The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

‘Money, Money, Money’

Posted on | March 15, 2010 | 74 Comments

From my latest American Spectator column: 

A perception that the GOP establishment routinely rigs primaries in favor of the well-financed and well-connected is widespread among grassroots conservatives. Disillusioned by the political equivalent of insider trading, some idealistic Republicans are tempted to walk away from active participation in GOP politics, which would leave the party infrastructure even more controlled by selfish cynics and professional operatives.
One man who doesn’t want to see that happen is Doug Hoffman, the “Ordinary American” candidate whose third-party campaign last year in New York’s 23rd District became a national crusade for conservatives fed up with Washington, including the Beltway GOP. “The legacy of my [2009] campaign is that many Americans who had never been involved before saw that they could get involved and make a difference,” Hoffman told me in a telephone interview last week, after announcing his candidacy for the Republican nomination in this year’s mid-term election.
Strange as it may seem, some Republicans still haven’t gotten the message. There are rumors in New York that the national GOP establishment is trying to recruit Will Barclay to run against Hoffman. Scion of a wealthy family, Barclay is a state assemblyman whose father was appointed ambassador to El Salvador by President Bush. The chief argument for the younger Barclay’s candidacy, as one Hoffman-supporting conservative told me last week, can be summarized in three words: “Money, money, money.”
Can such an argument prevail in a year when Republicans hope to capture the populist energy of the Tea Party movement? Although Democratic attack ads last year branded Hoffman a millionaire indifferent to working-class interests, he grew up desperately poor and his rags-to-riches success story was one of the major selling points of his underdog campaign. If the Republican establishment shoves Hoffman aside in favor of Barclay, it would do more than reinforce the Democrats’ traditional class-warfare message that the GOP is the “party of the rich.” It would also send a message to the party’s conservative rank-and-file that their loyalty to Republicans is strictly a one-way street, never to be respected in any instance where grassroots preferences conflict with the political ambitions of party insiders. . . .

Please read the whole thing.

Category: Congress, Election, Republicans, Tea Party

Comments

74 Responses to “‘Money, Money, Money’”

  1. Thomas L. Knapp
    March 15th, 2010 @ 4:02 pm

    If the Republican establishment shoves Hoffman aside in favor of Barclay, it would do more than reinforce the Democrats’ traditional class-warfare message that the GOP is the “party of the rich.” It would also send a message to the party’s conservative rank-and-file that their loyalty to Republicans is strictly a one-way street

    In NY23? What loyalty? Hoffman bolted the GOP for the Conservative Party last year when the GOP nominated a serving legislator instead of him, and “the conservative rank and file” bolted with him. Why would the party trust him, or them, now?

  2. Thomas L. Knapp
    March 15th, 2010 @ 4:02 pm

    If the Republican establishment shoves Hoffman aside in favor of Barclay, it would do more than reinforce the Democrats’ traditional class-warfare message that the GOP is the “party of the rich.” It would also send a message to the party’s conservative rank-and-file that their loyalty to Republicans is strictly a one-way street

    In NY23? What loyalty? Hoffman bolted the GOP for the Conservative Party last year when the GOP nominated a serving legislator instead of him, and “the conservative rank and file” bolted with him. Why would the party trust him, or them, now?

  3. Thomas L. Knapp
    March 15th, 2010 @ 11:02 am

    If the Republican establishment shoves Hoffman aside in favor of Barclay, it would do more than reinforce the Democrats’ traditional class-warfare message that the GOP is the “party of the rich.” It would also send a message to the party’s conservative rank-and-file that their loyalty to Republicans is strictly a one-way street

    In NY23? What loyalty? Hoffman bolted the GOP for the Conservative Party last year when the GOP nominated a serving legislator instead of him, and “the conservative rank and file” bolted with him. Why would the party trust him, or them, now?

  4. Jeff
    March 15th, 2010 @ 4:48 pm

    nice concern Knapp …

    gee didn’t the GOP candidate drop out and ask her supporters to switch to voting for the Democrat ?

