1 How about "Bible Thumpers"?

2 "Bitter Clingers"

3 "My Worst Nightmare"

4 "Americans"

5 "Neocon!"

OK, I'll stop.

6 "The Obama Administration"

7 OK. I promise.  I'll stop now.

8 I like 'bitter clingers' personally, but I'm not a die hard SoCon.  I do like the term 'poop chuters' but I probably already overuse it.

9
isn't it always about the money.

10 Damn my slow typing.

11 "Just as bad as ACORN"?  God, these people make me sick.

12 Huckabee is a douche, but that practically guarantees him the nomination in 2012.

13 Please, not Huckatard.  We've had too many statists already

14 The Moron Minority

15 Actually Huck is the perfect candidate for the Establishment in 2012. He's fiscally liberal and socially conservative. A winning mix in anybody's book!

16 I commented elsewhere yesterday that I like Roger Simon but to try and nail down one factor as *the* deciding reason for Owens's win in this most unusual race is an exercise in fail.

17 Funny, I would've thought Owens beat Hoffman because Hoffman had to compete against the war chests of the Republican -and- the Democrat parties.  Oh, wait, I forgot, third party runs against both major parties win so frequently and often that we -need- to find reasons and excuses for why they lose.  It -must- have been those socon issues.

Sorry, my eyes rolled so hard I caught a glimpse of my optic nerves, ew.

Qwinn

18

Its a northern vs southern split.

Any national candidates we'll agree on will probably have to come from the midwest, west, or northwest [Alaska?]

19 Regarding which, BTW: McCain was a southwesterner who acted like a northeasterner - the worst of both worlds in nearly everyone's minds. A northerner acting like a southerner wouldn't even rise to the national scene.

20 Maybe i'm late to this.. but just noticed Jake Tappers tweet speaking to us...

jaketapper   @aceofspacesHQ "exit polls indicating that most voters in those 2 states said that President Obama was not a factor in their votes"

about 12 hours ago from web

21 This guy doesn't seem to think the "Big Tent" crapthink pushed by the RINO's in the GOP is a winning strategy.

22 "Owens beat Hoffman due to Hoffman's focus on social conservative issues like abortion & opposition to gay marriage."

Dude, you clearly have never spent any time actually around Hoffman.

Look ... Hoffman was never a good candidate - physically. His teeth are extremely just freakishly off-putting. Horrible yellow. He has never ... ever ... brushed his teeth. Gunk all over them. Like he just ate 3 Wonder Bread sandwiches and didn't wash them down.

He has horrid halitosis.

His speaking style is best described as "wimpy and odd."

Really, he comes off as a hermit. And I don't mean "someone who is shy of other people." I mean "a small crab."

He lost because he's an off-putting freak - physically.

Here is the lesson: Even an off-putting freak who has never brushed his teeth and has horrid breath can almost win - even when his own party spends $900,000 against him supporting a Democrat.

But only if that freak candidate espouses conservative principles.

Conservative principles almost overcame all those obstacles. Imagine if such a conservative candidate was just a regular person with normal brushing habits and imagine if Republicans had written that normal conservative person a check for $900,000 to spend on advertising.

He wouldn't have even been opposed.

Look ... the Republican Party has a problem: Democrats have infiltrated the Party and worked their way into some positions of influence, allowing them to direct conservative campaign donations to secret Democrats inside the tent.

Burn. Them. Out.

Or face the prospect of a new third party ... "The Conservative Party."

Such a party would immediately get 40% of the electorate.

23

>>exit polls indicating that most voters in those 2 states said that President Obama was not a factor in their votes"

Bradley effect?

24 Owens was able to win because he was NRA "A" rated.  If he had been anti-gun, Hoffman would have won.  I got what I needed out of that election.  I would have preferred Hoffman, but I vote my gun rights, so I'm satisfied with the results with regard to my main issue.

25 Ron Radosh at PJM made the same mistake. Speaking as a social moderate/Social MindYourOwnBusiness guy, Hoffman's social conservatism wouldn't have been a turn-off to me - those just weren't the issues in the race. DeDe Arnold's total votes were more than Owens' margin of victory, so I think the "DeDe split" effect (there's a gross image) had more to do.

And I prefer "bitter clingers." It ha a nice, needy sound to it.

26

The Knights that say Neh!

 

27 24 Owens was able to win because he was NRA "A" rated.  If he had been anti-gun, Hoffman would have won.  I got what I needed out of that election.  I would have preferred Hoffman, but I vote my gun rights, so I'm satisfied with the results with regard to my main issue.

I've got a great bridge I can sell to you for cheap. 

An NRA endorsement is a good as a Newt endorsement.

28 Oh Jesus H. Christ on a raft!

(Christians please forgive the saying.)

I love Roger L. Simon, I really do, but he's really got his knickers in a twist about SoCons.

Without realizing it, he is buying into the implicit idea that SoCons would somehow turn the US into some sort of puritanical state. Sure, they don't share my outlook on a lot of things, but could anyone tell me when any Congress in the last, say, 40 years, has seriously discussed any legislation that would ban a specific sex act (other than with minors)? How about legislation that women should stay at home and raise the kids? How about legislation that we attend church on Sunday? Etc. (If these are even things that SoCons want, in the liberals' minds.)

No, these intrusions do not appear to actually threaten us in any real way, nor have they for decades. There are two possible explanations and they could work together.

It could be that SoCons are a minority who have never had control of the government.

It could also be that SoCons do not believe that it's right to use the government to enforce their standards (in a sharp contrast with environmentalists, minority activists, feminists, animal rights activists, etc. all of whom gladly pair up with the government to coerce us to follow their standards).

The last part is critical. It is important to understand that just because someone has specific standards, it does not follow that the person thinks those standards should be law.

29 Actually, I don't mind naming myself, politically. I am a mad dog right wing constitutional conservative who is certain the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing, and meant what they said. Any thing less is Un American. And BTW, Socialism(commie lite) is next to the worst thing in the world. And being a squish on Socialism is kissing the Devil's ass. We have a certain amount of it we cannot rid ourselves of, due to so many elderly having their pockets picked by the government throughout their lives, just like the government has picked MY pocket for Social Security throughout my adult life. If I had that money to invest on my own, how much richer I would be than the pittance (if I get anything) I can expect from my "benevolent government".

30 Hoffman 2010.

31 On the other hand; Hoffman received a large % of votes because both Club for Growth and Susan B Anthony group worked together to GOTV for  Hoffman. 



Let's say social liberal Republican Dede Scuzafuzza had won; would anyone seriously believe she would fight for fiscally conservative small government when she is controlled by Big Spending socially Liberal-Libertarian Republicans and Democrats?

Blue-dog Democrats are toatally inept and we are shown that Red Dog Republicans are no different?  Washington bi-partisianship means Big Government spenders promising social Liberal-Libertarian platitudes.



Those fiscal conservative-social Liberal/Libertarians are not gong to get fiscally conservative small government by voting for Big Spending social Liberal-Libertrians.

Likewise the socially conservative fiscally liberal voters will end up with the same Big Government Spenders as fiscally-conservative social liberals.  Case in point: Jimmy Carter

This is the problem with Centrism:

-becasue of the Moderate 'middle-of-the-road' position, in the end we all end up suffering under Big Govenment spenders who violate, pillage and loot the Individual with each piece of Statist legislation which comes their way.

Centrists have been in power for two decades after an eight year run of  Conservatism.

Moderates need to decide whether they want fiscally conservative small government or will they continue to empower Big Government spenders promising socially liberal empty platitudes.
Don't be so afraid; you were able to vote for pro-life (so-con), small government (fis-con) Ronald Reagan once, you can do it again

 Moderates, for example.......Democrat voters are NEVER going to vote for same-sex union between opposite sex; you are being bamboozled by a socially liberal-libertarian empty platitude which will NEVER happen.

Moderate middle of the roaders....don't be so afraid; you were able to vote for pro-life (so-con), small government (fis-con) Ronald Reagan once, you can do it again

32 How about "constitutionalist"?

33

Somejoe @ 27

An NRA endorsement is a good as a Newt endorsement.

Al Gore admitted that the NRA beat him out of the Presidency. So that would make you as full of shit as a vacuum truck.

34 Look ... Hoffman was never a good candidate - physically. His teeth are extremely just freakishly off-putting. Horrible yellow. He has never ... ever ... brushed his teeth. Gunk all over them. Like he just ate 3 Wonder Bread sandwiches and didn't wash them down.

THANK you. I'm glad I'm not the only one who was revolted by his teeth. That pic they use at HotAir on all the Hoffman posts? It's extremely, extremely off-putting.

35 BTW, I am an NRA member, My Dad was a member, my Son is a member, for life....

36 He's fiscally liberal and socially conservative.

Letting prisoners out of jail against the wishes of Democrats is socially conservative? I don't know who Huckabee is, but I don't like it.

37 "Bitter clingers" works for me.

38 Mama AJ, Huckabee is a Baptist Minister, always was, always will be. He forgives those who trespass. That's why he does not need to seek higher office.

39 As for Huck, nobody who looks that much like Nixon could possibly get elected.

40 Gay marriage is Roger L. Simon's hobby horse (he has a gay son), so take this for what it's worth.

I don't want to quite say he's an Andrew Sullivan-in-training, but I am thinking it.

