Open thread: Cochrandämmerung; Update: Cochran wins? Update: McDaniel closing; Update: AP calls it for Cochran

posted at 7:21 pm on June 24, 2014 by Allahpundit

McConnell versus Bevin was supposed to be the big establishment/tea party war this year but McConnell turned it into a rout weeks before election day. Brat versus Cantor ended up being a rout for the tea party but that result caught everyone by surprise, including tea partiers. Tonight’s the first and last campaign of the season where both sides have gone all in — the 2008 GOP ticket is on opposite sides — and the outcome’s in doubt as voters go to the polls. If McDaniel wins, it’ll be just the third time a Republican incumbent’s been bounced in a primary since 2009. If Cochran wins, it’ll be … depressing.

If you need a quickie primer on this race, take three minutes to sift through last night’s Quotes of the Day. Senate Republicans have ante’d up for Cochran knowing that a loss makes it more likely that they’ll be primaried too. Most polls show McDaniel ahead, two of them by eight points or more, but (a) none of those polls was taken by a major nonpartisan pollster and (b) Cochran’s last-ditch strategy involves turning out Democrats, an X factor that wouldn’t show up in surveys of the GOP electorate in Mississippi. So long as you didn’t vote in the Democratic primary earlier this month, you’re eligible to vote in tonight’s GOP runoff — regardless of party registration. That’s why Cochran’s campaign, backed by the GOP establishment inside and outside of Mississippi, has doubled down on calling McDaniel an “extremist.” Most people thought they’d take it easy on McD in the runoff for fear of badly wounding a guy whom they’ll probably be stuck with as their nominee. Instead, Cochran went scorched-earth on him, hoping to convince Dems (especially black Democrats) that McDaniel represents racist tea partiers who’d surely choke off the federal spending that the state’s subsisted on for decades. Harry Enten:

Cochran has made a concerted effort to reach out to African-Americans, who make up 37 percent of Mississippi’s population, although usually less than 5 percent of Republican primary voters.

In most other states, Cochran’s effort might seem odd. Why would Democratic-leaning voters want to choose the Republican candidate who hasn’t won less than 60 percent of the vote in any of his five previous re-election campaigns? Because the chances of a Democratic victory in the fall are slim, no matter whom Republicans nominate. Mississippi’s electorate is inelastic. As I have previously noted, 80 percent of white voters in the state are likely to vote Republican. And because whites make up the majority of voters, Democrats have a narrow path to victory.

Cochran is hoping that black voters recognize this and show up at the polls. If they do, it will be most obvious in Holmes County (to the north of the capital city of Jackson) and Claiborne and Jefferson counties (which are to the southwest).

Obvious strategic dilemma for Dems: Would your nominee stand a real chance against McDaniel in the fall, or are you doomed to lose in a state this red and therefore are better off losing to Cochran? Some black pastors have settled on the latter view. The obvious strategic dilemma for Republicans is what happens to turnout in the fall after a race this nasty, especially if Cochran ends up winning on the strength of Democratic support. Would tea partiers stay home rather than vote for a nominee chosen by the other party? Would Cochran voters stay home if McDaniel ends up winning because they refuse to support an “extremist”? The Democratic nominee in Mississippi this year is an underdog but not a pushover. And an awful lot of money’s been spent making hard feelings in the losing camp tonight even harder.

Polls close in Mississippi at 8 p.m. ET. You can follow results at RCP, Politico, or my election site of choice, Ace’s Decision Desk. The only other major race tonight is in New York, where another congressional dinosaur’s resisting extinction caused by demographic shifts in his district. Rangel’s been in the House since 1971; he just turned 84 years old; there’s zero chance he’ll be back in the majority and chairing a committee in the near future. You would think he’d be ready for retirement, but lifers like him and Cochran cling to their seats out of pride and because influential friends don’t want to have their influence diminished, not because there’s any legislative work that they feel is unfinished. It’s grotesque, but that’s American democracy for you until we get our act together on term limits. The polls in New York close at 9 p.m. ET.

Update: Prediction:

Update: Hmmmm.

Update: Will it really be over tonight?

Update: Still very early at 9 p.m. ET, but the Decision Desk sees hope for the incumbent:

Also this:

Update: I thought the chances of Dems turning out in numbers for Cochran were low, but maybe not:

McDaniel’s strongest counties, including and especially Jones, haven’t come in yet so he’ll gain on Cochran soon. But by how much?

Update: A little good news for the challenger:

Update: It’s Cochran’s night — so far.

Update: Keep hope alive, McDaniel fans:

Update: Jones County will need to come up very big for McDaniel:

Update: Two-thirds of Jones County is now in. McDaniel leads big, but not big enough:

Update: Food for thought:

Update: The Decision Desk has seen enough:

Let’s see how long it takes MSM outlets to follow suit.

Update: Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report follows suit:

Update: Wow:

Update: Still a glimmer of hope for McD fans?

Update: Now Wasserman’s having second thoughts:

Update: Down to the wire:

Amazingly, turnout tonight has surpassed turnout in the first primary election three weeks ago. That’s how hot this race was.

Update: McDaniel’s close, but maybe not close enough:

Update: Running out of time…

Update: The AP throws in the towel:

Three cheers for earmarks!

Update: Double wow — Cochran’s Democratic strategy worked like a charm:

Does this mean red-state Dems like Landrieu and Pryor have a better shot than everyone thinks?


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 21 22 23

I don’t want a 3rd party.

Guess when you advocated for one earlier you were lying.

I want the GOP to actually be a principled conservative party.

So vote for the most conservative, electable candidate and then work to hold them accountable as I have continually advocated.

The last time they tried that, it was coaxed out of them by the first honest-to-goodness 3rd party challenge for the White House since Teddy Roosevelt in 1912.

So you are back to wanting a 3rd party… you want a 3rd party to split the vote on the right to lose the elections for the GOP so they will become more conservative. This is the heart of your argument. It’s a stupid argument. The GOP is doing just fine losing elections on it’s own and as you can see in this election it’s nit making anything more principled. Losing elections isn’t a guarantee of winning future ones. It doesn’t help, it gives the momentum to the opposition and demoralizes the party. Th results are circular firing squads and people vowing to stay at home unless they get what they want.

The GOP doesn’t learn on the margins, though.

So your strategy wont work, got ya.

They don’t have the political acuity of the Democrats, who understood that losing in the short term can bring about seismic changes if you play your cards right.

Oh well. Guess losing isn’t a good thing after all. Guess your idiotic strategy of losing all the way to absolute power is the fever dream of a moron.

We could have done the same, of course. We could have cemented the gains we made in the 80′s and 90′s with a competent run in the 00′s.

If only we had had Perot!

If they get their act together before 2016, I’ll advocate for them. If not, then they clearly need another loss before they’ll learn anything. Pain is the best pedagogue.

Country be damned! You want the democrats to win more to teach someone a lesson! Doid it ever occur to you that you could be wrong? That there are people out there who disagree with you> That your strategy isn”t working? Can you possibly make the argument that your strategy is working?
The up side is that it wont matter what you think, there are more of us that are sick of losing to get to victory.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 3:38 PM

Am I honestly arguing with somebody who can’t tell the difference between the 1980 and 1992 elections? Is this real life?

Good Solid B-Plus on June 26, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Country be damned! You want the democrats to win more to teach someone a lesson! Doid it ever occur to you that you could be wrong? That there are people out there who disagree with you> That your strategy isn”t working? Can you possibly make the argument that your strategy is working?
The up side is that it wont matter what you think, there are more of us that are sick of losing to get to victory.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 3:38 PM

If those “more of us” are as smart as you, then yeah, we’re doomed.

“Doid” it ever occur to you that you could be wrong? That the “winwinwin GOP good Dems bad boooooo Harry Reid” strategy clearly isn’t working given the results of 2012?

No, of course not, sports fan. It’s unconscionable to you to do anything but wave those pom poms for Team R.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 26, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Guess when you advocated for one earlier you were lying.

I advocated for anything that might get the GOP to get their act together. A third party challenge could do that, just like it did in 1992. Again, your lack of reading comprehension isn’t my problem.

Oh well. Guess losing isn’t a good thing after all. Guess your idiotic strategy of losing all the way to absolute power is the fever dream of a moron.

Dude, I’m sorry that politics is a bit harder than tic-tac-toe. I know you’d be more comfortable sitting in the corner with your GOP jersey on shouting “Go team go!” as you plop down an X in the middle of the board, but politics is a bit tougher than that. You actually need a strategy beyond blind partisanship and…*gasp*…since the scope of politics is more than just one year/one election, an electoral defeat at one point can actually lead to gains in the future! I know, it’s confusing. Stick with rock-paper-scissors, sports fan.

So you are back to wanting a 3rd party… you want a 3rd party to split the vote on the right to lose the elections for the GOP so they will become more conservative. This is the heart of your argument. It’s a stupid argument. The GOP is doing just fine losing elections on it’s own and as you can see in this election it’s nit making anything more principled. Losing elections isn’t a guarantee of winning future ones. It doesn’t help, it gives the momentum to the opposition and demoralizes the party. Th results are circular firing squads and people vowing to stay at home unless they get what they want.

I’d much prefer we run someone that can actually fire up the base, but since people like you who love to whine about “circular firing squads” are going to do your level best to make sure we don’t end up with anyone “scary” like Cruz or Jindal, then we might need a legitimate 3rd party challenge to kick the GOP in the ***.

So vote for the most conservative, electable candidate and then work to hold them accountable as I have continually advocated.

Rooting for the guy who just won by smearing his party as a bunch of kooky racists is “holding them accountable”?

By the way, I love the electability canard. You realize it’s a tautology and a variation of No True Scotsman, right?

How do you know a candidate is electable? Because they win elections! Tautologies are awesome! No true electable candidate loses elections (except for Romney, of course).

Wait, actually…was Romney “electable”? You guys certainly argued he was. But he lost, so I guess he wasn’t electable. So which is it, are you guys really bad at picking who is “electable,” or is “electability” a ridiculous qualification since it’s inherently tautological?

Good Solid B-Plus on June 26, 2014 at 3:50 PM

Be my guest. If you want to link back to your complete misunderstanding of marginal politics and the nature of our checks and balances, more power to you. You’ll be doing my job for me.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM

You see, YOU and folks like you are why I do this. I think there is nothing funnier than an idiot who is smug about being an idiot. Tell me again how the contract with America was brought to us courtesy of Ross Perot or that the democrats losing the senate doesn’t matter to the Obama agenda or how you have to lose your way to political power and delegitimizing the affirmative acton presidency isn’t important.
Marginal politics? Didn’t Thad Cochran just deliver you a lesson on that?

It’s obvious from what you have written, you aren’t a conservative, promoting conservative principles is not what you want, you are a 3rd party for 3rd parties sake and you think a jack@ss like Ross Perot is the ideal, You have trashed Bush, praised the Clintons and given credit for the economic prosperity in the 90s to them and your 3rd party, it’s all up there for anyone to see.

No, you’ve inferred that from my posts because you’re really dull. Unlike a blind partisan like you, I can honestly assess past events. And the following is a factual statement: When you compare President Clinton’s reign with a GOP Congress and Bush II’s reign with a GOP Congress, the Clinton reign was better for this country.

Great to see you are a fan of the Clintons.
Once again, Clinton didn’t have a 2 front war to contend with, indeed his ignoring the terrorist threat is what brought on the attack. And once again, Bush isn’t the yardstick for great presidents. He did a better job with the cards he was dealt than many have. Regardless, the lessons you take away from this “losing to victory” are the product of wishful thinking and flawed logic and the past 8 years has confirmed that. But you aren’t done advocating losing. That’s just brain dead.

The last time the GOP did great things for this country, it was because a 3rd party threat gave them a kick in the ***

That’s the heart of your argument and it is wrong. Just plain wrong. If it were right there would be a continuous 3rd party that amounted to more than some moon-bats and crackpots. There isn’t. You are giving credit for the GOP’s work to Ross Perot, and that’s a pathetic joke.

Really, you remember that. Funny, because I didn’t post here until 2010.

So you were a big fan of Romney. Got ya.

But yeah, I was totally on board with a Jesse Ventura campaign in 2012.

That was a joke to make a point; that’s your 3rd party. It’s also the way you think, maybe he would scare the GOP into being more conservative, right?

Dude, seriously, have you ever followed politics before? Being in power often makes it harder to poll well.

Again, causation vs correlation.. Doing a bad job makes it harder to poll well.

Democratic favorability is down, genius.

Good work on reading that poll I sent you.

Better to stick with Bush, that family has been a solid bet for 34 years!

Show me where I have advocated for Jeb Bush.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 4:01 PM

The senate has stopped the constitutional actions I outlined, even still, the house is taking them to court. See? Losses have consequences, “dude”.

Which actions were stopped by a Senate that couldn’t block a veto?

You realize all this **** of taking Obama to court is losing us support, right? We look like blindly partisan hacks…oh, right, you guys are blindly partisan hacks.

As bad as Obama is, the GOP continues to poll worse. Consider that for a moment, then realize the supreme idiocy of continuing with our “business as usual” strategy.

So the backlash against Clinton was a result of Perot because Perot helped to elect Clinton. Not because Clinton was screwing up or that Americans wanted a check against his liberalism. Causality versus correlation. Perot was out of the picture soon after his embarrassing defeat after an embarrassing performance in the election so you are wrong.

You blame Perot for Clinton’s victory. Without the Clinton victory, there is no Clinton backlash. It’s directly causative. In a world where H.W. Bush wins a second term, there is no CWA…period.

In between chickens, NAFTA and quitting and rejoining the campaign.

Dude, you are proving my point. Perot was a joke and an imbecile who quit in the middle of the campaign….and he still got 20 million votes. Based solely on people being tired of Washington’s two-party disfunction.

And somehow, this has nothing to do with the GOP’s unprecedented action of issuing the CWA.

Just something from reality. Your idea that Perot causing the prosperity of the ’90s is a joke. Persuade me that it isn’t with reliable sources or realize that it’s a joke.

The GOP Congress caused the propserity of the 90′s. My source for that is…you.

We had a good run in the ’90s because of the GOP congress

Who said that? Oh, right…you did. How did we get a GOP Congress? A wave election in 94 following a POTUS loss in 92.

See? Losses have consequences, “dude”.

Indeed, “dude.” Losses have consequences…for both parties.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 26, 2014 at 4:02 PM

Only because you can’t read. You call me a “3rd party cultist,” even though if you search my post history you’ll see me….bashing Ron Paul fans for trying to push him as a 3rd Party candidate after he lost the primary. You’re just not very sharp, man.

Backtrack much?

You denounce talks of a third party, but the best period for this country in the past 25 years happened in large part due to both parties being scared by a legitimate third party threat for the first time since the beginning of the century. We got welfare reform. We got DOMA. We stopped Hillarycare. We got a Democratic President to actually say “The era of big government is over.”

Yup, it was all the GOP Congress. Had nothing to do with the third-party undercurrent scaring the Bejesus out of both parties. Had nothing to do with Clinton being a smart politcian, unlike Dubya, and realizing that triangulation was the right path.

LOL, Guess you weren’t serious then.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 4:05 PM

You see, YOU and folks like you are why I do this. I think there is nothing funnier than an idiot who is smug about being an idiot. Tell me again how the contract with America was brought to us courtesy of Ross Perot or that the democrats losing the senate doesn’t matter to the Obama agenda or how you have to lose your way to political power and delegitimizing the affirmative acton presidency isn’t important.
Marginal politics? Didn’t Thad Cochran just deliver you a lesson on that?

Because delegitimizing him has worked so well up to this point. His approval numbers are at Dubya second-term levels. How’s GOP approval looking? Oh, right…even worse.

Good thing we’re running against Obama in 2016 since we’re making him so unpopular. Oh, we’re not? We’re going to run against Hillary, who is distancing herself from Obama as quickly as humanly possible? My bad.

Getting the Senate is going to stop the Obama agenda. Just like getting the House was going to stop the Obama agenda because of gridlock. Tell me another one, Sport. Let me guess, you’ve got a bridge to sell me as well?

Show me where I have advocated for Jeb Bush.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 4:01 PM

You want us to line up behind the party Mandarins because it’s super-duper-uber important to stop Harry Reid. The big party funders and establishment goons want Jeb Bush. That’s not a secret, it’s out in the open.

Good work on reading that poll I sent you.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 4:01 PM

That’s from the poll I linked. Dem favorability is down. GOP favorability is down even more. Campaigning simply by “delegitimizing” the other side without offering a competent, principled party isn’t working.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 26, 2014 at 4:09 PM

I advocate for the GOP actually being a part of principled conservatism. When have we done that in the past 8 years? Hell, in the past 14 years?

You advocate for losing elections and 3rd parties. You are never going to get the perfect candidate. Ever. What you want is people who you can persuade, people who are basically on your side. Losoing to people who think you are a racist gun clinger is stupid, Doing it out of someall or nothing conviction or the idea that it will scare people into thinking the way you do is fantasy.

I just posted 8 posts…

Of the same thing

and you still can’t figure out what I advocate.

3rd parties and defeat. Because that will get everyones mind right or something. That’s really it in a nutshell. How’s it working?

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 4:10 PM

Show me once where I said losing magically gets you a new Reagan. No, I’ve argued that losing in the present can get you wins in the future.

And I have shown that it doesn’t have to wok that way. Losing in the present can mean that you just lose in the future.

Inherent in everything you write is the idea that you can teach people a lesson by inflicting pain on them through the political process. (never mind that it means you are advocating pain on the electorate) The problem is, the lessons you have attributed to that pain can be attributed to things other than that you are crediting them to (Perot) and, more importantly, not everyone takes the same lesson away from the same event. That’s pretty basic stuff. That you don’t get that shows that you can’t see the world outside your own head (it’s fun to be humanity’s parent, right) and that you have a tough time recognizing that other people have differing opinions.
Regardless, your central thesis is wrong. The existence of a 3rd party wont make the GOP more to your liking and it would be much, much more efficient to reclaim the GOP rather than re-invent a 3rd wheel.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 4:18 PM

That’s the heart of your argument and it is wrong. Just plain wrong. If it were right there would be a continuous 3rd party that amounted to more than some moon-bats and crackpots. There isn’t. You are giving credit for the GOP’s work to Ross Perot, and that’s a pathetic joke.

That’s exactly the opposite of the truth. A continuous 3rd party would be baked into the cake and the two parties would be able to wheedle around it. Like, say, the Green Party.

Perot woke up the GOP exactly because he was a bolt from the blue. It’s stunning how wrong you continue to be about this.