  5. Jeff
    March 15th, 2010 @ 4:48 pm

    nice concern Knapp …

    gee didn’t the GOP candidate drop out and ask her supporters to switch to voting for the Democrat ?

  6. Jeff
    March 15th, 2010 @ 11:48 am

    nice concern Knapp …

    gee didn’t the GOP candidate drop out and ask her supporters to switch to voting for the Democrat ?

  7. Thomas L. Knapp
    March 15th, 2010 @ 5:47 pm

    Jeff,

    Yes, after the GOP establishment that nominated her turned around and stabbed her in the back by throwing its support to the sore loser/turncoat, she responded in kind.

    Can’t say I blame her (or the GOP establishment, or conservatives, or Hoffman). But let’s not pretend that “loyalty” is a characteristic of the GOP or of conservatives in NY23.

  8. Thomas L. Knapp
    March 15th, 2010 @ 5:47 pm

    Jeff,

    Yes, after the GOP establishment that nominated her turned around and stabbed her in the back by throwing its support to the sore loser/turncoat, she responded in kind.

    Can’t say I blame her (or the GOP establishment, or conservatives, or Hoffman). But let’s not pretend that “loyalty” is a characteristic of the GOP or of conservatives in NY23.

  9. Thomas L. Knapp
    March 15th, 2010 @ 12:47 pm

    Jeff,

    Yes, after the GOP establishment that nominated her turned around and stabbed her in the back by throwing its support to the sore loser/turncoat, she responded in kind.

    Can’t say I blame her (or the GOP establishment, or conservatives, or Hoffman). But let’s not pretend that “loyalty” is a characteristic of the GOP or of conservatives in NY23.

  10. Reaganite Republican
    March 15th, 2010 @ 1:22 pm

    Doug’ll whup em, them boys don’t never learn

    Linked at Reaganite Republican-

  11. Reaganite Republican
    March 15th, 2010 @ 6:22 pm

    Doug’ll whup em, them boys don’t never learn

    Linked at Reaganite Republican-

  12. Reaganite Republican
    March 15th, 2010 @ 6:22 pm

    Doug’ll whup em, them boys don’t never learn

    Linked at Reaganite Republican-

  13. theCL
    March 15th, 2010 @ 8:11 pm

    A perception that the GOP establishment routinely rigs primaries in favor of the well-financed and well-connected is widespread among grassroots conservatives.

    Perception? No. Reality. Yes.

    They also rig it towards Big Government types too. Any honest assessment of the history of the GOP proves it.

  14. theCL
    March 15th, 2010 @ 8:11 pm

    A perception that the GOP establishment routinely rigs primaries in favor of the well-financed and well-connected is widespread among grassroots conservatives.

    Perception? No. Reality. Yes.

    They also rig it towards Big Government types too. Any honest assessment of the history of the GOP proves it.

  15. theCL
    March 15th, 2010 @ 3:11 pm

    A perception that the GOP establishment routinely rigs primaries in favor of the well-financed and well-connected is widespread among grassroots conservatives.

    Perception? No. Reality. Yes.

    They also rig it towards Big Government types too. Any honest assessment of the history of the GOP proves it.

  16. Tea Party Up!
    March 15th, 2010 @ 3:31 pm

    […] ‘Money, Money, Money’ One man who doesn’t want to see that happen is Doug Hoffman, the “Ordinary American” candidate whose third-party campaign last year in New York’s 23rd District became a national crusade for conservatives fed up with Washington, including the Beltway GOP. “The legacy of my [2009] campaign is that many Americans who had never been involved before saw that they could get involved and make a difference,” Hoffman told me in a telephone interview last week, after announcing his candidacy for the Republican nomination in this year’s mid-term election. […]

  17. The Conservative Rank And File
    March 16th, 2010 @ 3:05 am

    Thomas L Knapp:
    “….and “the conservative rank and file” bolted with him. Why would the party trust him, or them, now?”

