Karl Rove: My new group isn’t out to get the tea party, I swear

posted at 10:41 am on February 6, 2013 by Allahpundit

From last night’s “Hannity,” here’s the man himself responding to that NYT piece that set conservative media (and grassroots fundraisers) on fire. He’s eager to note how many tea-party candidates he’s supported in the past, both through American Crossroads and his own checkbook, but there’s still no answer to the key question: If the goal is to nominate the most conservative candidate who’s electable, how do you determine who’s “electable”? If you’d have asked me whether Rubio was electable in Florida in 2010, I could have given you an argument either way. He’s electable because he’s charismatic, has state legislative experience, might draw Latino votes from Democrats, and isn’t prone to moronic damaging soundbites. He’s not electable because he’s running as a conservative in a state won by Obama in 2008 against a popular moderate Republican governor in the primary. Which way would the Conservative Project Victory have come down on that? Per Steve Kornacki, which way would they have come down in Rand Paul’s race against Trey Grayson in Kentucky in 2010? Kentucky’s a red state so a tea-party insurgent stands a decent chance of winning the general if nominated, but Paul had “bad optics” baggage for the party in his criticism of the Civil Rights Act. How do we distinguish the disqualifying soundbites, like Akin’s rape comment, from the non-disqualifiers, like Paul’s take on the CRA? Will the answer perchance depend on how likely a candidate is, if elected, to make trouble for the GOP establishment? If you’re more of a libertarian than a “big government conservative,” it’s awfully hard to trust Karl Rove to separate the wheat from the chaff in primaries.

But then, we’re assuming that Rove’s main goal, and American Crossroads’s goal more broadly, is to boost establishment candidates. Is it? Or is this reorientation towards electability more about protecting their viability with rich contributors after a disastrous election year?

But there are plenty of Republican donors who are furious at Crossroads for wasting their money and aren’t going to be fooled by Rove’s rebranding strategy — or his promises that he will get better results the next time around.

I talked to one Republican operative in Washington who put it this way: “These guys took millions of dollars from big donors last year and lined their pockets. The new money will benefit all the same staff, pollsters, admen and vendors. It’s throwing good money after bad.”

Some donors will walk away, but not all. And by backing the most “electable” candidate in every primary, CPV now has a prefab defense to future losses: They can’t be accused of mismanaging their contributors’ money because they’re betting on the horse with the best odds of winning in each race. It’s like a hedge fund switching to a more risk-averse investment strategy after major losses, even though a lot of Republicans who went bust last year were establishment favorites who weren’t so risky on paper. “Electability” is really just Crossroads’s way of reassuring its funders that next time will be different — with the punchline being that they’ll likely be pressured into backing a few tea-party longshots anyway, just to keep grassroots conservatives from making the CPV endorsement a badge of contempt in the movement that candidates grow reluctant to embrace.

Exit question: Isn’t all of this just a variation on the old debate of whether it’s better to back strong conservatives in every race and risk ending up with a very principled congressional minority or better to support RINOs strategically in some states where conservatives are less likely to win and maybe achieve a squishier majority?



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3 4 5

Rove and his RINO insiders will rue the day they went against the TEA Partys. After TEAnami 2014 I think they will fade from view.

DannoJyd on February 6, 2013 at 4:18 PM

I hope so!! Bet they are still kicking themselves for forcing Palin out of Alaska too, LOL Now she’s unshackled from Fox. Watch out RINOS, et al.

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 5:31 PM

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 5:31 PM

[::sternly::] “Conjure ye not the rabid, foaming PDS trolls!” ;)

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 5:33 PM

hamradio on February 6, 2013 at 4:32 PM

I think the opposition forget that Tea Party members are individual Americans!! When any attack the “Tea Party”, I take it personal.

Nice comments and points as well.

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 5:36 PM

There was no gaffe that cost Romney the election. Romney cost Romney the election.
casuist on February 6, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Good comments except I would disagree with the “no gaffe” part. The arrogance he had prodded him to announce(after he won the primarys) that the base would have to vote for him in the end, so he wasn’t worried….

That may have cast him a lot of stay at homes. Why vote when you’re just so much baggage on the GOP’s cattle car?

Don L on February 6, 2013 at 5:37 PM

the problem is in 2010 and 2012 most of the times they DID NOT.gerrym51 on February 6, 2013 at 4:40 PM

What????????????? You can’t be serious.

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Backing the most conservative candidate that can win is codeword for RINOs only!

redware on February 6, 2013 at 2:40 PM

That’s like marrying the girl closest to still being a virgin, isn’t it?

Don L on February 6, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Terrye on February 6, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Lugar’s “use by” time was well past. He didn’t even maintain a residence in Indiana. Why members of Congress can’t retire when they reach 70 is beyond me.

bw222 on February 6, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Backing the most conservative candidate that can win is codeword for RINOs only!

redware on February 6, 2013 at 2:40 PM

That’s like marrying the girl closest to still being a virgin, isn’t it?

Don L on February 6, 2013 at 5:40 PM

I am so, so stealing this one. ;)

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Their guy Mourdock says something utterly stupid and we get stuck with a Democratic Senator. Maybe we need to stop and think about who some of these groups are actually promoting anyway.

Terrye on February 6, 2013 at 4:56 PM

They promote Conservative Candidates Terrye, as you well know.
Mourdock gave his opinion. But did you know that Eric Cantor and others were actively supporting Lugar over Mourdock? You know Cantor is in the House, right? I found it strange that he entered into a Senate race in Indiana. He should have been brought up on ethic charges. But as long as the Conservative Mourdock lost, all is good/

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 5:45 PM

“The new money will benefit all the same staff, pollsters, admen and vendors.”

Inside the beltway political elite ruling class…

… These people have got to go as well.

Seven Percent Solution on February 6, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Dick Lugar Won’t Campaign For Richard Mourdock In Indiana Senate Race

Inexplicably, this somehow does not appear to tweak the highly selective outrage of those Rovian faithful who monotonously insist that “Once they’ve actually won their primary, it’s your scared duty to support them, dammit!”

How mysteriously, bafflingly… expected.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 5:53 PM

I think I see that V7-Sport believes that the Party ought to “select” candidates….and mike Castle, Lugar and Bob Inglis refused to endorse the person who beat them in the primary…”Poor Losers.”

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 4:00 PM

You see wrong. I think we ought to consider “electability” when we go to the primaries. O’donnell was an obvious moron and so was anyone who thought she stood a snowballs chance inhell of getting elected in Delaware.

