detector.
You claim that O’Donnell and her supporters are “ends justifies the means” Republicans. This flies in the face of the commonly-held view that O’Donnell is less electable than Castle in a general election. If the ends justifies the means, her supporters should have votee for Castle.
You reject arguments like
as stupid and intellectually offensive, and then claim that O’D supporters are engaging in personal attacks.
I don’t give in, and I’m supporting a candidate who’s already won in a primary. Who are you supporting?
hawksruleva on September 20, 2010 at 11:37 AM
Well, at least you’re not elitist.
hawksruleva on September 20, 2010 at 11:38 AM
My very first post to you explained the what and the why of the O’Donnell election. In your rush to protect your false logic, you ignored it and proceeded to go on and on about logic as if you’re a Vulcan or something. You may not have pointed ears but I’m really beginning to think you have a pointed head.
Also, you’re just not very witty. I know, I know I just popped your bubble. It’s ok, you’ll get over it, it just takes time.
darwin on September 20, 2010 at 11:43 AM
This guy thinks he’s like the Plato of blogs or something.
darwin on September 20, 2010 at 11:45 AM
1) I guess you didn’t notice, but I offered to bet darwin, not you.
2) If I were in DE, I’d vote for Miss O’D, but only after I took some anti-nausea medicine and plugged my nose – I despise her on a personal level, similar to how I feel about Bill and Hillary. Not to the same degree, but it’s on the same path.
Bizarro No. 1 on September 20, 2010 at 11:46 AM
I am glad I am an elitist – I enjoy life more in silence than I do talking to stupid bores like you!
I don’t really like bad conversationalists such as you.
Bizarro No. 1 on September 20, 2010 at 11:48 AM
All of that just to run away from saying you’d decline my bet, one you know you aren’t capable of winning.
Do you think you’ve surprised me? LOL
Bizarro No. 1 on September 20, 2010 at 11:53 AM
You’d vote for someone you despise on a personal level? So, if you were in Delaware, you’d be one of the ‘ends justify the means’ supporters that you’re attacking.
Of course, that fits into your worldview. Elitists are often ready to compromise their principles in the name of party strength. In fact, it was just such a compromise in favor of Mike Castle that lead to our current situation. If the elite would stick to principles, voters would have better candidates to choose from.
Funny how the master plans of the elite seem so often to be myopic and self-defeating.
hawksruleva on September 20, 2010 at 11:56 AM
Socrates > Plato.
Never trust people who are too afraid of answering or asking uncomfortable questions…they’d rather injure you than participate above the board.
Bizarro No. 1 on September 20, 2010 at 11:56 AM
You’re still as stupid as before.
I like watching you pontificate about me rather than honestly engage me. Thanks for the entertaining babble! :)
Bizarro No. 1 on September 20, 2010 at 11:59 AM
You lost a long time ago although I doubted you’d see it. Winners don’t have to “bold” their words. Their words carry enough meaning without having to artificially emphasize them.
Of course you know all that, but your pride won’t let you quit. That’s why you insist on making yourself look more and more foolish. Your screen name is apt.
darwin on September 20, 2010 at 12:01 PM
I’ve been trying to engage you. For the 4th time, how would you have suggested O’D respond to questions about Castle’s personal life?
Just to simplify things for me, because I’m the idiot here, tell me what point you’d like to be engaged on, and I’ll engage you on that specifically. In lieu of that, here’s a topic we could discuss:
Are you the sort of person who’d rather injure than participate above the board?
hawksruleva on September 20, 2010 at 12:11 PM
i.e. ‘”put up or shut up” doesn’t apply to a whiny brat like me, because if it did, I’d be forced to admit that I’ve been a total idiot in my discussions with BizarroNo1, and I’d end up crying about it!’ – darwin, the projecting coward
Bizarro No. 1 on September 20, 2010 at 12:17 PM
I have it on good authority that the United Nations is considering adding irony of this military-grade concentration to the list of weapons banned by the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
VekTor on September 20, 2010 at 6:13 PM
Wow, you really zinged me!
