Comments on: Target Dems, Not “rinos”

By: Gil-Galad

Gil-Galad — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:38:34 +0000

“Target Democrats” sounds like a great message. Why don’t you send that along to Wayne Gilchrest, who worked for the Democrat after losing his primary? Or to Lincoln Chafee, who worked to elect Obama? Or to Joe Shwartz, who campaigned for the Democrat in his old seat out of spite?

By: uphuffheinz

uphuffheinz — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:29:58 +0000

For what it’s worth, let me make it clear that I agree with Mr. Smith’s point that we should devote our energies first and foremost to unseating D senators, instead of unseating R Senators. But, if Mr. Smith is asserting that the Republican base threatens to abandon its efforts to unseat Ds, and instead focus everything on a jihad against the Porkulus Three—well, I think that’s misleading. Most R activists can maintain perspective, prioritize and “keep their eye on the prize.”

By: BradWDM

BradWDM — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:02:54 +0000

One problem that is not touched on in the article (at least with repsects to Maine), is that Collins and Snowe are probably the closest to a Republican that has a chance to be elected in a state such as Maine. These two get elected based off their name brand as well as their “independent streaks”. While I would love a more conservative challenger to dethrone Collins or Snowe, the truth is that challenger would most likely be defeated by Michaud, the Democrat that was so recently crushed by Collins.

By: Graf

Graf — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 04:36:34 +0000

This is an extremely intelligent and discerning take on the “problem” of RINOs. For so long as the GOP will be in the minority (which may be quite a long time), conservatives will have to use a more sophisticated calculus than they have used so far in deciding whether or not to support a “liberal” Republican. Would you rather have someone in office who agrees with you 50% of the time, or 0%? Which are the issues on which no compromise can be tolerated (sort of like civil rights for ’60s liberals), and which are the issues that are negotiable? There seems to be a lot of intellectual reevaluation and reconstruction that has to happen on the conservative side.

By: Chekote

Chekote — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 02:24:29 +0000

ireign. There are two ways to sell limited federal government. First, you say that the federal government needs to do a few things but do they well. Instead of the current situation where the federal government is trying to do everything and doing it badly. Second, you need to show how services can be delivered without the federal government’s involvement. You have to show people that eliminating the Department of Education does not mean that all public schools will be shut down, Instead, it will results in a more effective allocation of resources. We need to educate people that just because the federal government is not invovled, it doesn’t mean that it won’t get done.

By: Chekote

Chekote — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 01:55:46 +0000

Specter, Snowe and Collins are independents. The only reason they call themselves Republicans is because of campaign money. If they were to change label tomorrow, nothing would change. They would vote with the GOP when they agreeed and vote against it when they disagree. The only difference is campaign money. I don’t want a cent of Republican money to fund them.

By: ireign

ireign — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 21:49:04 +0000

Chekote, so if the limited government argument is a hard sell, how do you suggest we make it? I guess I am little skeptical in this time of bailouts and anger at Wall Street that Republicans can win on a Reaganite economic platform of limited government without some big ideas on what to limit. I don’t agree with many of David’s solutions but I think he is right that we have a problem.

By: Egli Ha

Egli Ha — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 21:30:52 +0000

Yeah I was in Pennsylvania from 1996 to 2004 and I bet if Arlen Specter goes down, he’ll be replaced by a liberal Dem. As David Frum pointed out, Pennsylvania is moving left. (Remember when Carville (?) said Pennsylvania is Philly at one end and Pittsburgh at the other and Alabama in between? Well five years earlier Pittsburgh was Alabama too. The leftward motion of Pennsylvania, especially Western Pennsylvania, is a long-term trend.) My real bet is he’ll survive though–he’s like the Casey Dynasty, you can’t imagine Pennsylvania without him. Besides, he’s amazingly tough; he survived lymphoma and Pat Toomey.

And it was funny to watch Susan Collins, uniquely in the Republican Party, sail to victory in 2008.

Targetting RINOs is very very stupid strategy. The GOP is thinking short-term. Rush Limbaugh’s goal is to increase and maintain his listening audience, not to help the GOP or Conservatism.

By: ireign

ireign — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 21:29:08 +0000

Brad-Thanks for your response. I think the Harvard Law School narrative was an important one and one I think a factchecker would have found many holes in. Do I think it woul have changed the results? No, but I think it would have made the media which even looked into the McCain’s official marriage story more curious about challenging other facts in his biography. He is the only presidential candidate that I am aware of in recent years that did not disclose his undergraduate transcript and he has to be one of the very few Harvard Law students who got in without graduating with honors from his undergraduate institution http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/ especially since liberal made such a big deal about both McCain and Bush’s poor grades and Obama supporters claim that he did not list race on his Harvard application http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=eceb7628-27e1-461e-b3a2-ce2ff7abb3a2&p=2 I think your characterization of his tenure at Harvard, i.e. nice conventional and cautious liberal who got along well with others is probably correct. That’s a far cry from uniting different groups of people in a divided atmosphere.

I am right on the major issue but I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I look forward to arguing with you in future posts.

By: Chekote

Chekote — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 20:48:04 +0000

ireign. It is easier to tell people, the government will help you do this or that, than to tell people, we can help but you are the one who needs to do the heavy lifting. That is why it is harder to sell the “limited government” argument. Besides, we have an entire generation that has been taught to look to the government for everything. In any case, we have tried Frum’s approach with Bush and it was a miserably failure. People will always choose a Democrat over Democrat lite. And the government expansion and spending turned off all lot of Republican voters.