What do you expect? To have what ever guy you like runs without opposition in the primaries?…

batter on February 6, 2013 at 4:08 PM

Honesty? As someone who has worked his ass off to keep Obama out of office while a whole lot of people who thump their chests here about how pure they are stayed home and watched the democrats steamroll the GOP efforts, I expect nothing. What I expect is that “My side” will act like a bunch of petulant, spoiled brats and complain that not enough was done for them by other people to bring them their dream candidate. I expect them to take to hotair and rant something to the effect of: “Since it isn’t Zombie Goldwater running in Berkeley California the whole GOP can go to hell.”
I expect us to find whatever way we can to shoot ourselves in the foot and our highly organized, well funded, disciplined opposition to fully capitalize on our bumbling incompetence, laziness and above all, those of us who are so gullible they can be manipulated into electing democrats by staying at home or not working in the election by tossing out the word “RINO” here and there.
Thanks for asking.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 5:53 PM

The “war against Obama” is nothing more than a short-sighted (and, ultimately, unhelpful) distraction.; The war against liberalism, in stark contrast, is only and absolutely everything.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 4:57 PM

I understand the big picture, believe me. But I also believe a goal is reached one step at a time. I’m not about fighting against Obama since we have no army:-) I’d like to get an army together first. We have many fronts to fight on in the meantime. Immigration, Gun Control and Healthcare to name a few.

CISPA is raising it’s ugly head again. We need Teams!

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Well, Lugar should have taken a long hard look at the 2010 results and decided to be a bit more responsive to his constituents, then.

Missy on February 6, 2013 at 5:12 PM

True, but that’s hard to do when one doesn’t live in the State, LOL

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 5:56 PM

hannity still calling himself a “conservative” and referring to rove as the “architect”.

i guess they’re still living in their pre-2008 fantasy world

renalin on February 6, 2013 at 11:28 AM

How anyone can listen to a moron like Hannity for more than ten minutes is a mystery.

bw222 on February 6, 2013 at 5:58 PM

Say V7_Sport wasn’t that Romney’s bing thing, in the PRIMAIRES, that he was “electable.” I’ll steal some lines and ask for your inaugharl ball photo’s from the Romney inaugaration.

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 6:00 PM

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 5:31 PM

[::sternly::] “Conjure ye not the rabid, foaming PDS trolls!” ;)

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 5:33 PM

We are low on them at this time. Only have one House troll that has PDS. A few pop in now and then, but aren’t dedicated:-)

Were you on HA during the first half of 2012 before the primaries and before Sarah decided not to run?

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Say V7_Sport wasn’t that Romney’s bing thing, in the PRIMAIRES, that he was “electable.” I’ll steal some lines and ask for your inaugharl ball photo’s from the Romney inaugaration.

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Obama won you brilliant speller, Thanks for all the help.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 6:03 PM

Backing the most conservative candidate that can win is codeword for RINOs only!

redware on February 6, 2013 at 2:40 PM

No. It is a recognition that an extremely conservative candidate is not going to win in an extremely liberal electorate. Anyone who believes that is not the case is delusional and is a major part of the problem. In fact, anyone claiming to believe that a far right candidate can win a liberal electorate except under extraordinary circumstances is likely to be a Democrat simply saying that to get Republicans to agree to run a candidate that will get the Democrat elected.

Redware, what you said above is exactly what the Democrats who pretend to be “conservatives” in blog comments and on social media say. How did that Sharon Angle thing work out in Nevada? How about Buck for Senate in Colorado? Different regions are different. In liberal areas you are going to have to accept that candidates are not going to be so conservative. If you can’t accept that, then you are going to end up electing Democrats every single time.

I’d say a good 30% of the comments here are from liberals pretending to be conservatives.

crosspatch on February 6, 2013 at 6:05 PM

I’d say a good 30% of the comments here are from liberals pretending to be conservatives.

crosspatch on February 6, 2013 at 6:05 PM

I’ve often thought myself. We can’t be this self sabotaging.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Somehow I don’t see how being willing to enlist help in over-throwing the Dem’s in the Senate and expanding GOP House membership in ’14 makes someone less of a conservative, a squish, or a RINO?

I’m no Rove fan, other than to say if he wants to help, raise money, and get GOP candidates elected, then I would want him on my team.

Many of you throwing around the derogtory terms were supporters of Santorum, for example, in the last election cycle. Santorum was as far from a conservative as could possibly be by my definition; he was bigger government in our social lives, bigger government in our work places and bigger government with selective tax policy. But I didn’t go around calling his supporters names like squish, RINO, among others, however I would point out he wasn’t a conservative in the classic sense.

All this discussion does is make Obama’s job in dividing us easier. I’m sure he is reading these posts with a smile on his face.

Tater Salad on February 6, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Well that’s the BLOODY POINT ISN’T SPORT, Obama won…kin spite of all that Romney “Electability.” But here you are talking about choosing folks in the primaries on the basis of ELECTABILITY.

Gee, tell me there V7, how did that whole Romney’s Electable thing work out?

I posted earlier, because it is dynamic you canNOT tell who is “electable”, because that thing is determined as a result of the interaction of two campaigns…McCaskill v. anyone cannot be pre-told becasue McCaskill will vary her campaign on the basis of who she is running against!

Sorry my spelling isn’t up to snuff, though beware, once the Grammar/Spelling nazi Genie is unleashed it usually bites the Nazi as well.

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 6:12 PM

I’d say a good 30% of the comments here are from liberals pretending to be conservatives.

crosspatch on February 6, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Conspiracy.

steebo77 on February 6, 2013 at 6:13 PM

How mysteriously, bafflingly… expected.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 5:53 PM

I’m sure that had nothing to do with Mourdock being a Conservative tho/ After all Rove insists he’ll support Conservatives too:-)He just doesn’t say when.

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 6:13 PM

You see wrong. I think we ought to consider “electability” when we go to the primaries.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 5:53 PM

Again: had only Team Mittens’ unswervingly (almost fetishistically, in fact) devoted camp followers been as stridently persistent in said electoral first principle prior to and during the last cycle, as they claim to be now.

Most. Beatable. Incumbent. EVER… and all, all foolishly frittered and piddled away, just because “well, it’s his turn, darn it.”

ObamaCare, now and forever. A Supreme Court we will never, ever get back. It’ll be a long, lonnnnnnnnnnng time, if ever, before I finally decide to forgive the Gop-e (a.k.a., “Team Catastrophe”) for what their stubborn, sullen insistence upon making certain Mittens was duly anointed as their standard bearer ultimately cost us, here and now… and this country, for the foreseeable future.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 6:16 PM

Somehow I don’t see how being willing to enlist help in over-throwing the Dem’s in the Senate and expanding GOP House membership in ’14 makes someone less of a conservative, a squish, or a RINO?

