A deepening alliance between the old-line GOP and the tea party

By the way, I suppose it was that massive Moderate Wave in 2010 that flipped control of the House. Shit, if it had been up to your ilk the Reps would’ve LOST seats in 2010.

ddrintn on November 19, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Want to hear a secret?

Our 2010 House gains came mostly from center-right candidates in the suburbs, throwing out Blue Dog Democrats in right-leaning districts. You can cite firebrands like Allen West and Joe Walsh (both of whom lost this year, of course), but the numbers flipped because of folks like Pat Meehan, Renee Ellmers, Morgan Griffith, Reid Ribble, Alan Nunnelee, Bob Gibbs, Martha Roby, Richard Hanna, and others who are not full-throated conservatives.

Meanwhile, our Senate candidates that year vastly underperformed our House candidates, in terms of the popular vote. Pat Toomey and Ron Johnson were the exception, not the rule. And if our party doesn’t shape up, I guaran-damn-tee you that both will be in mortal danger in 2016.

Keep cocooning yourself in the blanket of ignorance, thinking that the 40% of (self-proclaimed, mind you) “conservatives” in this country will magically equal a 50% voting majority.

KingGold on November 19, 2012 at 10:29 PM

Yeah, like Rubio and Paul. Unlike winners like Fiorina and Rossi.

ddrintn on November 19, 2012 at 10:34 PM

Let me tell you something.

TrueCons – and all Republicans – are damned lucky that Paul’s opponent made a major mistake in attacking his faith – Paul wasn’t always ahead in that race, and his moronic civil-rights comments to Rachel Maddow following his nomination were a hair’s-breadth away from making him the Todd Akin of that cycle.

And feel free to sit back and blame Fiorina and Rossi for not winning races in deep-blue states. Even though Rossi almost won despite the Dems running ads featuring O’Donnell’s witch comments against him.

KingGold on November 19, 2012 at 10:42 PM

LOL, you crack me up. Any time one of the hated TrueCons wins, it’s sheer luck. And any time a squish wins, it’s the electorate showing good sense. And any time a squish loses, it’s because of those damned TrueCons. Or you was robbed.

ddrintn on November 19, 2012 at 10:51 PM

You want to talk about good luck and bad luck? How about nominating two ticking time bombs in Missouri and Indiana this year, who each needed less than a minute to throw away a seat that was otherwise in the bag?

Angle, O’Donnell, Paul, Buck. Four candidates, four uncontrollable mouths, only one victory. I call that luck.

KingGold on November 19, 2012 at 10:55 PM

Oh, that’s nothing compared to that ultra-electable ticking time bomb at the top of the ticket. Talk about epic fail.

ddrintn on November 19, 2012 at 10:59 PM

And now you’re just inventing things to “prove” your point. A “ticking time bomb” would imply that Romney threw away the race because of something unexpected. Inversely, Romney destroyed Obama in the first debate and actually repaired some of the damage that Obama was able to do by virtue of having an airwaves monopoly for the entire summer.

I’ll concede that Gingrich and Santorum were not ticking time bombs. Their unelectability, after all, was baked into the cake before they even started.

KingGold on November 19, 2012 at 11:05 PM

Well, the 47% remark probably did more damage than anything Akin said. It’s at least as provable.

ddrintn on November 19, 2012 at 11:09 PM

Am I to understand that the 47% remark is officially A Bad Thing now? Because when I and others said it was unwise and cringeworthy, folks like you called us squishy traitorous RINOs who couldn’t see it for the truth.

And don’t bother trying to disavow that particular sentiment, because it’s still going with Rush’s “Obama Claus” hobbyhorse.

KingGold on November 19, 2012 at 11:13 PM

thebrokenrattle on November 19, 2012 at 11:17 PM

Oh, I do like Gabe’s writing quite a bit. Ace’s as well. I like how Ace has the stones to look zealotry in the eye – even among commenters on his own blog – and say, “This isn’t helping the greater cause. Stop.”

I consider advocating against terrible candidates to be my atonement for supporting Angle in the Nevada race in ’10. It’s heartbreaking to watch our party throw away winnable seats and ensure the election and re-election of liberal Democrats for no higher purpose than to satisfy the vanity and self-indulgence of self-proclaimed True Conservatives.

KingGold on November 19, 2012 at 11:24 PM

The GOP…and KingGold will betray you

True_King on November 19, 2012 at 11:28 PM

I want you to know that I consider being called a traitor by a reactionary zealot to be a mark of honor.

I thank you for your praise.

KingGold on November 19, 2012 at 11:30 PM

Such hyperbole. Let’s focus on the actual enemy, Obama.

thebrokenrattle on November 19, 2012 at 11:39 PM

I wish it were that simple. Sadly, it’s not.

We as a movement have got some differences to hash out. So far as I can tell, there are three burgeoning schools popping up: we-got-unlucky (Romney wasn’t conservative enough, Obama Claus, etc.), let’s-start-chucking-principles (amnesty now, let’s raise taxes on the rich, etc.), and the wait-and-see (let’s take action, but let’s not do it right now).

The first group seems to think: new election, better nominee, no Obama, better results. No real changes necessary.

The second: we’re screwed in the long term so we’d better start changing policy stances or we’re sunk.

The third: we’re screwed, but only in the short term. We can make appropriate changes without altering policy stances, but changes will have to be made.

I’d like to think I’m in the third group, but I can’t say that honestly quite yet.

KingGold on November 19, 2012 at 11:48 PM