    Why would the party trust [the conservative rank and file] now? WTF? It is not our job to make the Party Leadership “trust” us, the rank and file! THEY work for US, WE do not work for THEM! I get a dozen mailers from them each week begging for my money and support – I have yet to ever send the RNC a mailer asking them to “contribute” money to me, or to campaign for me! It is their job to earn our trust, and to promote our principles in order to earn that trust. The arrogance that it is somehow the rank and file’s job to earn the trust of the Party Leadership by promoting its principles is exactly the problem here.

  18. The Conservative Rank And File
    March 16th, 2010 @ 3:05 am

    Thomas L Knapp:
    “….and “the conservative rank and file” bolted with him. Why would the party trust him, or them, now?”

    Why would the party trust [the conservative rank and file] now? WTF? It is not our job to make the Party Leadership “trust” us, the rank and file! THEY work for US, WE do not work for THEM! I get a dozen mailers from them each week begging for my money and support – I have yet to ever send the RNC a mailer asking them to “contribute” money to me, or to campaign for me! It is their job to earn our trust, and to promote our principles in order to earn that trust. The arrogance that it is somehow the rank and file’s job to earn the trust of the Party Leadership by promoting its principles is exactly the problem here.

  19. The Conservative Rank And File
    March 15th, 2010 @ 10:05 pm

    Thomas L Knapp:
    “….and “the conservative rank and file” bolted with him. Why would the party trust him, or them, now?”

    Why would the party trust [the conservative rank and file] now? WTF? It is not our job to make the Party Leadership “trust” us, the rank and file! THEY work for US, WE do not work for THEM! I get a dozen mailers from them each week begging for my money and support – I have yet to ever send the RNC a mailer asking them to “contribute” money to me, or to campaign for me! It is their job to earn our trust, and to promote our principles in order to earn that trust. The arrogance that it is somehow the rank and file’s job to earn the trust of the Party Leadership by promoting its principles is exactly the problem here.

  20. The Conservative Rank And File
    March 16th, 2010 @ 3:14 am

    Dear Mr. Party Leadership @ RNC Headquarters:

    Times have been hard here at Smith Family Headquarters, and we really need your contributions more than ever. We realize that we may have lost your trust in the past, by not supporting statist RINOs that you may have nominated, and we would like to work hard to earn that trust back, but we need your support to do that. Please enclose your check, money order, VISA or MC, payable directly to Mr. John Smith, for as much as you can spare out of the RNC slush fund.

    We look forward to earning back your trust.

    –Mr. and Mrs. John Smith & Family (aka The Conservative Rank and File)

  21. The Conservative Rank And File
    March 16th, 2010 @ 3:14 am

    Dear Mr. Party Leadership @ RNC Headquarters:

    Times have been hard here at Smith Family Headquarters, and we really need your contributions more than ever. We realize that we may have lost your trust in the past, by not supporting statist RINOs that you may have nominated, and we would like to work hard to earn that trust back, but we need your support to do that. Please enclose your check, money order, VISA or MC, payable directly to Mr. John Smith, for as much as you can spare out of the RNC slush fund.

    We look forward to earning back your trust.

    –Mr. and Mrs. John Smith & Family (aka The Conservative Rank and File)

  22. The Conservative Rank And File
    March 15th, 2010 @ 10:14 pm

    Dear Mr. Party Leadership @ RNC Headquarters:

    Times have been hard here at Smith Family Headquarters, and we really need your contributions more than ever. We realize that we may have lost your trust in the past, by not supporting statist RINOs that you may have nominated, and we would like to work hard to earn that trust back, but we need your support to do that. Please enclose your check, money order, VISA or MC, payable directly to Mr. John Smith, for as much as you can spare out of the RNC slush fund.

    We look forward to earning back your trust.

    –Mr. and Mrs. John Smith & Family (aka The Conservative Rank and File)

  23. Roxeanne de Luca
    March 16th, 2010 @ 3:32 am

    Mr. Knapp:

    Party loyalty does not trump principles. Dede is a union-loving, socialised-medicine promoting, free-market hating Leftist.