41 Owens was able to win because he was NRA "A" rated.

Don't worry, Owens will "grow" to appreciate certain restrictions on gun ownership. His new "buddies" will see to it.

42 It could also be that SoCons do not believe that it's right to use the government to enforce their standards (in a sharp contrast with environmentalists, minority activists, feminists, animal rights activists, etc. all of whom gladly pair up with the government to coerce us to follow their standards).

Thank you. I wouldn't consider myself a social con, but will happily join in trying to pull back much of the social interference that the liberals have been spending our money on for decades.

And that is exactly why they are feared.

43

Graham Killers?

Kock Kickers?

44 Mama AJ, Huckabee is a Baptist Minister, always was, always will be. He forgives those who trespass. That's why he does not need to seek higher office.

He let's prisoners out of jail, but can't keep a civil tongue in his head about Romney's religion.

No. Just...no.

45 (in a sharp contrast with environmentalists, minority activists, feminists, animal rights activists, etc. all of whom gladly pair up with the government to coerce us to follow their standards).

Pair up with the government?  Hell, they are the government.

46

22 Really, he comes off as a hermit. And I don't mean "someone who is shy of other people." I mean "a small crab."

 

THREAD WINNER

47 Without realizing it, he is buying into the implicit idea that SoCons would somehow turn the US into some sort of puritanical state. Sure, they don't share my outlook on a lot of things, but could anyone tell me when any Congress in the last, say, 40 years, has seriously discussed any legislation that would ban a specific sex act (other than with minors)? How about legislation that women should stay at home and raise the kids? How about legislation that we attend church on Sunday? Etc. (If these are even things that SoCons want, in the liberals' minds.)


Exactly; I have been freely screwing away for the last 20 years and not once has the religious police come knocking on my door dragging me off to church.

I once supported abortion, I am a woman I am suppose to support abortion however during those same twenty years of freely screwing I had no idea that our culture was forcing doctors to suck out the brain of a fully developed baby whose body is dangling half-way out her va-jay-jay.

In 2003 at the age of 42 I became pro-life because I do not think CHOOSING to  do such horrific things to human beings should be a right granted to anyone.


 Keep your hands off her body?  It is NEVER her body aborted, is it!

I do not go to church however it does not take a belief in God to know that the pro-abortion groups are doing creepy evil things to fully developed human beings the they hide behind 'right to privacy'. 

I cannot be Woman when Medea's barbarism is drilled into the female psyche.

I am pro-life because the other choice is hideous beyond all human conscience.

48 Hmm, a good name would be something along the lines of "those who want to roll back the gov't social programs that don't work".

Only pithy, like.

49 Sorry my take is that it is not a repudiation of anything but rather a confirmation that a great number of voters remain clueless.   6% voted for Scuzzyflava?  Also in a similar type of demographic in Western PA voters still elected Murtha after having him call them racist.  Clueless I say.  

50 "THANK you. I'm glad I'm not the only one who was revolted by his teeth. That pic they use at HotAir on all the Hoffman posts? It's extremely, extremely off-putting."

And they're wondering why this guy just barely lost. If you've ever met the guy ... then you know already why he lost. Nobody will say it because he's such a nice guy, but it's the teeth.

Look, local candidates have to meet people locally - in the flesh. If you're physically freaky in any way whatsoever it cannot be hidden. If you're a serial farter ... you'll be sniffed out. If you don't bathe, you can't hide it. If you have never, ever brushed your teeth - then something undefinable is wrong with you. And people don't necessarily want to discover what that undefinable something is. They just want to be far, far away from you. It's just human nature.

If you're a freak in some way, you can hide it in your advertising and in your press photo packet. But you cannot hide it at the Rotary Club.

And word travels fast.

His gunky teeth (what they represented - what people inferred from his having never brushed his teeth) cost him the election.

If I was Crest ... I would hire this guy as my poster boy.

But don't forget the larger point: He almost won despite all his freakishness only because he was espousing Conservative principles.

51

According to blogging heavyweights Don Surber and Roger L. Simon, Owens beat Hoffman due to Hoffman's focus on social conservative issues like abortion & opposition to gay marriage.

 

I don’t know who these two “blogging heavyweights” are because I have never frequented their sites. What I will say is that this “social-con” religious angle is the exact same meme that the MSM, as well as the liberals on Fox, were pushing as hard as they could go.

 

SO these two blogging heavyweights have adopted the same story line as the MSM and liberals in both parties.  I throw that in the category of “if you lay down with dogs, don’t be surprised if you get up with fleas”.

52 48 Hmm, a good name would be something along the lines of "those who want to roll back the gov't social programs that don't work".

Only pithy, like.
The Common Sense party?

53 We complain nonstop about what phony assholes our politicians are, then when a regular guy comes around we can't get past the fact he doesn't talk that well, or he looks funny, or whatever.  We definitely deserve the bullshit artists we elect don't we?

54

48 Hmm, a good name would be something along the lines of "those who want to roll back the gov't social programs that don't work".

Government Limiters

55 Its been stated before, but apparently needs constant repeating.  SoCons do not want to impose their religious belief and mores on people.  As Christ taught, these things must come from within or they mean nothing.  What we want is to rollback liberal interference in the raising of our own children and the running of our own lives. Its not just about money, as they Fiscal Cons seem be soley concerned with.
The one exception would be abortion, which takes an innocent life.

56

How bout you just refer to us as 'sir'?

As in 'Sir, yes sir.'

And we'll call you guys stuff like 'hey you' and 'juicebox'.

57 What is the deal with the "not since the Civil War" line? I've heard it repeated everywhere, including Fox News. Wikipedia lists about a hundred Dems who've won the seat since the Civil War. Am I confused?

58 Thank you, thank you, someguy!

The freakin' obvious! Someguy had to say it. You don't have to be a barbie or ken doll, but sad to say, Doug Hoffman was wayyyyyyyyyy too odd. Odd in demeanor and odd in appearance. Very very odd.

he was offputting! that's all there was to it. I'm amazed, frankly, that he did as well as he did!!!

59 How about "conservatives"?

60 The Magnificent Bastards! (always written with !)
The Conservative Peril
The Unvoters
Cooties!!!! (always written with 4 !)
Hot Pockets
The Guys and Gals Who Actually Work For a Living and Pay For Everything


It doesn't really matter as long as this guy shows up in 2010 and 2012:

THE AMERICAN REGENT

61 a confirmation that a great number of voters remain clueless.   6% voted for Scuzzyflava?  Also in a similar type of demographic in Western PA voters still elected Murtha after having him call them racist.  Clueless I say. 


Clueless in a schizophrenic way. 

Like Mommy-Nanny Bloomberg banning smoking while raising cigarette taxes to pay for free health care.

 NYC is losing tax revenue while at the same time gaining welfare kiddies yet has all those union pensioners driving their Mercedes to keep happy; there is no way the schizos will be able to pay for this insane crazy.

He too 'save or created' jobs with the stimulated Federal tax dollars filling  Goldman Sachs profit margins.

And yet the pompous schizos are convinced that the lady in Alaska is stupid and does not know what she is doing.

62

While not exactly discounting the teeth thing but, seriously, lose an election over teeth? No. NY-23 was lost because DeDe threw the monkey wrench in at the last minute. NY-23 was lost because the 11 "wise people" of NY-23 picked a lousy candidate. NY-23 was lost because, for all of their ideological attrativeness, third parties still lack many of the basic tools of the established parties to run effective campaigns - GOTV machinary in particular. This is especially true in georgraphically broad districts, like NY-23.

Hoffman ran a good race in NY-23 and lost because of the unique circumstances of the race.

63

>>Hoffman was never a good candidate - physically. His teeth are extremely just freakishly off-putting. Horrible yellow.

We're all gonna look like that when Gov't healthcare starts running our dentistry.

64 Would Huckabee qualify as a poop shooter?

65 Old guy,
I would also remind people that abortion is not a sex act.

It is a medical procedure carried out to reduce inconvenience, expense, and possible embarassment for a woman.

I really think this topic is too contentious to be left in the hands our elected representatives. Someone will always claim inadequate representation. It should be decided by direct vote, state by state.

66 Government Limiters

Yeh, I was thinking just about the social side, but after all the economic shit, "Rollbackers" might resonate with everyone right of socialism on any issue.

67 Looks to me to be pretty clear--Hoffman's run went into the ditch when he let the National Republican Cabal it to tell him to stop talking to his people......

Newt must be so proud.  How many millions did he spend to get Owens elected?

68 qrstuv: I really think this topic is too contentious to be left in the hands our elected representatives. Someone will always claim inadequate representation. It should be decided by direct vote, state by state.

The one place it should never have been was in a room with 9 guys in black dresses.

69

“Maximalists" – I hate that term and I have no idea why Ace chose it to replace “conservative”.  We would have been much better off calling for everyone to adopt a definition for “conservative” and going with that.

 

Someone who uses abortion and gay issues as a one issue litmus test should have a different name than conservative though.

 

If we are not going to do that then lets make conservative a hyphenated word such as:

 

Small government conservative = small-con

Libertarian conservative = lib-con

Religious conservative = relig-con

 

After we settle what a conservative is, then we can settle what a RINO is. But I like my definition of a RINO:

 

One who has an ACU rating of less than 75% and who sides with the Dems on any major sweeping issue such as cap and trade etc.

