Reince Priebus’s not so crazy plans

posted at 8:41 am on March 19, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

Yesterday, both Ed and AP provided some coverage and commentary on the “autopsy” of the GOP following the 2012 election by the RNC and Chairman Priebus’s plans to try to set the situation to rights. Obviously, this caused quite a stir amongst the base, which the media took great joy in wringing its collective hands over.

John Brabender, Santorum’s chief adviser, said the reforms would favor the moneyed candidates.

“While I commend Chairman Priebus for taking important steps to remedy Republicans’ recent election failures, I am troubled by the possibility of a condensed presidential primary process which undoubtedly gives an advantage to establishment backed candidates and the wealthiest candidates,” said Brabender.

Brabender was hardly alone, and there was a great gnashing of teeth and rending of garments among the faithful. But there are a couple of important points buried in here. Between Ed and AP’s commentary, I’d like to focus for the moment on the latter. I was put in mind of something that Priebus said on the Sunday morning circuit dealing with the difference between winning “the math war” and the “war for the heart.” I’d prefer to spend a moment looking at the latter, but Allahpundit did a very good job of covering the former, which bears repeating here for those who missed it.

Everyone understands the strategizing, right? I assume 90 percent of the readership does but here’s a quickie primer for that 10 percent that doesn’t watch the primaries closely. Caucuses favor candidates with intensely committed followers, even if their overall base of support is small. The caucus process takes much longer than simple ballot voting does so casual voters stay away while passionate supporters show up. That means overall turnout is way lower than in a primary, which in turn means that a dark horse candidate who lacks money and name recognition can pull a huge upset by mobilizing his fans.

No matter how bitter of a pill that may be to swallow, it has the ring of truth. But just looking at this in terms of hard math isn’t quite enough as I see it, since this will apparently be a bitterly fought bone of contention in the upcoming cycle. With that said…

During the primary process and debates (which Reince wants to shorten, as noted above) there were a number of candidates who were perfectly fitted for a caucus environment. Unfortunately, that’s all they were designed for. I watched the process roll out with some wry amusement, frequently posting a picture on Twitter of Bart Simpson standing before a chalk board writing over and over, I will not yell suck it when Mitt Romney wins the nomination. And there was a reason for that.

Many good friends were huge supporters of some of the more “fringe” candidates on stage at those debates. I don’t question their passion or their enthusiasm for a moment. They were sincere supporters. But as a few of us were pointing out time and time again, there was simply no way – zero, zilch, nada – that Michele Bachmann or Herman Cain or (God help us all) Donald Trump were ever going to be elected president. Yes, Mitt Romney lost, but let’s not fool ourselves here. Given the national temperature of the electorate, if we had put one of them on the ballot somehow, historians would be writing for the next century about the popular vote electoral landslide that Obama carried for his reelection. (The electoral college count likely wouldn’t have changed much, as there are still – for now – a given block of states who would have voted against Obama even if we’d nominated a rabid cocker spaniel with a bad case of mange.)

But the election was not just won in the center… though that’s vastly important to the numbers. You can make the claim that a certain percentage of the hard core, Right base didn’t turn out. The numbers support that. But there were a ton of Northeastern, Midwest and left coast Republicans who still voted for Mitt. And if you put up one of these other, caucus powered, outside candidates, you’d have lost them in the mix.

Further, the idea of reducing the number of debates – specifically because of these caucus powered candidates – works out as a net positive. To the point Priebus was making, as you wind your way through 23 debates, it just represents one opportunity after another for these candidates to drive the potentially viable ones further and further to the Right to try to keep up. This is great for conservative headlines, but leaves them increasingly vulnerable when one of them finally makes it to the general election. Also – and we shouldn’t have to argue about this very much – the moderators for the majority of these debates are there to actively dig up incendiary sound bites to discredit conservatives and fill up cable news air time. How many bites at that apple would you like to give them? How many times do you want all the candidates to get asked about rape and the Voting Rights Act and Social Security and all the rest of the Left wing headline drivers before enough is enough?

In the end, you can say all you want about the “low information” or “low motivation” or brain dead voters who won’t stand in nine groups in the church basement for six hours after dinner for a caucus. Insult them all you like, and point out how they aren’t “strong” enough to fight for their cause in a caucus. But they DO show up in a primary. And they show up in the general election. And that’s who you’ve got to convince on election day. If the message of these caucus powered candidates is truly viable they will thrive in a fair outing where all of the voters who show up in the general take part. Criticizing Priebus for pointing out some basic, if unpleasant, mathematical realities isn’t going to take back the White House any time soon.


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

My comment on this Post:

You’re not “just” a Freakin’ Idiot,

You’re an ELITIST Freakin’ Idiot!

williamg on March 19, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Now we have the poor GOP selling loopholes instead of an economy that is the worst since Jimmy freakin’ Carter!

LOL.

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Why is it that we can elect a far left wing, bordering on socialist, for president but the idea of a conservative seems out there to voters?
And then polls would try to convince us that we are a center right nation? Nothing makes sense.

hopeful on March 19, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Rinse, Repeat, Rinse, Repeat:

Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost,
Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost,
Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost,
Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost, Yes, Mitt Romney lost,

williamg on March 19, 2013 at 11:45 AM

And then polls would try to convince us that we are a center right nation? Nothing makes sense.

hopeful on March 19, 2013 at 11:44 AM

The media makes us buy anything.

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 11:46 AM

Yes, Mitt Romney lost, but let’s not fool ourselves here. Given the national temperature of the electorate, if we had put one of them on the ballot somehow, historians would be writing for the next century about the popular vote electoral landslide that Obama carried for his reelection.

Pure speculation without any real evidence. Mitt got very few votes beyond those that any Republican running against Obama would have gotten. There is no reason to be so sure that a Herman Cain or Rick Santorum or even Donald Trump wouldn’t have done about as well. None.

The electability of Mitt Romney was a pure myth. The claim that someone else would have lost even worse is also a pure myth. I’m not convinced that Romney wasn’t the weakest of all the candidates. The only thing he really had going for him was lots of money. And we see how well that worked out.

As for Michele Bachman specifically, I don’t know that she was a serious candidate in the first place. She seems to have run to protect Romney’s flank and to be a token conservative woman so Sarah Palin didn’t decide to jump in.

If we’re doing a post mortem, the most destructive candidate of all — except for Romney himself — was probably Ron Paul, who flaunted himself as a “true conservative” while criticizing other candidates for being insufficiently conservative, but somehow never finding any cause to criticize Mitt Romney. And there’s a very good case to be made that the single biggest reason Romney lost is because the libertarians either stayed home, voted for the libertarian candidate, or voted for Obama.

tom on March 19, 2013 at 11:49 AM

I don’t understand why this reality is so difficult for so many to understand. It’s simple: When Republicans run as conservatives, they win. When Republicans run as Democrat Lite, they lose. Period.

Shump on March 19, 2013 at 9:16 AM

Great wrap up of the history behind running squishes who lose. It’s a shame people won’t learn history.

tom on March 19, 2013 at 11:51 AM

cam2 on March 19, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Keep perpetrating the myth. You make women look stupid. Birth control is cheap. And Repubs just don’t want to PAY FOR ANYONE ELSE BIRTH CONTROL or make laws that anyone else should. Birth control is covered by insurance if it is medically necessary. If it is just to prevent pregnancy then you can afford $10 a month at Target to pay for it your damn self. It is cheaper than an abortion or having a baby. Stop treating women like children because that is what Dems do. We are not children and don’t need to be treated as such.

