Unreal: Senate GOP decides not to strip Murkowski of seniority on Energy committee after all; Update: It’s a matter of “good taste,” says Hatch

Typical GOP bailout voter.

1. Power over principle. Fantasy Football politics.

You say this as if they are somehow opposed. How is trying to maximize electoral power for conservatives not principled? Obviously, empowering conservatives politically is necessary to get laws passed.

Sometimes I get the sense that people think it is not only tactically better, but actually principled to vote for a principled person. If so, can anyone actually explain or defend that position?

2. Escalate our mindless political system to an actual dignified and complex game in a backhand attempt to insult the intelligence of those that don’t agree with them.

I have bad news for you. Life is complex. Even if you want it to be simple. Even if the underlying principles are simple. Complex stuff is hard to understand, and therefore requires hard work to think through. Simple stuff is not hard to understand. Denying a harsh reality, like the complexity of the world, is not conservative.

And anyway, why would you think that believing things are complex is an attempt to insult people who disagree? If things are complex, then disagreeing is obviously more understandable, not less.

Rip the fu cking band-aid off…

I don’t know what this means, but I concede that it sounds pretty badass.

Slowly losing is not winning.

ClassicCon on September 22, 2010 at 3:51 PM

True. Unfortunately, swiftly losing doesn’t do much For The Win either.

RINO in Name Only on September 22, 2010 at 4:50 PM

Update: Ace speculates that they’re afraid to push her too hard lest she vote with the Democrats in the lame-duck session. Isn’t she going to do that anyway if she loses to Miller? By definition, she’s a sore loser. Seniority won’t mean anything to her during the lame-duck if she knows she won’t be around next year to enjoy it.

She may be a sore loser, but if her animosity is not directed at Republican Senators, that decreases the chances that she will side with the Democrats in a lame duck session. Obviously, it’s still quite possible, and you might even argue it’s likely. But any hope of keeping her in line dissolves if her anger at Republicans is directed personally at the Senators.

Murkowski being mad at her fellow Senators, no matter how wimpy they actually are, and no matter their RINO tendencies, can only help the Democrats in the lame duck session – they only need one seat to break a filibuster and push all kinds of wonderful liberal programs through.

Remember, much as we may despise Republican senators, they have at least sometimes held together for a filibuster. They can’t do that without Murkowski.

It may still be ok to alienate her, but it can’t be out of spite – there has to be some gain for conservatives to counter the risk.

It boils down to the question, which is greater: the increase in Miller’s chances gained from stripping Murkowski of seniority? Or the increase in the chance to keep Murkowski in line during the lame duck session, gained from letting her keep it.

As to anyone complaining about principle, the only principle at stake is the advancement of conservative legislation. There is nothing principled, or unprincipled, about liking/favoring/being nice to an individual, whether they are conservative, RINO, or unreconstructed Marxist. That’s just one of many tactical considerations.

RINO in Name Only on September 22, 2010 at 5:18 PM

Explain again to me how the RINO strategy in the northeast is doing. how many GOP senators is left in the NE where we have to run RINOs “to get elected”

Sounds like it’s doing pretty badly, though I don’t see what that has to do with anything I said.

I think we need a new plan

unseen on September 22, 2010 at 5:03 PM

Here’s a new plan. For every election, ask the question “which outcome is strategically better for the conservative movement?”, recognizing that optimizing the success of the conservative movement (the actual goals of the conservative movement, not simply conservative personalities), is the most principled thing to do, pretty much by definition.

Then, realize that there is no universal answer to that. It will vary from race to race.

It may be that it often is best to back the conservative. In fact, I think that’s probably right. Even if you risk losing, the “purifying” benefit may outweigh that. However, this need not always be the case – it varies based on how much short term power is being sacrified, and how much long term gain is achieved by replacing the RINO with that particular conservative. In some extreme scenarios, for example, a particularly weak conservative and a closely contested Senate, the optimal strategy might differ.

The point is that there is no simple strategy that can be universally applied. There may be one that works in a lot of cases, and might be a good default position, but it will never be a substitute for analyzing the specific race. Politics, and more generally, life, just isn’t that simple.

RINO in Name Only on September 22, 2010 at 5:37 PM

So we trusted them, ended up with RINO’s who did nothing but further the progressive agenda. Now we’re at a point where we’re fighting the the very survival of the country.

darwin on September 22, 2010 at 5:45 PM

See, there’s your mistake.

More seriously, my point isn’t that you should trust anyone, or any saying. Instead, just try to think through each situation. Take all the advice, whether from people you like or dislike, and say “does this apply here?”

I realize that might come across as pompous or lecturing, and I don’t mean it that way. I just mean that sometimes from some comments, you get the sense that people think there are clear answers – that maybe it’s not easy to do the best thing, but at least it’s simple. Unfortunately, it’s neither. This is why I resent the “unprincipled” charge so much.

RINO in Name Only on September 22, 2010 at 5:54 PM

I’m not trying to be funny here but have you been asleep over the last couple of decades. that is the plan of the RINOs. that is the entire RINO plan in a nutshell and the one they have been using for decades.

No, the RINO plan is to vote RINO. It is most certainly NOT to analyze each situation and vote for the one that advances conservative goals the most. If they did follow my plan (I concede is isn’t really a strategy or a tactic as much as just a piece of advice), then most of the time they would run conservatives.

My plan says:

Florida – Rubio is probably the best, since he is both conservative, and has had success advancing conservative legislation in Florida. He is obviously electable, and even if he seems less electable than Crist (which turned out not to be the case in the end), he is certainly competitive, so we don’t sacrifice a lot by nominating him.

Nevada – Angle isn’t so strong, but neither is her competition, so there is no loss in nominating the more conservative candidate (I’m actually forgetting whether she was the most conservative or not off-hand, but I remember the main contenders seemed comparable, so the principle is the same – the most conservative of them would probably be best.)

Delaware – This is one case where the conservative seems to be very weak, and the RINO is (electorally) very strong. Since the Senate (which can be very useful to conservatives, as I’ve argued above) is possibly at stake, let’s back the RINO on this one. As long as this really is the exception, RINOs will still be terrified – none of them will feel safe on account of such a weak conservative losing, given all the other primaries.

If they were serious about it they would be running fake RINOs in the NE like the dems ran fake blue dogs in the south. Fake RINOs are Gopers that run as liberals and vote conservative once in DC.

futhermore you are confusing tactics with strategy.

unseen on September 22, 2010 at 5:47 PM

I don’t claim “they” were serious about anything, whoever “they” are – I certainly don’t think most genuine RINOs were. I think a lot of times they argue “Conservatives can’t win” either because
A) they don’t really support conservatism (so they aren’t following my plan)
B) they aren’t looking hard enough for an electable conservative – conservatives can certainly win, with maybe only a little moderation in the social areas (and possibly not always that), but it’s tough terrain, so you need strong candidates. In this case, they may be trying to follow my plan, but they just suck at it.
C) Occasionally the talent pool might not have a strong candidate, in which case “they can’t win” might be temporarily accurate (Delaware may be such a case, though I hope I’m wrong). But I think that is much rarer than a typical RINO claims or thinks, so it is certainly not a good general rule or default position.

RINO in Name Only on September 22, 2010 at 6:18 PM