 

One who has a rating of less than 50% and who OFTEN sides with the Dems on major issues is a DIABLO and should be removed from all committee posts.

 

And anyone who thinks Huck is a fiscal conservative has taken a trip to Pluto and forgot how to come back.

 

70 Larry Sheldon: Newt must be so proud.  How many millions did he spend to get Owens elected?

Hot Air has a post up where Newt does his mea culpa.

71 "Socially conservative" has to go, because that's pretty much a euphemism for morons who can't get dates.  It doesn't really narrow things down much.

Although I'm doing OK, as far as you know.

72 With Dede getting 6% as a Republican, this whole thing could be attributed to 2% to 6% of NY-23 voters voting party line Republican.

73 maddogg,

Not to cast aspersions on your family, but ...

Dede Scozzafava - A rated

Kirsten Gillibrand

There is this one  and this one.

I also was a member of the NRA once.  I can't  see that they have done anything but make people feel good as they get screwed.

74 Vic: “Maximalists" – I hate that term and I have no idea why Ace chose it to replace “conservative”.

Because it is slightly negative in connotation without being overtly so.  In the comments he called us "Purists", which sort of gave the game away. 

This is not a hate screed against Ace.  We all do this sort of thing, and Ace himself said that he was trying.  Temptation is a tricky thing.  Heck, this post here where he asks us what we want to be called is a nice gesture.  While I was annoyed with the label, I know I probably would have done the same sort of thing.

But why the label question at all?  What's wrong with SoCon?  Short, pithy and descriptive.

75 Old guy -- absolutely!

76

>>... then you know already why he lost. Nobody will say it because he's such a nice guy, but it's the teeth.

Yeah, that General Washington was a fucktard. You could tell by the teeth!

77 Vic: Someone who uses abortion and gay issues as a one issue litmus test should have a different name than conservative though.

I know a religious couple that are this way.  If not for these, they would be liberal Dems.  Naturally, they were Huckabee supporters.  Conservative, they were definitely not.

78 And anyway, Hoffman had his teeth but Scozzy had her walrus-like girth. Gotta wonder about Repubs up there - if they aren't getting the babes, they're on the way out.

79

As far as fodder for useful anecdotes go, NY - 23 is about the worst election of all time.  It isn't an example of anything but itself.

a. GOP kingmakers deem liberal Democrat as ideal candidate to run as a Republican.

b. Conservative party candidate enters the race.

c. Conservative party candidate out polls establishment Scuzzbeast.

d. Scuzzbeast spitefully retaliates by dropping out of the race and endorsing the candidate.

e. Over fifty percent of electorate vote either for Con or Rep candidate, and against Dem, however Dem wins with plurality.

What in hell are we supposed to extrapolate from all that except that it was an aberration?

 

 

 

80

Hey, another thing that has been eating at me, but it's not really urgent.  Can we have a thread where we discuss the slogan that Sarah Palin should use in 2012?  I mean, if someone's gonna win the presidency, they need a good slogan.  And, apparently, little else.

 

Seriously, I'd like to get some moron ideas on this

81

Endorsing the Dem candidate I should say

 

82

_{>>After we settle what a conservative is, then we can settle what a RINO is}

_{I'm beginning to think RINO is merely a bludgeon the southerners use to eliminate the NE Republican establishment.}

_{Prove me wrong. Name a NE Repub you like.}

_{I'm not defending them so much as trying to illustrate a point.}

83 We have a winner:

32  How about "constitutionalist"?

Posted by: teej (AoS's token tin foil hat guy) at November 05, 2009 08:51 AM (QdUKm)

84

Without realizing it, he is buying into the implicit idea that SoCons would somehow turn the US into some sort of puritanical state

No but the jihadists will, if barry diddles any longer.

85

I do like "bitter clingers" because of the snark. However, I think God/Genesis/Guns, or 3G's would be good, with Genesus having the split implication of creationism and a synonym for "birth", ergo anti-abortion.

86

According to The New York Observer: 

On the wedge issue of same-sex marriage, Owens is to the right of his Republican opponent Scozzafava. He does not support full marriage--he opposes any federal action on the "states rights issue"--telling me, "I fully support equal rights for everybody, and certainly civil unions are in that mix. For religious reasons, I have difficulty with the use of the word marriage in that process."

So being a social con is only bad for republicans??

87

Yeah, that General Washington was a fucktard. You could tell by the teeth!

Posted by: Triumph at November 05, 2009 09:33 AM (lDdA/)

Dude... different time, different culture.

Hoffman looks like he just ate a huge bowl of curry without drinking anything.

88

@73 Someguy

NRA rates politicians on how they vote on gun issues. Thats all. It is not an overall conservative rating. Single issue. If their voting record changes, their rating will change. You can see that in your own links.

89 Triumph: Prove me wrong. Name a NE Repub you like.

I'm not defending them so much as trying to illustrate a point.

You first.  Is there a NE Repub worth fighting for?  You seem to think this is some sort of Rebel Yell kind of thing.  It's not.  The outpouring of support for Hoffman disproves your thesis.  Show me a good solid conservative, from anywhere and I'll be happy to support him. 

90 If Hoffman had won, it would have been despite the the social stands, Owens was a bad candidate, Obama turns off voters ...

91

>>Hoffman looks like he just ate a huge bowl of curry without drinking anything.

OH! Since you put it that way, I can see your point.

I personally won't have anything to do with folks what eat curry.

*shivers*

92 #22 Posted by: someguy

Here is the lesson: Even an off-putting freak who has never brushed his teeth and has horrid breath can almost win - even when his own party spends $900,000 against him supporting a Democrat.

But only if that freak candidate espouses conservative principles.


Can we have a round of applause for someguy!!

When I read Simon's screed my mouth dropped open. This is Mr. "Conservative 2.0", and he doesn't seem to understand what that even means. In truth, I think he (and Surber, for that matter) are busy trying to be pundit-celebrities of a sort, and harbor some buried resentment that a guy like Hoffman could come so close to winning despite the enormous odds that were stacked against him and despite the fact that he was never a liberal (e.g., who mostly 'grew up', like Simon).

Personally, I see Hoffman's run as a win all around. As one of the PJM commenters noted:

1) Owens will NEVER betray the grass roots Republican base!

2) Owens will NEVER give bi-partisan cover to democrats for bad legislation (cap-n-tax et al)!

3) Owens will NEVER pull the rug out from under Republican leadership in a floor fight regarding principle!

To which I'd add that Owens has an NRA 'A' Rating and has campaigned AGAINST the trojan horse 'public option' - he's like the mirror image of the candidate the GOP "leadership" wanted to run (Arlen-in-unfashionable-drag), but with principles. Plus, the dust-up that got DIABLO Dede ousted has sent an appropriate and long overdue message to the GOP: start supporting your erstwhile base or we'll give our money to a party organization that will.

Owens' singular value to BHO's agenda would have been his vote in favor of socialized medicine, a vote that is far from guaranteed. IN the deep game, he's as close to a gift as could be.

93 The media used to call the Communist purists in the old USSR "Hardliners" instead of the unpopular "Stalinists" (Presumably to save the image of those poor cuddly big government communists from any tarnish of being associated with Stalin's 'politics'). "Hardliners" is kind of a cool name actually, sounds tough, uncompromising. I doubt the media would ever give us a name that cool though, they would rather call us "Stalinists" despite the gross philosophical inaccuracy just to find an unpopular icky poo name that they can stick to us.

94 "While not exactly discounting the teeth thing but, seriously, lose an election over teeth? No. NY-23 was lost because DeDe threw the monkey wrench in at the last minute."

No, no, no. You're not hearing me:

The $900,000 killed him - the Republican Party perfidy. Scuzzyfava's endorsement of the Democrat killed him ... yes, yes. Of course.

But he almost won despite all that.

Add in the teeth and that's the trifecta. But for the teeth ... but for the freakishness and offputtingness that they represented, he probably pulls it out despite the overwhelming odds and the Republican Party perfidy.

So yes, in that sense, yes he lost because of bad brushing habits.

95 88
NRA rates politicians on how they vote on gun issues. Thats all. It is not an overall conservative rating. Single issue. If their voting record changes, their rating will change. You can see that in your own links.


Yup, which makes an NRA endorsement as good as a Newt endorsement...

96

>>You seem to think this is some sort of Rebel Yell kind of thing.

No. What I'm saying is that some of the NE establishment rank & file Repubs have a problem with what they consider to be an encroachment on "their" political turf by the southerners, as embodied by GWB [Texas] and many of the recent Candidates [Huckabee, Fred, etc.].

I am not saying that the NE Repubs are better but I am saying that there exists an old, inborn bigotry against the south amongst those northeasterners in addition to some obvious cultural differences.

We could just say "fk em, they're RINOs" but we also need their votes.

That's the split I'm seeing. Not this "purity" mumbo jumbo.

97 Hmm, a good name would be something along the lines of "those who want to roll back the gov't social programs that don't work".

I'm going with The Resistance™

98 How about "Long Dongers"?

99 According to blogging heavyweights Don Surber and Roger L. Simon, Owens beat Hoffman due to Hoffman's focus on social conservative issues like abortion & opposition to gay marriage.

