Dick Armey Resigns From FreedomWorks, Instructs That His Name Must No Longer Be Used in Company's Solicitations

Non-amicable.

"The top management team of FreedomWorks was taking a direction I thought was unproductive, and I thought it was time to move on with my life," Armey tells Mother Jones. "At this point, I don't want to get into the details. I just want to go on with my life."

In the email, Armey indicated that he wants nothing to do with FreedomWorks anymore. He asked that all user names, passwords, and security-related data created in his name be emailed to him by the close of business on December 4. He even insisted that FreedomWorks—"effective immediately"—was "prohibited" from using a booklet he authored. Was Armey's resignation a reaction to the recent election results? "Obviously I was not happy with the election results," he says. "We might've gotten better results if we had gone in a different direction. But it isn't that I got my nose out of line because we should've done better."

I like FreedomWorks but I did not approve of their decision to refuse to endorse anyone for President.

Really?

It seems very strange that an organization could simultaneously be so committed to the principle of limited government that they refuse to endorse Mitt Romney, and yet also be so lackadaisical about limited government that they would state, effectively, that Barack Obama's reelection is something they're just fine with.

I do think sometimes people have an egostical or cash-money interest in maximizing credibility on conservative principle, to the point where they effectively self-select out of any involvement in conservative achievements.

I can sit here all day and say "This person isn't conservative enough for my tastes; he falls short of my standard." And I suppose I could/would accrue a certain amount of credibility for doing so.

At the end of the day, though, what am I doing, aside from increasing my own cache and my own value?


Posted by: Ace at 08:17 PM



Comments

1 last, so far

Posted by: Grover's at December 03, 2012 08:19 PM (9aKQB)

2 That guy has a stupid name!

Posted by: Dick Swett at December 03, 2012 08:20 PM (AUeaU)

3 It's better than Anarmy Ofdiks

Posted by: dogfish at December 03, 2012 08:22 PM (N2yhW)

4 I think so, too!

Posted by: Dick Trickle at December 03, 2012 08:22 PM (9aKQB)

5 Seriously Bro - yo mama musta hated you to give you a name like that.

Posted by: Barack Obama at December 03, 2012 08:23 PM (AUeaU)

6 SomehowVagina Armeydoesn't sound very intimidating.

Posted by: harleycowb at December 03, 2012 08:24 PM (wSTfB)

7 Is it too early to get us off topic? No? Well then...

Via USAToday, 6:27PM EST December 3. 2012 - NBC's Bob Costas,
communicating through a spokesman Monday about on-air comments about
guns he made Sunday night, "feels an unfortunate leap was taken that he
was advocating taking away Second Amendment rights. He was not."

...followed later by...

Monday, NBC spokesman Hughes added that Costas is "in favor of people
owning guns to hunt and carrying them in reasonably controlled
circumstances."


Posted by: dogfish at December 03, 2012 08:24 PM (N2yhW)

8 I missed the elbows thread? Dammit!

Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 03, 2012 08:26 PM (GEICT)

9 Maybe he was cheesed about the full-throated support for the shit statewide candidates?

Posted by: Lou at December 03, 2012 08:26 PM (xp1pq)

10 Dick Army?

Where do I enlist?

Posted by: wisenheimer at December 03, 2012 08:27 PM (eYx/w)

11 Costas is "in favor of people owning guns to hunt and carrying them in reasonably controlled
circumstances."


Well, that's very big of him. He and his bodyguard can go first...

Posted by: Palandine at December 03, 2012 08:27 PM (g7D8V)

12 Related (I think): what's up with the "conservatives being purged from top cmte spots" stuff I'm reading. Is Boehner purging fiscal conservatives or not?

Posted by: Y-not at December 03, 2012 08:27 PM (5H6zj)

13 Monday, NBC spokesman Hughes added that Costas is "in favor of people

owning guns to hunt and carrying them in reasonably controlled

circumstance



Bob Costas is opposed to murder? Woah, big fella! Don't go so far out on the limb of the crazy tree.