Oh and BTW, I am a woman under 40 who pays for her own damn birth control.

melle1228 on March 19, 2013 at 11:53 AM

I live in a caucus state (Colorado) and think the system is attractions. I say go to primaries. You will get greater voter participation and a better sense of what the voters want in policy.

bartbeast on March 19, 2013 at 11:57 AM

Stop treating women like children because that is what Dems do. We are not children and don’t need to be treated as such.

Oh and BTW, I am a woman under 40 who pays for her own damn birth control.

melle1228 on March 19, 2013 at 11:53 AM

As a Democrat told me, “We gave free pills as a small gift and then promised a lifetime of love.”

I think she meant that a number of other issues would go for women.

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Stop treating women like children because that is what Dems do…

melle1228 on March 19, 2013 at 11:53 AM

I guess you missed Meet The Press this weekend.

The whole segment was a paean to the Democrats and women.

I nearly cried.

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 12:11 PM

Nice try. No one was called a slut for taking or using birth control. Rush Limbaugh equated the DEMAND from a female law student at a $40k per year law school that taxpayers subsidize the contraception required to satisfy her admittedly unaffordable sexual habits as slutty or “round-heeled” behavior.

rrpjr on March 19, 2013 at 11:26 AM

You are misinformed. In her testimony to the Congressional panel, Fluke did not ask for a governmental subsidy. She advocated for coverage of contraceptives in the health insurance plan offered by her university, which was paid for entirely by the students themselves with no subsidy by the university.*

She did not speak of her sexual habits at all. That was the inference drawn by Rush and you simply from the fact that she was advocating for this prescription drug to be included in her prescription drug coverage. And you wonder why women were offended.

* Here is a copy of her remarks to the Congressional committee:
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf

cam2 on March 19, 2013 at 12:12 PM

melle1228 on March 19, 2013 at 11:53 AM

It is a testament to the better self in all females that the Democrats didn’t get more of their votes.

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Years back, I listened to enough Limbaugh to conclude that he has a sex problem. Instead we heard about a drug problem. Splendid.

President Bush gave seniors drug coverage with no means test. However, the program is considered a success. I guess that is due to discounts.

Rush’s comments on birth control were another reason for me to admire him as a self promoter but detest Rush Limbaugh as a tool for winning elections or enhancing debate.

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 12:19 PM

HotAir was bad enough with the little tool AllahPundit writing his crappy pieces but HA is even more worthless having the tedious low intell Jazz Shaw writing BS like this….yuck!

el Vaquero on March 19, 2013 at 12:23 PM

Rush’s comments on birth control and Sandra Fluke or whatever her name was we stupid beyond belief.

From the web: 99% of women who have had sex use or used birth control.

What does he want, more illegitimate births?

Or just to knock women who have sex?

What a dumb remark.

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 12:26 PM

cam2 on March 19, 2013 at 12:12 PM

And she was misinformed, because contraception does not cost $3,000 a year..
And furthermore her stories were anecdoctal about some friends who were denied coverage despite needing pills for medically necessary reasons. First, there are appeals process that everyone has access to when dealing with insurance companies. Second, she offered no proof of these cases only her word.

If the pill or contraception method is just to prevent pregnancy then it is “preventative medicine” and a lot of insurance policies do not cover such services.

And lastly, she was testifying about a law demanding that an insurance cover something. THat means that someone other than FLUKE HAS TO PAY FOR SOMETHING. It means other people in that insurance plan that do not need contraception coverage have to subsidize that coverage.

She also wants the law to take away an institutions right of religious freedom and make them subsidize insurance policies that cover things that they object to. If she didn’t like the school’s policies; there is unlimited number of PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES off campus that I am sure will offer her coverage that she wants. Capitalism at its finest.

melle1228 on March 19, 2013 at 12:27 PM

She did not speak of her sexual habits at all. That was the inference drawn by Rush and you simply from the fact that she was advocating for this prescription drug to be included in her prescription drug coverage. And you wonder why women were offended.

cam2 on March 19, 2013 at 12:12 PM

It was the sheer scope of her claim of how much she was spending on birth control that led to Rush making fun of her.

And I quote from your own link:

Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.

Which inevitably leads to the question: How much contraception does she need?

Now, if you can’t make the link between contraception and sex, then you definitely represent a failure of sex education.

I’m not really defending Rush here, but it’s absurd to pretend his comments came out of nowhere.

tom on March 19, 2013 at 12:34 PM

cam2 on March 19, 2013 at 12:12 PM

I don’t really care as to why she needs to take contraceptives. For all we know, she might have a debilitating medical condition like endometriosis. But such things are irrelevant to the point at large.

She was invited by the Dems to speak on the record, defending free distribution of contraceptives on college campuses. She made herself a target for criticism, and knew that would be the case. It’s not without the realm of believability that she wanted to become a cause celeb for the Socialists. Although I don’t think she intended to become a political martyr.

Nice try. No one was called a slut for taking or using birth control. Rush Limbaugh equated the DEMAND from a female law student at a $40k per year law school that taxpayers subsidize the contraception required to satisfy her admittedly unaffordable sexual habits as slutty or “round-heeled” behavior.

rrpjr on March 19, 2013 at 11:26 AM

True. But Rush botched the point by how he said it. I don’t think he meant to call anyone that, but it did come off as flippant, and seemed to target her in the process because her testimony was THE news story of the day. Even he admitted it and apologized.

But that’s the whole point. He apologized on-air to her; it was an honest, genuine apology, and he felt regret for having made that remark. And she not only refused to accept his apology, but doubled down along with the rest of her Socialist brethren in an attempt to blackball Rush from ever saying anything ever again. Hello, the contrived “War on Women.”

I’m sorry, but I really can’t hold much sympathy for Sandra Fluke.

Not when I made a similar apology to an estranged friend recently for behavior that was worse than Rush’s remark, and that person accepted it. And I was – and still am – genuinely remorseful for my actions.

Myron Falwell on March 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM

CAM2:
She advocated for coverage of contraceptives in the health insurance plan offered by her university, which was paid for entirely by the students themselves with no subsidy by the university.*

Gotta correct that, CAM. Every parent knows that as long as you buy the right level of coverage, these colleges will let you opt out of their insurance and buy the kind you want, or use dads to satisfy the requirement. There was NO MANDATE to buy catholic church health insurance.

These women were smart enough to get into law school, they were smart enough to read what the insurance covers, and to put two and two together when their school is catholic. They were instigators.
I would kick them out of Georgetown.