I read both Surber and Simon - they're two stops on a four-blog, must-read tour I make every day.  I like Surber a LOT - he's got a lot of common sense and a very pragmatic approach to politics, for the most part.  He is a recovering Democrat, though, and on occasion, his liberal proclivities resurrect themselves and shuffle themselves into a discussion.  This particular column was one that made me, in part, want to shout at him and ask him what he was thinking.  Although I can't invalidate Surber's take on NY-23 (everyone's entitled to an opinion), I can say that I think he's a little whacked in taking the perspective that he does.  That being said, my disagreements with Surber are the kind I like: We're on the same side, and even though I don't necessarily agree with him, I'm not inclined to submarine him or his point of view.

100

I'm beginning to think RINO is merely a bludgeon the southerners use to eliminate the NE Republican establishment.

Prove me wrong. Name a NE Repub you like.

I'm not defending them so much as trying to illustrate a point

 

Name for me a NE Repub who is a small government constitutionalist and I’ll name you one I like, and vote for them in national races.

 

And BTW, I did live for a while in Saratoga Springs and the term RINO was invented by a California conservative Republican politician.

101 Triumph at November 05, 2009 09:55 AM (lDdA/)

Your points are valid, I just don't think its a geography thing.

102 Hardcase is good.

But a lot of these distinctions between defense cons and social cons and fi-cons are stupid.  A majority of conservatives are all three.

After the Republican Party declares Baby Jesus chairman for life, will it hurt my feelings if they publicly burn the Code of Federal Regulations on the steps of the Supreme Court and add nuking Iran to the platform?  No, it would not.  I'd call that a good start.

103 Am I correct in saying that Obama campaigned for Deeds and Corzine, but not Owens.

104 I'm going with The Resistance™

That's got my vote.  Got a sort of SciFi ring to it.  It's only drawback is its French connotation.  How about, "The Resistance, but not those beret wearing, smelly Frenchy guys".

Would make a great T-shirt.

105 103 - yes.

106 Emperor of Icecream: But a lot of these distinctions between defense cons and social cons and fi-cons are stupid.  A majority of conservatives are all three.

I prefer calling the two factions, People Like Me and UberUglyMcDuffusPants.  I think its more helpful if the labels are descriptive.

107

All of ya’ll talking about endorsements by the NRA being a factor should be aware that ALL three candidates were rated “A” by the NRA. It should not have been an issue.

108

Pelosi would have much had Scuzza won.  Scuzza would have gotten that "phone call from history" and voted for health care, allowing another Dem in a real red district some cover to vote no and use that in 2010.

With this guy, she's going to have to work for his vote with like incentives and stuff, the fake "phone call from history" won't work on him.

109 I thought that maybe, just maybe, the socons and neocons and Palinistas and Teabaggers and generally pissed off conservatives took Hoffman from about 16 points in the polls in August, to within 3,000 votes of winning.  And he did it without the almost one million dollars from the NRCC, or the millions that the DNC put in the race.  And made Gingrich eat some major crow, made the NRCC admit they screwed up, and put the fear of conservatives in the NRSC.  Sure, it would have been better to win, but I am reluctant to call the race a loss, or certainly not a repudiation of conservatism.  Not so bad, really. 

110 You know what pisses me off more than anything else in these discussions?

Socially liberal conservatives who insist that any and all opposition to abortion is religious in nature.

Such as above:  splitting conservatives into "small government", "fiscal" and "religious".

Um, I'm very much against abortion, and I'm not religious.  So where do I fit in?  (Small government cons have a legit argument against abortion, based on the horror of Roe jurisprudence, and I do agree with it, but that's not my main reason for opposition).

Pro-choicers -constantly- do this.  They like to frame all opposition to abortion as religious, as if their view is the only rational one. Screw that.  By any rational secular, scientific metric, a human life begins at conception.  If there's anything fantastical and quasi-religious in any of these arguments, it's the pro-choicer belief in the Magical Vajayjay of Ensoulment.

So, if you'd like to continue to alienate a whole lot of us on the pro-life side who are against abortion and do so for non-religious reasins, keep playing the "you're all religious whackjobs" angle, it'll just bring us all together in harmony.

Qwinn

111 How about "Deadenders" or "American Taliban" or "The New Seditionists?" (And why am I about the only person who ever uses a real name in comments? I'll tell you why. Because I think these discussions would be a lot more thoughtful and civil if people were willing to be accountable for the things they say.)

112 Nyah, it's just New Yorkers, man. They'll fuck with you every time, guaranteed.

113 Oh, and let me add, I don't think there's anything -wrong- with religious objections to abortion either.  In fact, I'm damn grateful for it, just like I'm damn grateful for their objections to slavery, without which we'd probably still have it today.

So, to those whose opposition -is- based on religious views, don't take my last post as some wish to not be associated with you.  I don't have a problem with that.  What I get pissed at is social liberals (including their pro-choice conservative brethren) who try to frame the debate such that all rational, non-faith based arguments are on their side.  Whale load of crap, that is.

Qwinn

114 The MSM love teh ghey and the Fwench. Ilike the term ..."Le Resistance d'Armes"

115

My votes for the names of the factions of the Republican Party:

Autobots (maximalists) - Looking for Optimus Prime to carry them to victory.  There are other autobot candidates, but they are all slightly lame.  Doug Hoffman transforms into a microscope, for example.

Decepticons (pragmatists) - willing to put up with StarScream if it means Megatron can sit in Lincoln's chair in Washington D.C.  Often oppose Optimus Prime because they think he can't win.

I think a good unity candidate is somebody like Soundwave - awesome sounding voice, kinda looks like Optimus Prime, but StarScream will back him.

 

116 Zuggs, I'm sorry, but that was almost as lame as Palin Steele's "Obama is an Indigo Lantern and Republicans are Sinestro" screed.  If you slink away quietly and pretend that never happened, we'll try real hard to do the same (no promises tho).

Qwinn

117

_{>>Name for me a NE Repub who is a small government constitutionalist and I’ll name you one I like, and vote for them in national races.}

_{That's kinda the point.}

_{"Small Govt Constitutionalist" hasn't been a descriptor for a NE Repub in a long time, maybe never. Would you have called Lincoln that?} 

_{What they tend to stand for is fiscal responsibility [which they do not hold to], personal responsibility [embodied in a studied contempt for welfare and for those who will not work, as opposed to cannot], and a general pro-business, tax-break outlook.}

_{It is much more a social class thing than a political philosophy, but the recent upsurge in non-country club type Repubs [and the talking we do here on the webs] is starting to break that down. This blog, run by NYC lawyers and populated by morons is a case in point. We can agree on things, hash out what arguments we have.}

_{Most of the NE Repubs who may fit your descriptor tend to be lower officials. Judges or town supervisors, etc. The Farm Team, IOW.}

118

Owens was able to win because he was NRA "A" rated.  If he had been anti-gun, Hoffman would have won.  I got what I needed out of that election.  I would have preferred Hoffman, but I vote my gun rights, so I'm satisfied with the results with regard to my main issue.

The NRA has as long history of supporting Blue Dogs who are pro-gun. Even a borderline Commiecrat like John Dingell regularly gets NRA money--because on that one issue, he has been reliably pro-gun.

119 So, to those whose opposition -is- based on religious views, don't take my last post as some wish to not be associated with you.  I don't have a problem with that.
Posted by: Qwinn at November 05, 2009 10:12 AM (SxA2Q)

That's . . . well, tolerant and stuff.  You sure you're not a Democrat? 'Cuz, you know, tolerance is a hallmark of liberalism - Kenneth Gladney, Carrie Prejean, and Joe Wurzelbacher will back me up on this, too.

120 Oh bite me, I didn't just say I was "tolerant", I said I was grateful   Heh.  It wasn't meant in a patronizing manner at all.

I respect the old Catholic Jesuit (before they got infiltrated) tradition where faith and reason were considered to -both- be necessary, that they go hand in hand.  The religious can also argue for their positions based on reason rather than faith, and IMHO should, and IMO -do- quite often.  So I very much resent the pro-choicer habit of ignoring all of the reasoned arguments and simply dismissing them all as purely religious in origin.  It's seriously patronizing and insulting to me as an agnostic, it must be infuriating listening to it as a religious person.

Qwinn

121 I'd say its a repudiation of appointing GOP nominees that support card check, the stimulus and other runaway government spending, win Margret Sanger awards, and would rather endorse a Democrat than a conservative for congress. Call me crazy.

122

@ 95

Yup, which makes an NRA endorsement as good as a Newt endorsement...

Not so. If you cannot see than an NRA endorsement doesn't make you a conservative except on that one issue, but the NRA against you means you are a proven opponent to one of the key issues to conservatives, then there is no point in going any further here. Newt is on record as siding with liberals on several issues. And has even done commercials with the likes of Botox Nan and others the NRA would rate "F". Newt is one of those who has bought into the "Big Tent"  idea of watering down the party to Democrat "lite".Newt may have a "A" rating on the gun issue, but he strikes out on several others. So having a good rating on the one issue does not make you a desirable candidate, but having a bad rating certainly does. Ask Albore. An NRA endorsement means you aren't a leper, but it doesn't mean you don't have the clap. A Newt endorsement means nothing anymore.