I’m no Rove fan, other than to say if he wants to help, raise money, and get GOP candidates elected, then I would want him on my team.

Even though his “team” doesn’t win and when they do win they are “squishes?”

Any way what should we do, let our betters choose our candidates? I supported Romney, he certainly wasn’t my first, or second or third choice, but I supported him…

BUT, Rove and Lugar, and Inglis and Castle, they can’t support the Conservatives, when they win…but we all need to pull together? Tell that to the Offensive Line, we here on Special Teams ARE pulling together.

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 6:18 PM

I’d say a good 30% of the comments here are from liberals pretending to be conservatives.

crosspatch on February 6, 2013 at 6:05 PM

I wouldn’t take that bet. If you are on the HA threads on a daily basis, you would know better than that. If I had the time, I could go thru the comments and point them out to you.

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 6:22 PM

Dinner time for me:-)

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 6:22 PM

I’d say a good 30% of the comments here are from liberals pretending to be conservatives.

crosspatch on February 6, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Indeed. These are unfailingly identifiable, however, by their mad-eyed and intractable insistence upon unfailingly advocating for/supporting the most leftward-leaning Republican(s) possible, in any given situation.

“We have to give in on slashing discretionary spending.” “We have to give in on socialized medicine.” “We have to give in on abortion.” “We have to give in on illegal immigration.” “We have to give in on homosexual marriage.” “We have to give in on gun confiscation, and the 2nd Amendment.” Etcetera, etcetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Lather, rinse, repeat.

The moles amongst us are, essentially — to the extent they genuinely exist in the first place — nothing more dull, damp, doctrinaire liberals, who just happen to enjoy the occasional tax cut.

Easily, easily spotted.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 6:25 PM

Re.JFKY

Well that’s the BLOODY POINT ISN’T SPORT, Obama won…kin spite of all that Romney “Electability.” But here you are talking about choosing folks in the primaries on the basis of ELECTABILITY.

Gee, tell me there V7, how did that whole Romney’s Electable thing work out?

Sure Romney’s loss didn’t have anything to do with complete morons staying at home on election day because they weren’t going to “chose the lesser of 2 evils” or any of the hundreds of other justifications that we have been seeing here for effectively helping to elect socialists?

“I posted earlier, because it is dynamic you canNOT tell who is “electable”, “

Yeah.. a boneheaded witch who used her previous campaign to pay her rent… Maybe you ought to do a little more research other than hearing someone call her opponent a RINO. (And lets face it, he wasn’t a great candidate, but he was the best we were going to get elected there.)

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 6:27 PM

BUT, Rove and Lugar, and Inglis and Castle, they can’t support the Conservatives, when they win…but we all need to pull together? Tell that to the Offensive Line, we here on Special Teams ARE pulling together.

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Co-signed, baby.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 6:30 PM

And lets face it, he wasn’t a great candidate, but he was the best we were going to get elected there

Too bad mr “Electable” was too stupid or too entitled to actually do the research so the PRIMARY VOTERS would have chosen him over her….

Sure Romney’s loss didn’t have anything to do with complete morons staying at home on election day because they weren’t going to “chose the lesser of 2 evils”

So Romney WASN’T electable, after all…couldn’t bring his base along…here’s tip V7, you win with your base…

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Easily, easily spotted.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 6:25 PM

You know the ones who p!ss me off the worst, though? The Liberal trolls who come on here and pretend to be Ron Paul supporters. You know the sort, they come on and start talking about “Joos” and Whites and “Blacks on welfare” and the like just to make that nice Dr. Paul and his supporters look like nut jobz…

And then their fellow enablers who jump to their defense about start trying to defend the Joo-fearing troll, and so make that EMINENTLY qualified Dr. Paul look like a crazeeeeeee.

THOSE trolls, really really get my goat….

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Kent18

Again: had only Team Mittens’ unswervingly (almost fetishistically, in fact) devoted camp followers been as stridently persistent in said electoral first principle prior to and during the last cycle, as they claim to be now.

Did you get your feelings hurt? So not contributing, not volunteering, or even staying at home on election day, the damage to the country worth it? Did yo show that you are someone to be reckoned with or did you just show that you are just unreliable and shouldn’t even be considered when push comes to shove?

ObamaCare, now and forever. A Supreme Court we will never, ever get back. It’ll be a long, lonnnnnnnnnnng time, if ever, before I finally decide to forgive the Gop-e…

Brilliant! Buh by! Enjoy your irrelevance. Enjoy your Obama care and all the other things you claim to oppose yet invite by your inability to live in reality. Take your bat and your ball and go home, just don’t pretend to be a patriot or a conservative as you effectively help those who are out to wreck the USA.

for what their stubborn, sullen insistence upon making certain Mittens was duly anointed as their standard bearer ultimately cost us, here and now… and this country, for the foreseeable future.

Who is “their”.. the people who voted?

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 6:37 PM

So Romney WASN’T electable, after all…couldn’t bring his base along…here’s tip V7, you win with your base…

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 6:31 PM

As pointed out, previously: not only did he completely manage to boot his own birth state (Michigan) — a uniquely difficult thing for any modern-day presidential candidate to successfully manage, frankly — but also the one, sole state in which he’d already previously managed to bumble away a governorship (Massachusetts).

“E*L*E*C*T*A*B*L*E!!!” ;)

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 6:37 PM

So not contributing, not volunteering, or even staying at home on election day, the damage to the country worth it?

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 6:37 PM

I did all of those things? Really? REALLY — ?!?

I “call,” peewee: show, or fold.

(Man. Sure does sound like somebody “got their feelings hurt” around here…!) ;)

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Brilliant! Buh by! Enjoy your irrelevance. Enjoy your Obama care and all the other things you claim to oppose yet invite by your inability to live in reality. Take your bat and your ball and go home, just don’t pretend to be a patriot or a conservative as you effectively help those who are out to wreck the USA.

Say there V-&, old sport…did he say he didn’t vote for Romney?

YOU are making a fetish out of “electability” Kent and I are just pointing out that Mr Electable didn’t get elected…and that ANOTHER Mr Electable, that nice Mr Castle couldn’t even get HIS OWN PARTY to nominate him, but he WAS “electable?”

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 6:41 PM

You know the ones who p!ss me off the worst, though? The Liberal trolls who come on here and pretend to be Ron Paul supporters. You know the sort, they come on and start talking about “Joos” and Whites and “Blacks on welfare” and the like just to make that nice Dr. Paul and his supporters look like nut jobz…

And then their fellow enablers who jump to their defense about start trying to defend the Joo-fearing troll, and so make that EMINENTLY qualified Dr. Paul look like a crazeeeeeee.