    If any politician or any political group wants my support, it must support my principles.

    Like many liberals, you reverse the relationship between representatives and people. The RNC exists to advance conservative principles; we do not exist to advance its agenda. If the RNC does not want to do that, it will lose conservative support and will lose elections.

    To put it in my father’s words (usually in relation to children): the inmates do not run the asylum.

  24. Roxeanne de Luca
    March 16th, 2010 @ 3:32 am

    Mr. Knapp:

    Party loyalty does not trump principles. Dede is a union-loving, socialised-medicine promoting, free-market hating Leftist.

    If any politician or any political group wants my support, it must support my principles.

    Like many liberals, you reverse the relationship between representatives and people. The RNC exists to advance conservative principles; we do not exist to advance its agenda. If the RNC does not want to do that, it will lose conservative support and will lose elections.

    To put it in my father’s words (usually in relation to children): the inmates do not run the asylum.

  25. Roxeanne de Luca
    March 15th, 2010 @ 10:32 pm

    Mr. Knapp:

    Party loyalty does not trump principles. Dede is a union-loving, socialised-medicine promoting, free-market hating Leftist.

    If any politician or any political group wants my support, it must support my principles.

    Like many liberals, you reverse the relationship between representatives and people. The RNC exists to advance conservative principles; we do not exist to advance its agenda. If the RNC does not want to do that, it will lose conservative support and will lose elections.

    To put it in my father’s words (usually in relation to children): the inmates do not run the asylum.

  26. Thomas L. Knapp
    March 16th, 2010 @ 9:22 am

    Conservative rank and file,

    You write:

    “THEY work for US, WE do not work for THEM!”

    The sooner you understand that the first clause of the sentence is not and never has been true, the sooner you can get about making the second clause of it real.

    Roxanne,

    See above.

    The purpose of the RNC has never been to “advance conservative principles.” The GOP is, and always has been, a party of big government.

    And conservatives have proven over and over and over and over that no, a party or political group doesn’t have to support conservative principles to get conservative votes.

    As far as the “like many liberals” snark is concerned, I make Barry Goldwater look like Karl Marx.

  27. Thomas L. Knapp
    March 16th, 2010 @ 9:22 am

    Conservative rank and file,

    You write:

    “THEY work for US, WE do not work for THEM!”

    The sooner you understand that the first clause of the sentence is not and never has been true, the sooner you can get about making the second clause of it real.

    Roxanne,

    See above.

    The purpose of the RNC has never been to “advance conservative principles.” The GOP is, and always has been, a party of big government.

    And conservatives have proven over and over and over and over that no, a party or political group doesn’t have to support conservative principles to get conservative votes.

    As far as the “like many liberals” snark is concerned, I make Barry Goldwater look like Karl Marx.

  28. Thomas L. Knapp
    March 16th, 2010 @ 4:22 am

    Conservative rank and file,

    You write:

    “THEY work for US, WE do not work for THEM!”

    The sooner you understand that the first clause of the sentence is not and never has been true, the sooner you can get about making the second clause of it real.

    Roxanne,

    See above.

    The purpose of the RNC has never been to “advance conservative principles.” The GOP is, and always has been, a party of big government.

    And conservatives have proven over and over and over and over that no, a party or political group doesn’t have to support conservative principles to get conservative votes.

    As far as the “like many liberals” snark is concerned, I make Barry Goldwater look like Karl Marx.

  29. The Conservative Rank And File
    March 16th, 2010 @ 3:51 pm

    Mr. Knapp:
    My mistake, the first clause obviously is not true as written, what I ought to have said – “They are *supposed* to work for us, we are not *supposed* to work for them”. (Also, the purpose of the RNC is *supposed* to be to advance Conservative principles) I thought that the “supposed” was implied, and did not need to be explicitly stated. They are our employees, we are their employers. If they are taking our pay but they are not doing their job, and worse are taking bribes from our competitors, stealing from our company, we do not show them loyalty, we show them the door. We go out and hire better employees, who are willing and eager to work for us, like that Hoffman kid, he had a pretty good job interview. If at times we Conservatives have hired employees that didn’t support conservative principles, it’s because the available labor pool was of low quality, and also frequently these job candidates lie on their resumes and we fail to check their references like we should.