Fleuries on March 19, 2013 at 12:37 PM

If the gop is serious about gaining and maintaining political power then they better understand that it is all show biz. And Priebus aint show biz. Get rid of him. He’s a loser. A loser that knows how to wind his way through GOP political circles. That may get him uniform but he’s in the bigs now and he sucks. You don’t have to agree with me now but betting money on a loser at the river is not good money management. Better to fold on the flop.

rik on March 19, 2013 at 12:39 PM

el Vaquero on March 19, 2013 at 12:23 PM

This kind of nonsense cracks me up. Is someone sitting next to your computer with a gun to your head forcing you to read Hotair or Jazz?

hopeful on March 19, 2013 at 12:40 PM

She also wants the law to take away an institutions right of religious freedom and make them subsidize insurance policies that cover things that they object to.

melle1228 on March 19, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Once again, the insurance was paid for entirely by the students. The university did not subsidize it at all. But go ahead, by all means, continue with this crusade against “slutty” women who expect their prescription drug coverage to cover prescription contraceptives. Just don’t expect the GOP to improve its standing among young women anythime soon.

cam2 on March 19, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Weird, the democrat party does not re-brand themselves. They just amp up on the social issues and move left.

GOP is stupid. A complete waste of my time.

shar61 on March 19, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Years back, I listened to enough Limbaugh to conclude that he has a sex problem. Instead we heard about a drug problem. Splendid.

President Bush gave seniors drug coverage with no means test. However, the program is considered a success. I guess that is due to discounts.

Rush’s comments on birth control were another reason for me to admire him as a self promoter but detest Rush Limbaugh as a tool for winning elections or enhancing debate.

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 12:19 PM

Outside of Operation Chaos, what influence DOES Rush have within the GOP? Even prior to last year, the non-conservative GOP Establishment has tried whatever they can to disassociate themselves from him. They never have liked him, are loathe to his success, and refuse to listen to him.

Rush is a human being. He’s not a God. I feel sympathy for his history of personal troubles. But it doesn’t cloud my view of every single thing he says. Moreover, if he were a Democrat, they would be considered “resume enhancements.”

Myron Falwell on March 19, 2013 at 12:42 PM

But as a few of us were pointing out time and time again, there was simply no way – zero, zilch, nada – that Michele Bachmann or Herman Cain or (God help us all) Donald Trump were ever going to be elected president.

posted at 8:41 am on March 19, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

You and your cohorts did it wrong. The proper way to deal with someone who is never going to be elected president is to not to include them in your analysis. Did you point out “time and time again” that Buddy Romer or Gary Johnson wouldn’t be president?

sauldalinsky on March 19, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Once again, the insurance was paid for entirely by the students. The university did not subsidize it at all. But go ahead, by all means, continue with this crusade against “slutty” women who expect their prescription drug coverage to cover prescription contraceptives. Just don’t expect the GOP to improve its standing among young women anythime soon.

cam2 on March 19, 2013 at 12:41 PM

First off you would be wrong, the insurance was Georgetown insurance. Because one of Fluke’s biggest frickin gripes was that the university could invoke religious reasons for not covering her BCP.

Second, how in the hell do you think that students get cheap healthcare. Do you think it comes that price. SOMEONE SUBSIDIZES THE PRICE. The school sponsors it which means they can decide which coverage they want to OFFER the students. Note the offering of a insurance plan to students is a favor to the students.

Thirdly, if Fluke did not like the coverage offered- THERE ARE PRIVATE INSURANCE COVERAGES WHO WOULD HAVE OFFERED HER THE COVERAGE SHE WANTED. The problem is Fluke wanted the cheap SUBSIDIZED coverage.

melle1228 on March 19, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Once again, the insurance was paid for entirely by the students. The university did not subsidize it at all. But go ahead, by all means, continue with this crusade against “slutty” women who expect their prescription drug coverage to cover prescription contraceptives. Just don’t expect the GOP to improve its standing among young women anythime soon.

cam2 on March 19, 2013 at 12:41 PM

BTW, keep treating 30 year old women like children and eventually women will learn which party actually supports “equality.”

melle1228 on March 19, 2013 at 12:48 PM

You are misinformed.
cam2 on March 19, 2013 at 12:12 PM

Again, here is what you said.

“GOP sought to exclude from prescription drug coverage the only prescription drug most women under 40 take and then called them sluts for taking it?”

Again, wrong. No one in the GOP called anybody a slut for taking birth control.

I referred to “taxpayers,” when in fact we’re presently talking about “other people.” So she wants “other people” to subsidize her birth control. Right? But as Obamacare grinds away at the insurance industry we will be left with government options and, finally, yes, taxpayers. Surely veteran Leftist activist Sandra Fluke is aware of this.

rrpjr on March 19, 2013 at 12:49 PM

How about stop giving small, irrelevant states like Iowa and New Hampshire pick the chance to pick the nominee?

therightwinger on March 19, 2013 at 12:51 PM

It was the sheer scope of her claim of how much she was spending on birth control that led to Rush making fun of her.

And I quote from your own link:

Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.

Which inevitably leads to the question: How much contraception does she need?
tom on March 19, 2013 at 12:34 PM

She said nothing about how much, if any, money she was spending on contraception. She stated that contraception CAN cost as much as $3,000 during law school (3 years). This is true for women who are unable to tolerate generics. And surely you know that the cost of birth control pills remains that same whether you have sex daily or not at all.

cam2 on March 19, 2013 at 12:52 PM

How about stop giving small, irrelevant states like Iowa and New Hampshire pick the chance to pick the nominee?

therightwinger on March 19, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Well, you see, that would be the **smart** thing to do… so don’t hold your breath.

Myron Falwell on March 19, 2013 at 12:57 PM

True. But Rush botched the point by how he said it. I don’t think he meant to call anyone that, but it did come off as flippant, and seemed to target her in the process because her testimony was THE news story of the day. Even he admitted it and apologized.

Myron Falwell on March 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM

He may have in fact botched it by apologizing. He could have said, “I’ll apologize when Bill Maher apologizes for calling Sarah Palin a “c*nt.” That is, he had an opportunity to force the conversation into the realm of double standard, hypocrisy and the norm of leftist slander across the culture.

rrpjr on March 19, 2013 at 12:57 PM

rrpjr on March 19, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Of course Sandra Fluke wanted someone else to pay for it. If she didn’t, she would have just paid the money to buy the BCP at Target which is about $100 a year. Incidentally $100 a year is less than condoms would cost a year, and condom are generally a necessity when you are unmarried. So even if here BCP were paid for, she still would probably have to spend over $100 a year.

Futhermore, Sandra Fluke had the option to find a private insurance company off campus that offered her all the contraception cover she wanted. She chose to gripe about the “cheap, campus sponsored” college plan. The fact that the college plan doesn’t cover PREVENTATIVE MEDICINE isn’t any big surprise. Contraception isn’t the only form of preventative medicine that most college plans don’t cover, but Dems can’t use eye exams for their war on women meme.

melle1228 on March 19, 2013 at 12:57 PM

He may have in fact botched it by apologizing. He could have said, “I’ll apologize when Bill Maher apologizes for calling Sarah Palin a “c*nt.” That is, he had an opportunity to force the conversation into the realm of double standard, hypocrisy and the norm of leftist slander across the culture.

rrpjr on March 19, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Yeah I love how cam thinks it is horrible how Fluke was called a slut. Maybe Cam should research some of the things that Conservative women have been called by liberals. Apparently that is okay though. Dems can get away with that as long as they keep spoon feeding Democrats that they are children who need to be taken care of.

melle1228 on March 19, 2013 at 1:03 PM

…, the non-conservative GOP Establishment has tried whatever they can to disassociate themselves from him….