THOSE trolls, really really get my goat….

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Yesterday afternoon’s ritual flensing and deboning of the Silver Dimes Squadron Irregulars was as immensely satisfying as it was ridiculously enjoyable, wasn’t it…? ;)

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 6:43 PM

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Too bad mr “Electable” was too stupid or too entitled to actually do the research so the PRIMARY VOTERS would have chosen him over her….

It was out there, it just got drowned out by a bunch of lemmings going off of a facebook “like”.

So Romney WASN’T electable, after all…

Had the people who claim to be conservative acted in a way that was remotely conservative he would have been, Do you think you are going to be taken seriously next time? “do what we say or we will burn the whole thing down…” The word for that mentality is “traitorous” and it will do more to push the GOP left then anything the liberals could ever do. The country as well.

here’s tip V7, you win with your base…

The base showed up, the chest thumpers and self righteous idiots didn’t.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Say there V-&, old sport…did he say he didn’t vote for Romney?

YOU are making a fetish out of “electability” Kent and I are just pointing out that Mr Electable didn’t get elected…and that ANOTHER Mr Electable, that nice Mr Castle couldn’t even get HIS OWN PARTY to nominate him, but he WAS “electable?”

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 6:41 PM

Don’t allow him the distraction of any wriggle room. He made a claim he cannot possibly back up; let’s see if he’s toting the requisite amount of sack to admit to that. ;)

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Kent18

I did all of those things? Really? REALLY — ?!?

Well, did you contribute? Volunteer? Vote? The other side did.

(Man. Sure does sound like somebody “got their feelings hurt” around here…!) ;)

I’m sick of seeing the country f-ed and sick of seeing idiots take satisfaction in seeing it f-d so they can lie to themselves in an online echo chamber that they are somehow better conservatives for effectively helping to elect socialists.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 6:48 PM

I did all of those things? Really? REALLY — ?!?

Well, did you contribute? Volunteer? Vote? The other side did.

Dishonest dodge, duly noted.

You made three bald assertions, stating them as categorical truth. You have to support them, if you can; or else do what any normal adult male (or female) does, when caught lying outright, and withdraw said assertions. I’m under no obligation whatsoever to do your homework for you.

Try again. Ready, set, GO — !!!

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 6:52 PM

It was out there, it just got drowned out by a bunch of lemmings going off of a facebook “like”.

Them dum ole voterz……..funny Coons managed to get it out there, but Mr Electable couldn’t huh? But HE was the eelectable one, even thuogh he couldn’t win an ELECTION?

Had the people who claim to be conservative acted in a way that was remotely conservative he would have been, Do you think you are going to be taken seriously next time?

Plesae explain what we “people” did to hurt Mr Severely Conservative Electable…ok, Mr Severly Electable Conservative…

I think you are about to start frothing and spluttering here, about our perdidy and blasphemy….

The base showed up, the chest thumpers and self righteous idiots didn’t.

Then Mr Electable SHOULD have won…except he didn’t.

So since you are all et’up with “Electability” or is that “EEEE-Lecktuh-BITY?” would you care to define it or operationalize it? What does Electability present itself as in terms of quantifiable terms like ERA or Price/Earnings or ROI or ROE? How can one tell Castle is ELECTABLE but Cruz is not?

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 6:53 PM

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 6:41 PM

(Remind you of anyone, from yesterday…?) ;)

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 6:54 PM

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 6:41 PM

Say there V-&, old sport…did he say he didn’t vote for Romney?

He’s being obnoxious.

YOU are making a fetish out of “electability”

As if it shouldn’t be an issue.

Kent and I are just pointing out that Mr Electable didn’t get elected…

Thanks for the update Mr. Reuiters, I haven’t been in a coma. What did you do to see to to it that he was? Should I thank you for driving to the polls and pulling a lever? Want a cookie?
Did you volunteer? Drive anyone? Make calls? The other side seemed to have had that covered. They were running circles around us.

ANOTHER Mr Electable, that nice Mr Castle couldn’t even get HIS OWN PARTY to nominate him, but he WAS “electable?”

He would have won the general. The seat moved from “safe republican” to “safe democrat” overnight. If you think that was a good idea you are a fool.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 6:55 PM

The base showed up

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 6:44 PM

If you see anyone waving to you, at the inauguration: that’s me.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Say there V-&, old sport…did he say he didn’t vote for Romney?

He’s being obnoxious.

… but at least I don’t openly, baldly lie about who other possters do (or do not support), and then skitter away from any/all requests for supporting evidence of same.

So: there’s that, at least.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 6:58 PM

*posters

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Kent18

Dishonest dodge, duly noted.

It’s not a dodge. Sometimes you don’t get everything you want, so then what? Have a tantrum or do what’s best for the country?

You made three bald assertions, stating them as categorical truth.

If it’s not the case why are you objecting to what I wrote? Just want to be included? Need some attention? If you agree, why take me to task?

You have to support them, if you can; or else do what any normal adult male (or female) does, when caught lying outright, and withdraw said assertions.

Where, exactly, did I lie?

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 7:00 PM

Yeah but so far the Joos and the Blacks have been safe enough….

Look V7-Sport the, personally, annoying thing about your rant9s) are that we are in an interregnum. 1 year out from mid-terms and 3 years out from 2016…if we can’t discuss who and what worked or didn’t, we are SCREWED!

You seem to be all flustered that Obama beat Mr Electable and that, seemingly, has you discombobulated because it undercuts a strongly held personal preference. Sorry about that.

Look Rove can dow hat he wats, but no, I dont think he’s “Karl Rove SOOOPER Genius” and making a fetsih out of siome undefined term like “electability” is silly and pointless in the extreme.

Bottom-Line: ROMNEY LOST, I didn’t cost Mr Etch-a-Sketch the race, you are like some rabid fan blaming the other FANZ for their teams loss in the Super Bowl. I was there, but my team didn’t move the ball well, and that’s NOT my fault.

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 7:00 PM

If you see anyone waving to you, at the inauguration: that’s me.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Laugh it up, the country is circling the drain. Guess that doesn’t matter to you.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 7:02 PM

… but at least I don’t openly, baldly lie about who other possters do (or do not support), and then skitter away from any/all requests for supporting evidence of same.