  30. The Conservative Rank And File
    March 16th, 2010 @ 3:51 pm

    Mr. Knapp:
    My mistake, the first clause obviously is not true as written, what I ought to have said – “They are *supposed* to work for us, we are not *supposed* to work for them”. (Also, the purpose of the RNC is *supposed* to be to advance Conservative principles) I thought that the “supposed” was implied, and did not need to be explicitly stated. They are our employees, we are their employers. If they are taking our pay but they are not doing their job, and worse are taking bribes from our competitors, stealing from our company, we do not show them loyalty, we show them the door. We go out and hire better employees, who are willing and eager to work for us, like that Hoffman kid, he had a pretty good job interview. If at times we Conservatives have hired employees that didn’t support conservative principles, it’s because the available labor pool was of low quality, and also frequently these job candidates lie on their resumes and we fail to check their references like we should.

  31. The Conservative Rank And File
    March 16th, 2010 @ 10:51 am

    Mr. Knapp:
    My mistake, the first clause obviously is not true as written, what I ought to have said – “They are *supposed* to work for us, we are not *supposed* to work for them”. (Also, the purpose of the RNC is *supposed* to be to advance Conservative principles) I thought that the “supposed” was implied, and did not need to be explicitly stated. They are our employees, we are their employers. If they are taking our pay but they are not doing their job, and worse are taking bribes from our competitors, stealing from our company, we do not show them loyalty, we show them the door. We go out and hire better employees, who are willing and eager to work for us, like that Hoffman kid, he had a pretty good job interview. If at times we Conservatives have hired employees that didn’t support conservative principles, it’s because the available labor pool was of low quality, and also frequently these job candidates lie on their resumes and we fail to check their references like we should.

  32. Thomas L. Knapp
    March 16th, 2010 @ 7:00 pm

    Conservative Rank and File,

    I’m not a conservative any more (passed through conservatism on the way from the liberalism of my youth to libertarianism), but the problem should be obvious:

    The Republican Party was born of a desire to commit government to giant public works programs and to levy a national tariff.

    The Republican Party gave us national economic regulation, national drug regulation, the income tax, the Federal Reserve and, believe it or not, the New Deal (Herbert Hoover ran on what amounted to the New Deal; FDR ran on a 25% cut in the size of the federal government, then adopted Hoover’s plan instead once elected).

    In the sixteen presidential elections since World War Two, the GOP has given its presidential nomination to conservative candidates a grand total of three times (once to Goldwater, twice to Reagan).

    If you believe that the purpose of the RNC is supposed to be, or ever has been, to advance conservative principles, you’re just not living in the real world.

  33. Thomas L. Knapp
    March 16th, 2010 @ 7:00 pm

    Conservative Rank and File,

    I’m not a conservative any more (passed through conservatism on the way from the liberalism of my youth to libertarianism), but the problem should be obvious:

    The Republican Party was born of a desire to commit government to giant public works programs and to levy a national tariff.

    The Republican Party gave us national economic regulation, national drug regulation, the income tax, the Federal Reserve and, believe it or not, the New Deal (Herbert Hoover ran on what amounted to the New Deal; FDR ran on a 25% cut in the size of the federal government, then adopted Hoover’s plan instead once elected).

    In the sixteen presidential elections since World War Two, the GOP has given its presidential nomination to conservative candidates a grand total of three times (once to Goldwater, twice to Reagan).

    If you believe that the purpose of the RNC is supposed to be, or ever has been, to advance conservative principles, you’re just not living in the real world.