123

That's . . . well, tolerant and stuff.  You sure you're not a Democrat? 'Cuz, you know, tolerance is a hallmark of liberalism - Kenneth Gladney, Carrie Prejean, and Joe Wurzelbacher will back me up on this, too.

You obviously don't know Qwinn very well to make a comment like that. All he was saying is that people are pro-life for non-religious reasons.

Take "partial birth" (which REALLY means very late term) abortions for example. You mean to tell me that doctors are duty bound to rescue and save a premature baby birth in one case, while in the same 7-8 month pregnancy time period window it's OK for them to turn the baby around, pull it out feet first, then puncture the formed skull and break it down and suck it out so it can leave the woman's body, and this decision is all based on a whim?

If that doesn't make you sick, I don't know what can. If that doesn't blur the legal lines of murder, I don't know what does.

Likewise for teh ghey issues. The demand that a homosexual relationship deserves the *exact* same legal and social standing as a marriage is preposterous on its face.

 

 

124 I'm beginning to think RINO is merely a bludgeon the southerners use to eliminate the NE Republican establishment.

No ... "RINO" is the bludgeon we're going to use to remove from our fucking party the Democrats who have infiltrated it with the goal of stealing our god damned campaign donations.

Why do you think the Democrats are piss-in-their-pants panicking at the Teabaggers? The only way they control shit is that they have their guys in both the fucking political parties.

The Republican Party has been infected with a virus ... a virus called Democrat.

We could scan it, and delete the files and reboot it.

Or we could chunk it and upgrade to a new party.

125

@103

Yes.  Obama did not campaign for Owens in NY 23, no doubt helping Owens win.  The GOP also helped by financing $900,000 in attack ads aimed at Hoffman.  By the way, I did not hear/read anywhere about abortion or Hoffman's positions on "social issues" until after the race.   Now all these self-congratulating social liberals like Surber and Simon are coming up through the floorboards claiming the election was about abortion and gay marriage. 

Why are "economic conservatives"  even more obsessed with  gay marriage and abortion than supposedly radical lunatic puritanical "so cons" ?  I would think they wouldn't give a damn one way or the other, but no, most of them are ranting like the fundamentalist preachers they despise, and dragging in issues that as far as I can tell, never surfaced much until after the race was over.

126

We could scan it, and delete the files and reboot it.

Or we could chunk it and upgrade to a new party.

The former is the better option. The corpses of 3rd parties litter the American political landscape. Purge the RINOs and ignore the bleating of the "concerned" media liars.

127 New Party? Why not? We could call it the Bullmoose Party or something...

128

@116

Ah well.  Can't win them all.

129 I agree with 126.  Keeping it within the GOP is the better answer, if for no other reason than because the party deserves it.  It was formed to defeat slavery, it voted in larger proportions for civil rights than the democrats did, it has been on the right side of damn near every issue since its inception.  The written platform (that RINOs ignore, but at least its there) is pretty awesome even today.  Abandoning a proud legacy like that because of the media's attempts to write history would be handing them a major victory they simply do not deserve.

Qwinn

130 Er, rewrite history, I meant.

131 "Morality Socialists"

132

John McHugh, the outgoing Republican who held this seat for the past sixteen years, is a social conservative. More so than he is a fiscal con, from what I can see.

Hoffman matched McHugh exactly on the social issues. This story about Hoffman losing for being "too socially conservative" is pure fable.

133 To be fair, here, Surber's contribution in the linked article didn't mention the social issues as a reason for Hoffman's defeat. That was included in the AP article he cited but did not write. Simon, on the other hand, personally and explicitly blamed social conservatives for the loss, which seemed to me to be a case of projecting his own dislikes on a populace. He's bad about that sometimes.

As for which names to use, I like the poles of "Ideas Guardians" and "Power Guardians". I think that's really what we're doing. Ace's "maximalists" are trying to preserve the ideas that motivate them and bind the party together; what's the point, they say, of being a Republican in power if you're not going to advance any Republican ideas? On the other side, Ace's "pragmatists" are trying to preserve the power that actually would allow for ideas to be implemented; what's the point, these folk say, of having candidates who fully support Republican ideas if they never win elections and can't get their hands on the levers of power?

It kind of strikes me as reminiscent of one of the classic theological struggles about works and faith. Ideally, you have your faith expressed through works and your works informed by faith. Getting the mix right, however, has generated a lot of heat over the centuries.

134 In the last 10 months Barack Obama has helped the Conservative cause far more than has Newt Gingrich.

135

I prefer Better Clingers.

Seriously, abortion, gun rights and a balanced budget are not too much to ask demand.

And cutting off nose to spite face is a false choice. If I lose the nose either way, I might as well make it quick.

136 Oh bite me, I didn't just say I was "tolerant", I said I was grateful   Heh.  It wasn't meant in a patronizing manner at all.
Posted by: Qwinn at November 05, 2009 10:27 AM (SxA2Q)

I didn't take it that way in the least.  My comment was a dig at the Dems and was just meant to elicit a smile at the irony of you being a conservative and actually living a tolerant life, while Dems profess tolerance and persecute deviation from the party/liberal/progressive narrative..

You obviously don't know Qwinn very well to make a comment like that. All he was saying is that people are pro-life for non-religious reasons.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at November 05, 2009 10:30 AM (ujg0T)

You obviously didn't read my comment in the spirit it was posted, or you obviously would have understood the point I obviously stated explicitly - that the comment was a dig at the Dems.  I figured it was obvious.  Obviously, I was wrong, because you obviously read something into it that I obviously didn't intend to say.  Obviously.

137

I commented elsewhere yesterday that I like Roger Simon but to try and nail down one factor as *the* deciding reason for Owens's win in this most unusual race is an exercise in fail.

I lke Roger as well. But he's got an obsession with gay marriage.

Gay marriage loses eveywhere it's voted on, even California, but Roger thinks that this rural district in upstate NY loves gay marriage and hated Hoffman for opposing it? And he thinks that based on zero actual evidence, he's just projecting his own feelings onto others.

138 122

If you cannot see than an NRA endorsement doesn't make you a conservative except on that one issue, but the NRA against you means you are a proven opponent to one of the key issues to conservatives, then there is no point in going any further here.

The NRA consistently supports those who say one thing and then act differently.  They have steadily and surely not fought what they are supposed to fight in the spirit of compromise.

139 How about naming us for First Things?  F-Twingers, say?

140 I don't know if "Maximalists" has the right ring for my taste. How about "Hardcases"? SoCon Morons should sing out in the comments about their choice of a nickname.

Sir will do.

141 I agree with 126, 129.

Reform and remake the GOP into a much more Conservative creature.

The true message of NY-23 is that if the GOP was what it should be it would have selected a candidate much more like Hoffman than like Scozzafava, and Sarah wan Kenobi would have backed the Republican candidate, who would have won.

The GOP put a Democrat in that seat.

142

You obviously didn't read my comment in the spirit it was posted, or you obviously would have understood the point I obviously stated explicitly - that the comment was a dig at the Dems.  I figured it was obvious.  Obviously, I was wrong, because you obviously read something into it that I obviously didn't intend to say.  Obviously.

OK, you got me, I need another cup of coffee this morning....

143 Roger L. Simon has done a lot of good things, despite the annoying features and organization of PJTV... however, never forget that he's a 9-11 Democrat. Democrat. Apparently his gay son and his son's "husband" have or are having a surrogate mother produce a kid for them. So don't expect him to be an ally if you're a so-con. In fact it's entirely possible he will, in a few years, populate half of Pajamas Media with New Republic types, while keeping certain conservative lights like V D Hanson, and libertarians like Insty.

144 Believe it or not, Curmudgeon, you just made me chuckle.  Thanks!  Here's hopes you have a great day.  :-) 

145

WOLVERINES!

146 I really like both Surber and Simon, but they're wrong here.  The guy who vacated the seat, McHugh, was a solid social conservative and a fiscal moderate.

Hoffman's biggest problem was his lack of knowledge of local issues, like the St Lawrence Seaway project.  He had a disastrous newspaper interview because on this.  Still, he performed pretty well for somebody with no real political experience. 

Also, he should have brought Palin in sooner, a)because she knows how to run an "insurgent", anti-establishment campaign against her own party and win, and, b)a lot of military absentee ballots were cast for Scuzzy weeks ago before they knew who Hoffman was, and the Palin endorsement would have been huge help there.  .

147 Here's something else in Simon's screed that I think is absurd, as described by Roger Kimball:

“America,” Roger argues, “is a fiscally conservative country — now perhaps more than ever, and with much justification — but not a socially conservative one.” Not, he hastens to add, that it is socially liberal: “It’s not. It’s socially laissez-faire (just as its mostly fiscally laissez-faire). Whether we’re pro-choice, pro-life or whatever we are, most of us want the government out of our bedrooms, just as we want it out of our wallets.”

Um, since when did social cons want government in the bedroom?  Abortions don't take place in the bedroom.  Marriages don't take place in the bedroom.  School prayer, obviously, doesn't take place in the bedroom.