So: there’s that, at least.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 6:58 PM

Where did I lie? Show me or be proven a liar (as well as a douche bag) yourself.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Thanks for the update Mr. Reuiters

Hey there Mr Spell Check, it ain’t “Ruiters” it’s REUTERS…don’t get uppity ’bout MY spell’n an’ then bobble the keys….

As if it shouldn’t be an issue.

Then DEFINE IT SPORT

He would have won the general. The seat moved from “safe republican” to “safe democrat” overnight. If you think that was a good idea you are a fool.

Really the guy who couldn’t get his OWN Party to vote for him, was going to win the General Election? You believe this? You can provide any support beyond your splutterings about us non-loyal Conservatives….

Becasue you freely admit that the evidence of O’Donnell’s craziness and unsuitability was readily to hand, but YOUR GUY couldn’t find it. BUT, he could have beaten the Democrat…OK, if you say so.

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 7:05 PM

Where, exactly, did I lie?

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 7:00 PM

So not contributing, not volunteering, or even staying at home on election day, the damage to the country worth it?

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Second dishonest dodge, duly noted.

Let’s just cut to chase here, shall we, kiddo? You made a flat three-tiered assertion of fact, in the posting quoted directly above. You have, in fact, absolutely no supporting evidence for same, and were –in plain point of fact — simply pulling things out of your ass.

Game Over.

Need some attention?

Normally, unintentional irony this thick and creamy is legally qualified under the category of “nougat” by the FDA.

Pffftt. Dismissed.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 7:06 PM

Laugh it up, the country is circling the drain. Guess that doesn’t matter to you.

Yeah we’re the problem, not candidates who decide that rather than be Conservative, they re going to be COMPETENT…who when confronted with one of the worst and most inept POTUS’ ever, decides to run the campaign of he’s a nice guy in over his head…

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Where did I lie? bag) yourself.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Asked and answered. Keep up, pookums. Mommy may pamper you, but I certainly won’t.

(JFKY: seriously… virtually the same clown, or what…?) ;)

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 7:09 PM

Laugh it up, the country is circling the drain.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Bet you almost care enough about that to work for a genuinely conservative candidate to be nominated next time, huh?

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 7:10 PM

At least the conservative intelligentsia see Rove for what he always has been— He won’t be sitting in for talk radio hosts any time soon.

Valiant on February 6, 2013 at 7:13 PM

V7_Sport honestly I want to like you, i do…you wanted to defeat Obama, I did too…you ant a more Conservative GOP (I guess) I’d too…but you just seem hung up on OUR team…blaming the Special Teams or the fans, for Tom Brady’s failure against Baltimore. Not my fault…

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 7:13 PM

JFKY

Yeah but so far the Joos and the Blacks have been safe enough….

Thanks for the complete non-sequitor, Was that supposed to signify something to someone?

Look V7-Sport the, personally, annoying thing about your rant9s) are that we are in an interregnum. 1 year out from mid-terms and 3 years out from 2016…if we can’t discuss who and what worked or didn’t, we are SCREWED!

So your incredibly stupid, incoherently presented idea is that we shouldn’t consider electability when choosing a candidate… got it. Its a dumb position.
Thanks for the contribution though…

You seem to be all flustered that Obama beat Mr Electable and that, seemingly, has you discombobulated because it undercuts a strongly held personal preference. Sorry about that.

I’m flustered because there are idiots on “my side” who don’t think that getting elected is a part of the political process.

Look Rove can dow hat he wats, but no, I dont think he’s “Karl Rove SOOOPER Genius

Awesome. Great how you can basically call him a fool as you acknowledge he can “dow[sic] hat[sic] he wats[sic].

and making a fetsih out of siome undefined term like “electability” is silly and pointless in the extreme.

The idea we shouldn’t consider it is stupid. And yes, it’s defined:
: capable of being elected (as to public office)
— elect·abil·i·ty noun

Bottom-Line: ROMNEY LOST,

Thanks in part to idiots who were duped into staying hone because he wasn’t everything they wanted, especially in the face of an existential threat to the USA. .

I didn’t cost Mr Etch-a-Sketch the race,

Want a cookie? What did you do to help?

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Dinner time, JFKY. Shoot me a flare, should Mr. Not-So-Psychic Friends Network, here, ever decide to reveal the unholy, clandestine source of his marvelously penetrating insights into what I had for breakfast yesterday morning… my astrological sign… my third grade teacher’s maiden name… etcetera, etcetera.

Otherwise: “Bored now.”

Laters! ;)

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 7:20 PM

Re.JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 7:05 PM

Then DEFINE IT SPORT

Sure, let me do that for you as well.

elect·able adjective \i-ˈlek-tə-bəl\

Definition of ELECTABLE

: capable of being elected (as to public office)
— elect·abil·i·ty noun

Really the guy who couldn’t get his OWN Party to vote for him, was going to win the General Election?

Yes.

You believe this? You can provide any support beyond your splutterings about us non-loyal Conservatives….

Go back to the Realclearpolitics summary. Do your own research. “Conservatives” aren’t this lazy.

Becasue you freely admit that the evidence of O’Donnell’s craziness and unsuitability was readily to hand, but YOUR GUY couldn’t find it.

He found it, it got drowned out by the group thing of a bunch of people who were too thick to be able to look up the word “electable”.

BUT, he could have beaten the Democrat…OK, if you say so.

Every poll said so. Look it up.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 7:23 PM

Of course, “the most conservative candidate who can win” is always a matter of conjecture. For example, the establishment determined that that man was Charlie Crist, not Marco Rubio; Arlen Specter, not Pat Toomey.

In 1980, the all-knowing establishment was screaming that Ronald Reagan was way too extreme to win; their candidate was George Bush. Look, they pointed out, sane moderate Republicans like John Anderson are leaving the party!

Jingo95 on February 6, 2013 at 7:24 PM

At least the conservative intelligentsia see Rove for what he always has been— He won’t be sitting in for talk radio hosts any time soon.

Valiant on February 6, 2013 at 7:13 PM

I don’t know. Karl has a face for radio.

bw222 on February 6, 2013 at 7:26 PM

So your incredibly stupid, incoherently presented idea is that we shouldn’t consider electability when choosing a candidate… got it. Its a dumb position.
Thanks for the contribution though…

Personal attack, well played….

Please define “Electability” and not that sophistic

capable of being elected (as to public office)
— elect·abil·i·ty noun

Political Science has a defintion of power, too…but no one can generate a valid and useful measure of “Power.”