Myron Falwell on March 19, 2013 at 12:42 PM

I didn’t say Rush had any ongoing influence on the GOP.

I hope I didn’t, anyway.

He is such an asset that MSNBC wants to make him a GOP “leader” every chance they get.

Yes, the GOP establishment just doesn’t like the poor, suffering man.

Calling women students sluts for wanting pills paid for, and assuming that you will not turn anyone off, when the GOP is already being hit with slick gambits like the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act or whatever it was called is a brilliant strategy.

Way to go, Rush!

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 1:07 PM

melle1228 on March 19, 2013 at 1:03 PM

I don’t think it helps either side. So what is your point?

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 1:09 PM

The problem is Fluke wanted the cheap SUBSIDIZED coverage.

melle1228 on March 19, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Did she not have a history of being an advocate of leftist (anti-Catholic causes)
I suspect that she was merely trying to help bring down the left’s mortal enemy– the Church and its institutions (even the morally corrupt ones like Georgetown)
As a Catholic, she knew well that contraception(and by such, abortion)is a grave mortal sin endangering the souls eternity.

Such demonic agendas are not about economics or insurance, anymore than the “culture of death’s” poster child’s in the White House attacked religious conscience because he wants better health.

Don L on March 19, 2013 at 1:11 PM

I don’t think it helps either side. So what is your point?

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 1:09 PM

Cam likes to think that it is because Rush calls Fluke a “slut” and that is why women go Dem in droves. Liberals are just as bad and sometimes worse with their language of conservative women and are seldom called on it.

Does it help? Nope, but you better be damn sure I am going to point out the hypocrisy of it. Want to know how a Dem really feels about women, blacks, hispanics, and gays? Listen to them talk about a conservative who falls into one of those groups.

melle1228 on March 19, 2013 at 1:12 PM

He may have in fact botched it by apologizing. He could have said, “I’ll apologize when Bill Maher apologizes for calling Sarah Palin a “c*nt.” That is, he had an opportunity to force the conversation into the realm of double standard, hypocrisy and the norm of leftist slander across the culture.

rrpjr on March 19, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Can’t agree with you more. I think he may have been forced into that corner, though.

And yet, I don’t think there would have been much difference. He was going to be crucified regardless of his actions (and the Socialist MSM would have seen to it that the conversation never ever went beyond his initial remark and/or defiance and refusal to apologize anyway, as what ended up happening) so he likely defaulted into apology mode.

I’m not trying to speak for Rush, rather, I’m just trying to comprehend the lose-lose situation he wound up in.

Myron Falwell on March 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Apparently that is okay though. Dems can get away with that as long as they keep spoon feeding Democrats that they are children who need to be taken care of.

melle1228 on March 19, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Don’t get me started on what lefty men get away with concerning women. Governor Sarah Palin is a poster child.

The left is in a different position, however. As Andre Agassi used to say “Image is everything.”

And when the name calling is done on a weak platform to people who think they are hurting already, and leaning a certain way, it sure matters.

Calling a candidate names and bad remarks about her kids is a little different if it doesn’t relate to a strategy or a sensitive issue.

Then we have McCain campaign officials intensely hate Governor Palin and help to this day.

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Calling women students sluts for wanting pills paid for, and assuming that you will not turn anyone off, when the GOP is already being hit with slick gambits like the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act or whatever it was called is a brilliant strategy.

Way to go, Rush!

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 1:07 PM

I agree Rush made a mistake by labeling Sandra Fluke a slut. He should have mocked her for claiming birth control pills were costing $2,700 a year when she could get them for $10 – $15 a month at Target or for free at Planned Parenthood.

Ann Coulter had a good one-liner for Fluke at CPAC: “With Fluke’s haircut she doesn’t need birth control pills.”

bw222 on March 19, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Jazz you are the crazy one. The GOP is clearly telling conservatives to stay with our RINO’s or leave. I will not vote for another GOP RINO again. No matter what office it is for.

I’m ready for a new party. The GOP has left us.

Conservative4Ever on March 19, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Don’t get me started on what lefty men get away with concerning women. Governor Sarah Palin is a poster child.

The left is in a different position, however. As Andre Agassi used to say “Image is everything.”

And when the name calling is done on a weak platform to people who think they are hurting already, and leaning a certain way, it sure matters.

Calling a candidate names and bad remarks about her kids is a little different if it doesn’t relate to a strategy or a sensitive issue.

Then we have McCain campaign officials intensely hate Governor Palin and help to this day.

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 1:15 PM

I agree. And that is the funny thing about the Repus. The one thing they should be working on is a strategy on how to deal with a hostile media.

melle1228 on March 19, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Ah! There’s nothing like a right wing, internecine lovefest to brighten the day. Do you know why you want to know why you yobbos are going to lose in ’16?

Because the majority of people in this country reject your stupid ideas.

Case in point, see below:

You want to win? Really want to win? Go with the Sekhmet Plan (in no particular order):

1. Don’t even think the words “front runner” before July of 2015. Don’t give the Dems a years-long advantage in calibrating their counter-campaign before we get our campaign going

Irrelevant. Democrats don’t need an identified “front runner” to target the two or three candidates likely to win the nomination. Besides, how do you stop the media from making such a designation?

2. Point out attacks from 0bama’s left. While the target audience is quiet now, they won’t be quiet in an open Presidential primary, where they can be useful against establishment Democrats like Hillary

Waste of time. Criticism from the left will only make Hillary more popular with the center and cement her victory.

3. Mend fences. We need the entire coalition to win.

HAHAHA! Have you been reading the comments on this thread? Rush-Rabid Rightists don’t mend fences. They electrify them.

4. Kill amnesty. This may be the plan as we are speaking, to kill amnesty with kindness, in hopes of defusing the race bomb. So I’m not about to go nuts yet.

No idea what this means, but it’s very incoherence means it’s a loser.

5. Pressure states to close primaries. Use data from previous elections to determine where the most fake crossover voters (Democrats who mess with our primaries) are, find out what it takes to get a candidate on their Democrat primary ballot somewhere who will cause them to want to remain Democrats to vote against him, rather than cross over and mess with us.

But…but…what about Operation Chaos?

6. Push Voter ID laws. Get them in place for 2016 like they weren’t in place for 2012.

Galvanize the Democratic base again in 2016…check!

7. Use our advantage in the House to forbid the direct hiring of media people by Congressmen. Make the journ0lists write press releases about widget recalls or nuking gay communist whales for Jesus for a few years if they want to work in politics, instead of bringing their political ambitions into the newsroom.

A stupid, unworkable idea even by the standards of this silly list.

8. Relax, but don’t get complacent. Rand is smarter than his dad. He can make Libertarian conservative appeal without becoming a magnet for Occutards and the Black Helicopter Brigade. Suburban and rural counties don’t have election boards that ignore claims from groups like True the Vote, and don’t have enough dependent voters the Democrats can rile to the polls by saying we want to take their tampons away.

Sekhmet on March 19, 2013 at 11:08 AM

So, that’s it? This is the surefire recipe for electoral success in 2016?

Good one! I fully endorse it and think Republicans should implement it immediately.

chumpThreads on March 19, 2013 at 1:23 PM

For sure, Rush was not the best helper and the GOP has little or no other media to help. Just stats on the LSM every night.