LOL, Guess you weren’t serious then.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 4:05 PM

Dude, seriously, are you literate? All of those things were factors. That doesn’t mean I’m a Perot fan. It doesn’t mean I don’t give credit to the GOP Congress. It means a GOP Congress alone isn’t enough. Want proof? See the GOP Congress under Dubya.

The complete inability by our party to be honest about the 90′s makes us look like hacks, and you wonder why the centrists aren’t flocking to us.

“Scared by a third party threat” =/= “I want a third party to win”

After all, Perot lost.

So you were a big fan of Romney. Got ya.

Nope, but I voted for him. Do you want people to not be able to campaign for their own candidates during the primary? Should everybody fall in line behind the prohibitive favorite a year and a half out from the election?

Great to see you are a fan of the Clintons.
Once again, Clinton didn’t have a 2 front war to contend with, indeed his ignoring the terrorist threat is what brought on the attack. And once again, Bush isn’t the yardstick for great presidents. He did a better job with the cards he was dealt than many have. Regardless, the lessons you take away from this “losing to victory” are the product of wishful thinking and flawed logic and the past 8 years has confirmed that. But you aren’t done advocating losing. That’s just brain dead.

The American people disagree, yet you continue to defend him. All you have are excuses for why Dubya’s Presidency failed even though he was the first GOP President since WW2 to have bouth houses of Congress. The voters are tired of hearing your excuses.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 26, 2014 at 4:19 PM

Again, this is your strawman. No one is saying losing magically cures things. You still need a party cogent enough to take advantage of their losses.

So Perot wasn’t responsible for the contract with America. Got ya.

The magical thinking is that the party that did nothing with the Trifecta under Dubya

We still had a 2 front war.

the party that cares so much about protecting incumbents that they’ll tar their own base as racist, is

Where did the GOP do this?

just because they get a 51-49 margin in the Senate and put Turtle Mitch in power.

The goal is to remove Reid. Because that would be best for the country. Remember the country? What this is supposed to be about?

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 4:21 PM

You actually think the Perot campaign caused the contract with America. That’s nuts. I am arguing with a nut. Again, you haven’t been able to provide anything that is remotely persuasive to show that. It’s magic thinking. It’s a+?=C. It’s a fantasy.

No, it’s 2+2=4, but you have dyscalculia.

Awesome. Again folks, he thinks the Perot campaign caused the contract with America.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 4:24 PM

Regardless, your central thesis is wrong. The existence of a 3rd party wont make the GOP more to your liking and it would be much, much more efficient to reclaim the GOP rather than re-invent a 3rd wheel.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 4:18 PM

You don’t reclaim the party by being a blind cheerleader.

And I have shown that it doesn’t have to wok that way. Losing in the present can mean that you just lose in the future.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 4:18 PM

Of course it doesn’t have to work that way. Again, there are no guarantees in politics. Is this supposed to be a novel idea?

Inherent in everything you write is the idea that you can teach people a lesson by inflicting pain on them through the political process. (never mind that it means you are advocating pain on the electorate) The problem is, the lessons you have attributed to that pain can be attributed to things other than that you are crediting them to (Perot) and, more importantly, not everyone takes the same lesson away from the same event. That’s pretty basic stuff. That you don’t get that shows that you can’t see the world outside your own head (it’s fun to be humanity’s parent, right) and that you have a tough time recognizing that other people have differing opinions.

I have a different opinion, which means I must be either an arrogant social engineer who thinks I’m “humanity’s parent” (since I’m a libertarian conservative, that’s especially hilarious), or I must be a moby who secretly wants a 3rd party, or I’m an open 3rd party advocate who wants a new Ross Perot. Take your own advice, sports fan.

You’ve yet to tell me your attribution for the CWA, by the way. In your estimation, it has absolutely nothing to do with the 1992 Presidential election.

Pain is a good teacher. If that’s the only thing that can change things in this country, so be it. You’re the one who is telling us how dire things are, and you’re not willing to inflict a little pain right now to turn the tide?

Good Solid B-Plus on June 26, 2014 at 4:25 PM

Yes, the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs is exactly the same thing as the Presidential campaign directly preceeding the midterm. Because midterms are never influenced by the prior 2 years.

Those 2 years that Perot was considered a joke. Yeah… still he’s somehow responsible for the contract with America and I have dyscalculia for thinking that’s crazy.

You heard it here folks, According to Good Solid B-Plus Ross Perot was responsible for the Contract with America.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 4:27 PM

A. John Anderson didn’t spoil any elections. Reagan won in 1980 by 8.5 million votes. Anderson got 5.7. Reagan got a majority of the electorate even with Anderson and the usualy motley crew of third party castoffs. When Clinton won, he got onlt 43% of the popular vote.

So in order for the magic to happen the 3rd party has to spoil the elections for the GOp. OK, nothing circuitous about your plan.. The GOP had done a fine job of losing on it’s own, nut.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 4:28 PM

Am I honestly arguing with somebody who can’t tell the difference between the 1980 and 1992 elections? Is this real life?

Good Solid B-Plus on June 26, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Have a look people:

You actually think the Perot campaign caused the contract with America. That’s nuts. I am arguing with a nut. Again, you haven’t been able to provide anything that is remotely persuasive to show that. It’s magic thinking. It’s a+?=C. It’s a fantasy.

No, it’s 2+2=4, but you have dyscalculia.

Awesome. Again folks, he thinks the Perot campaign caused the contract with America.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 4:24 PM

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 4:30 PM

f those “more of us” are as smart as you, then yeah, we’re doomed.

Smart is needing to invent an entirely new political party rather than reform the current one to reform the current one.. Oh wait, that’s crazy.

I advocated for anything that might get the GOP to get their act together. A third party challenge could do that, just like it did in 1992.

It didn’t in 92.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 4:33 PM

We still had a 2 front war.

Yeah, and we started the 2nd front. And we managed to get plenty of non-conservative things done during the WOT, such as NCLB and Medicare Part D. I guess a two-front war only makes conservative governance impossible.

Awesome. Again folks, he thinks the Perot campaign caused the contract with America.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 4:24 PM

It did. Anybody with a brain can see the course of events from 1992 to 1994.

I’m not the one who lives in a world where things can’t have multiple causative factors, and apparently, causation needs to be immediate for it to be legitimate and not a correlation error.

So Perot wasn’t responsible for the contract with America. Got ya.

How in the hell did you get that from what I wrote? Things can have multiple causative factors. This isn’t some ridiculous butterfly effect hypothesis that a rabbit eating a turnip in Addis Ababa caused the Reagan Revolution. The events of the preceeding Presidential election, an election with the first legitimate 3rd party spoiler since 1912, had an effect on the GOP’s strategy choices in 1994. This is basic stuff.

Where did the GOP do this?

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 4:21 PM

No True Scotsman at its finest. Cochran, a 35-year Senator, isn’t really a member of the GOP. The GOP never breaks Reagan’s 11th commandment!

The goal is to remove Reid. Because that would be best for the country. Remember the country? What this is supposed to be about?

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 4:21 PM

I’m not going to trust someone with your track record for “improving the country” to give us advice, sports fan. You have no ideas for how to actually get the country back on track or how to “take back the GOP,” you just want us all to be party fluffers like you.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 26, 2014 at 4:37 PM

Those 2 years that Perot was considered a joke. Yeah… still he’s somehow responsible for the contract with America and I have dyscalculia for thinking that’s crazy.

You heard it here folks, According to Good Solid B-Plus Ross Perot was responsible for the Contract with America.

Every time you talk about what a joke Perot was, you prove my point. And yes, you’re an idiot for not understanding basic politics.

Perot was a complete joke, and yet he got 20 million popular votes. In other words, disgust with the two party system wasn’t just impotent, it actually swung an election to the other side.

You can’t see the incredibly clear line of causation between the electorate being sick of parties that don’t stand for anything and the GOP making a giant spectacle of showing a new commitment to principle and actually putting it down on paper. And you think you’re going to get people to your side by convincing them to ignore the same patently obvious political reality.

And you think you’re the kind of person who should be giving the marching orders for the GOP. You really wonder why we poll below the Dems, sports fan?

Good Solid B-Plus on June 26, 2014 at 4:43 PM

So in order for the magic to happen the 3rd party has to spoil the elections for the GOp. OK, nothing circuitous about your plan.. The GOP had done a fine job of losing on it’s own, nut.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 4:28 PM

Uh, yeah, that’s the entire point I’ve been making this whole time. Why would a 3rd party challenge that doesn’t change an election cause a paradigm shift? Why would the party make bold strides if said 3rd party run had zero consequences?

You’re trying to argue deep points of political strategy and you can’t even tell the difference between John Anderson and Ross Perot. You’re not this stupid. Stop pretending to be this stupid just for rhetorical effect.

It didn’t in 92.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 4:33 PM

Of course, the CWA had nothing to do with losing in 1992. It was caused by pixie dust and unicorn farts. Elections have zero consequences and never cause parties to rethink electoral strategy.

Smart is needing to invent an entirely new political party rather than reform the current one to reform the current one.. Oh wait, that’s crazy.

I talked about inventing an entirely new political party? Oh wait…I never did that, you’re just a lying hack.

Remember when Perot ran under an entirely new political party? Oh wait…he didn’t. He ran as an independent. Which means I’m not advocating for a new party simply because I think a 3rd party kick in the *** could spur the GOP to clean house and re-gain good standing with the public.

But no, it’s crazy to want to change the tactics that have the GOP polling at 34% favorability.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 26, 2014 at 4:52 PM

Anyway, I’m done here. Link back to this all you want, you’ll just be driving people to my side. :)

Good Solid B-Plus on June 26, 2014 at 5:04 PM

Ok, if you are done.

“Doid” it ever occur to you that you could be wrong? That the “winwinwin GOP good Dems bad boooooo Harry Reid” strategy clearly isn’t working given the results of 2012?

The strategy that I have always advocated here is to vote for the most conservative, electable candidate you can get and then work to hold them accountable. Your strategy is to lose your way to victory.

I advocated for anything that might get the GOP to get their act together. A third party challenge could do that, just like it did in 1992. Again, your lack of reading comprehension isn’t my problem.

1) Starting another party to reform the GOP when you could just reform the GOP is a ridicules, circuitous, unworkable idea that chooses the longest distance to get between 2 points. It is a Rube Goldberg of an idea. Want to reform the GOP? Reform the GOP. Don’t build another party from the ground up, specifically to lose elections by splitting the vote because that wont work.
2) Your pathetic failure of a 3rd party didn’t have anything to do with the prosperity of the ’90s. Full stop.
3) Losing elections is not a guarantee of future victories. That’s just obvious.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM

1) Starting another party to reform the GOP when you could just reform the GOP is a ridicules, circuitous, unworkable idea that chooses the longest distance to get between 2 points. It is a Rube Goldberg of an idea. Want to reform the GOP? Reform the GOP. Don’t build another party from the ground up, specifically to lose elections by splitting the vote because that wont work.

Nobody said to start another party. You’re arguing against shadows.

2) Your pathetic failure of a 3rd party didn’t have anything to do with the prosperity of the ’90s. Full stop.

Sure, keep pretending the 94 wave had nothing to do with the 92 loss. Here in reality, we’ll keep laughing at you.

3) Losing elections is not a guarantee of future victories. That’s just obvious.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM

Winning elections at any cost isn’t a guarantee of improving the country.

The strategy that I have always advocated here is to vote for the most conservative, electable candidate you can get and then work to hold them accountable. Your strategy is to lose your way to victory.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM

Yeah, you guys always say that but never mean it. You never hold the establishment accountable for defeat. You’re blaming the 08 loss on disaffected voters staying home? We lost by 10 million votes! It’s never the fault of the party when we lose. We should never change our strategy.

So basically, you’re saying I have a narrow vision because I can’t see anything outside of my own ideology, but you’re the one saying everybody else is wrong about the Cochran situation. We’re wrong to be mad and want to stop the cycle of cronyism/clientelism in our party. I’m wrong, AP is wrong, Ace is wrong, Jay Cost is wrong, Erick Erickson is wrong, tons of other commenters on this site are wrong.

Here’s a choice comment from AoS, edited for profanity:

102 Morans:

I’ll leave it alone after this but I just can’t talk about Slate.

Does it not just break your heart to see McDaniel, on the night of the runoff, holding his toddler son after giving such a heartfelt speech mistfully talking about how Reagan influenced him to the core.

And then looking at this ****ing RINO senile old man who does nothing but travel the world with his ****ing secretary while his wife rots in a nursing home, this ****er wins by calling McDaniel and the base of the GOP racist and drives black democrats to vote in the GOP primary.

It just makes me ****ing sick. I can’t take it anymore. For all of you who say we vote for the most conservative candidate possible, I say **** you. You are the reason we have $17T in debt. You are the reason we are off the rails. You gave us obama. I can’t ****ing stand it anymore.

The ****sticks who run the GOPe are not only immoral, awful, and ****stains, but they are completely ****ing incompetent and only bring out the knives for conservatives who just might slow down the gravy train that lines their ****ing pockets.

Posted by: prescient11 at June 26, 2014 04:16 PM (tVTLU)

People are mad. Your solution is to say “buck up and fall in line because HARRY REID!1!1!!

But you’re the oracle, Sport. You’re the one who knows how to fix the country.

Sure ya do, sports fan….sure ya do….

Good Solid B-Plus on June 26, 2014 at 6:40 PM

“Electability” is a canard. It’s inherently tautological. You never know somebody is electable until they actually win an election.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 26, 2014 at 6:42 PM

Dude, I’m sorry that politics is a bit harder than tic-tac-toe.

Losing to teach yourself a lesson in TicTack Toe is probably a bad idea as well.

I know you’d be more comfortable sitting in the corner with your GOP jersey on shouting “Go team go!” as you plop down an X in the middle of the board, but politics is a bit tougher than that. You actually need a strategy beyond blind partisanship and…*gasp*…since the scope of politics is more than just one year/one election, an electoral defeat at one point can actually lead to gains in the future! I know, it’s confusing. Stick with rock-paper-scissors, sports fan.

I love the overcompensation for a failed argument. I really do. Starting a 3rd party to deliberately lose electiions is what you advocate, it’s a stupid idea no matter what game you compare it to.

I’d much prefer we run someone that can actually fire up the base,

Me too, by your logic he was supposed to spontaneously appear because we lost the last 2 presidential elections.

but since people like you who love to whine about “circular firing squads” are going to do your level best to make sure we don’t end up with anyone “scary” like Cruz or Jindal, then we might need a legitimate 3rd party challenge to kick the GOP in the ***.

Oh well. Looks like you need to lose more to teach us a lesson about agreeing with you. Meanwhile the country is going to be in tatters. I would be fine with Jindal by the way.

So vote for the most conservative, electable candidate and then work to hold them accountable as I have continually advocated.

Rooting for the guy who just won by smearing his party as a bunch of kooky racists is “holding them accountable”?

No, winning would have been. You didn’t. Further, there are a multitude of ways to hold a politician accountable when in office. If you can’t get exactly what you want then you need to settle for influenceable. If you work to hold them accountable the results between McDaniel and Cochran are identical. That means work though, something that conservatives used to have no problem with.

By the way, I love the electability canard. You realize it’s a tautology and a variation of No True Scotsman, right?

No, it’s the “Buckley rule” named after William F Buckley, the fellow who first codified it. Google him.

How do you know a candidate is electable? Because they win elections!

Little things, like when they don’t have a history of going on the Bill Maher show and talking about the evils of touching yourself under the sheets.

Wait, actually…was Romney “electable”? You guys certainly argued he was. But he lost, so I guess he wasn’t electable.

You being deliberately obtuse is another example of you being disingenuous.

That’s exactly the opposite of the truth. A continuous 3rd party would be baked into the cake and the two parties would be able to wheedle around it. Like, say, the Green Party.

The GOP doesn’t need any help losing. Did that ever occur to you?

Perot woke up the GOP exactly because he was a bolt from the blue. It’s stunning how wrong you continue to be about this.

You cling on to that BS with religious fervor, it’s a fantasy. It didn’t happen. Want to commit the perfect murder? Go tell Newt Gingrich that the contract with America was because the GOP was scared of Perot and watch him laugh himself to death. It’s crazy. It’s not reality.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 6:43 PM

I thought you were going to shut your crazy hole so I could catch up instead of flooding the board with the same failed argument over and over?

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 6:44 PM

You cling on to that BS with religious fervor, it’s a fantasy. It didn’t happen. Want to commit the perfect murder? Go tell Newt Gingrich that the contract with America was because the GOP was scared of Perot and watch him laugh himself to death. It’s crazy. It’s not reality.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 6:43 PM

No, I’ll tell him the CWA had nothing to do with the 1992 election and it totally would have happened the same way in a world with a second H.W. Bush term.

You wouldn’t know reality if it broke into your house and spit in your face. You’re so divorced from reality you can’t even see that every time you open your idiot hole you help prove my point.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 26, 2014 at 6:50 PM

You don’t reclaim the party by being a blind cheerleader.

There goes plan A. You don’t reclaim it by deliberately losing.

And I have shown that it doesn’t have to work that way. Losing in the present can mean that you just lose in the future.

Of course it doesn’t have to work that way. Again, there are no guarantees in politics. Is this supposed to be a novel idea?

So therefore it’s stupid to continue to advocate that we lose elections because it’s going to bring about long term victories, as you have done here.

Inherent in everything you write is the idea that you can teach people a lesson by inflicting pain on them through the political process. (never mind that it means you are advocating pain on the electorate) The problem is, the lessons you have attributed to that pain can be attributed to things other than that you are crediting them to (Perot) and, more importantly, not everyone takes the same lesson away from the same event. That’s pretty basic stuff. That you don’t get that shows that you can’t see the world outside your own head (it’s fun to be humanity’s parent, right) and that you have a tough time recognizing that other people have differing opinions.

I have a different opinion, which means I must be either an arrogant social engineer who thinks I’m “humanity’s parent” (since I’m a libertarian conservative, that’s especially hilarious),

“libertarian conservative”, heh.

I must be a moby who secretly wants a 3rd party, or I’m an open 3rd party advocate who wants a new Ross Perot. Take your own advice, sports fan.

You have advocated for that here, repeatedly, now you are backpedalling it’s like pinning down jello. Man up and own the crazy.
By the way, none of that was a response to what I wrote. Try again: Inherent in everything you write is the idea that you can teach people a lesson by inflicting pain on them through the political process. (never mind that it means you are advocating pain on the electorate) The problem is, the lessons you have attributed to that pain can be attributed to things other than that you are crediting them to (Perot) and, more importantly, not everyone takes the same lesson away from the same event. That’s pretty basic stuff. That you don’t get that shows that you can’t see the world outside your own head (it’s fun to be humanity’s parent.