IF you are going to whine about “electability” please define it, operationally…again I gave you examples, ERA, Quarterback Efficiency, P/E ratios, ROI ROE…otherwise you are claiming we should choose candidates on the basis of Karl Rove or YOUR hunches about who is or is NOT Electable…

And so far, your example of O’Donell and Castle proves you haven’t the foggiest notion of what you are talking about….because Castle lost to someone that was “supposed” to be esasily beatable, which kinda undercuts your whole thesis.

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 7:28 PM

BUT, he could have beaten the Democrat…OK, if you say so.

Every poll said so. Look it up.

Um-Hum…Coons, who easily found out material on O’Donell and employed it effectively, was going to LOSE to the guy that couldn’t beat, what was you called her, oh yes, a “Moron.”

I’m sorry on the face of that, that is simply absurd….

I posit the alternative theory, all the folks who SAID they’ve have voted for Castle most likely would have voted for Coons.

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 7:32 PM

Asked and answered. Keep up, pookums. Mommy may pamper you, but I certainly won’t.

Nice link, it goes to a “ERROR 404 – NOT FOUND”.
Hey, you are an idiot. Now you know.

Second dishonest dodge, duly noted.

On who’s part, you are incapable of answering a simple question. Where did I lie? What did I write that was not the truth? Funny how you can show yourself to be an idiot yet you are so smug about it. You must be a liberal.

“flat three-tiered assertion of fact, in the posting quoted directly above. “

“Error 404″ isn’t a fact and quoting a whole post wont do it. What specific facts did I assert that you take issue with, spit it out. ?

Normally, unintentional irony this thick and creamy is legally qualified under the category of “nougat” by the FDA.

Looks like you don’t understand Irony, either. Add it to the list.

Otherwise: “Bored now.”

Laters! ;)

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 7:20 PM

Guess that makes YOU the liar.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 7:32 PM

“Error 404″ isn’t a fact and quoting a whole post wont do it. What specific facts did I assert that you take issue with, spit it out. ?

So not contributing, not volunteering, or even staying at home on election day, the damage to the country worth it?

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Your are kinda busted on that one, V7…and if you are still here when s/he comes back he will just continue to pummel you on it, over and over again…

My advice, just admit you were angry and hyperboilc and just spouted off and admit you have NO idea what Kent or I did or did NOT do to help Romney….

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Personal attack, well played….

I called the idea dumb. It is.

Please define “Electability” and not that sophistic.

It’s up there, defined by merriam-webster.com.

Political Science has a defintion of power, too…but no one can generate a valid and useful measure of “Power.”

Please. I speak in English. Words have meanings. I have defined the word in question for you twice now. If you can’t wrap your head around it there’s not a lot I can do for you.

please define it, operationally

I have, not going from “safe republican to Safe democrat” overnight in the realclearpolitics average is fair metric for you. As I recall it was a 20 point swing.

And so far, your example of O’Donell and Castle proves you haven’t the foggiest notion of what you are talking about….because Castle lost to someone that was “supposed” to be esasily beatable, which kinda undercuts your whole thesis.

It’s exactly what I am talking about, you are too obtuse to get it: He would have won the general election and she was reduced to trying to persuade people she wasn’t a witch. He had a greater measure of electability, that should have been considered in the primaries. It wasn’t.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 7:46 PM

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Your are kinda busted on that one, V7…and if you are still here when s/he comes back he will just continue to pummel you on it, over and over again

It will continue to be lame until he/she/it tells me where exactly I “lied”.

My advice, just admit you were angry and hyperboilc and just spouted off and admit you have NO idea what Kent or I did or did NOT do to help Romney….

If you helped Romney then why are you taking issue with me taking issue with those who didn’t? Angry? Sure. Ask me to define electability again and see if my mood lightens.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 7:51 PM

I’m sick of seeing the country f-ed and sick of seeing idiots take satisfaction in seeing it f-d so they can lie to themselves in an online echo chamber that they are somehow better conservatives for effectively helping to elect socialists.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 6:48 PM

How do you think Boehner, McConell, and my favorite, Maverick 5150 are doing in their hard work to try and un eff us?

arnold ziffel on February 6, 2013 at 7:51 PM

How do you think Boehner, McConell, and my favorite, Maverick 5150 are doing in their hard work to try and un eff us?

arnold ziffel on February 6, 2013 at 7:51 PM

Not great. The GOP has control of 1/2 of 1/3rd of the government. Want more say? Win more elections.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 7:57 PM

I hear no one, in the Republican Party, talking about dealing with the major media problem them have. Yes Akin said something stupid, yes the MSM magnified it and put it out day in and day out, until McCaskill’s poll numbers turned around. No candidate can handle the barrage of negative media the Democrats media complex is capable of throwing at you. It’s like non-stop. You have MSNBC all day, you have the evening news, then you have the entertainment shows, then you have the late evening shows, all of them supporting Democrats in one way or another.

Personally, I don’t care about the entertainment shows, sooner or later they will pay, but the network news shows are still amazingly trusted by the low information voters and they aren’t just willing to distort the news, they’re willing to lie about the news and leave out anything that they believe will impact the election for their side.

The Republicans have to deal with this, first and foremost by pointing it out every single day it happens. We need to get money people to start cancelling advertising. Just think, the Koch brothers have been treated miserably, not only by the media, but by the Democrats. I’d love to see them pull all their advertising from the MSM for every company they control and tell the world why they are pulling it and what it’s going to take to get it back. That would be a start because you can’t lose that kind of money and not be affected and just taking out a full page ad (one time) to tell everyone why you’re doing it would be a beginning.

I just don’t believe they can sit here and do nothing about this. It’s difficult enough to win elections against the Democrats, it’s doubly difficult when the press refuses to allow you to get your message out. I’ll never forget the Candy Crowley made Mitt Romney look like a liar in front of 65 million people. If only 10% of them changed their minds that night, that’s 6.5 million votes. You have to drive the percentage down quite a way to get below a million. IT’s a real problem that needs a real committment to solve it.

bflat879 on February 6, 2013 at 8:00 PM

It’s up there, defined by merriam-webster.com.

And “power” is defined as the capacity to make some halt something they would not otherwise stop or to compell action tht would not otherwise have been taken.

Now who’s more powerful the Democratic Republic of Vietnam or the United States?

No, you do NOT have a defintion of “electable.” because you cannot say prior to an election whether or not someone is electable.

If you helped Romney then why are you taking issue with me taking issue with those who didn’t?

Because you stated that Kent and I did or did not do something, baldly, without the slightest possibility of being able to show its truth or falsisty. And you got called on it.

I have, not going from “safe republican to Safe democrat” overnight in the realclearpolitics average is fair metric for you. As I recall it was a 20 point swing.

Again the guy who can’t beat the “moron” is going to beat Coons, is that your final answer?