But what would someone out to help the GOP would have done on women’s issues?

Maybe go to a maternity ward and ask to toss newborn kids in a laundry hamper.

Call out the administration for the pay and positions women get from our Dear Leader…

Go to families with men broken and hopeless, drunken unemployed beating their wives. divorces coming from from just stress, kids without a chance for a stable home without the sheriff coming in the door with movers to toss the belongings in the street ..

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 1:24 PM

chumpThreads on March 19, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Beware of Greeks bearing Gifts..

Or sheeps bleating “bah, bah, bah..”

Or Koolaid drinkers drinking koolaid..

melle1228 on March 19, 2013 at 1:26 PM

The media makes us buy anything.

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 11:46 AM

“The Devil made me buy that dress!” -Flip Wilson

chumpThreads on March 19, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Sorry to pick on you here, dude, but…..

Yes, Mitt Romney lost, but let’s not fool ourselves here. Given the national temperature of the electorate, if we had put one of them on the ballot somehow, historians would be writing for the next century about the popular vote electoral landslide that Obama carried for his reelection.

Pure speculation without any real evidence.

tom on March 19, 2013 at 11:49 AM

This is true. The notion that no one could have done better than Romney may be true, but it’s still speculation without any real evidence. The thing is you followed that immediately with….

Mitt got very few votes beyond those that any Republican running against Obama would have gotten. There is no reason to be so sure that a Herman Cain or Rick Santorum or even Donald Trump wouldn’t have done about as well. None.

tom on March 19, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Pure speculations without any real evidence.

alchemist19 on March 19, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Pure speculations without any real evidence.

alchemist19 on March 19, 2013 at 1:29 PM

That is what I have been trying to say for months.

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 1:33 PM

There is a lot of hatred of the “GOP establishment” and fat cats.

You have a point.

Both Seven Percent Solution and your humble servant lauded Pat Caddell’s speech at CPAC. Go find it if you haven’t heard it.

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Rush’s comments on birth control were another reason for me to admire him as a self promoter but detest Rush Limbaugh as a tool for winning elections or enhancing debate.

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 12:19 PM

People would do well to remember Rush is open and honest about what he’s doing and why he does it. He’s said on multiple occasions that the purpose of his program is not to get anyone elected; the purpose of his program is to draw the largest audience he can and hold it for as long as possible so that he can charge confiscatory advertising rates.

alchemist19 on March 19, 2013 at 1:38 PM

In their effort to reach out to liberally social groups they are going to lose an even bigger group. Many seniors vote for Republicans because of the social issues. If both the democrats and republicans become socially liberal they will turn to democrats because they are seen as defenders of social security and medicare. Or they will find the social issues so repugnant that they stay home.

Rose on March 19, 2013 at 1:44 PM

However, to take a hatchet to Karl Rove or the GOP National apparatus is not very constructive and is really kicking the wrong hog away from the trough.

Check what the talking heads make before attacking the central GOP players. Talk radio pays extremely well.

Rush Limbaugh has, about what, 100 commercials in four hours?

His position, is defective for winning for the GOP.

It is preaching to the choir. That has utility but can be a liability as snippets and shards are used by others. But he just gets the fame, regardless.

His position is mostly defensive because of his audience of fans and converts. See my remarks on Napoleon above.

Finally:

The media makes us buy anything.

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 11:46 AM

“The Devil made me buy that dress!” -Flip Wilson

chumpThreads on March 19, 2013 at 1:27 PM

The Founders of the greatest nation in history agree with my lament about the loss of our free press.

You and your ilk of Hitler, Stalin, and…(Dare I say?) the modern Democrat Party agree with your smirk.

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Ann Coulter had a good one-liner for Fluke at CPAC: “With Fluke’s haircut she doesn’t need birth control pills.”

bw222 on March 19, 2013 at 1:18 PM

What?
Ann Coulter resorted to an ad hominem attack?

I’m shocked. Shocked!

chumpThreads on March 19, 2013 at 1:47 PM

The Founders of the greatest nation in history agree with my lament about the loss of our free press.

You and your ilk of Hitler, Stalin, and…(Dare I say?) the modern Democrat Party agree with your smirk.

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 1:45 PM

A non-sequitur and a Godwin packed into a single, boring comment.
Somehow I think Goldwater would be disappointed in you.

chumpThreads on March 19, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Go to families with men broken and hopeless, drunken unemployed beating their wives. divorces coming from from just stress, kids without a chance for a stable home without the sheriff coming in the door with movers to toss the belongings in the street ..

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 1:24 PM

A liberal wrote to me and asked what a “trough” was. Now that is ironic.

On their second question, I send out resumes to do a TV show or movie but get hate emails back.

I have to work now. Bye.

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 1:53 PM

chumpThreads on March 19, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Look up terms b/4 you use them.

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Now I work.

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Ah! There’s nothing like a right wing, internecine lovefest to brighten the day. Do you know why you want to know why you yobbos are going to lose in ’16?

Because the majority of people in this country reject your stupid ideas.

Case in point, see below:

You want to win? Really want to win? Go with the Sekhmet Plan (in no particular order):

1. Don’t even think the words “front runner” before July of 2015. Don’t give the Dems a years-long advantage in calibrating their counter-campaign before we get our campaign going

Irrelevant. Democrats don’t need an identified “front runner” to target the two or three candidates likely to win the nomination. Besides, how do you stop the media from making such a designation?

Funny how shortly after a “front runner” has been emerging, he comes out for amnesty, crossing him off a lot of lists. And targeting 2 or 3 different people is not the same as targeting one guy. The wider you have to spread your net, the more likely someone will slip through.

2. Point out attacks from 0bama’s left. While the target audience is quiet now, they won’t be quiet in an open Presidential primary, where they can be useful against establishment Democrats like Hillary

Waste of time. Criticism from the left will only make Hillary more popular with the center and cement her victory.

Unlike you, there are Democrat voters who are not self-serving hypocrites on issues like war, and Benghazi Hillary won’t be so appealing to them. Wow, what an opportunity for someone like Kucinich within the Democrat Party, or for the Green Party…. Just ask Al Gore about those Greens.

3. Mend fences. We need the entire coalition to win.

HAHAHA! Have you been reading the comments on this thread? Rush-Rabid Rightists don’t mend fences. They electrify them.

It won’t take much to remind us how much we hate you more than we hate each other.

4. Kill amnesty. This may be the plan as we are speaking, to kill amnesty with kindness, in hopes of defusing the race bomb. So I’m not about to go nuts yet.

No idea what this means, but it’s very incoherence means it’s a loser.

Well damn, seems we jabberjawed on amnesty right into the filing dates for the 2014 primaries, and now it’s just politically impossible. Gee, and we tried soooo hard. Oh well, better luck next tiiime!

5. Pressure states to close primaries. Use data from previous elections to determine where the most fake crossover voters (Democrats who mess with our primaries) are, find out what it takes to get a candidate on their Democrat primary ballot somewhere who will cause them to want to remain Democrats to vote against him, rather than cross over and mess with us.

But…but…what about Operation Chaos?