  34. Thomas L. Knapp
    March 16th, 2010 @ 2:00 pm

    Conservative Rank and File,

    I’m not a conservative any more (passed through conservatism on the way from the liberalism of my youth to libertarianism), but the problem should be obvious:

    The Republican Party was born of a desire to commit government to giant public works programs and to levy a national tariff.

    The Republican Party gave us national economic regulation, national drug regulation, the income tax, the Federal Reserve and, believe it or not, the New Deal (Herbert Hoover ran on what amounted to the New Deal; FDR ran on a 25% cut in the size of the federal government, then adopted Hoover’s plan instead once elected).

    In the sixteen presidential elections since World War Two, the GOP has given its presidential nomination to conservative candidates a grand total of three times (once to Goldwater, twice to Reagan).

    If you believe that the purpose of the RNC is supposed to be, or ever has been, to advance conservative principles, you’re just not living in the real world.

  35. Roxeanne de Luca
    March 16th, 2010 @ 10:20 pm

    Ah, a rebellious, angry libertarian. Explains a lot.

    First, the Republican party of today is hardly the Republican party of 1916. If you need to go back almost 100 years to make your argument, then you’ve lost.

    Second, the real issue: if you don’t like the RNC, believing that they are not conservative enough, why do you then complain when hard-core conservatives desert the RNC and run their own candidates?

    Oh, wait, I know why: you’re a disaffected young’un who wants something to complain about, some establishment to rail against, and will forever be perturbed that the rest of the world cannot see his genius and his insight.

    Give me a break.

  36. Roxeanne de Luca
    March 16th, 2010 @ 10:20 pm

    Ah, a rebellious, angry libertarian. Explains a lot.

    First, the Republican party of today is hardly the Republican party of 1916. If you need to go back almost 100 years to make your argument, then you’ve lost.

    Second, the real issue: if you don’t like the RNC, believing that they are not conservative enough, why do you then complain when hard-core conservatives desert the RNC and run their own candidates?

    Oh, wait, I know why: you’re a disaffected young’un who wants something to complain about, some establishment to rail against, and will forever be perturbed that the rest of the world cannot see his genius and his insight.

    Give me a break.

  37. Roxeanne de Luca
    March 16th, 2010 @ 5:20 pm

    Ah, a rebellious, angry libertarian. Explains a lot.

    First, the Republican party of today is hardly the Republican party of 1916. If you need to go back almost 100 years to make your argument, then you’ve lost.

    Second, the real issue: if you don’t like the RNC, believing that they are not conservative enough, why do you then complain when hard-core conservatives desert the RNC and run their own candidates?

    Oh, wait, I know why: you’re a disaffected young’un who wants something to complain about, some establishment to rail against, and will forever be perturbed that the rest of the world cannot see his genius and his insight.

    Give me a break.

  38. Roxeanne de Luca
    March 16th, 2010 @ 10:26 pm

    And conservatives have proven over and over and over and over that no, a party or political group doesn’t have to support conservative principles to get conservative votes.

    Mr. Knapp,

    Oh, I get it now! You’re one of those people who has his tighty-whities in a twist because we won’t vote for idiot libertarian candidates.

  39. Roxeanne de Luca
    March 16th, 2010 @ 10:26 pm

    And conservatives have proven over and over and over and over that no, a party or political group doesn’t have to support conservative principles to get conservative votes.

    Mr. Knapp,

    Oh, I get it now! You’re one of those people who has his tighty-whities in a twist because we won’t vote for idiot libertarian candidates.

  40. Roxeanne de Luca
    March 16th, 2010 @ 5:26 pm

    And conservatives have proven over and over and over and over that no, a party or political group doesn’t have to support conservative principles to get conservative votes.

    Mr. Knapp,

    Oh, I get it now! You’re one of those people who has his tighty-whities in a twist because we won’t vote for idiot libertarian candidates.