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 8:01 PM

So not contributing, not volunteering, or even staying at home on election day, the damage to the country worth it?

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Your are kinda busted on that one, V7…and if you are still here when s/he comes back he will just continue to pummel you on it, over and over again…

My advice, just admit you were angry and hyperboilc and just spouted off and admit you have NO idea what Kent or I did or did NOT do to help Romney….

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Tragically, for Mr. Failed Internet Tuff Gai: yes, I most assuredly am going to continue his silly, pointed head with his very own posted statements — over and over and over again — simply for the sheer, unadulterated pleasure of watching him stammer and squirm, like a cranky toddler who’s just been discovered playing “pocket pool” by his parents. ;)

Where, exactly, did I lie?

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 7:00 PM

So not contributing, not volunteering, or even staying at home on election day, the damage to the country worth it?

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 6:37 PM

You didn’t need the link to know the answer to that question already; those two blocks have been re-re-re-posted to you, directly, no fewer than three times now.

Let’s make this so gut-wrenchingly public a humiliation for you, you’ll have no other choice but to try simple, straightforward honesty (for a change):

A.) “So not contributing” — You flatly claimed I did not contribute. Do you have any verifiable evidence in support of said assertion? (Y) (N)

If “(Y),” then show said evidence here:

If you cannot/will not do so: then you are a liar. Case closed.

B.)”not volunteering” — You baldly asserted that I did not volunteer. Do you have any verifiable evidence in support of said assertion? (Y) (N)

If “(Y),” then show said evidence here:

If you cannot/will not do so: then you are a liar. Case closed.

C.) “even staying at home on election day” — you declared, unequivocally, that I stayed home on election day. Do you have any verifiable evidence in support of said assertion? (Y) (N)

If “(Y),” then show said evidence here:

If you cannot/will not do so: then you are a liar. Case closed.

How cruelly embarrassing this all must be. For you.

Little friendly advice: next time out… try playing in your own age/weight class.

You’re nowhere nearly ready for the pro levels, yet.

L.
O.
L.

;)

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 8:01 PM

I’m sorry on the face of that, that is simply absurd….

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 7:32 PM

Here you go, champ:

Before O’Donnell

After O’Donnell

Electability, defined in operational terms.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 8:03 PM

Not great. The GOP has control of 1/2 of 1/3rd of the government. Want more say? Win more elections.

No DUH, that’s the pint of all this isn’t it? You keep bringing up this mythical qulaity called “electability” but can’t tell me who has it or doesn’t…

So not contributing, not volunteering, or even staying at home on election day, the damage to the country worth it?

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 6:37 PM

See your quote…that quote right there…Kent called you on it…and when you couldn’t answer it, well he simply called you a “liar.”

Now I see it as an angry outburst, simply own up to your hyperbole and move on…but that’s why you are a liar, becasue you made a statement you cannot or will not back up. Calll it a debating trick, if you will it still works.

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 8:04 PM

Again the guy who can’t beat the “moron” is going to beat Coons, is that your final answer?

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 8:01 PM

Final Answer:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/de/delaware_senate_castle_vs_coons-1300.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/de/delaware_senate_oadonnell_vs_coons-1670.html
Wrap your head around it.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 8:05 PM

It will continue to be lame until he/she/it tells me where exactly I “lied”.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 7:51 PM

Done, and done, @8:01 P.M.

Three, t-h-r-e-e, count ‘em, THREE lies. 1, 2, 3.

Dance for me, monkey. ;)

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 8:06 PM

So not contributing, not volunteering, or even staying at home on election day, the damage to the country worth it?

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 6:37 PM

See your quote…that quote right there…Kent called you on it…and when you couldn’t answer it, well he simply called you a “liar.”

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 8:04 PM

… and so he is, was, and evermore shall be, as filed away in the Hot Air archives in perpetuity.

B-u-s-t-e-d. Busted. ;)

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 8:08 PM

bflat879 on February 6, 2013 at 8:00 PM

Well I agree, but apporach it like this…Boehner and McConnell need to ditch the LSM. They need to appear on a round robin basis on Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, and the like…

Sure they’l take lumps, BUT they will get their message out to the base…or they will reveal themselves to be RINO’s…which is also good.

Once you start talking to a feiendly press it’s easier to make your case…and it may begin to break up the logjam on the LSM…

Access is King to journalists…a refusal to appear or to appear regularly on a program is the counter-leverage politicians employ.

Appear on Levin enough, and mayhap MtP or Slay the Nation may decide to be less hostile.

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 8:09 PM

Look V7 I don’t deny who won…I simply dispute that a guy who couldn’t beat a “moron” was going to beat Coons…

Geeeeeeez, is that difficult, I mean YOU called her a moron, so if I lose to a MORON, what does that make ME?

And that kinda takes the bloom off the rose as far as your theory goes….

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 8:12 PM

So again point out to me how Rubio was more or less electable than Crist…in the early going?

Who should V7 support, Crist, popular Governor or Rubio Speaker of House?

And what metrics would you use to determine this “electbility?”

And again please tell me how McCain and Romney missed their inaugurations , being so…”electable.” Did they over-sleep?

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 8:14 PM

God Bless Mark Levin and a long healthy live to him.

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 8:15 PM

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Co-signed, baby.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 6:30 PM

Likewise. I like that Special Team ID JFKY:-)

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 8:01 PM

A.) “So not contributing” — You flatly claimed I did not contribute. Do you have any verifiable evidence in support of said assertion? (Y) (N)

Where did I flatly state that? I asked you a question. Learn to read:
“So not contributing, not volunteering, or even staying at home on election day, the damage to the country worth it? -V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 6:37 PM”
Guess that makes you a liar or illiterate.
If you did contribute, volunteer and vote why do you have an issue with me taking those who didn’t to task? AGAIN, is it that you just want attention? Want to be included? What’s your answer to that previously asked question?

If you cannot/will not do so: then you are a liar. Case closed.

…and you will show yourself to be a douche bag. So what is it, did you contribute, volunteer and vote for Mitt Romney and just want to be included in the discussion? Or did you not becauuse you are too much of a chest thumping, rock ribbed conservative to ever vote for that RINO.

Little friendly advice: next time out… try playing in your own age/weight class.

I’m sure that you are young and fat and taking a beak from your x-box shovel it here to overcompensate for your self esteem issues, but you are also being deliberately obtuse, and it isn’t cute.

You’re nowhere nearly ready for the pro levels, yet.

No one pays you to be obtuse..

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 8:21 PM

No one pays you to be obtuse..