It -is- true that Americans, -including- social cons, don't want government in the bedroom.  That's why, when the sodomy laws were struck down, social cons didn't really care about that on its own merits, they cared only insofar as the reasoning used to justify it would also be used, on the venerable slippery slope, to justify a ton of crap -outside- of the bedroom and clearly in the public sphere, something they were obviously quite correct in anticipating.

Qwinn

148 After surfing through the post-mortems of Election 2009 this morning, there is a lot of discussion of NY-23 and precious little on the NJ and VA governors races.  Seems this plays right into the hands of the Obamunists by overreacting to what was, in reality, a minor fracture in conservative ranks over a blunder by local Republican operatives in upstate NY.  The big story is that the Mao-loving Statists and Chicago thugs (ah, but I repeat myself) in the White House got their corrupt asses kicked in the only two gubernatorial races decided this year.  Let's not let the Obamunists and their media puppets get away with spinning the election story into a "Republican civil war" rather than the kick in Obama's tiny gonads that it was,

149 How about the "Grown-Ups"?

We do go to work and earn our keep, pay our bills, raise our kids, obey the Law, help our neighbors, hold the Nation together.

150

Um, since when did social cons want government in the bedroom?  Abortions don't take place in the bedroom.  Marriages don't take place in the bedroom.  School prayer, obviously, doesn't take place in the bedroom.

It amazes me how the Left continues to push the canard that Social Conservatives want to "impose their morality", when in reality the Buttpirate Mafia has been imposing THEIR morality (speech codes, lawsuits against those who won't go along) on the Social Conservatives, who have been on the defensive all this time.

151

Qwinn,  I'm one of those relgious anti-abortion people but I also have 2 advanced degrees in science. There are a number of non-religous compelling reasons to be anti-abortion and I always caution my relgious friend to understand that those reason are just as valid and binding as their faith based objections. Whether the debate is centered around the arguement of when individual right are protected under the law or when life begins, you can make a strong arguement.

My personal favorite is that most Americans condem the Holocaust, which killed approximately 4 million Jews in the name of racial purity. In the meantime, since 1973 Roe V Wade, my home state of Texas alone has killed over 12 million human embros, via the CDC's numbers,  in the name of convienence and women's rights. That makes us exponentially worse that the Nazi's (Inflamitory, isn't it?) So, it could be said that Women's Right to Choose is competing with Communism for the top evil frag list, except The right to choose group are "team killiers."

My wife says that this is why "geologist and their wives never get invited to parties." She may havesomething there.

 

152 Our handle? Wolverines.

153

Qwin we will have to disagree on that one.

 

I also do not believe Roe was adjudicated correctly and there is NOTHING in the Constitution to support the ruling that they gave.

 

That being said, I believe that opposition to abortion IS religious in nature because it involves determination of when a group of cells becomes a human life. If not religion, then it certainly is some kind of philosophical thing that amounts to the same thing.

 

Throughout human history in every culture that I am familiar with societies have mostly considered someone to become a “human” or part of society AFTER birth.

 

Abortion in Western societies has always been frowned on, but always this was based on religious reasons. 

154 “America,” Roger argues, “is a fiscally conservative country — now perhaps more than ever, and with much justification — but not a socially conservative one.” Not, he hastens to add, that it is socially liberal: “It’s not. It’s socially laissez-faire

Yet you have an iron-clad guarantee that Roger L. Simon would be appalled if someone demanded that a gay man should be allowed to marry his gay brother. And Roger went off, righteously, on Roman Polanski. Laissez-faire... it does not mean what Roger thinks it means.

155

The more I read about it, the more I doubt whether NY-23 has much ongoing relevance for *any* party and/or faction.  Too unique a set of circumstances and candidates that are unlikely to be repeated.

Plus, it seems commentators from a distance (i.e., the vast majority of us) were just kinda assuming Hoffman to be Generic Republican Candidate in terms of the kissing-hands/shaking-babies stuff of retail politics, when it seems like he actually had more of the hygiene and demeanor of the typical fringe candidate, on top of the fact that he was apparently weak and/or not knowledgeable about the local issues that voters cared about.

156

somejoe @ 138

The NRA consistently supports those who say one thing and then act differently.  They have steadily and surely not fought what they are supposed to fight in the spirit of compromise.

I'll tell you this, if not for the NRA you would not have a right to keep and bear arms. It would have been done away with years ago. Plain and simple. No other group has the political clout the NRA does. Leftists loath and demonize the NRA on every occasion. The NRA has millions of members who are rabid gun rights proponents.  So, IMHO, the conservatives in this country owe the NRA a hell of a lot.

157

I believe that opposition to abortion IS religious in nature because it involves determination of when a group of cells becomes a human life.

So you are saying that the determination of when life begins is a religious question and not a scientific one? I don't think that argument can withstand close inspection. Scientifically speaking, this is open and shut. Life does not begin at birth.

158 "Throughout human history in every culture that I am familiar with societies have mostly considered someone to become a “human” or part of society AFTER birth."

And you think this is a position based on science and reason?  What precisely do you think happens at birth that magically transmutes an 8-month infant from a "clump of cells" to a living human being with full rights 10 minutes later?  This is what I mean by the pro-choicer belief in the Magical Vajayjay of Ensoulment. 

Defining a human life beginning at conception is defensible on a number of secular levels.  I mean, the zygote is human, it is comprised of human DNA, it is genetically distinct from both its parents, and it is alive, it is self-contained and capable of growth and everything else that defines life.  It is "human", and it is "alive".

That is a -hell- of a lot more rational an argument than the Magical Vajayjay of Ensoulment Theory, which I've never heard even a good -attempt- at defending based on rationality or reason.  It's obviously based on nothing but convenience.

Qwinn

 

159 As is often the case, the ever-present Rush probably had the best exegesis on NY-23. It may have been less about particular positions that about the consequences of electing a RINO. Like the man said, Dede screwed just about every RINO out there. The object lesson is candidates like this cannot be trusted to even support their own party and will betray us to the opposition. For a good chuckle now, consider how Newt was extolling Dede's late pledge to not raise taxes. We all know what her pledges are worth today.

160

I kinda' notice that a lot of the "pragmatists" can't help but be a little condescending to the more "purists" or whatever name we haven't decided on yet (I like "Idealists."  It's the classical distinction from "pragmatists" and I don't think it is a perjorative term).  Not that the Prags mean to be, necessarily, but it happens. 

I also think the greatest motivation the Ideals have is this: let's try a true believer in America, the Great Right Hope, because it's inspirational, and people respond to that, including moderates.  And I think counter arguments against it are missing a key point (and this is the key point that anti-capitalists miss when criticizing capitalism): why are you criticizing something we don't even do?  When anti-capitalists criticize "our evil capitalist society" the failings they complain of are almost exclusively things caused by the government, which aren't captialist in the first place.  Well, when criticizing the unelectability of Real Right candiadates, I like to note the biggest failing of the Republican Party is the moderates that f--k us time and again.  Why criticize the Ideals when the failings are owned by the moderates? 

161

Scientifically speaking, this is open and shut. Life does not begin at birth.

While RNA strands can be considered organic and may eventually change the standard, the formal definiton of life resides at the level of the single cell. And the DNA of a zygote further defines it as Human.

162 Hoffman had it until the liberal vote coalesced aroung one candidate. That liberals hold the high ground in states like New York is a given. I would think that all the pragmatic thinkers would realize something that obvious. Btw, Scuzzimama was runniong behing Owens, too, and it sure as shit wasn't beacause she was anti-gay marriage.

163 Vic: “Maximalists" – I hate that term and I have no idea why Ace chose it to replace “conservative”.

Because it is slightly negative in connotation without being overtly so.  In the comments he called us "Purists", which sort of gave the game away.  Posted by: oLD gUY

Then apparently Old Guy you've had several discussions with Ace while not even understanding the rubric. The terms Maximalist and Pragmatist weren't meant to describe ideological focus. They were meant to describe tactical insistence; the Maximalists are those that insist the GOP shouldn't run moderate candidates, the Pragmatists are those that insist on matching the candidate to the ideological make up of the district/state.

It's not meant to describe belief in pro-life legislation or religious background. It depends on the question of a candidate's ideological purity hence the original term 'purist.'

*   *   *
To those confusing Maximalists with religious background, if I understand the original context correctly, you can be a Maximalists without being religious. For example, if someone were to insist that only pro-choice candidates should be run anywhere at anytime, then he would be a Maximalist, not a likely Republican but, again, it's not an ideological description. It's a term to describe the insistence upon using a tactic.

So no, Ace wasn't using the term as a euphemism for religious conviction. Some here need to really stop reading into what Ace writes as a personal attack every time we have a post about political strategery. It really doesn't do any of us any good to read something Ace writes about tactics and then go off screaming "Victim, victim! I am a fcuking victim! Ace hate X-tians! He's Northeastern,  country club, sailboat enthusiast who wants to burn down my church and eat my children."

What happened to patience, humility, and forbearance? Baring any of those, how about not jumping to conclusions?

164

Throughout human history in every culture that I am familiar with societies have mostly considered someone to become a “human” or part of society AFTER birth."

Frequently, people would not become "human" or part of society even after birth.

Abortion in Western societies has always been frowned on, but always this was based on religious reasons.

That seems to conradict your previous claim, doesn't it? Does every society consider life to begin at birth, or have Western societies long thought otherwise?