Posted by: fluffy at December 03, 2012 08:29 PM (z9HTb)

14 I don't like that Bob Costas. Is he related to Greg?

Posted by: Jmel at December 03, 2012 08:30 PM (9tSXa)

15 After so much time out of the spotlight, the most we remember is you name ... Dick

Posted by: Steve at December 03, 2012 08:31 PM (58roQ)

16 >>>I can sit here all day and say "This person isn't conservative enough
for my tastes; he falls short of my standard." And I suppose I
could/would accrue a certain amount of credibility for doing so.

>>>At the end of the day, though, what am I doing, aside from increasing my own cache and my own value?


I dunno Ace, it seems to have worked pretty well for Matt Lewis of The Daily Caller.

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 03, 2012 08:32 PM (/COnL)

17 I don't like that Bob Costas. Is he related to Greg?


We think they are the same person.

Posted by: fluffy at December 03, 2012 08:32 PM (z9HTb)

18 At the end of the day, though, what am I doing, aside from increasing my own cache and my own value?

The word you are looking for is "cachet". I think. A "cache" is something you store in a hole behind your van.

Anyway the question some of us had, is whether there was a Right value (never mind "conservative") in participating in this system at all. For my part I just didn't see that Romney '13-16 would have done anything but provide cover for the DC agenda. I still don't see it.

As for your own "credibility": well, your decision to endorse Romney did gain you credibility amongst your own commenters here, and amongst the GOP in Washington. This is a "credibility" that I have obviously lost, being a "concern troll" and all.

Ultimately "credibility" is a relative thing. You now have it, short-term, amongst the Republican voters of 2012. I suspect, long-term, that those who sat this out in 2012 will be proven correct by history.

But then, like Mencken, I think that democracy is unsustainable by design, and a tool for demagogues on their way to tyranny.

Posted by: Boulder Hobo at December 03, 2012 08:34 PM (QTHTd)

19 I don't like that Bob Costas. Is he related to Greg?


We think they are the same person.
Posted by: fluffy at December 03, 2012 08:32 PM (z9HTb)

I would like to see a cage match between bob costas and marv whats his name - to climax

Posted by: yankeefifth at December 03, 2012 08:35 PM (Z9EHQ)

20 #14. Bob is Greg's much taller and more masculine brother.

Posted by: LASue at December 03, 2012 08:35 PM (gjIQF)

21 Short version: Armey is wrong and FreedomWorks was right.

Posted by: Boulder Hobo at December 03, 2012 08:36 PM (QTHTd)

22 Yeah, there was a lot of drama with FW. I know some Tea Partiers got upset that the MSM designated FW as being synonymous with the TP. Then Armey goes out and explicitly denies this.

The refusal to endorse thing threw me, not that it was terribly important but it showed that FW really had no influence and wasn't interested in having any.

I'm sure the conservative media will have all sorts of back-and-forth between the principals involved and why they hate each other.

First guess: Armey is the "good guy" here inasmuch as FW might hvae been overrun with political naifs who wanted to do dumb stuff like, oh, not endorsing Romney. But we'll see. Who knows? It might have been Armey who joined the GOP sphinx caucus.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 03, 2012 08:36 PM (xSegX)

23 It's better than Anarmy Ofdiks

I beg to differ.

Posted by: Bawney Fwank at December 03, 2012 08:36 PM (IDypm)

24

This will be blown out of proportion.

He should have just quietly quit without giving the media bait.

Btw, I took a peep at the wiki Tea Party page and it was vomited on by the NYT, WaPo, and every leftist hater possible. It has been heavily edited and written to be so biased against the TP it is sickening.

It is all lies and innuendos. Just wow.

Posted by: beach & a kindle at December 03, 2012 08:37 PM (LpQbZ)

25 You now have it, short-term, amongst the Republican voters of 2012. I suspect, long-term, that those who sat this out in 2012 will be proven correct by history.

...

Short version: Armey is wrong and FreedomWorks was right.