A. U mad bro? I have no problem with ratfuckery. Your whining is music to my ears. B. Won’t it be fun come primary time if your favorite Congressman has a primary challenge by some guy who talks about how Jesus wants to save the babies, and conservatives keep talking about crossing the line to vote for him. Gee, do you mess with the R primary like you usually do, dishonest goatshagger you are, or do you keep Jesus Boy from knocking your favorite Congressman out in an upset? Decisions, decisions.

6. Push Voter ID laws. Get them in place for 2016 like they weren’t in place for 2012.

Galvanize the Democratic base again in 2016…check!

Only works if the candidate the minorities are worried about is darker than a paper bag, honey.

7. Use our advantage in the House to forbid the direct hiring of media people by Congressmen. Make the journ0lists write press releases about widget recalls or nuking gay communist whales for Jesus for a few years if they want to work in politics, instead of bringing their political ambitions into the newsroom.

A stupid, unworkable idea even by the standards of this silly list.

Stupid because some guy who makes his living trolling conservative sites in between fapping to OFA e-mails says so? Damn, my ideas are good!

8. Relax, but don’t get complacent. Rand is smarter than his dad. He can make Libertarian conservative appeal without becoming a magnet for Occutards and the Black Helicopter Brigade. Suburban and rural counties don’t have election boards that ignore claims from groups like True the Vote, and don’t have enough dependent voters the Democrats can rile to the polls by saying we want to take their tampons away.

Sekhmet on March 19, 2013 at 11:08 AM

So, that’s it? This is the surefire recipe for electoral success in 2016?

Good one! I fully endorse it and think Republicans should implement it immediately.

chumpThreads on March 19, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Can’t wait till amnesty goes the way of the assault weapons ban, your Latino vote goes south, and you find out the hard way how hard Shaniqua and Calvin will bust their butts for a white candidate.

Sekhmet on March 19, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Reince Priebus is telling us to do the same thing (Ford, GHWB, Dole, GWB, McCain, Romney) and expect to get different results in 2016.

That is insane.

No thanks…. Jazz wise up. If you can.

Conservative4Ever on March 19, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Can I get a “Bwa-ha-ha!”?

mojo on March 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM

What good is it to “win” a national election, if you have to surrender all principles to do so. Besides, the Rs keep nominating these same centrist, big govt insiders (Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney) that we are told by the MSM are sure to attract more voters. I see no evidence of this. Jazz can mock Cain and Bachmann all he wants. I think they would have run much more offensive campaigns and fared better than Romney. The only time he looked attractive as a candidate was after the first debate.

kpguru on March 19, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Reince Priebus is telling us to do the same thing (Ford, GHWB, Dole, GWB, McCain, Romney) and expect to get different results in 2016.

That is insane.

No thanks…. Jazz wise up. If you can.

Conservative4Ever on March 19, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Priebus isn’t saying that. If you look at the report it says they made over 50,000 contacts, spoke directly with over 2,600 people and held over 50 focus groups in Iowa and Ohio composed of people who used to be Republicans but left the party for one reason or another (including because it was either too conservative or not conservative enough) and the report is what all those people said, not what Priebus is saying.

alchemist19 on March 19, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Priebus isn’t saying that. If you look at the report it says they made over 50,000 contacts, spoke directly with over 2,600 people and held over 50 focus groups in Iowa and Ohio composed of people who used to be Republicans but left the party for one reason or another (including because it was either too conservative or not conservative enough) and the report is what all those people said, not what Priebus is saying.

alchemist19 on March 19, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Then you have not seen his interviews nor are you capable of reading between the lines. Priebus did not change his stripes over night. To think so, means you are a fool.

Conservative4Ever on March 19, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Then you have not seen his interviews nor are you capable of reading between the lines. Priebus did not change his stripes over night. To think so, means you are a fool.

Conservative4Ever on March 19, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Or could it be that Priebus has known for some time why we’re getting our clocks cleans and is trying to stop us from shooting ourselves in the foot?

alchemist19 on March 19, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Or could it be that Priebus has known for some time why we’re getting our clocks cleans and is trying to stop us from shooting ourselves in the foot?

alchemist19 on March 19, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Or perhaps he has a double barreled 12 gauge shotgun aimed directly at both his feet.

As Pat Caddell said, the Democrats are the corrupt party. The GOP is the stupid party. Remember, Priebus and the RNC were responsible for the 2012 ground game, including ORCA. What does that do for your confidence?

bw222 on March 19, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Gonna agree with Preibus here. Look, I want cause candidates to participate, but they need to be able to win in elections that resemble a general election, as well as caucuses.

Additionally, there is another point to make. One of the complaints here is that these rules favor candidates that are good at raising money. Raising money, however, is an absolute necessity when it comes to winning a modern national election. Democrats are AMAZINGLY good at raising money these days, and have no qualms with using that money to completely smear their opponent.

So, sure, I want cause candidates to participate, but they need to be able to raise money as well. There isn’t any reason a cause candidate wouldn’t be able to raise money, so long as they’re well organized.

That is one of the big cruxes here. The organized campaigns didn’t have a problem raising money. Even Paul did well in that regard, and he certainly wasn’t an establishment candidate. It was the disorganized campaigns that couldn’t raise money, and it appears they’re the ones wailing the most in this case.

WolvenOne on March 19, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Wait, did I, actually get the final word for once?!

I, I don’t think this has ever happened to me before! What am I supposed to do now?! O_O

WolvenOne on March 19, 2013 at 5:02 PM

I think they would have run much more offensive campaigns and fared better than Romney. The only time he looked attractive as a candidate was after the first debate.

kpguru on March 19, 2013 at 2:20 PM

A liberal, a moderate or a conservative can be aggressive.

However, don’t confuse being ideologically extreme or pure on the issues with being aggressive.

OMG. For the last time…

1) THE IDEA IS TO MAKE THE OTHER GUY LOOK EXTREME.

2) WITHOUT A SEA CHANGE, WE HAVE TWO PARTIES.

Goldwater, McGovern, Perot, Gus Hall, Gary Johnson, Ralph Nader…which of these guys won again?

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 5:03 PM

In Colorado you have to be a registered Democrat or Republican to participate in the caucus, so no unaffiliateds allowed. It’s easy enough to change your affiliation online for purposes of the caucus, but it’s also something that lends to low turnout.

lea on March 19, 2013 at 5:04 PM

As Pat Caddell said, the Democrats are the corrupt party. The GOP is the stupid party. Remember, Priebus and the RNC were responsible for the 2012 ground game, including ORCA. What does that do for your confidence?

bw222 on March 19, 2013 at 4:01 PM

They are forever asking for money — ask for an article here on how the ground game went bad or anything else for that matter. Ask.

Heck, the Dems will answer questions for donors — or the public. Nothing corrupt or undemocratic about it.

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 5:07 PM

bw222 on March 19, 2013 at 4:01 PM

While you are at it, kindly tell whoever calls me and claims to be from the RNC that I pay about the price of a cheap car payment every month to an answering service to run interference and answer my home phone. No cheap voice recording machines for us fat cats!

So please leave a number.

I also have a real time video surveillance system so the thugs who mess with my house will be dealt with when the fat cat decides to amuse himself by retaliating. They can pray for me to use police and the courts.

The local gun range can talk about my abilities and personal skill set. And I’m not talking about guns. Ask about Steven Seagal’s character.