  41. Adobe Walls
    March 16th, 2010 @ 10:41 pm

    While no fan of Thomas Knapp or repealing suburban sprawl I do hit his link and yours too for that matter. His opinion of Doug Hoffman reflects either a lack of knowlege of what actually transpired there or extreme sour grapes that the actual libertarin candidate was a non entity. As for your opinion of him I’d not argue disaffected a young’un he’s not

  42. Adobe Walls
    March 16th, 2010 @ 10:41 pm

    While no fan of Thomas Knapp or repealing suburban sprawl I do hit his link and yours too for that matter. His opinion of Doug Hoffman reflects either a lack of knowlege of what actually transpired there or extreme sour grapes that the actual libertarin candidate was a non entity. As for your opinion of him I’d not argue disaffected a young’un he’s not

  43. Adobe Walls
    March 16th, 2010 @ 5:41 pm

    While no fan of Thomas Knapp or repealing suburban sprawl I do hit his link and yours too for that matter. His opinion of Doug Hoffman reflects either a lack of knowlege of what actually transpired there or extreme sour grapes that the actual libertarin candidate was a non entity. As for your opinion of him I’d not argue disaffected a young’un he’s not

  44. Thomas L. Knapp
    March 17th, 2010 @ 12:23 am

    Roxanne,

    You write:

    “If you need to go back almost 100 years to make your argument, then you’ve lost.”

    Okay, no problem — No Child Left Behind. Medicare Part D. Etc., etc.,

    “if you don’t like the RNC, believing that they are not conservative enough, why do you then complain when hard-core conservatives desert the RNC and run their own candidates?”

    The fact that I don’t like the RNC has nothing to do with the fact that they’re not especially conservative. Nor do I “complain” when conservatives run their own candidates …

    … I just observe and have a laugh at the hypocrisy of conservatives deserting the RNC on Tuesday, wailing that it’s deserted them on Wednesday, telling themselves that their principles and the RNC’s goals were once compatible on Thursday, etc. It’s like watching Seinfeld if Seinfeld had been directed by David Lynch.

  45. Thomas L. Knapp
    March 17th, 2010 @ 12:23 am

    Roxanne,

    You write:

    “If you need to go back almost 100 years to make your argument, then you’ve lost.”

    Okay, no problem — No Child Left Behind. Medicare Part D. Etc., etc.,

    “if you don’t like the RNC, believing that they are not conservative enough, why do you then complain when hard-core conservatives desert the RNC and run their own candidates?”

    The fact that I don’t like the RNC has nothing to do with the fact that they’re not especially conservative. Nor do I “complain” when conservatives run their own candidates …

    … I just observe and have a laugh at the hypocrisy of conservatives deserting the RNC on Tuesday, wailing that it’s deserted them on Wednesday, telling themselves that their principles and the RNC’s goals were once compatible on Thursday, etc. It’s like watching Seinfeld if Seinfeld had been directed by David Lynch.

  46. Thomas L. Knapp
    March 16th, 2010 @ 7:23 pm

    Roxanne,

    You write:

    “If you need to go back almost 100 years to make your argument, then you’ve lost.”

    Okay, no problem — No Child Left Behind. Medicare Part D. Etc., etc.,

    “if you don’t like the RNC, believing that they are not conservative enough, why do you then complain when hard-core conservatives desert the RNC and run their own candidates?”

    The fact that I don’t like the RNC has nothing to do with the fact that they’re not especially conservative. Nor do I “complain” when conservatives run their own candidates …

    … I just observe and have a laugh at the hypocrisy of conservatives deserting the RNC on Tuesday, wailing that it’s deserted them on Wednesday, telling themselves that their principles and the RNC’s goals were once compatible on Thursday, etc. It’s like watching Seinfeld if Seinfeld had been directed by David Lynch.

  47. The Conservative Rank and File
    March 17th, 2010 @ 3:11 am

    Aha, now it becomes clearer….with Mr. Knapp, we have a Libertarian here (Big-L Libertarian=member of Libertarian Party, Little-l libertarian=person who believes in libertarian principles). See, the Libertarians are bitter and resentful, because so few libertarians vote for them, and they don’t understand why. The Libertarians feel *betrayed* by the libertarian base, because for some reason that base will not vote for the tinfoil-hat candidates that the Libertarian Party nominates. As such, they are projecting this sense of betrayal onto others when they see the conservative base abandon a Republican candidate, even a RINO they other wise would have contempt for, it strikes a nerve, a sore spot. Points there for empathy.