Only stupid people equate bad snark used in the service of defending their sacred cows, ones imbued with fully functioning human brains, with intelligent commentary.
You Miss O’D defenders are sooo hilarious and smart!!!
Bizarro No. 1 on September 20, 2010 at 6:55 PM
Can you explain to me how constantly jumping to conclusions about me and my opinions is an honest engagement of me, or what the appeal is of dealing with people who do that? I’d like to know how that works.
I can tell you that people who put more effort in finding errors in what the persons they are talking to are saying than they do trying to understand them first before they look for errors are tedious. I would think it would obvious that since I am critical of people who act like that, I don’t believe I am guilty of that shortcoming myself.
If you’ve noticed, I haven’t called you a moron like I have someone like darwin. Do you know why that this? It’s because I’m discriminatory – I can see a difference between you two (I don’t believe you’d tell me you don’t care about what I think, for one thing.) Is that what someone who’s just interested in insulting anyone who disagrees with him does? If you don’t directly answer this question, why should you be surprised to find I don’t take you very seriously?
Bizarro No. 1 on September 20, 2010 at 7:18 PM
In your zeal, you appear to have mistaken me for one of the “ardent supporters” of O’Donnell, over which you seem to be hyperventilating.
I’m not one of the droids you’re looking for. I’m (primarily) a pragmatist. I use as a fundamental assumption that you don’t have a working time machine that you’re willing to use in order to correct this problem of her being the duly chosen candidate in Delaware. Please, by all means, correct me if that assumption is flawed… the time-quake from your corrective action doesn’t appear to have manifested.
Given that the primary is over, I’m looking at this matter from the perspective of practical remedies that are available to us now, here in the real world (rather than the world as you would wish it had been).
As I see it, there are two deeply flawed candidates on the ballot in DE for the Senate: O’Donnell and Coons. It would seem that the reasonable choice would be to determine which of these candidates (as bad as they are) you would prefer to have win… and then act in a manner which serves to help manifest that preference.
One can legitimately decide that they have no preference at all, and that they prefer to “sit on the sidelines” for this contest. That is a logically coherent position. Absent that, it would seem to me that actions one chooses to take, and I count speech of the form you have been taking as one of those actions, should cohere with the preference in outcome one has for this contest.
So let me make it blunt and clear, since your derision seems to indicate that you wish to claim that you eschew BS:
Do you prefer that O’Donnell win over Coons, that Coons win over O’Donnell, or do you wish to sit on the sidelines with your preference unexpressed? Time travel is not an option in that question.
Please be exact and clear in stating which outcome of the ones that are possible without time travel that you prefer in this cycle.
Between those two, I would prefer not to have Coons in that office. As flawed as O’Donnell is, I see her as a candidate who is less likely to take legislative positions which I vehemently oppose.
Since I have no time machine of my own, I recognize that I can’t change who the Republican candidate is for the Senate in Delaware this election cycle, no matter how much I might prefer that the situation be different.
Accordingly, I recognize that the appropriate time for recriminations and effective action to change the candidate discovery and vetting process going forward (without making matters worse in the meantime for my preferred outcome) is on or after November 3rd, 2010.
I recognize that engaging in the sort of scorched-earth told-you-so campaign against O’Donnell after the primary is over and decided, which I am seeing from far too many for my comfort, would be providing ammunition and support for the outcome which is at direct odds with my own preference.
Doing so would mean that I would be acting against my own interests, which I consider incoherent. Your mileage may vary, of course.
A better job should be done in vetting potential candidates going forward. The times to have that discussion were well before the primary was over, and after the general election. During the general, the more coherent position would seem to be to look at the actual choices and choose between them, not whine about why the side you prefer offered up such a bad choice this time.
But hey, what do I know, right? I’m just some ardent O’Donnell supporter using bad snark to “defend [my] sacred cows” rather than having any meaningful and coherent opinions on the subject, as your “experience” and “BS recognition” abilities already told you with such stunning reliability.
Putz.
VekTor on September 21, 2010 at 12:34 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2