165 This is where I get all pragmatic about abortion.

I want there to be fewer abortions.

I want people on the left to stop acting like it's a litmus test for freedom. What a crock of shit.

While I'm glad that there are people making the strong moral arguments against it, I also want to work on the squishy middle. The women who wouldn't vote to abolish it today, but think it's a horrible thing.

Why, in this day and age of advanced birth control, is abortion happening much? Many reasons, but I really hope the idea that it's no big deal is going to die off.

166 24 Owens was able to win because he was NRA "A" rated.  If he had been anti-gun, Hoffman would have won.  I got what I needed out of that election.  I would have preferred Hoffman, but I vote my gun rights, so I'm satisfied with the results with regard to my main issue.

Posted by: Chas at November 05, 2009 08:43 AM (yjDfo)

Hoffman had the exact same endorsement from the NRA, AQ. So, you voted for the liberal democrat?

167

Well, when criticizing the unelectability of Real Right candiadates, I like to note the biggest failing of the Republican Party is the moderates that f--k us time and again.  Why criticize the Ideals when the failings are owned by the moderates? 

BINGO! I always thought I *was* one of the pragmatists. I live in Cali, and I regularly would tell GOP hopefuls to soft-pedal abortion and talk up other issues. And I still argue for that as a tactical matter.

But when so called "fiscal conservative social liberals" turn out to be fiscal liberals and cowards who cave into the Leftist Ethnic or Gay Mafia's latest demand, a demand that always turns out to have a price tag, I am sick of it.

To me, being a purist now *is* pragmatic. It is as pragmatic as credit checking a loan applicant, or background checking a security clearance.

The "social issues" are now having deadly serious fiscal impacts, so increasingly social conservatives ARE fiscal conservatives and "social liberals" are fiscal Commiecrat sellouts.

168 #47  Posted by: syn at November 05, 2009 09:04 AM (ZjEOd)

Tell it like it is, sister.

I have always said:  If people could SEE what an abortion really is, most would never, ever support it. Just talk to all the nurses who have quit the business because they finally got tired of reassembling little bitty arms, legs, etc. in the bloody trays to make sure no parts had been left behind in the uterus where they could cause infections....

169

They were meant to describe tactical insistence; the Maximalists are those that insist the GOP shouldn't run moderate candidates, the Pragmatists are those that insist on matching the candidate to the ideological make up of the district/state.

Sorry, that's not a reasonable description of the two sides positions. It's a strawman designed to make one side look good and the other look bad. Where are these people demanding that the GOP run Alan Keys in Chris Shay's old district? Where are these people demanding that the GOP run candidates who want everybody in NYC to own machine guns?

170 So Democrats, corridor Republicans, "pragmatists," concerned "libertarians," etc., are unanimous in once again (again, again) in pushing "As long as social issues dominate the Republican Party, they'll be rural-regional losers," but when Republican voters are talking, as they did in NY-23, they're talking about power and money.

You're being lied about, and lied to. It's stupid to play along with it.

171 In fact, I'll go further:  it is only the pro-choicer who introduces "philosophy" into the question of when life begins.

The zygote meets every scientific test to qualify as a human life.  This is pretty much open and shut.

It is the pro-choicer who hems and haws at this point, and starts coming up with philosophical rationalizations for why it doesn't really -count- as a human life.  It doesn't have a brain yet!  So?  There is no scientific definition of human or of life that requires having developed a brain yet.  It hasn't been born yet!  So?  No scientific test acknowledges any sort of substantive change occurring at the moment of birth that would transmute an infant from "not human life" to "human life".

All the arguments that seek to deny that human life begins at conception, -those- are the "philosophical" arguments that attempt to impose a *social* value on the fetus, and do its rights outweigh the rights of the mother to consequence free sex and so forth.  *Those* are the philosophical arguments attempting to undermine the obvious scientific fact that a zygote is a human life every bit as much as a newborn infant or a 30 year old adult is.  Science doesn't care about your "quality of life" and "it isn't sentient" arguments.  That's where you, not us, are introducing philosophy.

Qwinn

172 #110  Posted by: Qwinn at November 05, 2009 10:09 AM (SxA2Q)

KUDOS!

173 156

The NRA has only been ceding rights slowly, while giving cover to those who would take them.  They get everyone to agree to give up a little bit to keep the rest.  They are "useful idiots" at best. 

But you can feel about them as you like.

174 Curmudgeon and Qwinn:

RIGHTO! The only sensible approach in the age of an American Pravda/Tass/Izvestia media is to completely ignore the bastards. They're trying to fuck with our heads. Don't let 'em!

175 the Magical Vajayjay of Ensoulment

Nice.  Presumably the soul must reside in the head, since having the feet hanging out isn't good enough to complete the transformation.

176

The NRA consistently supports those who say one thing and then act differently.  They have steadily and surely not fought what they are supposed to fight in the spirit of compromise.

Sounds like BS to me. Have you any examples?

177 Bush 43 and Reagan ran on a SoCon platform. McCain, Dole, and Bush 41 (92) did not. See a pattern?

178 Vic @ 153:

 That being said, I believe that opposition to abortion IS religious in nature because it involves determination of when a group of cells becomes a human life. If not religion, then it certainly is some kind of philosophical thing that amounts to the same thing.

Yeah. A little "philosophical thing" called "BIOLOGY."

179 Thanks, RfW. I don't like "maximalists" either. It's not exactly of a parallel construction with "pragmatists". How about "substantists"?

If something like this has been suggested already, I apologize; I haven't read the intervening comments.

180

@173

If you do a Google search on "current NRA lawsuits" you get 2,610,000 hits. How does that make YOU feel?

181 Frankly, I think the "pragmatists" - who, as far as I can tell, are never merely about "stratagery" but do always personally disagree with some major plank of the platform - merit the same label that Catholics who pick and choose what they like about the orthodoxy and discard the rest get:

Cafeteria Republicans.

Qwinn

182

>>It's not meant to describe belief in pro-life legislation or religious background. It depends on the question of a candidate's ideological purity hence the original term 'purist.'

This is primarily why I'm using the shorthand "northern vs. southern". What gets a So. Baptist riled up won't be what sets a No. Catholic's teeth on edge. Abortion should be a common ground but it doesn't appear to be, even though these form the base for each region.

183 The northern catholics who are pro-choice generally don't go to church and identify with Catholicism in much the same way secular jews identify as jewish, meaning they like bagels.

Actual church-going Catholics are quite dedicated to the anti-abortion cause, from my observation.  And this is in New Jersey.

Qwinn

184 Moderates are a tool that turns in your hand. Why would you want them at your back? Just bribe them when necessary, like everyone else does.

185 183 - exactly.

186 Great topic, they are more attractive than others,

nike air max 90/95

187

My last post on the subject of abortion because whether you agree or not it is essentially arguing a religious matter, or if you will, a thing of “belief”.

 

Yes, even before a cell is fertilized it is living tissue. But if you cut off someone’s toe is that now a separate human life? No, the idea is ludicrous. So you boil down to arguing degrees of life much like the old arguments about the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin.

 

I, and overwhelming evidence shows, that the majority of the country does not believe that a person become a human life at egg fertilization.   If I am not mistaken, the idea that a fetus was a human and that abortion was a sin did not come along until the Roman Empire came along. It became an article of faith of the Catholic Church and that is how it spread to the Western nations.

 

And the reason I said most societies after birth was to not only include the Roman Catholics but some societies did not consider a new born baby as being a “human” with a soul for several days AFTER birth.

 

There is really no point in arguing this because it does boil down to “belief” and not science.

188 Sorry, that's not a reasonable description of the two sides positions. It's a strawman designed to make one side look good and the other look bad. Posted by: flenser

It's a shorthand version of what Ace wrote and may not be the best but it's as about as fair as you're going to get. The only modification I would make is that the Maximalists' tactical focus is on getting the candidate that is the furthest to the Right in any given hypothetical. I don't see how that's a strawman because both the Max & Prags want that if only during the primaries. It becomes a contest if we're talking about the final election. Example, do you vote for a GOP 'squish' or sit it out and let the Dem win. Maxs say "sit it out", Prags say "vote for the 'squish.'"

Go back and read his orginal post if you don't like my interpretation, but my point still stands - A bunch of you didn't read carefully enough what he wrote; he's talking about tactics not ideological focus.

189 Don't care why he lost, just glad he was in the running.

When it was Dede vs the other Democrat it was like a choice between being shot in the head or shot in the heart... actually having a choice of some sort seemed a better option (even if the choice I would have preferred lost).

Are any of the "pragmatists" here pragmatic enough to think Dede would have been a net benefit to the GOP?

Oh, and what to call the "maximalists"?  I'm thinking if you start calling us "the guys who actually got it right" now you'll save yourself a lot of confusion later.  Or we can have the posts on this like the ones on the bailouts where you have to run your "mea culpa" posts...

190

if you cut off someone’s toe is that now a separate human life? No, the idea is ludicrous.

Saying ludicrous things is not a surefire way to win an argument. Just FYI.

 

My last post on the subject of abortion because whether you agree or not it is essentially arguing a religious matter

It's no more a "religious matter" than is arguing over whether blacks are human. It's a question which is answerable by science. Life does not begin at the instant of birth.