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 5:25 PM

The GOP thinks you’ll vote, and donate to them no matter what. What’s you gonna do, vote Democrat?

Let it burn.

DFCtomm on March 19, 2013 at 5:41 PM

She said nothing about how much, if any, money she was spending on contraception. She stated that contraception CAN cost as much as $3,000 during law school (3 years). This is true for women who are unable to tolerate generics. And surely you know that the cost of birth control pills remains that same whether you have sex daily or not at all.

cam2 on March 19, 2013 at 12:52 PM

Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.

Anyone paying attention knows that contraception is not that expensive. There are a few people that take birth control pills for reasons other than contraception, but that’s a separate issue, and the doctor prescribing them can usually get the insurance company to pay for them in such cases.

Once again, Fluke made a big deal about how contraception was so expensive that it was costing thousands of dollars. Birth control pills aren’t that expensive, so she must have been referring to something else. So much for the supposed disconnect between contraception and sex. And I don’t even know why you waste your time arguing that she wasn’t asking for a handout because she was paying her insurance premiums. Obviously, if she wanted insurance to pay for it, it was to avoid having to pay for it directly. So there’s really no doubt that she was wanting someone else to pay for her contraception in whole or in part.

I said I wasn’t defending Rush, and I’m not. Calling her a slut made his point well, but that doesn’t make it right. He must have felt the same way, since he even apologized for it.

Regardless, she really did paint a target on her own back.

tom on March 19, 2013 at 6:29 PM

Sorry to pick on you here, dude, but…..

Yes, Mitt Romney lost, but let’s not fool ourselves here. Given the national temperature of the electorate, if we had put one of them on the ballot somehow, historians would be writing for the next century about the popular vote electoral landslide that Obama carried for his reelection.

Pure speculation without any real evidence.

tom on March 19, 2013 at 11:49 AM

This is true. The notion that no one could have done better than Romney may be true, but it’s still speculation without any real evidence. The thing is you followed that immediately with….

Mitt got very few votes beyond those that any Republican running against Obama would have gotten. There is no reason to be so sure that a Herman Cain or Rick Santorum or even Donald Trump wouldn’t have done about as well. None.

tom on March 19, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Pure speculations without any real evidence.

alchemist19 on March 19, 2013 at 1:29 PM

You seem to think you caught me in a contradiction, but you really didn’t. Apparently, this is the part you found to be pure speculation without any evidence: “Mitt got very few votes beyond those that any Republican running against Obama would have gotten.

That’s not really speculation. It’s easy to compare Mitt’s vote record to the vote record for Republican losers of the past — like McCain just four years before — and find that his vote was basically comparable. It’s an opinion that you could try to refute, but it’s certainly not without evidence.

What is speculation is to assume other candidates would have lost by bigger margins. There is simply no reason to assume that.

By actually running for president, we can measure how well Romney did compared to other Republican losers in the past. After the disastrous four years of the first Obama term, he certainly should have done better. He didn’t.

How well another candidate might have done is speculation. How well Romney actually did is a lot more measurable. I still see no indication that mr. electable was, in fact, electable.

tom on March 19, 2013 at 6:44 PM

People claim they hate politicians and don’t want a professional politician as their candidate yet when they got one, they complain that he didn’t campaign like a professional politician.

Romney was the best candidate we had. Bachmann or Santorum or Gingrich or Cain would have been a double digit popular vote loss. Romney lost the popular vote by about 3 points.

But more importantly, people need to look at 2012 vs 2008 and notice that the Republicans did much better and were much stronger in 2012. We held Wisconsin, took all three branches of government in Arkansas and Mississippi and Alabama for the first time in over 100 years. We moved West Virginia’s state government from a Democratic lock to nearly flipping red. Pennsylvania held at the state level. Yes, we did lose a little ground from the 2010 mid-terms but not NEARLY as much as we lost in the 2006 mid-terms and we sit today in 2013 in much better shape than we were back in 2009. If you compare 2013 with 2009, we are stronger at every level and MUCH stronger than in 2007.

Obama will not be on the ballot in 2014 so there will be no “coattails” of Obama supporters coming out and voting a straight D ticket. Democrats have made some huge mistakes at both the state level and at the federal level regarding issues such as gun control. Obamacare will be in full effect by then and people are going to see the full impact of it. The Democrats are looking at potential disaster at the state and local levels in 2014 and they will likely have an impact in 2014.

But overall, the Democratic Party has become a corrupt organization basically run by the Chicago mob. An increasing number of decent American citizens who traditionally supported the Democratic Party are looking themselves in the mirror and asking themselves how they can support what used to be a fine political institution. The Democratic Party has become rotten to the core and it’s support in many cases is “a mile wide and an inch deep”.

Also, beware of the so-called “conservatives” around social media and in blog comments who are really Democrats in a “conservative” suit trying to spin up hate and discontent among Republicans in order to get Democrats elected. Anyone who honestly believes a far right candidate is going to get votes in blue or bluish purple states is delusional. It just isn’t going to happen. And we need to understand that we aren’t likely to get a Republican candidate that actually pleases both Texas and Connecticut completely.

crosspatch on March 19, 2013 at 7:05 PM

What?
Ann Coulter resorted to an ad hominem attack?

I’m shocked. Shocked!

chumpThreads on March 19, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Ad Hominem Attack is underrated.

OTOH, Ann Hart Coulter is not an ideal person to mock another woman’s looks. Yikes, dudelookslikealady.

OTOH, she is one of the sharpest conservative minds. Her problem is that she cares too much about public-replies to her bombast. Hold your ground, Ann. Hold your ground!

Capitalist Hog on March 19, 2013 at 7:26 PM

You seem to think you caught me in a contradiction, but you really didn’t. Apparently, this is the part you found to be pure speculation without any evidence: “Mitt got very few votes beyond those that any Republican running against Obama would have gotten.”

Yep, because it’s pure speculation.

That’s not really speculation.

Yes it is.

It’s easy to compare Mitt’s vote record to the vote record for Republican losers of the past — like McCain just four years before — and find that his vote was basically comparable.

McCain and Romney’s vote totals were roughly equal (60 million) but that doesn’t mean that number is the floor for a generic Republican. Bush 41 and Dole both got 40 million.

It’s an opinion that you could try to refute, but it’s certainly not without evidence.

Each election is an unique contest between different people in different circumstances. What evidence are you relying on?

What is speculation is to assume other candidates would have lost by bigger margins. There is simply no reason to assume that.

The polling of potential head-to-heads of Newt, Santorum, Palin or whomever against Obama does offer some guidance though.

By actually running for president, we can measure how well Romney did compared to other Republican losers in the past.

In different contest under different circumstances.

After the disastrous four years of the first Obama term, he certainly should have done better. He didn’t.

Yet he polled better than any of the other options did.

How well another candidate might have done is speculation.

True.

How well Romney actually did is a lot more measurable.

Also true.

I still see no indication that mr. electable was, in fact, electable.

tom on March 19, 2013 at 6:44 PM

But that’s not what you said. You said “Mitt got very few votes beyond those that any Republican running against Obama would have gotten,” and that, as you just pointed out, is pure speculation.

alchemist19 on March 19, 2013 at 7:40 PM

Take the vowels out of Reince Priebus and you get “RNC PR BS”.

bw222 on March 19, 2013 at 7:45 PM

You seem to think you caught me in a contradiction, but you really didn’t. Apparently, this is the part you found to be pure speculation without any evidence: “Mitt got very few votes beyond those that any Republican running against Obama would have gotten.”