Posted by: Boulder Hobo at December 03, 2012 08:36 PM (QTHTd)


Well, that answers my question as to which side was the Sphinx Caucus.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 03, 2012 08:38 PM (xSegX)

26 I suspect, long-term, that those who sat this out in 2012 will be proven correct by history.


I can't think of a single substantial difference between Obama and Romney.

Posted by: Big Bird at December 03, 2012 08:39 PM (z9HTb)

27 I guess the nobel committee is going to have to swallow hard, real hard, and give slo joe a prize now.

Posted by: yankeefifth at December 03, 2012 08:39 PM (Z9EHQ)

28 To be clear about something, there is a type of conservative-leaning gadfly I am perfectly okay with, and a type that I have contempt for. The contrasting categories are best exemplified by Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner and Matt Lewis of The Daily Caller.

Carney really gets my goat a lot of the time with his muckraking from the right, but I respect him immensely because he has carried a lonely torch for a specific ideological position for years now, to wit a burning hatred for the corruption that special interest/big-business lobbying wreaks upon the democratic process in Washington. Anyone, on either side of the aisle, that he sees as running afoul of that is going to be targeted by him. (He comes from the Reason/libertarian-leaning field of DC conservative types -- I happen to know for a fact that he's friends with most of those guys.) He is admirable consistent, and even with that he is not the sort of guy who's incapable of neverthless stepping back and seeing the big picture: whatever reservations he had about Romney (they were many, and they were voiced), you'd never see him pulling the Pontius Pilate act given the stakes.

Meanwhile a guy like Matt Lewis, who trades on his cachet as a 'leading conservative commentator' in the professional online journosphere, strikes me as a pure cynic. A soldier of fortune. I get nothing from him so much as the overwhelming feeling that he has personal ambition to be A Big Name, and he knows he can do that by playing (on the one hand) to the disaffected "nobody is pure enough for me!" hardcore disaffected Tea Party types, and liberal DC journos on the other hand: "look, here I am viciously criticizing my own nominal party and ideological group! Aren't I newsworthy? CALL ME FOR AN INTERVIEW!" He believes in nothing except his own personal advancement.

Careerism is everywhere. On their side, and ours too.

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 03, 2012 08:41 PM (/COnL)

29 Bob Costas: splitting atoms like a hammer

Posted by: Eaton Cox at December 03, 2012 08:43 PM (q177U)

30 someone needs to point out to costas that he only seems sophisticated and erudite in the sports world, otherwise is is a never was that earned his keep by sucking up to the same guys that shoved him in lockers, gave him wedgies, gave him swirlies, shoved him naked in the girls locker room, and glued his ass cheeks together in high school.

his career choice is a case study of the stockholm syndrome

Posted by: yankeefifth at December 03, 2012 08:47 PM (Z9EHQ)

31 "It seems very strange that an organization could simultaneously be so
committed to the principle of limited government that they refuse to
endorse Mitt Romney, and yet also be so lackadaisical about limited
government that they would state, effectively, that Barack Obama's
reelection is something they're just fine with."

It seems to me that there are a bunch of "true conservatives" who are what I call "crypto-Democrats" or "hidden Democrats". They pretend to be all conservative and if a candidate isn't right wing enough to suit them, they get all "I'm not going to vote".

Doing that does two things: 1. gives other people ideas and validates the notion that it is ok to do that and 2. it elects Democrats.

So these people are "so conservative" that they end up handing more seats to Democrats. I think that is what many of them have in mind in the first place. They are just hoping to get enough real conservatives following them to help them achieve their goal.

I can off the top of my head count FIVE Senate seats we have handed to the Democrats because of this idiocy in Indiana, Missouri, Delaware, Colorado, and Nevada. Five seats the Republicans could have today were handed to the Democrats on a silver platter.