You’ve yet to tell me your attribution for the CWA, by the way. In your estimation, it has absolutely nothing to do with the 1992 Presidential election.

It’s not my assertion that it did, You are asking me to prove a negative when it’s your obligation to prove a positive. I can’t prove that Pee wee Herman didn’t go back in time and rule as princess Nefertiti, however it’s not my obligation to prove the insane. When you say that Perot is responsible for the prosperity of the ‘(0s it’s yours and you have utterly failed because the assertion is crazy.

Pain is a good teacher. If that’s the only thing that can change things in this country, so be it.

So what’s the difference between you and Timothy McViegh or Osama Bin Laden? It’s traitorous to deliberately work for the worst for the country to inflict pain on it so you can get your own way. Patriots do no harm, you aren’t a patriot.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 6:57 PM

I thought you were going to shut your crazy hole so I could catch up instead of flooding the board with the same failed argument over and over?

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 6:44 PM

I’ll stop the second you make a single cogent argument that isn’t “Booo Harry Reid is so scary!!!”

Why? Because I don’t want a third party. I want to save the GOP from dopes like you. You’re a sub-moronic remora who thinks he is helping the party, when in reality you are the cancer that is killing this party.

Getting rid of people like you from the coalition would be addition by subtraction. The voting public, especially indies, are tired of party cheergirls who have nothing but excuses and platitudes and offer no solutions.

The GOP doesn’t need any help losing. Did that ever occur to you?

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 6:43 PM

Yet you keep trying to help them by pissing off everybody that actually wants us to be principled with your “you must fall in line cuz Harry Reid” shtick. If you actually wanted the party to win as much as you claim, you’d realize that people like you never help the party.

Keep pretending people don’t have a right to be mad about the establishment going all-in to keep up their racket. It’s going to win this party a ton of fans.

I love the overcompensation for a failed argument. I really do. Starting a 3rd party to deliberately lose electiions is what you advocate, it’s a stupid idea no matter what game you compare it to.

Quote where I said we should start a 3rd party? Quit lying, sports fan.

Little things, like when they don’t have a history of going on the Bill Maher show and talking about the evils of touching yourself under the sheets.

McDaniel did that? Newt did that? Perry did that? Bachmann did that? Angle did that?

In other words, “every candidate that loses is clearly the same as Christine O’Donnell because I said so.”

No, it’s the “Buckley rule” named after William F Buckley, the fellow who first codified it. Google him.

Buckley wasn’t a blind party carbuncle. He was a true intellectual and a deft thinker who often changed his mind. He’d have never been in favor of Cochran’s cynical ploy to keep power at all costs if it meant hurting the movement in the aggregate.

Here’s a link to some episodes of Firing Line: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dinstant-video&field-keywords=firing%20line&sprefix=firin%2Cinstant-video&rh=i%3Ainstant-video%2Ck%3Afiring%20line

Watch some, maybe you’ll learn something. Wait, who am I kidding? It’s you. You won’t learn squat.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 26, 2014 at 6:59 PM

Oh well. Looks like you need to lose more to teach us a lesson about agreeing with you. Meanwhile the country is going to be in tatters. I would be fine with Jindal by the way.

Sure, I’l bookmark this. We’ll see if you’re “fine” with him in the heat of the primary when he’s a threat to the establishment toadies.

Also, why are you against Cruz? Because he might actually fire up the base? Because he might actually give Republicans something to vote for, instead of just voting against the Dems? Spew all your BS about following the Buckley Rule. Rah-rah girls like you always do your best to destroy any candidate with some charisma that might threaten the GOP establishment racket, like Cruz could do.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 26, 2014 at 7:01 PM

So what’s the difference between you and Timothy McViegh or Osama Bin Laden? It’s traitorous to deliberately work for the worst for the country to inflict pain on it so you can get your own way. Patriots do no harm, you aren’t a patriot.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 6:57 PM

Wanting a party to lose or at least feel some electoral heat if it makes them better in the long-run (like what happened in 1992) is the same as killing thousands of people? This is a new low, even for you. No one should ever take you seriously again, if they ever did, given your long history of idiocy.

You’re basically just talking like someone from Democratic Underground now. The Tea Party are “terrorists” because they want to change things. Unbelievable.

You have advocated for that here, repeatedly, now you are backpedalling it’s like pinning down jello. Man up and own the crazy.

No, I advocated for challenging the GOP establishment so that things actually change. Again, you’re just lying. If you say I have advocated for a 3rd party, you’re either lying or you seriously have comprehension problems.

It’s not my assertion that it did, You are asking me to prove a negative when it’s your obligation to prove a positive. I can’t prove that Pee wee Herman didn’t go back in time and rule as princess Nefertiti, however it’s not my obligation to prove the insane. When you say that Perot is responsible for the prosperity of the ‘(0s it’s yours and you have utterly failed because the assertion is crazy.

I’ve given the extremely easy to follow history of what happened in regards to political strategy. You can’t see it because you’re either willfully obtuse, incredibly stupid, or both. Again, here it is:

A. The GOP never wins a wave election in 1994 without the loss in 1992.

B. H.W. Bush lost in 1992 because of Perot mounting a 3rd party challenge and splitting the electorate. Clinton won without even getting a majority of the votes.

C. 20 million people voting for a kook simply because he wasn’t part of either party caused the GOP to double-down on their principles and take a bold stand. It worked.

That you can’t follow this mind-numbingly simple bit of rhetoric is just an indictment of your capacity for logical thinking. But keep talking about Pee Wee Herman. That seems more your speed when it comes to serious intellectual pursuits. :)

Good Solid B-Plus on June 26, 2014 at 7:08 PM

We still had a 2 front war.

Yeah, and we started the 2nd front. And we managed to get plenty of non-conservative things done during the WOT, such as NCLB and Medicare Part D. I guess a two-front war only makes conservative governance impossible.

Lots of dead jihaddidts in Iraq and that’s always a good thing. You seriously have BDS.

Awesome. Again folks, he thinks the Perot campaign caused the contract with America.

It did. Anybody with a brain can see the course of events from 1992 to 1994.

LOL, you are going to be seeing that digital turd from here on in.

I’m not the one who lives in a world where things can’t have multiple causative factors, and apparently, causation needs to be immediate for it to be legitimate and not a correlation error.

So Perot wasn’t responsible for the contract with America. Got ya.

How in the hell did you get that from what I wrote? Things can have multiple causative factors.

Perot had as much to do with it as the battle of Hastings.

This isn’t some ridiculous butterfly effect hypothesis that a rabbit eating a turnip in Addis Ababa caused the Reagan Revolution. The events of the preceeding Presidential election, an election with the first legitimate 3rd party spoiler since 1912, had an effect on the GOP’s strategy choices in 1994. This is basic stuff.

And that’s magic thinking. You want it to be true so you believe it. It;s pure, unadulterated nonsense. It didn’t happen.

The goal is to remove Reid. Because that would be best for the country. Remember the country? What this is supposed to be about?

’m not going to trust someone with your track record for “improving the country” to give us advice, sports fan.

My track record? Working for the most conservative electable and trying to hold them accountable?
Better to lose your way to victory and construct an entirely new party as spoiler to ensure that happens. That’s stupid.
What you believe and advocate for others to do is stupid.

Every time you talk about what a joke Perot was, you prove my point. And yes, you’re an idiot for not understanding basic politics.

LOL, you are a cultist alright. Perot was a joke and irrelivant by thetime the contract with America was rolled out. He had NOTHING to do with it.

Perot was a complete joke, and yet he got 20 million popular votes.

Slim Whitman sold more records (in Eastern Europe) than Elvis or the Beatles. Maybe you can get him to be Jesse Venturas vice president in your turd party.

You can’t see the incredibly clear line of causation between the electorate being sick of parties that don’t stand for anything and the GOP making a giant spectacle of showing a new commitment to principle and actually putting it down on paper.

The reform party had nothing to do with the contract with America. There were no reform party members in the house or senate, it was a GOP bill adhering to GOP principles that Gingrich was talking about for years before Perot ever got the idea of running.

And you think you’re going to get people to your side by convincing them to ignore the same patently obvious political reality.

I think pointing to you insisting that the Perot campaign was responsible for the contract for America will get a good laugh. It’s crazy.

And you think you’re the kind of person who should be giving the marching orders for the GOP.

You are judging me by your own megalomaniacal yardstick.

So in order for the magic to happen the 3rd party has to spoil the elections for the GOp.

OK, nothing circuitous about your plan.. The GOP had done a fine job of losing on it’s own, nut.

Uh, yeah, that’s the entire point I’ve been making this whole time. Why would a 3rd party challenge that doesn’t change an election cause a paradigm shift? Why would the party make bold strides if said 3rd party run had zero consequences?

LOL, your point is crazy. You have just found another way of losing elections which the GOP has managed to do just fine without the help of a turd party splitting the vote. If an honest loss isn’t going to get the kind of change that you want why would it come about from splitting the vote? How can you not be getting that?

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 7:18 PM

Uh, yeah, that’s the entire point I’ve been making this whole time. Why would a 3rd party challenge that doesn’t change an election cause a paradigm shift?

Why wouldn’t a loss without one?

Why would the party make bold strides if said 3rd party run had zero consequences?

The contract with America was something that Gingrich had been workshopping since he was a professor. Again, ccorrelation is not causation.

You’re trying to argue deep points of political strategy and you can’t even tell the difference between John Anderson and Ross Perot.

Effectively? Bug eye vs Bow tie.

I talked about inventing an entirely new political party? Oh wait…I never did that, you’re just a lying hack.
Remember when Perot ran under an entirely new political party? Oh wait…he didn’t. He ran as an independent.

LOL! Gee, with the splendid infrastructure they have you wouldn’t need to do much inventing! Bet you could actually get them on the ballot in 6 or 8 states! LOL!

Which means I’m not advocating for a new party…

Effectively, yes, it does. However your objective is to lose, which the GOP does anyway.. So you can inflict pain on the country, which makes you a lousy American if not a traitor. All that work to lose. Not smart.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 7:32 PM

1) Starting another party to reform the GOP when you could just reform the GOP is a ridicules, circuitous, unworkable idea that chooses the longest distance to get between 2 points. It is a Rube Goldberg of an idea. Want to reform the GOP? Reform the GOP. Don’t build another party from the ground up, specifically to lose elections by splitting the vote because that wont work.

Nobody said to start another party. You’re arguing against shadows.

Since there isn’t an 3rd party with an infrastructure to even get on the ballots, then yes, that’s what you are saying.

2) Your pathetic failure of a 3rd party didn’t have anything to do with the prosperity of the ’90s. Full stop.

Sure, keep pretending the 94 wave had nothing to do with the 92 loss. Here in reality, we’ll keep laughing at you.

The contract with America had nothing to do with fear of Ross Perot climbing out of the gutter to eat the GOP’s lunch.

3) Losing elections is not a guarantee of future victories. That’s just obvious.

Winning elections at any cost isn’t a guarantee of improving the country.

Not a guarantee, however the other side has no problems taking no prisoners. Regardless, the key concept there is “winning” something you are opposed to.

The strategy that I have always advocated here is to vote for the most conservative, electable candidate you can get and then work to hold them accountable. Your strategy is to lose your way to victory.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM

Yeah, you guys always say that but never mean it.

So you are a mind reader. I mean it.

You never hold the establishment accountable for defeat.

What is this “establishment”? Be specific. As you use it now it’s anopther meaningless excuse to give power to the socialists.

you’re saying I have a narrow vision because I can’t see anything outside of my own ideology, but you’re the one saying everybody else is wrong about the Cochran situation

I’m saying that it would be better to get rid of Reid than to deliberately lose a winnable seat. As it stands now I don’t think the GOP is going to lose it regardless. I’m not a fan of this guy, but we sided with Stalin against Hitler, sometimes that’s what you have to do.

We’re wrong to be mad

No, you are wrong to want defeat.

Ace is wrong, Jay Cost is wrong, Erick Erickson is wrong, tons of other commenters on this site are wrong.

Ace is not in the let it burn crowd, (That blog-killer drewm is) I agree with what he posted, now what? Keep Reid? It’s just that simple.

People are mad. Your solution is to say “buck up and fall in line because HARRY REID!1!1!!

Your solution tot this and every other political problem is to lose to the socialists to teach the country a lesson. It’s bankrupted us. THERE IS GOING TO BE NOTHING LEFT TO PUT BACK TOGETHER.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 7:44 PM

No, I’ll tell him the CWA had nothing to do with the 1992 election and it totally would have happened the same way in a world with a second H.W. Bush term.

So great things come from losses, that’s what stuck to your brain. The past 8 years prove that isn’t the fact.

You wouldn’t know reality if it broke into your house and spit in your face. You’re so divorced from reality you can’t even see that every time you open your idiot hole you help prove my point.

Psychological projection from someone who credits the Contract with America to Ross Perot.

I thought you were going to shut your crazy hole so I could catch up instead of flooding the board with the same failed argument over and over?

I’ll stop the second you make a single cogent argument that isn’t “Booo Harry Reid is so scary!!!”

If you can’t see the damage that POS has done to this country, including getting Americans killed in Iraq to score petty, partisan political points you are brain dead. The fact that you think the GOP is a bigger enemy to the country than Harry Reid is tells a lot about where you are actually coming from. Harry Reid is a traitor to the people and especially to the Constitution. In a better time he would be swinging from a lamp post and I’m not kidding.

Why? Because I don’t want a third party. I want to save the GOP from dopes like you.

So now you are back to not wanting it. You were for it before you were against it and now you are against it after being for it again. What a joke.

You’re a sub-moronic remora who thinks he is helping the party, when in reality you are the cancer that is killing this party.

If only I would see the benefits of losing to socialists as you have! The political party exists to serve the country. If you have the purest GOP imaginable what good is it if the country was destroyed to get there? Answer that.

Getting rid of people like you from the coalition would be addition by subtraction.

You just can’t help yourself. You win by losing and you grow a party by getting rid of people. Your brain bust be solid concrete. Really, Your mindset is honestly amazing to me. You are so self defeating yet so smug and sure about it. What you think and insist on is obviously counter-logical, yet when pressed, you fall back on it and double down. It’s beyond stubborn, it’s pathological.

Quote where I said we should start a 3rd party? Quit lying, sports fan.

So all this signified nothing..

You denounce talks of a third party, but the best period for this country in the past 25 years happened in large part due to both parties being scared by a legitimate third party threat

Yup, it was all the GOP Congress. Had nothing to do with the third-party undercurrent scaring the Bejesus out of both parties. Had nothing to do with Clinton being a smart politcian, unlike Dubya, and realizing that triangulation was the right path.

The third-party undercurrent scaring the GOP is what got us the Contract with America

I advocated for anything that might get the GOP to get their act together. A third party challenge could do that, just like it did in 1992.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 8:04 PM

No, it’s the “Buckley rule” named after William F Buckley, the fellow who first codified it. Google him.

Buckley wasn’t a blind party carbuncle. He was a true intellectual and a deft thinker who often changed his mind. He’d have never been in favor of Cochran’s cynical ploy to keep power at all costs if it meant hurting the movement in the aggregate.

That was his idea, I would never pretend to be is intellectual equal but I am smart enough to know who to borrow from. Your response to that was “By the way, I love the electability canard. You realize it’s a tautology and a variation of No True Scotsman, right?”

Here’s a link to some episodes of Firing Line: Watch some, maybe you’ll learn something. Wait, who am I kidding? It’s you. You won’t learn squat.

You have no sense of irony, you trash his ideas and then tell me to learn from them.

Wanting a party to lose or at least feel some electoral heat if it makes them better in the long-run (like what happened in 1992) is the same as killing thousands of people? This is a new low, even for you. No one should ever take you seriously again, if they ever did, given your long history of idiocy.

Wanting to inflict the worst on the country by empowering Harry Reid or Barack Obama to teach the people a lesson on how you think they should vote is only different from what McViegh did by degree. Wanting the country to decline and go broke so you can have more of a say over how the rubble is put back together is stupid, selfish and narcissistic.

You’re basically just talking like someone from Democratic Underground now.

Back at you.

I’ve given the extremely easy to follow history of what happened in regards to political strategy.

One problem, it;s dead wrong.

You can’t see it because you’re either willfully obtuse, incredibly stupid, or both. Again, here it is:

Again, back at you.

A. The GOP never wins a wave election in 1994 without the loss in 1992.

That doesn’t make the contract with America which was envisioned before 1992 inevitable or a result of the loss.

B. H.W. Bush lost in 1992 because of Perot mounting a 3rd party challenge and splitting the electorate. Clinton won without even getting a majority of the votes.

Yes, the 3rd party caused the GOP to lose, which is what you see as the gateway to wonderful things.

C. 20 million people voting for a kook simply because he wasn’t part of either party caused the GOP to double-down on their principles and take a bold stand. It worked.

No, again, that was 2 years prior Perot was already a punchline by then. The contract was written based on Reagan’s 1985 State of the Union Address, position papers from the Heritage foundation and Gingrich’s work that predated the Clinton presidency. They weren’t afraid of any 3rd party challange when it was released. At that time the reform party was talking about running Dick Lamm. (LOL)

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 8:30 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on June 26, 2014 at 7:08 PM

.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 8:30 PM

.
Okay … looks like you two have something of a private conversation going here.
No reason for me to intervene.
.
.
( which ever of you that agrees with me is RIGHT, the other is wrong )

listens2glenn on June 27, 2014 at 12:17 AM

I’m not going to respond individually to V7′s idiocy anymore. Someone willing to compare people within his own party to Osama Bin Laden and Tim McVeigh just because of disagreements over electoral strategy is pond scum not worth taking seriously, and further refuting him point by point would just feed his insanity and megalomania. Anybody who reads this will see V7 for the rube he is, mindlessly rah rah’ing for Team R. He’s not the type to ever learn, nor does he really want to.

But these threads never disappear, so I’d like to address any future readers:

You’re going to see a lot of people like V7 all over the internet. They are not our friends. They are sports fans, only capable of cheering for laundry. They’re not deep thinkers or serious people, but that doesn’t stop them from looking down on you. They see you as a bull, and every year they’ll have a convenient red flag to wave in your face. Right now it’s Harry Reid, before that it was Nancy Pelosi, in a couple years it’ll be Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren or Deval Patrick or some other leftist carbuncle. These people are all worth defeating, but not so much so that we should completely compromise the principles that this party was founded upon. But they don’t care about your opinion. They lost us the election in 2012, but they’re going to tell you to shut up and follow them to victory in 2016.