Yep, because it’s pure speculation.

I still see no indication that mr. electable was, in fact, electable.

tom on March 19, 2013 at 6:44 PM

But that’s not what you said. You said “Mitt got very few votes beyond those that any Republican running against Obama would have gotten,” and that, as you just pointed out, is pure speculation.

alchemist19 on March 19, 2013 at 7:40 PM

Ok, this could get very tiresome, and I don’t want to get into a pointless “Did NOT”/”Did SO” argument.

You keyed on one statement, that Mitt got very few votes beyond those that any Republican running against Obama would have gotten. You insist that is pure speculation without any evidence. I give you my reason why I believe that is not without evidence, even though it is obviously a subjective opinion. The evidence being, we actually know how Romney did, and it was hardly above expectations for a Republican running against a Democratic incumbent with a disastrous economy. That is, I can distinguish my statement from the sort of baseless speculation that says “every other candidate would have lost in a huge double-digit landslide.”

If you’re really just going to keep insisting that it’s just speculation, go right ahead. We don’t have to agree. I’m quite comfortable with you just being wrong. ;->

tom on March 19, 2013 at 7:57 PM

I am all for shortening the primary seaon and changing the debates.Plus weneed to get rid of the caucuses..:)

Dire Straits on March 19, 2013 at 8:26 PM

That is, I can distinguish my statement baseless speculation from the sort of baseless speculation that says “every other candidate would have lost in a huge double-digit landslide.”

I don’t really doubt that you can.

If you’re really just going to keep insisting that it’s just speculation, go right ahead. We don’t have to agree. I’m quite comfortable with you just being wrong. ;->

tom on March 19, 2013 at 7:57 PM

My thinking you’re wrong is based on the fact I live in Realville where words mean what they mean. Don’t worry, you’re not the first person whose intentions ran afoul of the dictionary. ;-)

alchemist19 on March 19, 2013 at 10:35 PM

Prince Peinus does the impossible:

Makes Mikey Steele look like a freakin genius.

james23 on March 19, 2013 at 10:37 PM

Look for the RINO establishment to push for Bob McDonald, fresh off his compromise tax increase for more infrastructure and Obamacare spending, to ‘win’ the majority of that early cash!

Freddy on March 19, 2013 at 10:38 PM

Primaries are good. However, they should be held first by the state with the highest percentage of votes for the GOP (Oklahoma, I think), and then downward until you get to the states we lost the worst in order. No more of these states who don’t vote GOP having an undue influence on the outcome of the process.

That having been said, Jazz, I am not sure why somebody as RINO-tastic as you is writing for a conservative website, but it oozes out of all of your writings.

Theophile on March 19, 2013 at 11:03 PM

OTOH, she is one of the sharpest conservative minds. Her problem is that she cares too much about public-replies to her bombast. Hold your ground, Ann. Hold your ground!

Capitalist Hog on March 19, 2013 at 7:26 PM

Sorry, but after Ann’s atrocious “Three Cheers for Romneycare!” op-ed – after gushing for an entire year about how Chris Christie was the only candidate who could win the 2012 election – I haven’t bothered to read or follow her ever again.

Look, I know she’s a bulldog-esque figure when she actually knows what she’s talking about. But that’s the problem. She’s a one-note, highly incendiary figure who changes no minds, but is best sparring with Bill Maher and his ilk. Whatever.

If you hate Rush – and a lot of Rush-haters surfaced on this thread today – you should REALLY be repulsed at Ann.

Myron Falwell on March 19, 2013 at 11:11 PM

That is, I can distinguish my statement baseless speculation from the sort of baseless speculation that says “every other candidate would have lost in a huge double-digit landslide.”

I don’t really doubt that you can.

If you’re really just going to keep insisting that it’s just speculation, go right ahead. We don’t have to agree. I’m quite comfortable with you just being wrong. ;->

tom on March 19, 2013 at 7:57 PM

My thinking you’re wrong is based on the fact I live in Realville where words mean what they mean. Don’t worry, you’re not the first person whose intentions ran afoul of the dictionary. ;-)

alchemist19 on March 19, 2013 at 10:35 PM

So, basically your counterpoint is “Did SO!

Whatever. Feel free to continue your argument without me.

tom on March 20, 2013 at 12:19 AM

Whatever. Feel free to continue your argument without me.

tom on March 20, 2013 at 12:19 AM

LOL!

alchemist19 on March 20, 2013 at 12:51 AM

Yes, by all means, let’s keep nominating “the electable ones” by hook or by crook. After all, that’s worked so well. What’s the definition of insanity again? Oh, right.

delicountessa on March 20, 2013 at 8:28 AM

The fundamental issue is getting behind a candidate we all can support early in the process without leaving behind someone that may be able to unite us better and win late in the process.

Furthermore, this ain’t the NFL folks. In the end, this in not about cheering for your team, it’s about assembling a team that can win a general election.

We’ve ceded far too many elections because the party has become issue and demographic centric, not principled. We’ve become better at ripping each other apart instead of the opposition.

Here is a challenge; speak to someone who is not currently a supporter of the party. Someone who may be honestly persuadable. Ask them why they don’t vote Republican. Then you will start to get a sense of the work ahead of us.

Marcus Traianus on March 20, 2013 at 8:56 AM

The ultimate aim, Priebus said, should be “shortening the primary season generally, which also limits the amount of slicing and dicing that goes on in our party.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rnc-autopsy-may-rile-up-base-89010_Page2.html#ixzz2O5OO78IF

The slicing and dicing that hurt most, was alienating mid western/Rust belt/Auto belt voters with liberal anti-capitalist diatribes against Mitt Romney earlier in the year. Some of the ads were bought from the enemy and paid to run with republican dollars. Then Obama just continued them for the rest of the year. How is that for the egos of politicians (Newt’s ego) who don’t care if they stab us in the eye?

We don’t need a shorter primary to put out a decree that no one wins the republican primary using anti capitalist class warfare. Our side mis represented Romney and then said, there now he can’t run. Those people had no vested interest in his winning the presidency, they wanted more to be proved correct than for the rest of us to win.

Fleuries on March 20, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Those people had no vested interest in his winning the presidency, they wanted more to be proved correct than for the rest of us to win.

Fleuries on March 20, 2013 at 9:27 AM

As if Romney ran like he even wanted to win. Give me a break. In 2008 Obama and Clinton ran the most divisive primary race in modern democrat party history and didn’t hurt him. Because he WANTED to win.

To Priebus, you useless priss: how does your long-term plan for GOP renewal, based on extensive interviews and focus groups and produced by a committee, deal with TODAY. How do you deal with the Left and the media RIGHT NOW. Because the GOP won’t exist in three more years. Mass alienation from conservatives and the scourge of the relentless Left are seeing to that. You fools are bleeding power and influence and relevance by the minute. You think compressing the primaries out of a desperate fear of an insurgent, grassroots candidacy even matters at this point?

rrpjr on March 20, 2013 at 10:01 AM

Comment pages: 1 2