In UT-04 we saw Mia Love lose by a few hundred votes while some Libertarian candidate got over 5,000 votes. Who is voting for these retards that stand NO chance of getting elected but prevent Republicans from getting elected? Why are the Libertarians even running candidates for federal offices? All they do is get Democrats elected and there is nothing more diametrically opposed to the Libertarian ideal than a Democrat. The Libertarian Party in UT should have told that candidate to stand down or run for state legislature or something. The first goal needs to be EJECTING DEMOCRATS then we can worry about "purifying" the Republicans. This "true conservative" crap isn't working for me. All it is doing is giving more and more seats to Democrats. And you have idiots talking about burning down the Republican party and rebuilding it, that's fine if you want to be run by Democrats for another 20 years because that is about how long that takes. We can bicker once we are in a majority. Besides, the aisle crossing stops the moment the Republicans have a majority. Then it becomes the center Dems who cross over and vote with the Republicans.

We need to get the idiots who are trying to divide the Republican party kicked to the curb, unite, and rip the socialists out of our government at all levels. FreedomWorks isn't working for me. They can kiss my ass. All they do is elect Democrats.

Posted by: crosspatch at December 03, 2012 08:49 PM (ZbLJZ)

32 He should have just quietly quit without giving the media bait.

***
Indeed - Army was the one focusing on his cachet...not FA...

Posted by: 18-1 at December 03, 2012 08:50 PM (AUeaU)

33 The Libertarian Party in UT should have told that candidate to stand down or run for state legislature or something.
***
You understand the clowns in the LP aren't conservatives and don't claim to be...right?

What was Mia Love's stance on pot? I'm guessing not chronic enough broheim!

Posted by: 18-1 at December 03, 2012 08:52 PM (AUeaU)

34 You all may go to hell and I will go to Texas.

Posted by: Dick "Davy Crocket" Armey at December 03, 2012 08:53 PM (p4U6S)

35 "Who is voting for these retards that stand NO chance of getting elected but prevent Republicans from getting elected?"

This must be a rhetorical question.

Posted by: Call me Ishmael at December 03, 2012 08:55 PM (p4U6S)

36 I can't think of a single substantial difference between Obama and Romney.
Posted by: Big Bird at December 03, 2012 08:39 PM (z9HTb)


They were as different as you and I, Birdie.

Posted by: Tickle Me Elmo at December 03, 2012 08:57 PM (LpQbZ)

37
Indeed. How could anyone serious about limited government notendorse Mitt Romney.
*LOL*

Posted by: MlR at December 03, 2012 09:00 PM (vR2l5)

38 There is a WORLD of difference between Romney and Obama and if you can't see that difference or claim there isn't one, then you are one of the "crypto-Democrats" I am talking about. An absolute waste of perfectly good air.

Posted by: crosspatch at December 03, 2012 09:00 PM (ZbLJZ)

39 "I can't think of a single substantial difference between Obama and Romney."

Romney probably takes his faith seriously.

Posted by: wisenheimer at December 03, 2012 09:01 PM (eYx/w)

40 I always thought their was some confusion with Dick as to weather He or Matt Kibbe was actually in charge. I guess they finnally settled it.

Posted by: liquidflorian at December 03, 2012 09:02 PM (Kx/oz)

41 I never viewed FreedomWorks as an outside-the-beltway grassroots organization. Even though that's how they would like to portray themselves.

Glenn Beck ditched his own 9-12 group to whore for these guys cuz they paid him big advertising bucks. That alone makes them unworthy of my trust.

Posted by: Freedom Lobbyist at December 03, 2012 09:02 PM (AzwZn)

42 Monday, NBC spokesman Hughes added that Costas is "in favor of people owning guns to hunt and carrying them in reasonably controlled circumstances."

I'm in favor of people owning guns to hunt. Hunt Dims and commies, that is.

Posted by: Elmer Fudd at December 03, 2012 09:03 PM (Mtlzn)

43 "I can't think of a single substantial difference between Obama and Romney."

Romney had a real father.

Posted by: wisenheimer at December 03, 2012 09:04 PM (eYx/w)

44 He should have just quietly quit without giving the media bait.
And he felt the need toconfessto Mother Jones of all outlets. The Nation and Slate must've thought they'd get cooties from him.