For the love of Yhwh do NOT mention those who pay him!
Oy Vey!

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 8:25 PM

… and so he is, was, and evermore shall be, as filed away in the Hot Air archives in perpetuity.

B-u-s-t-e-d. Busted. ;)

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 8:08 PM

Awesome! You can’t read. That’s a question (that you still haven’t answered) not a specific allegation. Back to the x-box with you.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 8:25 PM

X-D
…for some reason I read that in a Scooby Doo voice…

Gee MelonBaller all that talent bottled up. Why are you wasting time on this purist blog?

cableguy615 on February 6, 2013 at 8:28 PM

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 8:14 PM

Look V7 I don’t deny who won…I simply dispute that a guy who couldn’t beat a “moron” was going to beat Coons…

LOOK AT THE POLLS. SHOULD THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION?

Geeeeeeez, is that difficult, I mean YOU called her a moron, so if I lose to a MORON, what does that make ME?

Someone who is trying to be cute by not acknowledging the obvious: THIS
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/de/delaware_senate_castle_vs_coons-1300.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/de/delaware_senate_oadonnell_vs_coons-1670.html

WAS A BAD IDEA AND SHOULD NOT BE REPEATED.

So again point out to me how Rubio was more or less electable than Crist…in the early going?

By your assertion it’s is irrelevant… shocked that you kept track. Just nominate the guy you heard about here and blame the “establishment” if he loses..

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 8:32 PM

Anything else? 10 more minutes and I’m gone.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 8:34 PM

By your assertion it’s is irrelevant… shocked that you kept track. Just nominate the guy you heard about here and blame the “establishment” if he loses..

And don’t blame Crist or Bennett, or Castle or Lugar for running lame or entitled campaigns…

Castle failed the very test you say he could pass, BEING ELECTED…well they ahd an election and guess what Castle lost…to a “moron.” So I whatyou can’t or won’t grasp is that by your own defintion, Castle WAS NOT Electable.

Or is it your contention that the DE GOP all hung out at Hot Air, and just missed all the neat info Castle put out?

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Anything else? 10 more minutes and I’m gone.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 8:34 PM

Spend the night looking out how to operationalize “Electable”…get back to me, seriously, if you discover some metrics….

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 8:36 PM

No. It is a recognition that an extremely conservative candidate is not going to win in an extremely liberal electorate. Anyone who believes that is not the case is delusional and is a major part of the problem. In fact, anyone claiming to believe that a far right candidate can win a liberal electorate except under extraordinary circumstances is likely to be a Democrat simply saying that to get Republicans to agree to run a candidate that will get the Democrat elected.
Redware, what you said above is exactly what the Democrats who pretend to be “conservatives” in blog comments and on social media say. How did that Sharon Angle thing work out in Nevada? How about Buck for Senate in Colorado? Different regions are different. In liberal areas you are going to have to accept that candidates are not going to be so conservative. If you can’t accept that, then you are going to end up electing Democrats every single time.
I’d say a good 30% of the comments here are from liberals pretending to be conservatives.
crosspatch on February 6, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Well put!

bluegill on February 6, 2013 at 8:39 PM

crosspatch on February 6, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Well put!

bluegill on February 6, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Hey, the House troll shows up. You missed all of the action, LOL
Still lovin’ on Romney and hating on Palin? Too bad you haven’t figured out which is a winner and which is a loser yet.

Have a good evening.

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 8:43 PM

So I whatyou can’t or won’t grasp is that by your own defintion, Castle WAS NOT Electable.

Once again, here were the polls:
9 straight polls with Castle wining the general election.
The dismal results of the witch versus the communist.

What you wont grasp is that should have been a factor and simply demanding what you want wont get you there.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 8:43 PM

… and so he is, was, and evermore shall be, as filed away in the Hot Air archives in perpetuity.
B-u-s-t-e-d. Busted. ;)
Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 8:08 PM

Awesome! You can’t read. That’s a question (that you still haven’t answered) not a specific allegation. Back to the x-box with you.
V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 8:25 PM

You gotta love it when the toolish trolls turn on EACH OTHER.

bluegill on February 6, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Where did I flatly state that? I asked you a question. Learn to read

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 8:21 PM

So not contributing, not volunteering, or even staying at home on election day, the damage to the country worth it?

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 6:37 PM

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH-Ha-Ha-Ha-Haaaaaaaaa! My God, but you absolutely, positively suck at this whole “internet” thingie, don’t you? Poor, dumb, befuddled brute.

The q-u-e-s-t-i-o-n portion of your original posting — plainly; by even the most rudimentary grammar school rules of compositional english, at which you obviously have failed (or, more likely, are failing) — was “was it worth it?” You just as baldly (and stupidly, as it turns out) stated everything else as concrete fact, sans any possible equivocation.

I’m almost beginning to feel the first, faint stirring of what might actually be a sort of pity for you, at this point.

Almost. ;)

Guess that makes you a liar or illiterate.

… squeals the chittering, dishonest online chimpanzee, incapable of even correctly pointing out the query portion of his own freaking posting! Again: BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH-Ha-Ha-Ha-Haaaaaaaaa! [::wipes tears away from eyes; composes self before continuing::]

No one pays you to be obtuse..

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 8:21 PM

… and no one would ever be either gullible or spendthrift enough to pay you to convincingly feign actual intelligence, online… and yet: here you are, repeatedly (and unwittingly) humiliating yourself on my behalf, over and over and over again. Go figure.

Your increasingly evident bewilderment at finding yourself floundering desperately at the deep end of the conversational pool — alloyed with the most painfully obvious case of flop sweat in all of recorded online history — is sweet, sweet nectar, little monkey.

You. Couldn’t. Even. Answer. One. Single. Question.

Busted! Busted! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH-Ha-Ha-Ha-Haaaaaaaaa!

‘Night, all. Play nice-nice with li’l V7 for the rest of the evening, mm’kay? He’s so very, very… special.

In every applicable sense of the word.

[::walks away, shaking head and guffawing in combined sympathy and bemusement::]

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 8:44 PM

BY THE WAY. THE HOT AIR LOGO BELOW THE COMMENT BOX COVERS THE LOGIN LINK ON HEADLINE THREADS ONLY PLEASE FIX THIS NUISANCE!!!

dogsoldier on February 6, 2013 at 2:41 PM

…so it’s not just me, thank you Dog!

cableguy615 on February 6, 2013 at 8:45 PM

You gotta love it when the toolish trolls turn on EACH OTHER.
bluegill on February 6, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Oops, sorry, V7_sport. I thought you were Honda_V65. My mistake.

bluegill on February 6, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5