These are people who refuse to learn from history. They look at our huge losses in 06 and 08 and refuse to admit that we boffed it badly. Years later, people like V7 still roam the internet, defending the GOP establishment of the 00s, offering up all the standard party-line excuses, absolutely blind to the fact that the people are tired of these canards. We had some poltical goodwill, and we squandered all of it. Look at V7, blaming you, reader, for our loss in 2008, even though McCain lost by 10 million votes! No, it can’t be that the GOP messed things up royally during the Bush 2 administration. It can’t be that we lost the trust of the voting public because too many of us were party loyalists even in the face of an administration that consistently went against conservative principles. People like this talk about “holding the party accountable,” yet somehow, miraculously, it’s always someone else’s fault. It’s never their own ineptitude that loses us elections.

These are people who hide behind the Buckley Rule, but don’t really believe in it. Nor do they care a whit for William F. Buckley Jr., a giant of a man, a man who was nobody’s stooge or toadie. Buckley wasn’t afraid to ask conservatives on his program tough questions; he held up their ideals (and his own) to strict intellectual scrutiny, because he knew they could pass muster. Nor was he a rigid ideologue or an unquestioning party loyalist; he was an intellectual in the truest sense of the word, a man unafraid to challenge and examine his own philosophy, and as such, he changed his mind on some important issues throughout his long and illustrious career. These people will worship his “Rule,” but never embrace the spirit of the man. They know the Buckley Rule is a convenient aegis to hide behind after a long primary season of tarring every conservative candidate that might harm the precious GOP status-quo.

They will always hedge on that nebulous word, “electable.” Who is electable? Whoever they say is, you rubes! Never mind that “electability” is a ludicrous and spurious qualifier for public office, since it’s impossible to define, impossible to prove, always shifting, and inherently tautological (you never know if someone is truly electable until they actually win the election). Never mind that they’ll rarely tell you who is unelectable before a result, but love to be Monday Morning QBs, rubbing your noses in every loss (Todd Akin was perfectly “electable” before he opened his noise hole during the campaign). Never mind that these are the same people who told us we needed to nominate Mitt Romney because he was electable and hyper-competent to boot, evem though he ended up being neither. Never mind that, when asked who’s a good example of someone “not electable,” some will still point to a single candidate in one race from four years ago, as V7 did in this very topic. That’s right, folks; to them, everyone that isn’t an establishment favorite is indistinguishable from Christine O’Donnell. These are, of course, the same people who now tell us they were rooting for Ted Cruz all along, even though at the time they were actually backing the more “electable” David Dewhurst.

These are the people who talk a big game about party unity; right now, they’ll tell you that it’s important to stay loyal, even after Cochran’s disgusting victory that was earned through courting the other party, promising the continuation of permanent government largesse, and tarring his own side with accusations of racism. They talk about being fine with the “most electable conservative,” but once the primary starts, they’ll savage everyone to the right of Chris Christie. Don’t take my word for it, reader; peruse the HA archives and marvel at the hatefest, the sickening internecine venom leveled at Perry and Cain and Bachmann and Newt (Newt, FFS! Mr. Establishment was too much of a scary right-winger for these people!) and Palin and Santorum all in the service of making sure the annointed one was nominated. It’s child’s play to follow the Buckley Rule if you get to stack the deck for your own pet candidate, not to mention when you get to be the arbiter of who is and isn’t “electable.”

Look around you, reader. If you’re a philosophical conservative, then you know that, on balance, our ideas are superior to those of the American left, especially on economics. You see an administration that ran on being hyper-competent and transparent, which has becomes perhaps the most incompetent, opaque, corrupt administration in this country’s history. Then you remember that we lost to that administration. Who will the V7′s of the world blame? Why, they blame you, reader, for “staying at home,” regardless of the veracity of that statement (I voted for Romney, and I bet you did too). Do they care that Romney still would have lost had he matched Bush’s numbers from 2004? Nope. Facts rarely matter to people like that. They must be sacrificed, along with principles, at the altar of establishment power.

Now look at our party, which seems only concerned with its donor class and its incumbents. You see people like Cochran, so desperate to retain their pathetic little slice of power that they will openly campaign to the other side, promise an endless continuation of government pork, and smear their own side with baseless accusations of racism. People like V7 will breathlessly defend the national GOP, of course; why, there’s no paper trail, so there couldn’t possibly be any collaboration between the national GOP apparatus and a guy who has been in office for three and a half decades! He can be willfully obtuse as a rhetorical device, but you know better, don’t you reader? You see the sickness in our party. You see the culture of cronyism and clientelism, and you know it’s disgusting and wrong whether it wears a Team D jersey or a Team R one.

You’re not alone. AP agrees with you, Ace agrees with you, Jay Cost agrees with you, Eric Erickson agrees with you, and countless internet commenters agree with you. V7 and his ilk will pretend to agree with you, of course, but what’s their solution? Fall in line behind your GOP betters, support the guy who just threw his base under the bus, don’t change anything, and certainly don’t nominate someone too “scary” like Ted Cruz. All because Harry! Reid! must! be! stopped! now! Didn’t you know this next election is the most important election EVER? It’s so important that you need to sacrifice all your principles, just for a win that will mean very little in practice. Unlike the V7′s of the world, reader, you can honestly examine our history. How well did we do, as conservatives, with the Trifecta under Bush? You think a 51-49 lead in the Senate is the cure to this country’s ills, if it means the GOP stays exactly the way it is now? With the current brand of leadership, how long would we even be able to maintain that slim 51-49 edge? You know that the Democrats in power are woefully inept and the polling shows that they’re unpopular, yet somehow our party remains even more unpopular, and we’re not even in power! You can’t blame the current ills of this country on us, yet we languish behind the Dems in poll after poll. You understand that many people in this country are disaffected with the current Presidency yet see nothing to get excited about in the GOP. They just see another corrupt national party that only cares about protecting their racket, and they’re not exactly wrong.

In fact, isn’t it funny how similar these GOP fluffers are to leftists? They don’t change their minds based on evidence. They’ve been wrong in the past, but refuse to examine their beliefs. Their strategy has brought us numerous defeats, but they insist on still being in charge. Any time they want you to fall in line, they’ll have a convenient new Emmanuel Goldstein of the year, just like public enemy Harry Reid tries to keep his base in line by telling them ghost stories about the Koch Bros. When members of their own party disagree with them they compare them to mass killers, just like the Dems calling the GOP and Tea Party “hostage takers” for daring to want to reign in spending.

You saw 2012. You know that just trying to turn out the base by giving them something to vote against isn’t enough. You know that our electorate is obsessed with aesthetics and trivialities, and that in 2016 we’re probaly going to be facing the cult of the First! Woman! President! Do you think we can win with a squish whose newfound allegiance to conservative principles after the primary will be laughably transparent, like “severe conservative” Mitt Romney? Or do you think we finally need to give people someone they’ll be excited to pull the lever for?

I think you know the answer, reader. Anyway, don’t fall for the traps set by people like V7, people who try to tell you there is only one way forward and that it’s your duty to support the GOP at all costs. Remember that your vote is always your own, and that your only true civic duty is to use it wisely, intelligently, and judiciously, as you see fit.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 27, 2014 at 12:57 AM

When I was younger, I always thought political conventions were silly, with people wearing silly hats and mingling with falling balloons. The people at the Democratic National Convention looked exactly like the people at the Republican National Convention. And they all made the same silly boasts about the same silly states. (“The great state of Missouri, the Show-Me state, casts its ballots for…”)

They just seemed to be zealous sports fans of the silliest, nastiest, dirtiest, and dumbest, and boringest sport imaginable.

And so it was, largely. The Reagan Revolution substantially changed that — after Reagan, the two parties were no longer arguing about which of the two wings of the Dominant Social Class would get the management jobs of the same Expanding Welfare State — but only for a time.

Because what begins as a revolution becomes a business and ultimately degenerates into a racket.

This process will continue until the end of time. But we need a revolution, now. We can keep our eyes wide open about it, knowing that our revolution will, as it must, ultimately become a racket. By staying vigilant about that, perhaps we can delay that sad metamorphosis for a few years.

But we do need a revolution, now. Thad Cochran ran on Higher Government Spending, and the Establishment cheered him every inch of the way.

They’re not in this for the principle, but for the paycheck.

They must go.

Posted by: Ace at 12:06 PM

Those who are angry, you should be. You’re not alone. Don’t be bullied and cowed into submission yet again.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 27, 2014 at 1:22 AM

I’m not going to respond individually to V7′s idiocy anymore.

Shucks, not seeing you post the same thing for the 8th or 9th time and rebutting the counterargument with the same argument again is going to be heart breaking.

Someone willing to compare people within his own party to Osama Bin Laden and Tim McVeigh just because of disagreements over electoral strategy is pond scum not worth taking seriously, and further refuting him point by point would just feed his insanity and megalomania.

Copy and paste: “Wanting to inflict the worst on the country by empowering Harry Reid or Barack Obama to teach the people a lesson on how you think they should vote is only different from what McViegh did by degree. ” If writing that was too much for your precious little eyes to take then have a good cry.
The strategy of deliberately doing harm to the country, causing “pain” as a teaching tool” is not what decent people do. What you advocate goes beyond letting people lie in the bed they have made, you want to inflict damage to inflict “pain”, you want to lose elections to people who will cause damage to the country in the hope it will get peoples mind right. Deliberately damaging the country is not OK and doing so to have more of a say in how the rubble is put back together is not going to work. At the very least, people don’t learn the lessons you want to teach them.

Anybody who reads this will see V7 for the rube he is,

Great, I call you a rube, you call me a rube, I say that you are megalomaniacal, you call me megalomaniacal. If I were to call you a lasagna how long would it be before you called me a lasagna? Monkey see…

He’s not the type to ever learn, nor does he really want to.

What you have to “teach” is obviously wrong. The end result in your lesson plan is that losing elections is the best way to get power because it worked out that way decades ago and then as proof of your concept you credit Ross Perot and the independence party with the contract for America. Were I or anyone else to “learn” that nugget of cr@p it would mean that we’d have to flush a few dozen IQ points. What you want to teach is hogwash and the end result is that you empower the socialists that you are supposedly against.
Look at the rest of this, I’m amazed at the sheer pretentiousness of it:

But these threads never disappear, so I’d like to address any future readers:

Good God, you are full of yourself. Your own little campaign speech right here on a dying thread because people are going to flock to hear your manifesto. Better hope they don’t tilt their heads up to read the leaps in logic, the magic thinking and outright nonsense that’s the foundation of your sermon.

They’re not deep thinkers or serious people, but that doesn’t stop them from looking down on you.

Get back to me about looking down on people when I actually have the hubris to type a lecture like that out. When I post something as comically self important as that word salad you might have a point.

“Right now it’s Harry Reid, before that it was Nancy Pelosi, in a couple years it’ll be Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren or Deval Patrick or some other leftist carbuncle..”

Because those people don’t need to be stopped or anything. Because they are not a threat to the USA. You are WRONG, peole like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren ARE a threat to the country. Empowering them to get at the GOP just leaves them in power.

They lost us the election in 2012…

Pure bull. I gave as much as I could and saw to it that others had enough to give the maximum. I rented a van and drove hours to a battleground state and drove the elderly to the polls for both elections. What did you do other than pull a lever and whine that not enough was done for you to make everything perfect?

These are people who refuse to learn from history.

Said the fellow who just argued for several pages that the key to power is losing elections and that it doesn’t matter to the Obama agenda if the Senate is in control of the democrats and that Ross Perot was responsible for the contract with America. You can’t make this up. The hubris and unintentional irony of you saying someone else didn’t learn from history is pretty amazing..

Years later, people like V7 still roam the internet, defending the GOP establishment of the 00s,

You have Bush derangement syndrome.

offering up all the standard party-line excuses,

A 2 front war actually happened. Did mews of that make it to your own little world?

absolutely blind to the fact that the people are tired of these canards.

Who are all these people you think you speak for? This is hilarious.

Look at V7, blaming you, reader, for our loss in 2008, even though McCain lost by 10 million votes!

Who are you talking to? Nut? Is your imaginary friend all of a sudden suddenly going to think I blame them for something? Because you speak for them and know what they did during the last election? Is your imaginary friend impressed by your sermon?

yet somehow, miraculously, it’s always someone else’s fault.

Did you hear the one about how Ross Perot was responsible for the contract with America? Yeah, we can only give credit to someone else other than the GOP. The obvious solution is to continue to lose elections, idiot.

These are people who hide behind the Buckley Rule, but don’t really believe in it.

Glad I taught you what the Buckley rule is. Yes, I believe in it and you have shown over and over that you don’t. Better to vote for the democrat and lose the seat to teach someone a lesson. You didn’t see that on firing line, idiot.

“Nor do they care a whit for William F. Buckley Jr., a giant of a man, a man who was nobody’s stooge or toadie.”

“Nor do they care a whit”, LOL! You puffed up clown. Buckley would think you are a nut for wanting to lose elections to the democrats. He would be right.

Buckley wasn’t afraid to ask conservatives on his program tough questions; he held up their ideals (and his own) to strict intellectual scrutiny, because he knew they could pass muster. Nor was he a rigid ideologue or an unquestioning party loyalist; he was an intellectual in the truest sense of the word, a man unafraid to challenge and examine his own philosophy, and as such, he changed his mind on some important issues throughout his long and illustrious career. These people will worship his “Rule,” but never embrace the spirit of the man.

When did he change his mind on the “Buckley rule” that you learned about this evening and responded to me posting it by saying “I love the electability canard. You realize it’s a tautology and a variation of No True Scotsman, right?”… LOL! Now he’s an intellectual in the truest sense of the word and to “embrace his spirit” we need to break his rule and empower socialists or something. You are hilarious. The more you are shown that what you advocate is nonsense the harder you shake your fist and insist on it.

They will always hedge on that nebulous word, “electable.” Who is electable? Whoever they say is, you rubes!

Rubes are people who insist on Christine O’Donnell or let Harry Reid chose who he is going to run against.

Since it’s impossible to define, impossible to prove, always shifting, and inherently tautological (you never know if someone is truly electable until they actually win the election).

It calls for using common sense, so you don’t understand it. The opposition knows what’s electable and that’s why they have been helping you to chose the unelectable.

some will still point to a single candidate in one race from four years ago, as V7 did in this very topic.

As opposed to touting the 3rd party from 1992… You forgot Sharon Angle who was supported by Harry Reid so he wouldn’t have to run against Sue Louden, who was going to win that race.

These are, of course, the same people who now tell us they were rooting for Ted Cruz all along, even though at the time they were actually backing the more “electable” David Dewhurst.

Never heard of David Dewhurst. Lets cut to the chance: start chanting, “Ted Cruz or I’m going to take my bat and my ball and stay home on Election Day again” Anyone who doesn’t mindlessly join in the chant is obviously in the establishment.

These are the people who talk a big game about party unity; right now,

As opposed to finding every excuse imaginable to keep Harry Reid in power.

but once the primary starts, they’ll savage everyone to the right of Chris Christie.

I loathe Chris Christie, but I’m sure you will be right there savaging everyone else who supports him. You can dish it out but you can’t take it. You obviously think so much of yourself that you shouldn’t have to take it, oh well, welcome to the real world. Mommy told you that you were a precious little snowflake and you shouldn’t have to back anything you say with reason or facts because you are soooo special.. Wrong.

It’s child’s play to follow the Buckley Rule if you get to stack the deck for your own pet candidate..

Crazy talk.

Look around you, reader.

LOL! Yes, all the people who have flocked here from afar to hear the testimony of Good Solid B-Plus. You who have suffered much yet still are in his flock, you shall be rewarded with his contradictory crazy diatribe, err words of wisdom. I hope you are taking notes, reader.

You see an administration that ran on being hyper-competent and transparent, which has becomes perhaps the most incompetent, opaque, corrupt administration in this country’s history.

Said the guy who wants them to maintain their power in the senate.

Who will the V7′s of the world blame? Why, they blame you, reader, for “staying at home,”

Yes imaginary reader, it’s a bad thing to stay at home in the face of an existential threat to the country. Especially when it is done in the hope of enabling people to do damage to the country in the hopes that the “pain” will teach people a lesson. Seeing as the polls for both parties are in the toilet they are not learning the lesson that was intended that they learn, dear reader.

V7_Sport on June 27, 2014 at 3:16 AM

Did someone say something? I think I heard the wind. Might be more inane rambling from someone who enjoys comparing members of the GOP who don’t agree with him to Osama Bin Laden.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 27, 2014 at 3:22 AM

It’s a good thing I don’t speak for anybody:

9 Conservatism passed the “becomes a business” of Hoffer’s formulation some time ago — probably in the 1990s — and is now firmly in the “degenerates into a racket” phase.

I would use “GOP” in place of “conservatism” but otherwise I agree.

Posted by: Insomniac at June 26, 2014 12:10 PM (DrWcr)

12 I don’t normally agree with Erickson, but this time he is spot on…

Posted by: Hello it’s me Donna and I know nuthink! at June 26, 2014 12:11 PM (9+ccr)

13 I am absolutely there.

The GOP went all in to defend a self-admitted animal buggerer’s ability to pork cannon a deep red state.

The GOP gets my last “for free” vote this cycle….

hope they inspire me in 2016 or I am in fact ready for Hillary!

Posted by: sven10077@sven10077 at June 26, 2014 12:11 PM (+O/9F)

22 Per the Cochran race, the GOP stands for more welfare, more food stamps, more government grants, believes conservatives are racist, and is opposed to voter ID. I don’t see any difference between them and the democrats.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at June 26, 2014 12:12 PM (O3C36)

24 The sad truth is that the worst of what the Donks say about the Thugs is true. They are willing to sell out the little guy for big business and special interests.

Posted by: The Great White Snark at June 26, 2014 12:13 PM (QM7rr)

27 And yes, as long as the “Republicans” are holding themselves out as the party of protecting and directing big business, they are a soft fascist party.

Posted by: boulder t’hobo at June 26, 2014 12:14 PM (LZv9Z)

36 The bigger the federal government gets, the more money involved and the larger the business of government, and now the racket of government,becomes. Democrats know this, and knew it long before Republicans.

Republicans now have skin in the game, so seeing Dems and GOPers work together to ensure the racket remains the same was no surprise. Thad Cochran will continue to work for his lobbyists at the expense of Democrats’ lobbyists. But it will be a gentlemanly feud, with a lot of back-slapping and cigar smoking at the after-hours bars.