191 This is primarily why I'm using the shorthand "northern vs. southern". What gets a So. Baptist riled up won't be what sets a No. Catholic's teeth on edge. Posted by: Triumph

Geography doesn't determine ideology let alone tactics, which is what the terminology concerns.

This whole North v South stuff is really inane. I can find Northerners that are more hard-core than the average Southerner so the whole attempt at describing the issues in front of us as a conflict between the North and South is useless and ham-fisted.

192

Go back and read his orginal post if you don't like my interpretation

Not only did I read the orignal post, I read his further comments afterwards, a step I suggest you take.

193 180

Nervous when the NRA is involved.

Tell me when they have not given a little piece of that which shall not be infringed away in each "victory" they achieve.  Their judgment is as bad as Newts, they just make more of them and like a stopped clock just hit it right some times.

194

I haven't heard or read ANYONE on the conservative side even mildly disdain the CFG, let alone repudiate it.

195 "But if you cut off someone’s toe is that now a separate human life? No, the idea is ludicrous. "

Indeed.  And no one but you has expressed anything like that idea.  I actually specifically stated that the zygote's DNA is distinct from that of both parents.  THAT is what makes it a "separate" human life.  And that is a purely scientific, not a religious, reply.

" So you boil down to arguing degrees of life much like the old arguments about the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin."

Um, no, see how I did that?  I didn't have to argue "degree" of anything.  The fact that at conception a unique DNA pattern is formed makes it a difference in kind, not a difference in degree.  That is the obvious dividing point.  It is why the -other- lame straw man about how a sperm and an egg are just as much a "potential" life as a zygote falls apart.

DNA is the basis of a human life.  It is at conception that a new DNA pattern is established, one that makes the human being that will grow from it absolutely unique.  This is not some pseudo-mushy religious construct.  This is the obvious scientific response to the question "When does human life begin?"

Qwinn

196 Incidentally, if you have the rational, sensible scientific argument, and I have the mushy-headed religious argument, then why are you the one who keeps repeating "most human societies have believed" as the core of your argument?

Qwinn

197 Oh, and one more.  If we're looking for the scientific answer, why are you using as backup the opinion of societies that didn't even -have- the concept of DNA and virtually no understanding of biology as compared to today?  You're claiming you've got the backing of science by citing the opinion-consensus of societies that were *all* built around religions.  Does not compute.

Qwinn

198

Tell me when they have not given a little piece of that which shall not be infringed away in each "victory" they achieve.

Are you for or against Heller? One of your links is for it, one is against it.

Don't believe eveything you read on every message board on the internet.

http://tinyurl.com/26z2zj

 

199

I haven't heard or read ANYONE on the conservative side even mildly disdain the CFG, let alone repudiate it.

I mildly disdain the CFG.  They're a single issue group and their single issue is advancing the interests of American business. Sometimes that's a good thing. Sometimes, as with their strong support for open borders, it's a bad thing.

200

I would say that if Vic perfers to argue the socetal belief angle he'll eventually have to address the common societal belief that a couple that loses a pregnancy has lost a baby. Regardless of the level of development of the zygote, that is still emotionally treated as a loss to that family.

Also, legally, there are various states that allow for a  homocide charge to be added in the death of an unbrn child due to assault or murder. This is an inconsistency to the arguement that life it recongized as beginning at birth.

201 198

Heller is good and bad.  Good - clarifies it is an individual right.  Bad - some restrictions are maybe OK (like restrictions do not infringe..).

Don't believe eveything you read on every message board on the internet.

http://tinyurl.com/26z2zj

Right, didn't mean the 2640, just saw key words as I scanned it.  This includes what I wanted and then some.

202

Yes.  Obama did not campaign for Owens in NY 23, no doubt helping Owens win.  The GOP also helped by financing $900,000 in attack ads aimed at Hoffman.  By the way, I did not hear/read anywhere about abortion or Hoffman's positions on "social issues" until after the race.   Now all these self-congratulating social liberals like Surber and Simon are coming up through the floorboards claiming the election was about abortion and gay marriage. 

Why are "economic conservatives"  even more obsessed with  gay marriage and abortion than supposedly radical lunatic puritanical "so cons" ?  I would think they wouldn't give a damn one way or the other, but no, most of them are ranting like the fundamentalist preachers they despise, and dragging in issues that as far as I can tell, never surfaced much until after the race was over.

Frickin' A, damn straight. 

203 Throughout human history in every culture that I am familiar with societies have mostly considered someone to become a “human” or part of society AFTER birth.

Usually WELL after birth, if at all.   Non-western cultures suck.

204 It is much easier to blame socons than to admit people just don't trust moderates to keep their word. Trust is a key issue.

205 That is a -hell- of a lot more rational an argument than the Magical Vajayjay of Ensoulment Theory, which I've never heard even a good -attempt- at defending based on rationality or reason.  It's obviously based on nothing but convenience.

Yep.  If you want to be rational and secular about it, you have to adopt a sliding scale where you can off babies and retards and stuff, or else you just have to say human life is human life.   You have to be religious to believe that human life isn't human without a soul and that you don't get the soul till around when you're born (not that most religious people believe that, but its clearly a religious belief).

206 I'm conflicted about abortion. On the one hand, it is murder, it is indefensible. Qwinn is correct, and religion is also correct.

On the other hand, it has occurred in human societies since they have existed. Note prohibitions in the Bible, etc.

I'm old enough to remember illegal abortions, coat-hanger abortions, etc. As one poster above pointed out, with cheap effective birth control available, there is no justification; even were it not available, there is no justification, however I don't believe making it illegal will ever stop it. Prohibition didn't work, making drugs illegal doesn't work, etc. etc.

Aside from amoral self-centeredness, abortion results from people being incapable of responsibility, such as alcoholics and addicts, mentally ill, plain old stupid, etc. People like this will always exist, and you can't force them to be responsible. They will get abortions, one way or another.

With legal abortions, the child dies; with illegal ones the child dies and often enough the mother does too. "Consider it evolution in action" - but I'm not quite hard-assed enough to go there.

So perhaps firmly refusing to pay for it with taxpayer money, and loudly and persistently reiterating the indefensibility of it is the best position, for now. I don't have to get one, you don't have to get one, we fight having to pay for them. But this doesn't feel like enough, either... as I say, I am conflicted.

207 jodetoad:

Do you believe that if we legalized homicide tomorrow, that homicide rates would remain the same?

Qwinn

208 If this is true, gay marriage is Roger L. Simon's hobby horse (he has a gay son) it explains a lot about Roger's ill informed pos column on NY23....I assumed he was more of a neocon type, a Lefty who had migrated to the right but had lapses on occasion....kinda like a bunch of PJ writers, the crappy hyspanic bigot, the ManhattenMoron Jazz Shaw, and Rick Moron come to mind, so take this for what it's worth. Oh and also VD Hasen, who I bet voted for Obama and regrets it now!

209 194

I haven't heard or read ANYONE on the conservative side even mildly disdain the CFG, let alone repudiate it.

Posted by: JEA at November 05, 2009 12:14 P

 

  CFG came out HARD against Huckabee in Iowa back in 2007 during the caucus process.  If you want to say that Huck's not a conservative, then you'll get a big nod out of me....but some of his supporters are part of our conservative coalition.

210 discount Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
Nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefree shipping

211 中古DVD

212 Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots

213 Come to our website for shopping with high quality and best service! There have new products,MBT M. Walk
and MBT Lami,Welcome everybody to buy it.

214 cheap ugg
buy ugg
ugg usa
ugg boots
ugg uk
ugg australia
ugg shoes
ugg sale
womens ugg boots
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
ugg shoes sale
ugg boots sale
ugg sundance
ugg 5819
ugg 5815
ugg knightsbridge
ugg 5825
ugg rainier

215 Buy discount ugg shoes
cheap ugg shoes
cheap ugg
ugg rainier
buy ugg
ugg usa
discount ugg boots
ugg 5825
ugg shoes sale
ugg sundance
ugg shoes
cheap ugg boots
ugg 5815
ugg sale
ugg uk
ugg knightsbridge
womens ugg boots
ugg boots
ugg australia
ugg 5819free shipping

216 nike dunk sb

Do anything needed to support an idea, a good idea usually brings good results, doing

business is like that.http://www.dunksky.com/.This site has always been on

217 buy [url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-coquette-casual-shoes-c-22]ugg rainier[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]buy ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg usa[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-short-c-1]ugg 5825[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-sundance-c-5]ugg sundance[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-3]ugg 5815[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg uk[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-knightsbridge-c-27]ugg knightsbridge[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]womens ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg australia[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-2]ugg 5819[/url]from usa

218 BJ's Restaurants links of london . Management might be tempted to belly up and drown cheap links of london their sorrows, links of london jewellery since the majority of this chain's 89 restaurants are in links of london jewelry deep-recession states like California, Arizona, links of london sale and Florida. links london

219 If you are looking for buying a quality pair of warm sheepskin boots you really need to try the ugg classic tall boots. The quality of the it means that they will last 4 or 5 times as long as the cheaper copies and the level of comfort they provide to the wearer is much higher.So when it comes to you finding a pair of ugg boots that will match up to any outfit in your wardrobe then it is worth considering investing money in a pair of Ugg classic tall this

220 UGG BOOTS