    I now hereby appoint myself Master-Of-Pop-Psychology. Now I can go on Oprah as an “expert”!

    More seriously, if any party has done more for Big Government than the Libertarian Party, I don’t know who. The Libertarian Party has successfully managed to discredit and marginalize libertarian philosophy from the political mainstream for decades. Go ahead and cash that check from the Republicrats – job well done!

  48. The Conservative Rank and File
    March 17th, 2010 @ 3:11 am

    Aha, now it becomes clearer….with Mr. Knapp, we have a Libertarian here (Big-L Libertarian=member of Libertarian Party, Little-l libertarian=person who believes in libertarian principles). See, the Libertarians are bitter and resentful, because so few libertarians vote for them, and they don’t understand why. The Libertarians feel *betrayed* by the libertarian base, because for some reason that base will not vote for the tinfoil-hat candidates that the Libertarian Party nominates. As such, they are projecting this sense of betrayal onto others when they see the conservative base abandon a Republican candidate, even a RINO they other wise would have contempt for, it strikes a nerve, a sore spot. Points there for empathy.

    I now hereby appoint myself Master-Of-Pop-Psychology. Now I can go on Oprah as an “expert”!

    More seriously, if any party has done more for Big Government than the Libertarian Party, I don’t know who. The Libertarian Party has successfully managed to discredit and marginalize libertarian philosophy from the political mainstream for decades. Go ahead and cash that check from the Republicrats – job well done!

  49. The Conservative Rank and File
    March 16th, 2010 @ 10:11 pm

    Aha, now it becomes clearer….with Mr. Knapp, we have a Libertarian here (Big-L Libertarian=member of Libertarian Party, Little-l libertarian=person who believes in libertarian principles). See, the Libertarians are bitter and resentful, because so few libertarians vote for them, and they don’t understand why. The Libertarians feel *betrayed* by the libertarian base, because for some reason that base will not vote for the tinfoil-hat candidates that the Libertarian Party nominates. As such, they are projecting this sense of betrayal onto others when they see the conservative base abandon a Republican candidate, even a RINO they other wise would have contempt for, it strikes a nerve, a sore spot. Points there for empathy.

    I now hereby appoint myself Master-Of-Pop-Psychology. Now I can go on Oprah as an “expert”!

    More seriously, if any party has done more for Big Government than the Libertarian Party, I don’t know who. The Libertarian Party has successfully managed to discredit and marginalize libertarian philosophy from the political mainstream for decades. Go ahead and cash that check from the Republicrats – job well done!

  50. The Conservative Rank and File
    March 17th, 2010 @ 3:26 am

    Quote:”In the sixteen presidential elections since World War Two, the GOP has given its presidential nomination to conservative candidates a grand total of three times (once to Goldwater, twice to Reagan).

    If you believe that the purpose of the RNC is supposed to be, or ever has been, to advance conservative principles, you’re just not living in the real world.”

    The nominations of Reagan and Goldwater are proof that the RNC (or at least the Republican Party as a whole) can, under the right circumstances, be made to serve conservative principles. Such circumstances were provided with the Jimmy-Carter boondoggle, and have been provided to us again with Jimmy Carter v2.0. Whatever the original purpose of the RNC was or currently is, it is possible for it to be made to serve Conservative principles, just as the DNC has been made to serve Progressive principles rather than those of the original Democratic party (as much as it pains me to use that example, since I don’t much care for most of those principles either). If Reagan hadn’t (unnecessarily) picked Bush as his running mate to court “moderates”, and chosen a conservative instead, we might have had an additional 2 conservative picks in 92 and probably 96, and who knows what might have happened?

    On a side note, Roxeanne (or anyone else)- how do you get it do to the back-shading when you quote from a previous post?