The GOP-Democratic feud reminds me of the scene from Die Hard II where Major Grant calls McLane an ***hole, but his kind of ***hole.

Posted by: MacGruber at June 26, 2014 12:16 PM (S+el1)

58 “If tea party Chris McDaniel wins, they will take away our government programs, such as food stamps…millions of dollars to our black universities…everything that our families depend on comes from Washington… Will you spend $5 on gas to go vote or allow the tea party to send us back to the good ole bad days?”

This is today’s GOP, where do I send the donation?

Posted by: Countrysquire, pulling for Pepe at June 26, 2014 12:22 PM (eEBON)

70 Ace, you bring up lots of good points. It’s sad that both parties are selling essentially the same product. I think a follow up on possible ways to change this at the low level might be interesting. I’d like to hear your suggestions.

Posted by: Draki at June 26, 2014 12:24 PM (Ko1L3)

73 Thanks, ace. Great column.

I didn’t leave the GOP. The GOP left me.

Damn Rockefeller wing. Will they just die already?

Posted by: Buckeye Katie at June 26, 2014 12:25 PM (1M/xn)

83 I hate giving the liberal Dems a popcorn festival, but I’m all for a third party or a write in campaign for McDaniel. Cochran does not get my vote in November. I won’t vote for the Dem, so those are my two choices. If the end result is a Dem Senator win, so be it. You play with fire, you deserve a burn.

Oh, and I’ll be voting for Palazzo’s primary opponent next cycle.

Posted by: GnuBreed at June 26, 2014 12:26 PM (bdHl6)

84 I am totally through with the GOP, but I’m not sure what to do. I live in New York City. Is it better for me to stay registered as a Republican so I can vote in the primaries? Or should I just drop my GOP registration altogether?

Seriously. Cochran was the end.

Posted by: WesternActor at June 26, 2014 12:26 PM (bx8EK)

I’ll stop in the interest of not making this post longer than Gravity’s Rainbow. If you want more, reader, have at it.

Remember reader, there were two participants in this debate. One thinks you’re intelligent enough to actually examine the historical record and decide where the GOP should go from here. One thinks you’re basically Tim McVeigh if you dare to question the diktat of the GOP mandarins.

Always be wary of someone who doesn’t think you have the right to question the future of your own party.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 27, 2014 at 3:36 AM

You guys should get a room…….

Bradky on June 27, 2014 at 4:01 AM

Now look at our party,

He sure is bossy, isn’t he imaginary reader.

Now look at our party, which seems only concerned with its donor class and its incumbents. You see people like Cochran, so desperate to retain their pathetic little slice of power that they will openly campaign to the other side…

“Our party” after you went on and on about the virtues of the 3rd party for 2 days and has made every excuse possible to keep “our party” out of power. The fla of the GOP is that it is made up of humans and humans are imperfect. (that might come as a shock to someone so comfortable giving a sermon, but yes, you are imperfect) Cochran doesn’t speak for the GOP any more than you do, thank God. He’s a little grifter who will do whatever it tales to win and you are a idiot who will do anything it takes to lose. Most of the rest of us are somewhere in the middle trying to pass on a better country then the one we inherited and failing to do so.

He can be willfully obtuse as a rhetorical device, but you know better, don’t you reader?

Yes imaginary reader, rhetorical device like Ross Perot being responsible for the contract for America and the pathway to political power being your ability to lose elections, the longer you lose the more power you are going to get on the other end or something. Because it always works that way in imaginary land where we are privileged to listen to world leader pretend.

You’re not alone. AP agrees with you, Ace agrees with you, Jay Cost agrees with you, Eric Erickson agrees with you, and countless internet commenters agree with you.

Because, imaginary reader, you don’t think the best way to get political power for conservatives is to lose elections to socialists and give any credit to the reform party as our preacher in chief does.

V7 and his ilk will pretend to agree with you, of course, but what’s their solution?

My solution is vote for the most conservative electable candidate and then work to keep them accountable. I’be said that over and over dear imaginary reader but this clown just doesn’t get it.

Fall in line behind your GOP betters, support the guy who just threw his base under the bus, don’t change anything, and certainly don’t nominate someone too “scary” like Ted Cruz. All because Harry! Reid! must! be! stopped! now! Didn’t you know this next election is the most important election EVER?

We are seriously running out of time to waste. We are seriously running out of time. With Obama doubling the national debt and our currency being devalued, illegals invading, vets dying, the Constitution being used as toilet paper by the worst administration in US history, there isn’t any more time to lose elections to teach some creep a lesson. Harry Reid has presided over what could be an unrecoverable downfall of this country, he needs to go. Losing elections hasn’t worked, time to try to win some and get the socialists out of power. Maybe then wee can do something about Coherine.

. Unlike the V7′s of the world, reader, you can honestly examine our history. How well did we do, as conservatives, with the Trifecta under Bush?

Bush again. Get over it, nut.

ou know that the Democrats in power are woefully inept and the polling shows that they’re unpopular, yet somehow our party remains even more unpopular, and we’re not even in power!

So losing elections doesn’t magically work to make a party more popular or powerful.. Finally glad you realize it. Bet you contradict yourself again.

In fact, isn’t it funny how similar these GOP fluffers are to leftists?

Pot/kettle. Stay classy with the fluffer talk, idiot.

They don’t change their minds based on evidence.

Said the fool who still wants to grow the party by purging, gain power by losing and focus on the most pressing threat to the country we have at had Barack Obama Thad Cochrane. Yeah, show me the evidence that proves Perot was responsible for the Contract with America.. You don’t do evidence.

heir strategy has brought us numerous defeats, but they insist on still being in charge.

O’Donnell, Angle, Miller.. What was that about not learning?

Any time they want you to fall in line, they’ll have a convenient new Emmanuel Goldstein of the year..

The fact that you think Harry Reid is less of a threat to the country than Thad Cochrane shows that you are just f-ing stupid. Got that dear imaginary reader? This guy is stupid.

You saw 2012. You know that just trying to turn out the base by giving them something to vote against isn’t enough. You know that our electorate is obsessed with aesthetics and trivialities…

This idiot likes to tell you what you know, have you noticed that dear imaginary reader?

and that in 2016 we’re probaly going to be facing the cult of the First! Woman! President

Wonder what the idiots excuse for losing to her is going to be?

I think you know the answer, reader.

Have you ever seen such a pompous ass?

Anyway, don’t fall for the traps set by people like V7, people who try to tell you there is only one way forward…

That trap I set for you by asking you to not deliberately lose elections to socialists because the country is on the threshold of ruin.

and that it’s your duty to support the GOP at all costs.

If you are a conservative, I see it as your patriotic duty to help end the reign of Obama and that means taking the senate away from Harry Reid. I have yet to see a compelling argument that doesn’t resort to fantasy and wishful thinking to counter that.

remember that your vote is always your own, and that your only true civic duty is to use it wisely, intelligently, and judiciously, as you see fit.

Mighty big of him to allow you that, huh imaginary reader.

V7_Sport on June 27, 2014 at 4:04 AM

Conservatives once had the patience to lose, keep fighting, and win slowly. Through the tragedies of Barry Goldwater’s landslide loss, Richard Nixon’s presidency, Gerald Ford’s 1976 nomination, and betrayals big and small by more than one President Bush, conservatives quietly did the unglamorous work of electing and promoting their candidates, state by state, district by district. Over decades, they changed the national political conversation. And they moved the Republican Party – not just its fringes, but its center and its establishment as well – far to the right of where it had once been.

But for some conservatives, patience has lately given way to demands for instant gratification. Why accept defeat just because we got fewer votes? So what if we failed to elect enough conservatives to defund Obamacare – we want it, and we want it right now. Or we all quit!

Losing is tough. It is hard to wait for change, and harder still to spend a lifetime laboring in obscurity for multi-generational goals.

That’s from David Freddoso. Another one of those people I don’t speak for, apparently. Hilariously enough, this was the standard grenade lobbed at Tea Partiers: They were spoiled kids who wanted instant gratification, and if they didn’t get it, they would take their ball and run home. Now it’s the establishment hacks telling us that we need to win now, at all costs, even if our wins don’t effect meaningful, “multi-generational goals.” You know what those multi-generational goals are, right reader? Things like Obamacare. Man, it sucks that the left is so much better at playing this game than we are. If only we had people who could actually learn from their mistakes.

The problem for the Republican party writ large is that the Cochran-type does not seem like an outlier. People do not see the GOP as a party out to make the government “smaller and smarter,” to “celebrate success, entrepreneurship, and innovation.” They certainly do not see think it is trying to “lift up the middle class.” They see a party that perpetuates and expands government as it suits them, often to the benefit of the well-heeled interest groups that have descended upon the nation’s capital.

The party’s leaders need to ask themselves: if their purpose is to perpetuate interest group liberalism, why should anybody vote for them? There is already a party whose central purpose is to carve up the federal pie for its clients/voters. It is called the Democratic party, and nobody does interest group liberalism better than it does.

I don’t speak for Jay Cost, either.

How could I? They both must be like Osama Bin Laden, since they think the GOP needs to change.

Good thing I don’t speak for any of the commenters at Freddoso’s article, either:

Mark Salinger SlimWich • 5 hours ago

Exactly right. I always liked to think of myself as “practical” in telling fellow conservatives to continue supporting establishment candidates if they should win, but this is outrageously despicable and has truly changed my perspective. I don’t think the establishment realizes what they’ve done here.

Your story is missing one very important fact: those Republicans you expect us to rally behind just used liberal tactics to attack conservatives as racist. Many were willing to support McConnell after his win, bit this is just too much. I know that most Republicans are better for our country than most Democrats, but when one side becomes exactly like the other, just what are you asking us to support? Sorry, Cochran’s behavior has changed everything.

Cthemfly25 • 7 hours ago

Mr. Freddoso–you mean well. You ask is to support the likes of Cochran, McCain, Graham, Moran, Roberts, Hatch, Alexander, and others but when it comes time to support conservatives like Cucinelli, Cruz, Lee, Brat, the establishment, as in the case of Cucinelli, actively works to destroy us. We get the message. I am a citizen, not a battered spouse. Barber, Rove, Bush, McConnell can all go play politics by themselves. The Republican Party left me.

Mark J. Goluskin Cthemfly25 • 6 hours ago

I think that is the point. We conservatives are always told to man up and support the RINO yet when they lose, they are the ones that whine.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 27, 2014 at 4:05 AM

Hmm, is there still a blowhard in this topic breaking down my posts line by line even though he claims they’re worthless?

It’s awful strange of him to do so, since he thinks he has an audience of one. After all, he must think that, because he’s calling you “imaginary,” reader. But don’t worry, rest assured, you do exist, even if Philosopher-King V7 would like to wish you didn’t. Because it’d be much easier for him and his ilk if people with actual intellectual rigor didn’t comprise a large part of the GOP base. Then, they could just continue along with the same losing strategies and culture of corruption, and no one would ever question it.

Don’t worry, reader. You don’t have to listen to a self-important blowhard who likes to put down the intelligence of others while possessing a rigid, inflexible ideology, extremely stilted syntax, and a very, shall we say, liberal opinion regarding the necessity of proper English grammar.

It’s like that scene in American Beauty. You remember, when Kevin Spacey catches his wife cheating on him with the sleazy realtor? “You don’t get to tell me what to do. Ever again.”

He’ll go away eventually, of course. But unfortunately for us, there are no shortage of other apparatchiks who will take his place, assuring us that this year really is the most! important! election! ever! And there’s just no room in this party for anybody not willing to fall in line, stow their principles at the door and keep on voting for the same people who squandered all of the gains we made since the Reagan realignment.

You don’t have to choose sides now, of course. Plenty of time until the primaries. More than enough time for V7 and crew to get all their talking points in line to destroy any candidates that might threaten the precious anointed ones. :)

Good Solid B-Plus on June 27, 2014 at 4:22 AM

Okay … looks like you two have something of a private conversation going here.
No reason for me to intervene.
.
.
( which ever of you that agrees with me is RIGHT, the other is wrong )

listens2glenn on June 27, 2014 at 12:17 AM

And it’s quite epic. =)

Anyway, I’m done here. Link back to this all you want, you’ll just be driving people to my side. :)

Good Solid B-Plus on June 26, 2014 at 5:04 PM

But, you’re still here. =)

You’ve been sucked into V7′s black hole-what will you do to extricate yourself from it?

non-nonpartisan on June 27, 2014 at 4:24 AM

Guys, let’s get our priorities straight. “Wee” need to do something about Coherine.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 27, 2014 at 4:26 AM

Did someone say something? I think I heard the wind. Might be more inane rambling from someone who enjoys comparing members of the GOP who don’t agree with him to Osama Bin Laden.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 27, 2014 at 3:22 AM

Did I interrupt your speech making? Poor thing, your tactics got compared to someone else who is rooting for destruction to teach people a lesson.

It’s a good thing I don’t speak for anybody:
Posted by: Insomniac
Posted by: Hello it’s me Donna and I know nuthink
Posted by: sven10077@sven10077
Posted by: Vashta Nerada
Posted by: The Great White Snark
Posted by: boulder t’hobo
Posted by: MacGruber
Posted by: Countrysquire, pulling for Pepe
Posted by: Draki
Posted by: Buckeye Katie
Posted by: GnuBreed
Posted by: WesternActor

So you speak for all of them? Did they tell you that? Or did you just make that pronouncement because you are an egomaniacal windbag?
Ace of spades is much more your speed, more cheering and bandwagon hopping and certainty more sock puppets. You have DrewM openly rooting for the collapse of the country and the idiots just eat it up as if they didn’t live in the country he wants to “let burn”.
Glad to see that you “speak for” someone who is ready for Hillary.. Maybe you could cut and past some selected comments from Kos that also agree. Maybe you can call your self their spokesman as well.

Remember reader, there were two participants in this debate. One thinks you’re intelligent enough to actually examine the historical record and decide where the GOP should go from here.

If you are intelligent to believe that the contract from America came from Ross Perot, that Harry Reid isn’t a threat to the country or that the way to political power is to lose elections.. well, you were probably dumb enough to read all 10.000 words of his sermon as well.

One thinks you’re basically Tim McVeigh if you dare to question the diktat of the GOP mandarins.

If you are willing to deliberately do harm to this country, as you have advocated, you are my enemy. You are spitting in the face of those who given their lives to hand toy the freest, most prosperous country on earth. Your strategy is stupid and seditious. It’s like giving your daughter to a biker bar to teach her a lesson about chastity. The Obama/Reid administration has been a complete catastrophe for this country and wanting to keep them in power knowing they are a complete catastrophe shows you to be a real as$hole who can’t see past your own ego.

V7_Sport on June 27, 2014 at 4:29 AM

Okay … looks like you two have something of a private conversation going here.
No reason for me to intervene.

listens2glenn on June 27, 2014 at 12:17 AM

Run! Before he decides he speaks for you too!

V7_Sport on June 27, 2014 at 4:32 AM

But, you’re still here. =)

You’ve been sucked into V7′s black hole-what will you do to extricate yourself from it?

non-nonpartisan on June 27, 2014 at 4:24 AM

Fortunately, sleep will save me.

Anyway, all of my posts since V7 compared me to Osama Bin Laden are directed at non-commenting readers who might come across this thread. V7 may think them to be imaginary, but I think that a post that is still on the front page of a website with an Alexa ranking just outside the top 1,000 probably has a few non-imaginary readers, especially a post that has over 2,200 comments.

Of course, any other commenters can pick up this debate where I left it, since it is an Open Thread. :) Who knows, maybe this will last as long as the ‘Gulch’ did.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 27, 2014 at 4:32 AM

Remember, I’m posting a sermon, but the guy responding to every single one of my words like a dedicated lapdog is the one who will really save your soul, reader. Just follow him to the promised land like in 2012. :)

Also, apparently Ace of Spades is now the same as Huff Po, and we’re discussing DrewM even though Ace wrote the post in question. Mighty baffling, isn’t it reader?

Hopefully, reader, you possess a bit more mental acuity than our dear misguided toadie V7, and you know that when I say I’m speaking for you, I only mean that I echo some of your concerns. Only someone with no ability for critical thinking would assume that I consider myself your official spokesman, or that you would endorse every single one of my points. Obviously, there’s room for disagreement on many issues. You can even disagree with me on which of the many good choices we should nominate in 2016, and I won’t compare you to Tim McVeigh or Osama Bin Laden for daring to disagree with me. That’s the awesome thing about open and honest discourse within a political party. ^_^

Good Solid B-Plus on June 27, 2014 at 4:40 AM

You guys should get a room…….

Bradky on June 27, 2014 at 4:01 AM

Can’t, unless it’s within driving distance. I’m on the no-fly list; daring to challenge the GOP bolsheviks means I’m basically Osama Bin Laden.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 27, 2014 at 4:50 AM

That’s from David Freddoso. Another one of those people I don’t speak for, apparently.

No, you don’t, idiot. He speaks for himself. Yoiu have taken a bit of his writing, divorsed it from context and now claim that you speak for him. It shows that you are an ego-maniacal idiot.

Conservatives once had the patience to lose, keep fighting, and win slowly.

We now have a 17,56 trillion dollar debt, where are all these slow wins?

But for some conservatives, patience has lately given way to demands for instant gratification. Why accept defeat just because we got fewer votes? So what if we failed to elect enough conservatives to defund Obamacare – we want it, and we want it right now. Or we all quit!

Fool, he isn’t advocating that we lose to the democrats, he is not saying what you are.

. Hilariously enough, this was the standard grenade lobbed at Tea Partiers: They were spoiled kids who wanted instant gratification, and if they didn’t get it, they would take their ball and run home.

You are advocating deliberately losing to the democrats. Tossing away a GOP seat to inflict pain on the right kind of people for not choosing your candidate. Taking your ball and going home is exactly what you have advocated. It’s hilarious how you can contradict yourself and be completely oblivious to it.

I don’t speak for Jay Cost, either.

No, you really don’t. Where did he say that it would be better to Keep Harry Reid in power by deliberately tossing an election to the democrats? Where did he say it would be better to have the lawless Obama administration agenda move forward unchecked by congress? You could post a Chinese food menu and you would have as much claim to “speak for it”.

Hmm, is there still a blowhard in this topic breaking down my posts line by line even though he claims they’re worthless?

I call you a blowhard, you rub both Iq points together and call em a blowhard. Monkey see…

It’s awful strange of him to do so, since he thinks he has an audience of one.

Do you have to be such a passive aggressive little fem?

After all, he must think that, because he’s calling you “imaginary,” reader. But don’t worry, rest assured, you do exist, even if Philosopher-King V7 would like to wish you didn’t.

Wow. You are so sure you have an audience other than the guy calling you an idiot. Pretty demented.

Don’t worry, reader. You don’t have to listen to a self-important blowhard who likes to put down the intelligence of others while possessing a rigid, inflexible ideology, extremely stilted syntax, and a very, shall we say, liberal opinion regarding the necessity of proper English grammar.

Hypocritical idiot.

It’s like that scene in American Beauty. You remember,

Because your imaginary friend saw American Beauty.

keep on voting for the same people who squandered all of the gains we made since the Reagan realignment.

Since we had lost som many elections according to your idiotic theory we should be in a full on conservative utopia.

You don’t have to choose sides now, of course

Big of you, you don’t have to chose to deliberately lose again, yet.

V7_Sport on June 27, 2014 at 4:59 AM

Reader, do you think me to be a pompous blowhard? You might, of course; sometimes I’m a bit too full of rodomontade for my own good.

But I think the height of being a blowhard is to constantly try to downplay your debate opponent’s knowledge base in an attempt to look good by comparison. It’d be especially galling to do something like, say, claiming you introduced the Buckley Rule to someone who posted this earlier in this exact same thread:

Interestingly enough, I’ve been watching old Firing Line debates for free on Amazon Prime. There’s a 23 year old debate about drug legalization, and Rangel was the “captain” of the anti-legalization team. Even back then he was introduced as a political institution in Harlem, and that was almost a quarter-century ago.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 24, 2014 at 8:44 PM

Of course, it’s perfectly reasonable to think that someone who has been watching old episodes of Firing Line for the past few weeks and who has been posting on a conservative news website for 4 and a half years has never heard of the Buckley Rule. I didn’t even know who Buckley was before I was informed by our esteemed party barnacle. :)

Good Solid B-Plus on June 27, 2014 at 5:03 AM

You don’t have to choose sides now, of course. Plenty of time until the primaries.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 27, 2014 at 4:22 AM

Do you speak for this guy as well?
For conservatives, the story of the Obama years has been the depressing spectacle of Republicans fighting a rearguard action covering their retreat from a Democratic agenda backed by superior numbers. Republicans began the Obama administration with effectively no leverage: Barack Obama in the White House, Nancy Pelosi in the speaker’s chair, and Harry Reid running the Senate. The outcome of that was the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, the worst domestic defeat for the cause of limited government in a generation. The 2010 congressional elections gave Republicans some relief in the form of a House majority empowered to contain the worst fiscal and policy inclinations of the Obama administration and its congressional allies, and the blessed Republican obstructionists in the Senate have kept a few very bad apples out of high office, but a House majority alone is a poor foundation for advancing conservative policies or reversing the Left’s advances. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell have felt the wrath of the Right for spending too much time playing defense, but voters — including conservative voters — left them with little opportunity to do much of anything else.

Republicans now have the opportunity to effectively bring the Obama administration’s legislative program to an early end this November by eliminating the Democrats’ majority in the Senate, which would also give them a much stronger hand in keeping the worst of his appointees out of office, safely quarantined in whatever dank recesses of academia currently housing them. And while one should never underestimate the Republicans’ ability to blunder their way into missing a political opportunity or the fickleness of our bread-and-circuses electorate, there is a very good chance that that will happen. (Knock wood, salt over the shoulder — pick your own prophylactic.) But conservatives all too often seem to have failed to learn the lesson of the heavy losses we have suffered during the Obama years: The differences among us are minor compared with the differences between us and them, which are fundamental.

Conservatives had an opportunity to put the Obama administration not to an effective end but a literal one in 2012, but we blew it. Mitt Romney improved on John McCain’s vote total (barely), fared better in every battleground state save Ohio, and even won independents. The election in the end was decided by 334,000 votes in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and New Hampshire. Even with Barack Obama’s edge among newly registered minority voters and an unusually high turnout among overwhelmingly Democratic black voters, only 57.5 percent of eligible voters actually showed up. That left a lot of room for conservatives to make a difference. But we did not take the opportunity.

The three most important words in politics are: “Compared with what?” And I am more than a little sympathetic to conservatives’ complaints about the failures of elected Republicans in Washington, who consistently disappoint us even when they are in the majority. I am also sympathetic to the view that our situation may have deteriorated to the point that even a unified Republican government under the leadership of principled conservatives may not be enough to turn things around. And though I reject the notion that Mitt Romney wasn’t good enough for true-believing conservatives, let’s say, arguendo, that that was the case. Unless you are ready to give up entirely on the notion of advancing conservative principles through the ballot box, you might consider looking at things this way: Even if you do not think that it matters much whether Republicans win, it matters a great deal that Democrats lose.
Maybe you were not that excited that 2012 gave you a choice between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. I sympathize — I liked Rick Perry. But how is President Romney vs. President Obama a hard choice? How is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vs. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid a hard choice? How is Speaker of the House John Boehner vs. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi a hard choice?

It isn’t….

Yes, we are running out of time to choose sides.

V7_Sport on June 27, 2014 at 5:06 AM

Also, apparently Ace of Spades is now the same as Huff Po, and we’re discussing DrewM even though Ace wrote the post in question. Mighty baffling, isn’t it reader?

You can find stupid stuff on Ace. And yes, you can claim to speak for stupidity,

Hopefully, reader, you possess a bit more mental acuity than our dear misguided toadie V7,

This reader cr@p is so passive- aggressive it’s downright b!tchy.. It’s like saying “tell him to pass me the salt”.

you know that when I say I’m speaking for yoI only mean that I echo some of your concerns.

You are an ego- maniacal clown who absolutely thinks you speak for others, too bad for you that you couldn’t vote for them as well.

Only someone with no ability for critical thinking would assume that I consider myself your official spokesman, or that you would endorse every single one of my points.

LOL, backpedal much?

I won’t compare you to Tim McVeigh or Osama Bin Laden for daring to disagree with me.

It wasn’t for disagreeing, it was for your desire to inflict pain on the country to teach it a lesson that you got compared to people who have done just that. But you knew that already, you were just lying.

Guys, let’s get our priorities straight. “Wee” need to do something about Coherine.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 27, 2014 at 4:26 AM

We need to do something about Obama/Reid more. That’s the priority. After that “Coherine” can be dealt with.

V7_Sport on June 27, 2014 at 5:21 AM

More imaginary people that absolutely don’t exist so there’s no reason for the GOP to do any self-examination or change any strategy going forward.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 27, 2014 at 4:44 AM

Thanks for the straw man, it’s in keeping with your effective support of Obama. I never wrote there wasn’t the need for any self examination, just that we can’t afford to deliberately lose senate seats while there is the chance of getting to 51 and ending the Obama agenda for good.
But you have continually maintained that the way to political power is to deliberately lose elections. That kind of stupidity isn’t a strategy anyone should adopt.

But I think the height of being a blowhard is to constantly try to downplay your debate opponent’s knowledge base in an attempt to look good by comparison

People aren’t going to pat you on the back for having a knowledge base that includes such cr@plets as Ross Perot was responsible for the contract for America and the way to get political power is to lose elections and It”s not important to end Harry Reids tenure as majority leaderand I speak for all conservatives and you are a fluffer… You are in it for the pats on the back too. It’s overcompensation.

, claiming you introduced the Buckley Rule to someone who posted this earlier in this exact same thread:

When I cited it you didn’t know what I was referring to and wrote: “I love the electability canard. You realize it’s a tautology and a variation of No True Scotsman, right?” Now you are trying to weasel out of beclowning yourself.

Of course, it’s perfectly reasonable to think that someone who has been watching old episodes of Firing Line for the past few weeks and who has been posting on a conservative news website for 4 and a half years has never heard of the Buckley Rule.

Which is why you trashed it when you heard it.

Tell us (Your imaginary reader fan and me) again how Ross Perot was responsible for the contract with America you big William F Buckley fan.

V7_Sport on June 27, 2014 at 5:37 AM

Dear reader, would you kindly locate David Walker and inform him that Perot’s role in the CWA was a fantasy? Apparently, he hasn’t heard the gospel from V7, yet.

Walker and other fiscal watchdogs credit Perot’s 1992 campaign with putting the issue of government deficits and debt on the political map. To hear them tell it, his on-again, off-again campaign — relaunched on Oct. 1 of that year — helped produce a 1993 deficit-reduction agreement, the 1994 “Republican Revolution” that transformed Congress, and four years of budget surpluses.

“Washington was all abuzz in deficit reduction plans in the early and mid-90s. He popularized the issue and gave it voice,” recalls Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a fiscal watchdog group created in 1992. Today there are many others, with names such as the Common Sense Coalition and The Can Kicks Back.

“It’s kind of a chorus to do what Ross Perot did 20 years ago,” says Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “Ross Perot became the face of this issue. I also think it’s powerful to have many faces bringing the issue to different constituencies.”

B-b-but…fantasy world! Pee Wee Herman! Perfect murder of Newt Gingrich via death by induced laughter!

But what would people who are actually working to help restore our fiscal house know about any of this? Certainly, their wealth of expertise is miniscule compared to the downright Herculean knowledge-base and grasp of political history possessed by GOP agitator-for-hire and owner of the golden kneepads, V7_Sport.

Is there any more?

It was a frustration that Newt Gingrich and other Republicans capitalized on in 1994, when their “Contract With America” borrowed much of Perot’s platform.

“The function of third parties is to identify a set of issues that the major parties are ignoring,” says Ronald Rapoport, professor of American politics at the College of William and Mary in Virginia. “Perot’s legacy really was the Republican takeover in 1994.”

William and Mary? Never heard of ‘em. Are they on American Idol? Must be some cow college if they hire people that disagree with the vast political wisdom of V7_Sport.

What about this tidbit?

An extraordinary but obscure political science monograph by Ronald Rapoport and Walter Stone, Three’s a Crowd: The Dynamics of Third Parties, Ross Perot, and Republican Resurgence, reconstructed through interviews, surveys, and documents how Gingrich devised a document micro-tailored to turn at least 70 percent of Perot voters, however fleetingly, into Republicans in time for November of 1994.

“Republicans knew,” Stone and Rapoport write, “that the traditional Republican congressional campaign” – which is to say, conservatism – “would be insufficient to get this support.” This realization was the genesis of the Contract for America. … The final product comprised 44 percent “reform” issues, almost identical to the 41 percent in Perot United We Stand checklist (they had made up only 14 percent of the 1992 Republican platform).

Then, Contract in hand, the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee got to work identifying Perot voters in districts where he had done well in 1992, blitzing them with direct mail, phone calls, and door-knocking.

Wait, you mean they targeted Perot voters? But Perot had nothing to do with the CWA! He was an irrelevant kook! Stop destroying my narrative, you darn facts!

Gee, reader…since V7_Sport’s entire premise has been predicated on the assertion that Ross Perot had anything to do with the CWA is just like saying something about Pee Wee Herman being Nefertiti, maybe he should take my advice and stick to being the sports fan he truly is?

Good Solid B-Plus on June 27, 2014 at 5:47 AM

Reader, surely, you can tell the difference between someone thinking the Buckley Rule has been co-opted by people who don’t actually care about advocating conservatism and not knowing what the Buckley Rule is, can’t you? People who state it as gospel are often those who would like to push the least conservative candidate that is even remotely palatable to the base, in lieu of anyone who might be “too scary.” Call it the V7_Sport corollary to the Buckley Rule.

Reader, wouldn’t you think someone who has been arguing over 100 posts for multiple days could actually look up the word “tautology” and the “No True Scotsman” fallacy and realize that trying to define who is and isn’t electable before the actual election will always fall into these traps? “No true electable candidate loses elections,” after all. It’s also quite easy to call candidates unelectable after they’ve already lost, which is a favorite past-time of the V7_Sport wing of the party (see his continued obsession over O’Donnell and Angle).

I call you a blowhard, you rub both Iq points together and call em a blowhard. Monkey see…

Presented without comment (emphasis mine):

Since we had lost som many elections according to your idiotic theory we should be in a full on conservative utopia.

V7_Sport on June 27, 2014 at 4:59 AM

If you are willing to deliberately do harm to this country, as you have advocated, you are my enemy. You are spitting in the face of those who given their lives to hand toy the freest, most prosperous country on earth.

V7_Sport on June 27, 2014 at 4:29 AM

No, you don’t, idiot. He speaks for himself. Yoiu have taken a bit of his writing, divorsed it from context and now claim that you speak for him. It shows that you are an ego-maniacal idiot.

The fla of the GOP is that it is made up of humans and humans are imperfect. (that might come as a shock to someone so comfortable giving a sermon, but yes, you are imperfect) Cochran doesn’t speak for the GOP any more than you do, thank God. He’s a little grifter who will do whatever it tales to win and you are a idiot who will do anything it takes to lose. Most of the rest of us are somewhere in the middle trying to pass on a better country then the one we inherited and failing to do so.

Maybe you can call your self their spokesman as well.

Lots of dead jihaddidts in Iraq and that’s always a good thing. You seriously have BDS.

Said the fool who still wants to grow the party by purging, gain power by losing and focus on the most pressing threat to the country we have at had Barack Obama Thad Cochrane

Losing elections hasn’t worked, time to try to win some and get the socialists out of power. Maybe then wee can do something about Coherine.

Anyway, that horse is thoroughly dead now. No need to beat it any further. Moving on….

Apparently, reader, any philosophy outside of solipsism is demented. A website with an Alexa rating of 1,073 in the US couldn’t possibly have any readers, eh?

Of course, reader, you’re intelligent enough to realize that I’m actually advocating that we clean up the party and nominate someone worth voting for, like Ted Cruz or Bobby Jindal. You don’t have to be fooled by the lies, misrepresentations, and irksome, shameless dissembling of those who wish to rule over you. You’re sharp enough to know that I’m advocating for us to win in both 2014 and 2016; we simply need to win with the right cavalry for it to matter. Thad Cochran is not a part of that cavalry.

It’s a tiring, uphill battle, but it’s one we need to continue to fight. It’s made harder by those who tell you to shut up and fall in line, people who claim to have your best interests in mind but then try to stifle any dissent. Unfortunately for them, you’re not quite enough of a rube to fall for the same old tired line of “We promise we’ll clean up our act as soon as you give us more power.”

Anyway, off to bed now. Goodnight and pleasant tidings for the morrow, readers. Hopefully our friend V7 doesn’t bump his head on his way up the stairs when he decides to sojourn into slumber; we could hardly afford for him to be any more incoherent. :)

Good Solid B-Plus on June 27, 2014 at 5:56 AM

Okay, sorry, I’ll admit it, I have an addictive personality. Gotta add one more. This is from 1995, by the way, before people argue that Perot is only getting credit in hindsight:

“There’s this feeling that, O.K., we put the Republicans in there for a real change and now we have them backing off things they promised — the same old gibberish,” said Sandy McClure, the executive director of the Missouri branch of United We Stand America.

As 25 Perot supporters gathered one night this week at a courthouse in Olympia, Wash., to discuss whether to form a third party, Ken Bragg, a retired financial adviser, said, “The Contract With America turns out to be just a lot of words that won’t make any big difference.”

Mr. Bragg then noted, frustration in his voice, that on term limits and a balanced budget, two issues of particularly great concern to members of United We Stand America, the new Republican Congressional majority had failed to achieve what it had promised.

Should such anger continue to bind the Perot faithful and other independents, and should they choose to go the third party route in 1996, presumably with Mr. Perot their candidate, they might be the deciding factor in a close contest. While the membership of Mr. Perot’s organization has never been made public, the most recent tax return reports fees from new members that suggest at least a million people joined the group in 1993.

And that might mean disaster for the Republican Party, since in the 1994 Congressional elections the new Republican majority was elected with the help of Perot support.

“Give them a turn at bat,” Mr. Perot instructed the faithful before the November election.

Two-thirds did so. But today, say leaders of the Perot organization, that support would not be there because of the compromises and failures that attended passage of parts of the Contract With America. Mr. Perot himself refuses to discuss where he stands on a third party or a second candidacy, though he ordered the reassessment now under way.

Come on, people who are reading this, commenters or not, people who agree with me and people who disagree with me, people who think I’m an intelligent person and those who think I’m an arrogant, garrulous megalomaniac…you’ve all gotta admit this was pretty epic. I mean, I baited V7 for almost two days straight to sound the Horn of Heimdall that connecting Perot to the CWA and the Republican Revolution was an absurd fantasy, the delusion of a mad man, so much so that he was going to archive it to throw in my face in future debates, let him beat that drum for about 50 posts, and then laid the smack down.

If you’re a boxing fan, you’ve got to at least appreciate how I played Foreman to his Moorer.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 27, 2014 at 6:15 AM

On the other side, the Republican House leadership hired Frank Luntz, Perot’s former pollster, to identify which of their legislative proposals would play well with the Perot constituency. The results could be seen in the “Contract with America”…

Part of it was intentional – when Newt Gingrich started holding meetings in Atlanta soon after Clinton’s victory to start building the framework for the Contract with America, Perot veterans were there, Squires among them.

When did I enter fantasy world? Does it rain gumdrops here? :D

Good Solid B-Plus on June 27, 2014 at 6:25 AM

Dear reader, would you kindly locate David Walker and inform him that Perot’s role in the CWA was a fantasy? Apparently, he hasn’t heard the gospel from V7, yet.

Dear passive aggressive b!tch who doesn’t have the guts to talk to me directly, Walker wasn’t giving credit to Perot, he was saying that Perot took credit for the deficit reduction that followed his defeat. “To hear him [perot] tell it his on-again, off-again campaign […] helped produce a 1993 deficit-reduction agreement. Hearing Perot “tell it” was about all Walker could do because he wasn’t in office when the contract was written. Walker wasn’t saying that Perot had a role in the CWA, only that Perot liked to take credit for it.
Here, from Wiki:

The Contract with America was a document released by the United States Republican Party during the 1994 Congressional election campaign. Written by Newt Gingrich and Richard Armey, and in part using text from former President Ronald Reagan’s 1985 State of the Union Address, the Contract detailed the actions the Republicans promised to take if they became the majority party in the United States House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. Much of the Contract’s policy ideas originated at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.[1][2]
The Contract with America was introduced six weeks before the 1994 Congressional election, the first mid-term election of President Bill Clinton’s Administration, and was signed by all but two of the Republican members of the House and all of the Party’s non-incumbent Republican Congressional candidates.

Here’s the Heritage foundation on the contract. Find me Perot’s name in it. To deny the Heritage foundation and Newt Gingrich (as well as Ronald Reagans influence) credit is just revisionist and wrong. Giving it to Perot is just laughable.

But what would people who are actually working to help restore our fiscal house know about any of this? Certainly, their wealth of expertise is miniscule compared to the downright Herculean knowledge-base and grasp of political history possessed by GOP agitator-for-hire and owner of the golden kneepads,

Said the jackass who has persistently argued for losing elections that will keep Harry Reid in power. And no, no one pays me to burn your straw men, you aren’t important enough.
Great how you trotted out this:

It was a frustration that Newt Gingrich and other Republicans capitalized on in 1994, when their “Contract With America” borrowed much of Perot’s platform.

So Perot was frustrated that he wasn’t getting enough credit for something he had nothing to do with, Look! Proof of something or something.

The function of third parties is to identify a set of issues that the major parties are ignoring,” says Ronald Rapoport, professor of American politics at the College of William and Mary in Virginia. “Perot’s legacy really was the Republican takeover in 1994.”

The function of a political party is to represent it’s constituents. It’s goal is to win election and govern. The idea that the GOP was ignoring deficit reduction is wrong and even still, he doesn’t give Perot credit for the CWA.

What about this tidbit?

What about it?

Wait, you mean they targeted Perot voters?

The GOP targets democrats as well. Libertarians too. Even green party voters if they can identify a nitch that would appeal to them.Did they write the contract for America? My dog, seriously, got a fundraising letter from the GOP. Was she responsible fro the contract? Again, correlation versus causality, you just don’t get it.

He was an irrelevant kook! Stop destroying my narrative, you darn facts!

You are seeing things that aren’t there. Ross Perot was not responsible for the GOP’s contract with America, It’s hilarious that you are still arguing that he was. Yes, he was a kook, which is probably why you identify with him.

V7_Sport on June 27, 2014 at 7:35 AM

Reader,

Petty gutless.

surely, you can tell the difference between someone thinking the Buckley Rule has been co-opted by people who don’t actually care about advocating conservatism and not knowing what the Buckley Rule is, can’t you?

You didn’t know what it was and there is no way of coopting it for anything other than what it does, elect the most conservative candidate possible. Nice try, you still called it a no true Scotsman fallacy. It’s up there for all to see, your imaginary reader included. You beclowned yourself, admit it, own it and deal with it.

People who state it as gospel are often those who would like to push the least conservative candidate that is even remotely palatable to the base…

Or those of us who don’t want Harry Reid choosing our candidates for us as you have brushed off.

Reader, (you pu$sy) wouldn’t you think someone who has been arguing over 100 posts for multiple days could actually look up the word “tautology” and the “No True Scotsman” fallacy and realize that trying to define who is and isn’t electable before the actual election will always fall into these traps?

LOL, no need to look it up, you are wrong. This won’t take much brain power, even you can figure it out. Not everyone is electable. Someone like Charles Manson stands less of a chance of being elected than someone like Winston Churchill. You can use your brain and common sense to reason out who you think stands a better chance of winning. You don’t need to have the election to figure that out. That said, when you use your brain the invariable answer is to lose the election so it’s not a surprise that this concept is too much for you. Bill and I get it.

No true electable candidate loses elections,” after all. It’s also quite easy to call candidates unelectable after they’ve already lost

I called O’Donnell unelectable before she lost. It’s on this website if you wish to go look.

Presented without comment (emphasis mine):

LOL, spellcheck, the last straw to grab for someone who doesn’t have anything of substance to say! Congratulations, I transposed the e and the m in “ME” that must make your argument clever or something. Great work on using MS Word, I can’t be bothered for this. You must be real butthurt to go there. That’s some nice overcompensation for your bruised ego. Oh sorry, is butthurt 2 words? LOL.

Apparently, reader, any philosophy outside of solipsism is demented.

Losing elections to gain political power is stupid, the extent that you go to in order to rationalize it is demented.

A website with an Alexa rating of 1,073 in the US couldn’t possibly have any readers, eh?

You are addressing the arguments I have made to you in some imaginary 3rd person, it’s what children do on long car trips. It’s gutless. It’s b!tchy.

Of course, reader, you’re intelligent enough…

Gutless and smarmy..

to realize that I’m actually advocating that we clean up the party

By empowering the socialists to cause pain to the country to teach people a lesson. It’s all up there dear reader..

…and nominate someone worth voting for, like Ted Cruz or Bobby Jindal

And if you don’t get what you want you will take your ball and go home, right, got you.

You’re sharp enough to know..

That you are a patronizing buffoon.

It’s a tiring, uphill battle,

Losing elections? No, it isn’t. Just don’t participate and let the other guy win, which is what you have advocated here.

Anyway, off to bed now.

You need to rest after that long day of doing nothing but posting your democrat enabling rants and sermons here. No wonder you want to keep Reid in office, you would have to get a job otherwise.

V7_Sport on June 27, 2014 at 7:41 AM

Okay, sorry, I’ll admit it, I have an addictive personality. Gotta add one more.

Because this will really show me that Ross Perot actually WAS responsible for Newt Gingriche’s contract with America…

This is from 1995, by the way, before people argue that Perot is only getting credit in hindsight:

3rd party cultists. Credit in hindsight…

“Give them a turn at bat,” Mr. Perot instructed the faithful before the November election.

And the waters parted and there was the Contract with America with H.Ross Perot scribbled all over it in crayon. Yeah, this is another article that doesn’t quite say what you want it to say.

Since 1992, he has remained prominent on the national political scene, but for all his prominence and ability to serve as a rallying point for the politically disenchanted, his poll ratings indicate that even some of the most fervent supporters of his anti-government ideas have reservations about his electability and leadership abilities.
Further, since 1992 he has failed embarrassingly in high-profile efforts to defeat several international trade agreements and the Mexican peso bailout.

Anyway, credit where credit is due and that’s with… Gingrich and the Heritage foundation.

Come on, people who are reading this, commenters or not, people who agree with me and people who disagree with me, people who think I’m an intelligent person and those who think I’m an arrogant, garrulous megalomaniac…you’ve all gotta admit this was pretty epic.

You do live for the atta-boys, don’t you? Being right is better than external validation. Losing elections to purge the party in the face of what the scumbags who are running the country is not a smart priority. Nor is setting up a 3rd party to see to it that the elections are lost. The country is in real trouble and that’s not some bogeyman that I made up to scare you into doing something for the establishment. That’s a cold hard fact. Getting Reid out as majority leader will lessen their ability to do damage by a large percentage and that’s vital at this juncture.

I baited V7 for almost two days straight to sound the Horn of Heimdall…

You got into an online mudfight and left when you got sleepy.

connecting Perot to the CWA and the Republican Revolution was an absurd fantasy, the delusion of a mad man, so much so that he was going to archive it to throw in my face in future debates, let him beat that drum for about 50 posts, and then laid the smack down.

Did you even read what you posted? It doesn’t prove your case. If Perot was responsible for the Contract with America don’t you think he would have sued the Heritage foundation or Newt Gingrich for taking credit for it? He’s shown that he’s not afraid to start a lawsuit.

If you’re a boxing fan, you’ve got to at least appreciate how I played Foreman to his Moorer.

You seem quite proud that you argued for arguments sake. Here’s the thing, it’s still a bad idea to deliberately lose elections to empower socialists in order to teach the Republican voters you disagree with a lesson, to inflict pain on them. It;s still a bad idea to keep Harry Reid in power because he has been the single most destructive element to hit the USA since the Vietnam war and it’s still a bad Idea to allow Obama to go unchecked by congress. Oh, and Ross Perot still isn’t responsible for the contract for America.. You haven’t proven your case, just epically ran out the clock until you got tired. Any boxing metaphor has you on the canvas.

V7_Sport on June 27, 2014 at 8:16 AM

From the link you posted as proof of something:

Republicans lobbied Perot the best way they knew how, by appealing to his vanity. “There was a huge courtship of Perot” Fierce says. Everyone was involved, we were telling him, “you taught us something, you set a new standard in American politics for communicating with the American people. Your information, your charts, your graphs, all of it taught us something.” The GOP asked Perot to read the contract {With America} and consider publicly endorsing it, Perot was cautious, Perot said “If it doesn’t have substance I’m not buying it, I’m not in for the next political con game,” Fierce recalls “We said it will have substance but there is no veto. Take it or leave it. We are showing this to you to win your approval. You’re trying to take advantage of us and we’re trying to take advantage of you”.

The rest of the passage describes how the GOP rolled H. Ross.. Gee, that pretty much confirms what I have been saying, doesn’t it? Thanks for finding that passage.
“Epic, dude”…

V7_Sport on June 27, 2014 at 8:35 AM

The rest of the passage describes how the GOP rolled H. Ross.. Gee, that pretty much confirms what I have been saying, doesn’t it? Thanks for finding that passage.
“Epic, dude”…

V7_Sport on June 27, 2014 at 8:35 AM

ROFL. Yeah, that’s exactly what you said. No, you said the CWA had nothing to do with Ross Perot, and anyone who said it did was living in a fantasy world. Then I posted multiple sources that:

A. The GOP sought out (and received) Perot’s blessing and endorsement for the CWA.

B. Former members of the Perot camp were involved even as early as the initial drafting of the CWA.

C. The GOP specifically focus-grouped parts of the CWA to tailor it to Perot voters, and targeted them before the election.

Now you’re going to try and pull an epic backtrack and say your only point was that Perot didn’t write the CWA? Holy ****, dude. Here’s what you actually posted about it:

You actually think the Perot campaign caused the contract with America. That’s nuts. I am arguing with a nut. Again, you haven’t been able to provide anything that is remotely persuasive to show that. It’s magic thinking. It’s a+?=C. It’s a fantasy.

This also happened after an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. I think we should thank asteroids for the CWA. This also happened after the cotton gin was invented. We need to thank eli Whitney for the contract with America.

Perot lost. He and his party had no say in the contract with America, Again 1 socialist was in the congress, the rest were democrats or republicans. The 3rd party and Ross perot were a joke, religfated to clowns like Jesse Ventura and the cultists who have their noses in their butts.

The contract with America had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with any 3rd party. The Contract with America was introduce in the ’94 congressional election, not the ’92 presidential election. There was a grand total of 1 independent in congress. ONE. Socialist Bernie Sanders who caucused with the Democrats. The only thing you are correct about is that Perot cost the GOP the white house as a “spoiler”. Great that you have advocated for that ever since.

Because of the GOP congress, not because of that CLOWN Ross Perot who quit, re entered and made a general fool out of himself. There was no serious 3rd party movement, only dingbat cultists who would vote for Nader or Buchannan or Fred Flintstone because he is on a 3rd party ticket. It’s not going to happen you dunce.

WOW!!!! Yes, it had NOTHING to do with any 3rd party, which has only served to act as a spoiler. There is no, ZERO, credible evidence that chalks up the prosperity of the ’90s to any 3rd party effort. PROVE ME WRONG.
The 3rd partiers for 3rd parties sake group is like a cult. Immune to evidence and incapable of seeing reality.

Tell us (Your imaginary reader fan and me) again how Ross Perot was responsible for the contract with America you big William F Buckley fan.

Because of the contract with America, courtacy of the GOP, not some 3rd party.

Tell me again how the contract with America was brought to us courtesy of Ross Perot

Awesome. Again folks, he thinks the Perot campaign caused the contract with America.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 4:24 PM

Those 2 years that Perot was considered a joke. Yeah… still he’s somehow responsible for the contract with America and I have dyscalculia for thinking that’s crazy.

You heard it here folks, According to Good Solid B-Plus Ross Perot was responsible for the Contract with America.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 4:27 PM

Go tell Newt Gingrich that the contract with America was because the GOP was scared of Perot and watch him laugh himself to death. It’s crazy. It’s not reality.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 6:43 PM

It’s not my assertion that it did, You are asking me to prove a negative when it’s your obligation to prove a positive. I can’t prove that Pee wee Herman didn’t go back in time and rule as princess Nefertiti, however it’s not my obligation to prove the insane. When you say that Perot is responsible for the prosperity of the ‘(0s it’s yours and you have utterly failed because the assertion is crazy.

And that’s magic thinking. You want it to be true so you believe it. It;s pure, unadulterated nonsense. It didn’t happen.

The reform party had nothing to do with the contract with America. There were no reform party members in the house or senate, it was a GOP bill adhering to GOP principles that Gingrich was talking about for years before Perot ever got the idea of running.

I think pointing to you insisting that the Perot campaign was responsible for the contract for America will get a good laugh. It’s crazy.

The contract with America was something that Gingrich had been workshopping since he was a professor. Again, ccorrelation is not causation.

The contract with America had nothing to do with fear of Ross Perot climbing out of the gutter to eat the GOP’s lunch.

Psychological projection from someone who credits the Contract with America to Ross Perot.

No, again, that was 2 years prior Perot was already a punchline by then.

Said the fellow who just argued for several pages that the key to power is losing elections and that it doesn’t matter to the Obama agenda if the Senate is in control of the democrats and that Ross Perot was responsible for the contract with America. You can’t make this up. The hubris and unintentional irony of you saying someone else didn’t learn from history is pretty amazing..

And this one, multiple times, since you like repetition for effect:

LOL, you are a cultist alright. Perot was a joke and irrelivant by thetime the contract with America was rolled out. He had NOTHING to do with it.

LOL, you are a cultist alright. Perot was a joke and irrelivant by thetime the contract with America was rolled out. He had NOTHING to do with it.

LOL, you are a cultist alright. Perot was a joke and irrelivant by thetime the contract with America was rolled out. He had NOTHING to do with it.

LOL, you are a cultist alright. Perot was a joke and irrelivant by thetime the contract with America was rolled out. He had NOTHING to do with it.

LOL, you are a cultist alright. Perot was a joke and irrelivant by thetime the contract with America was rolled out. He had NOTHING to do with it.

Sorry, none of us buy your goalpost moving. You said Perot had literally nothing to do with the CWA (IN CAPS!!!!) and compared his impact on the 1994 election to Eli Whitney’s and the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. When confronted with evidence that:

A. Newt, the guy who would die laughing if he heard about this wild hypothesis, specifically met with Perot to get his blessing on the CWA. Gingrich and Perot’s team were in contact on a weekly basis prior to their meeting

B. The Republicans hired Frank Luntz (yes, that Frank Luntz), at the time Perot’s former pollster, to do focus group testing for them aimed at Perot voters.

C. Multiple contemporary sources talk about the impact of the Perot constituency on the 94 midterms.

But only 3rd party cultists would believe that. Let’s ask Don Fierce, political aide to Haley Barbour, who was then and still is a consummate machine politician (from the paragraph you posted, but managed to somehow miss the important part):

“There was a huge courtship of Perot,” Fierce says. “Everyone was involved. We were telling him ‘You taught us something. You set a new standard in American politics for communicating with the American people.”

Further down:

“I say ‘Mr. Perot, we need you to play a role. We’re not interested in you funding this or that. We need your commitment.”

Now you’re going to try and claim that what you really meant was that Perot didn’t write the CWA? Just stop, man. You can’t run from your own words in this exact thread. Be a man and just admit you had no idea what you were talking about.

Great work on using MS Word, I can’t be bothered for this.

Some of us passed the 3rd grade and don’t need MS Word to spell our words for us. Shocking, I know.

Oh, and the word is “niche,” moron. Not “nitch.” I know, I know, you’re just too busy and important to spell anything properly.

Anyway…you asked for evidence/multiple sources, and I gave them to you. Meanwhile, you’re writing paeans and hosannas to the power of EOs because of a single document you linked to from the Congressional Research Service from 1999 that, by the way, says nothing about Congress being able to stop an EO outside of passing new legislation, which we already knew was possible but fruitless without a way to block Obama’s veto.

Just admit it, you got wrecked. If you have an ounce of pride, dignity, or intellectual honesty, just admit you were wrong about the Perot thing. You don’t have to admit I was right about how the GOP should progress from here, but if you keep pretending I didn’t destroy you on this CWA thing, I don’t see why anybody in their right mind would ever listen to a word you say.

it’s constituents.

Can you learn the ****ing difference between “its” and “it’s” before we start following you to the promised land, Moses? You ****ing gigantic nitwit. :)

Anyway, I’ll leave you to continue worming out of your epic beatdown. Please, please, please keep one promise in your miserable lying life and do what you said you would do: Continually link people back to this page and throw this “nugget of cr@p” back in my face. Your ridiculous narcissism (I’m a pompous windbag and no one is reading this, but you’ll keep slavishly responding to every single word I type like a good puppet) and stunning lack of self-awareness of your own monumental ignorance are the best argument I could ever make for abandoning the GOP’s kneepads wing.

Never heard of David Dewhurst.

So you didn’t even follow Ted Cruz’s election, but you know he’s not a good candidate for 2016. Got it, sports fan.

Oh, and hey, from earlier:

You mentioned that. What was that about “being a repetitive, unengaging[sic], and unintellectual bore”? Overcompensate much?
Post it again, maybe it will get smarter.

V7_Sport on June 25, 2014 at 8:46 PM

Why did you add the [sic] there, V7? I thought you said this earlier:

“LOL, spellcheck, the last straw to grab for someone who doesn’t have anything of substance to say!

Well, no surprise there, you haven’t had anything of substance to say for three pages now. Maybe you’re fine with attacking other people on spelling and grammar, just upset that yours is about on par with your average 14 year old? :)

I’ll let you speak to yourself to end this:

LOL, backpedal much?

Now you are trying to weasel out of beclowning yourself.
V7_Sport on June 27, 2014 at 5:21 AM

Might want to take the clown nose off, V7.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 27, 2014 at 11:53 AM

For the record, anybody who wants to check some of the sources:

Major Garrett’s book “The Enduring Revolution: How the Contract with America Continues to Shape the Nation”

Here are two NYT articles from 1995 that discuss this. I can find more if anybody besides idiot boy is interested.

One.

Two.

The Rapoport and Stone monograph is titled “Three’s a Crowd: The Dynamic of Third Parties, Ross Perot, and Republican Resurgence.”

The Oxford Handbook of American Political Parties and Interest Groups

The Decline of American Political Parties, 1952-1996
By Martin P. Wattenberg

Good Solid B-Plus on June 27, 2014 at 12:03 PM

Gee, diva, I thought you weren’t addressing me any more.

ROFL. Yeah, that’s exactly what you said. No, you said the CWA had nothing to do with Ross Perot, and anyone who said it did was living in a fantasy world. Then I posted multiple sources that:

It didn’t. They sought his approval, that’s it. They also told him that he had no say in what it said, the phrase was “take it or leave it”. Again, idiot. Ross Perot was not responsible for the contract for America,. He just gave his thumbs up.

The GOP asked Perot to read the contract and consider publicly endorsing it, Perot was cautious, Perot said “If it doesn’t have substance I’m not buying it, I’m not in for the next political con game,” Fierce recalls “We said it will have substance but there is no veto. Take it or leave it. We are showing this to you to win your approval. You’re trying to take advantage of us and we’re trying to take advantage of you”.

A. The GOP sought out (and received) Perot’s blessing and endorsement for the CWA.

After it was written, by Gingrich and the Heritage foundation based on Reagan’s inauguration speech… . Perot had no say in what it said. He wasn’t there when it was crafted. He wasn’t allowed to revise it in any way.

Former members of the Perot camp were involved even as early as the initial drafting of the CWA.

You are pulling that out of your butt.The initial drafting was Reagan’s inaugural speech.

The GOP specifically focus-grouped parts of the CWA to tailor it to Perot voters,

Political parties focus group pretty much everything.. How does this make Perot responsible for the contract, What you posted confirms he had no say in the content. When Perot got his grubby paws on it, it was done and he had no say in what it said.

Now you’re going to try and pull an epic backtrack and say your only point was that Perot didn’t write the CWA?

So you are basically just a liar and a troll. “Baiting” was the word you used. Here’s what you wrote:

It’s [a 3rd party] a pipe dream. It will only elect democrats. See Ross Perot. (But you are fine with that)

We got welfare reform. We got DOMA. We stopped Hillarycare. We got a Democratic President to actually say “The era of big government is over.”

Because of the contract with America, courtesy of the GOP, not some 3rd party.

Contract with America was an unprecedented step taken by a party that had not only been out of full Congressional power for 40 years, but just lost the White House because of a legitimate 3rd party candidate (“Take it or leave it”)playing spoiler.

I stand by what I posted, the Contract with America pre-dated Ross Perrot’s candidacy. You want to give him credit for it because he helped defeat Bush and out of defeats. In your warped little mind, always come great things and you are wrong. It’s causation versus correlation. The contract existed, he had no say in it, your argument that it wouldn’t have been implemented with out him helping the democrats to win the presidency, therefore he is responsible for it is a Non sequitur, It does not follow. He was given the text and told to take it or leave it, he gave his thumbs up, to give him credit for the contract for America is like someone who buys a car was responsible for it’s design and production.
The whole lineage of this was for you to try to show that good things come from political defeats, if that were the case then you wouldn’t be on this thread complaining that the GOP needs to be defeated because it already has and it’s still not doing what you think it ought to be doing. If great things like the contract for America came out of political defeats then w would have the equivalent today and you would be trying to figure out some other way of giving power to the democrats.

Holy ****, dude. Here’s what you actually posted about it:

Stop calling me dude, I stand by every word.

Now you’re going to try and claim that what you really meant was that Perot didn’t write the CWA? Just stop, man. You can’t run from your own words in this exact thread. Be a man and just admit you had no idea what you were talking about.

So because they handed him the completed text and asked for his endorsement he’s “responsible” for it. No, it doesn’t work that way. He wasn’t responsible for the contract with America. You arguing that he was shows that you have no interest in the truth, this is about calling black white to stroke your ego.

V7_Sport on June 27, 2014 at 8:11 PM

Hey guys, here are the goalposts when V7 started his argument ———————————————————————–>

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Here are the goalposts now ——————————>

Remember, this was your contention:

LOL, you are a cultist alright. Perot was a joke and irrelivant by thetime the contract with America was rolled out. He had NOTHING to do with it.

Not “he didn’t write it.” Not “he wasn’t the biggest causative factor.” You said he had nothing to do with it, it was insane to say otherwise, and challenged me to post evidence to the contrary. Maybe you should pull a Bubba Clinton and say that the veracity of your statement depends on what the definition of the word ‘nothing’ is? :)

If we go even further, you said the CWA also had nothing to do with the 1992 POTUS election, nothing to do with the 20 million voters Perot gained that year, nothing to do with crafting a message that would resonate with a majority of those voters so that they could co-opt them for the midterms. Anyway, you asked me to give you multi-sourced evidence.

I did. I didn’t give you blogs and crank newsletters. I gave you contemporary news stories about Newt and the GOP worrying in 1995 about losing the Perot voters they gained in 1994, a couple political encyclopedias, a monograph specifically on the subject by two Poli Sci profs, a book about third party effects by another Poli Sci guy/political historian (one who specializes in party dynamics) that documents how the GOP co-opted the populist sentiment that drove Perot’s 1992 success, a book about the CWA by a journalist that documents the meetings with the Perot camp in detail, and an article with commentary from three different conservative financial activists about the relationship between the message of the CWA and the message that Perot had used to gain 20 million disaffected voters in 1992.

Keep making ridiculous analogies about cars, even though the proper analogy would be to posit that you’re saying the R&D and engineering departments deserve 100% of the credit for auto sales, and the marketing department deserves none. Perot wasn’t just asked to okay the document, he was asked to sell it to his fans. And he did. You made some dumb comment about Moses parting the seas, as if motivating tons of disaffected people who voted 3rd party in 1992 to vote for the GOP in 1994 had no effect on the vastly superior results for the party that year. This from the same guy who blames us for losing in 2008 because we “stayed home,” (I didn’t, but whatever, who cares about the truth) even though we lost by 10 million votes. Clearly, math isn’t your strong suit.

This isn’t arguing about opinions or degrees or shades of gray. This is somebody stubbornly refusing to yield to the facts simply out of a desire to never concede a point in a debate. You absolutely refuse to admit that your statement was factually incorrect. Not “nuanced.” Not “well, that’s just your opinion, man.” You were plainly wrong on the facts, either out of boorishness or ignorance. If you really do “stand by every word,” then you’re just admitting that you are what everyone on this site thinks you are: a hack, a fraud, and a liar.

Anyway, this is off the front page now, so none of this is going to be seen again until December, when HA posts the annual Top 50. I’ll let you get the last word, since I know you want it so badly.

If people click on this in December, they’ll see one person who backed up an assertion with multiple sources, and one person who is bashing his head against the brick wall of truth out of sheer pigheadedness while he calls party members that disagree with him terrorists.

Check, please. :)

Good Solid B-Plus on June 27, 2014 at 9:28 PM

We were telling him ‘You taught us something. You set a new standard in American politics for communicating with the American people.”

So that makes him responsible for the Contract with America.. No, going after his endorsement doesn’t mean that credit for the Contract with America should be attributed to Ross Perot. You maniac.

“I say ‘Mr. Perot, we need you to play a role. We’re not interested in you funding this or that. We need your commitment.”

Yeah, you are believing the manipulation and flattery even after it’s been spelled out to you that that’s what it was.
“Republicans lobbied Perot the best way they knew how, by appealing to his vanity….“We said it will have substance but there is no veto. Take it or leave it. We are showing this to you to win your approval. You’re trying to take advantage of us and we’re trying to take advantage of you”.
Still, credit for the Contract doesn’t belong to Ross Perot.

Now you’re going to try and claim that what you really meant was that Perot didn’t write the CWA? Just stop, man. You can’t run from your own words in this exact thread. Be a man and just admit you had no idea what you were talking about.

Perot didn’t write it, he didn’t have any say in the text, he didn’t alter it, he didn’t see to it that it was implemented, he wasn’t the inspiration for it, he didn’t sign it, he wasn’t in power when it was implemented, no reform party members were in power when it was implemented, it wasn’t on his head if it failed… he was just asked to approve it.

That does not mean that Ross Perot should be credited with the Contract with America. You wrote something dumb and your precious little ego wont let you backtrack on it. Really, I’ll bet you could be sold ocean front property in Colorado just by pulling on the right strings.

Some of us passed the 3rd grade and don’t need MS Word to spell our words for us. Shocking, I know.
Oh, and the word is “niche,” moron. Not “nitch.” I know, I know, you’re just too busy and important to spell anything properly.

And again, really well done on that. It makes you look real smart as you insist that Ross Perot was responsible for the contract with America and that you gain political power by losing elections that you focus on me transposing the e and w in “we”. Finger wagging over spelling is the desperate troll tactic of someone who is running out of gas but still needs to assert himself. I hit send even if the words are outlined in red (as the misspellings are in my browser) because the content of the post is what counts and you have gotten more than enough of my time. Tying to deflect from content to spellcheck is just lame.

Anyway…you asked for evidence/multiple sources, and I gave them to you.

Yes, and none of them say or even imply that Ross Perot should be given credit for the contract with America. That was a GOP run show. Saying that Perot was responsible because he cost the GOP the election shows that you don’t get causation versus correlation.

Meanwhile, you’re writing paeans and hosannas…

And out comes the overcompensation again.

to the power of EOs

LOL, stay in your comfort zone kiddo, stick with spellcheck. “You’re writing paeans and hosannas to the power of Eos… “ Where did I sing the praises of Executive orders? Big words are impressive when you use them right. Not so much when they don’t make any sense. (and you are sooo out to impress… “Horn of Heimdall”!!! LOL, did Daddy not praise you enough?)

a single document you linked to from the Congressional Research Service from 1999 that, by the way, says nothing about Congress being able to stop an EO outside of passing new legislation, which we already knew was possible but fruitless without a way to block Obama’s veto.

Love how you still don’t get it even after it was outlined for you.

Just admit it, you got wrecked. If you have an ounce of pride, dignity, or intellectual honesty, just admit you were wrong about the Perot thing.

You are seeing what you want to see, giving Perot credit for the Contract with America is crazy. Your sources don’t back you, they back me.

You don’t have to admit I was right about how the GOP should progress from here, but if you keep pretending I didn’t destroy you on this CWA thing, I don’t see why anybody in their right mind would ever listen to a word you say.

Stop begging for validation, I’m embarrassed for you.

Anyway, I’ll leave you to continue worming out of your epic beatdown.

You are doing an end-zone dance when the ball is in your end-zone, fool.

Please, please, please

so needy

keep one promise in your miserable lying life and do what you said you would do: Continually link people back to this page and throw this “nugget of cr@p” back in my face.

Aaah yes, Can I call ‘em or what? LOL, I knew that would get you, the prospect of being shown to be a fool was too much for your poor ego to take. (What was that about bating?) You have actually conducted a sermon here to an imaginary reader, full of more pompous grandiosity then I could have even hoped for when I tossed that out. Here ye, Hear ye, “reader” for I am about to bestow upon you a mentally m@sturbat0ry, 10.000 word rant that will leave you with no other conclusion that I am brilliant! Can I get an Amin? Anybody? (crickets) The 3rd person addressing, passive aggressive bitchy flat out appeal for external validation from a butthurt little boy was more than I could have hoped for. You exceeded expectations.

Your ridiculous narcissism (I’m a pompous windbag and no one is reading this, but you’ll keep slavishly responding to every single word I type like a good puppet)

Isn’t that another contradiction in terms? Idiot? Me responding to you makes me a narcissist… Pretty ironic, too. That’s great by the way, I call you narcissistic., you rub both IQ points together and come back with the devastating reply of calling me a narcissist. Monkey see… Yes, I will be happy to beg all your devoted followers to read the (MS) Word according to a pompous windbag just s soon as I find someone who will give a s#it.

Never heard of David Dewhurst.
So you didn’t even follow Ted Cruz’s election, but you know he’s not a good candidate for 2016. Got it, sports fan.

Another non-sequitur showing that you still just don’t get it. I didn’t follow Nancy Pelosi’s election either.

You mentioned that. What was that about “being a repetitive, unengaging[sic], and unintellectual bore”? Overcompensate much?
Post it again, maybe it will get smarter.
V7_Sport on June 25, 2014 at 8:46 PM

Why did you add the [sic] there, V7? I thought you said this earlier:
“LOL, spellcheck, the last straw to grab for someone who doesn’t have anything of substance to say!

A taste of your own medicine. Lame I admit, since you have done it twice in your reply…

Well, no surprise there, you haven’t had anything of substance to say for three pages now. Maybe you’re fine with attacking other people on spelling and grammar, just upset that yours is about on par with your average 14 year old? :)

And, amazingly, you write that after you whined about my spelling, again. What was that about being unaware?

Now you are trying to weasel out of beclowning yourself.
V7_Sport on June 27, 2014 at 5:21 AM

Might want to take the clown nose off, V7.
Good Solid B-Plus on June 27, 2014 at 11:53 AM

So I say you beclowned yourself, you rub both IQ points together and come back with the rebuttal that I should remove the clown nose… Monkey see…

V7_Sport on June 28, 2014 at 12:05 AM

For the record, anybody who wants to check some of the sources:

Translation, Pleeese believe mmeeeeee!
Ross Perot was still not responsible for the contract with America, One of the sources that you amazingly still link to spells that out:

Republicans lobbied Perot the best way they knew how, by appealing to his vanity. “There was a huge courtship of Perot” Fierce says. Everyone was involved, we were telling him, “you taught us something, you set a new standard in American politics for communicating with the American people. Your information, your charts, your graphs, all of it taught us something.” The GOP asked Perot to read the contract and consider publicly endorsing it, Perot was cautious, Perot said “If it doesn’t have substance I’m not buying it, I’m not in for the next political con game,” Fierce recalls “We said it will have substance but there is no veto. Take it or leave it. We are showing this to you to win your approval. You’re trying to take advantage of us and we’re trying to take advantage of you”.

Got it?

For the record, anybody who wants to check some of the sources-Good Solid B-Plus on June 27, 2014 at 12:03 PM

What kind of insecure narcissist posts his own bibliography? LOL.

Hey guys, here are the goalposts when V7 started his argument

So we have moved from “reader” to “guys”…. You are developing quite a following in your own mind. It must have been your 10,000 word sermon to no one in particular.

LOL, you are a cultist alright. Perot was a joke and irrelevant by the time the contract with America was rolled out. He had NOTHING to do with it.

Getting his stamp of approval after the fact doesn’t mean he was responsible for the Contract with America, Obviously.
And this whining about Shifting goalposts?

Lulz, more blatant partisan hackery. Yup, it was all the GOP Congress. Had nothing to do with the third-party undercurrent scaring the Bejesus out of both parties. Had nothing to do with Clinton being a smart politcian, unlike Dubya, and realizing that triangulation was the right path.

WOW!!!! Yes, it had NOTHING to do with any 3rd party, which has only served to act as a spoiler. There is no, ZERO, credible evidence that chalks up the prosperity of the ’90s to any 3rd party effort.
Either way, Perot being responsible for the prosperity of the ‘90s or him being responsible for the Contract with America.. it’s hogwash.

That’s how this started.. I should have seized up on your endorsement of triangulation rather than an adherence to conservative principles. I guess adherence to conservative principles is just another excuse to lose elections.

If we go even further, you said the CWA also had nothing to do with the 1992 POTUS election

The contract was released in ’94.

nothing to do with the 20 million voters Perot gained that year,

Why would it have when he had nothing to do with it? Want calendar lessons?

nothing to do with crafting a message that would resonate with a majority of those voters so that they could co-opt them for the midterms.

Right, he had no say in other than to endorse it according to the link you posted to say otherwise.

Anyway, you asked me to give you multi-sourced evidence.

And it doesn’t back your claim.

I gave you contemporary news stories about Newt and the GOP worrying in 1995 about losing the Perot voters they gained in 1994, a couple political encyclopedias,…

Want a cookie?
None of which contradict my assertion that Perot wasn’t responsible for the contract with America, (much less the prosperity of the ‘90s) You were wrong. It’s hilarious how you can’t admit that you were wrong you precious little thing. You made the assertion that he was to try to claim that losing elections brings long term power and that isn’t always the case. One does not mean the other. That you can’t allow yourself to see that…

Keep making ridiculous analogies about cars…

LOL, It got another 500 words out of you, you precious little snowflake who’s narcissistic supply is interrupted by not getting constant validation.

even though the proper analogy would be to posit that you’re saying the R&D and engineering departments deserve 100% of the credit blah blah blah…

LOL!

Perot wasn’t just asked to okay the document, he was asked to sell it to his fans. And he did.

So that makes him responsible for it? That happened after the fact. You ought to toss your rattles out of the crib to prove me wrong.

This from the same guy who blames us for losing in 2008 because we “stayed home,”

Did it help the situation?

Clearly, math isn’t your strong suit.

You get a gold star in math and spelling! Good Boy! Too bad your argument fails anyway! Shake your fist harder!

This isn’t arguing about opinions or degrees or shades of gray. This is somebody stubbornly refusing to yield to the facts simply out of a desire to never concede a point in a debate.

LOL! Again:

The GOP asked Perot to read the [completed] contract [that he had nothing to do with] and consider publicly endorsing it, Perot was cautious, Perot said “If it doesn’t have substance I’m not buying it, I’m not in for the next political con game,” Fierce recalls “We said it will have substance but there is no veto. Take it or leave it.

I endorse pudding, that doesn’t mean I make pudding.
Concede that point, it ought to be easy enough, it’s from YOUR SOURCE.

You absolutely refuse to admit that your statement was factually incorrect. Not “nuanced.

Right, because the 3rd party was responsible for the prosperity of the ‘90s and if we just lost more by having another party we could get back to that golden era brought to us by Bubbas triangulation. I’ve got a hell of a nerve not admitting the correctness of all that nuance. LOL!

You were plainly wrong on the facts, either out of boorishness or ignorance.

Or you are just seeing what your butt hurt ego will let you. You would stay on this indefinitely, wouldn’t you? Like Rain Man trying to figure out the Abbot and Costello routine, looking for spelling mistakes. Tell me about your father. He was pretty distant, huh? But your mom, she just adored every little poop you left her like it was a gold nugget. Just don’t command your loyal readers to have at me, OK?

If people click on this in December, they’ll see one person who backed up an assertion with multiple sources, and one person who is bashing his head against the brick wall of truth out of sheer pigheadedness…

These people who you are sooo worried about what they think of you. Good thing you have decided that you speak for them in your sermons. They can have the opinion you issue them because you are world leader pretend.
Remember folks, Ross Perot was responsible for the Contract with America and the prosperity of the ‘90s and losing elections insures political power at a later date or something..… and if you think that’s laughable you are in for a digital mud fight that’s “epic”.

Check, please. :)

Have one of your imaginary fans pick up the tab.

V7_Sport on June 28, 2014 at 12:17 AM

Would someone please flip this damn page so when V7-Sport shows there will be nothing to see.

Bmore on July 8, 2014 at 6:37 PM

Would someone please flip this damn page so when V7-Sport shows there will be nothing to see.

Bmore on July 8, 2014 at 6:37 PM

LOL, might be a good idea. Watch him come back now and post 80 more times in this “irrelevant” topic.

Good Solid B-Plus on July 8, 2014 at 6:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 21 22 23