Posted by: RushBabe at December 03, 2012 09:04 PM (tQHzJ)

45 I was registered Libertarian for many years, back before pot and asteroid mining were the key issues, when it was more about getting back to the roots of our constitution. I quit that party when they started running kookier and kookier candidates and were basically doing nothing but helping to elect Democrats. The Libertarian party should at this point not set their sights higher than state government. If they want to get people into local and state government, fine. At this point their best interest is in allying with the Republicans to get the Democrats out of office at the federal government level, then maybe start running some candidates of their own for Congress. I wouldn't even think about running a Presidential candidate until you have enough seats in Congress to make a difference by being the swing voting block. By this I mean if the Republicans have a 15 House seat majority over the Democrats and the Libertarians have 16 seats, that puts them in a pretty good negotiating position and can support a Libertarian President. Until that time, running a Libertarian candidate for President is just a big waste of everyone's time and money. Having zero seats in congress guarantees such a President would have zero effectiveness.

Posted by: crosspatch at December 03, 2012 09:11 PM (ZbLJZ)

46 If the existential dissolution of the Republic wasn't enough to move them against Obama, then maybe FW has evolved into THE ENEMY?

Posted by: Winston Smith at December 03, 2012 09:12 PM (Y/aF4)

47 The difference between Romney and Obama is, Romney would not have vetoed the House bill wiping Obamacare off the books.

Yeah, yeah, I know -- getting it through the Senate would have been another story. Still, the difference is clear.

Posted by: Michael Rittenhouse at December 03, 2012 09:20 PM (0qgHm)

48 #43

BURN

Posted by: Michael Rittenhouse at December 03, 2012 09:20 PM (0qgHm)

49 Mitt Romney had a wife who would have dressed appropriately.

Mitt Romney loves the United States of America.

Mitt Romney can add and subtract.

Mitt Romney would have not taken a salary.

Posted by: Miss Marple at December 03, 2012 09:25 PM (GoIUi)

50 Is Dirk Armey leaving because he thinks FW has been compromised or because they refuse to be compromised?

I suspect it is the former.

At some moment you have to give up on the GOP and accept the GOP can never become what it needs to become in order to defeat Socialism.

Posted by: eman at December 03, 2012 09:27 PM (57VGh)

51 "I can sit here all day and say "This person isn't conservative enough for my tastes; he falls short of my standard." And I suppose I could/would accrue a certain amount of credibility for doing so. At the end of the day, though, what am I doing, aside from increasing my own cache and my own value?"

You mean besides losing elections?

Posted by: someguy at December 03, 2012 09:29 PM (sEXZ/)

52 All I wanna know is, what took Armey so long to wise up about FreedomWorks? I mean I know it started out as his baby - that's why I followed them in the beginning - but they became too fond of circular firing squads and displays of self-immolation and crucifixions for my taste, so I blew them off ages ago. I'm only surprised it took him this long. *shrugs*

Posted by: Beth at December 03, 2012 09:30 PM (kBxk7)

53 Just one thing, though - why is he spilling to Motherfucking Jones?

Posted by: Beth at December 03, 2012 09:32 PM (kBxk7)

54 damn . . . I did not hear this. But, yeah, they wouldn't endorse Romney? Fuck them. Fuck all those clowns. From here on in, it's just me and the feline overlords and MoronNation. If we're going down hard, I want to be in good company for the descent.

Posted by: Peaches at December 03, 2012 09:35 PM (kpCLl)

55 I always thought their was some confusion with Dick as to weather He or Matt Kibbe was actually in charge. I guess they finnally settled it.
Posted by: liquidflorian at December 03, 2012 09:02 PM (Kx/oz)

Maybe it was a battle over facial hair, and good taste lost.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at December 03, 2012 09:36 PM (nZvGM)

56 Well...they can certainly use my name.

Posted by: Penis Navy at December 03, 2012 09:42 PM (54vf8)

57 Piss off, Penis.

This's my gig.

Posted by: Whang Airforce at December 03, 2012 09:43 PM (54vf8)

58 Whang, Penis go stuff yourselves.

The Big Dog is here.


Posted by: Prick Marinecorps at December 03, 2012 09:44 PM (54vf8)

59 Just found a Matt Kibbe email in my trash folder and unsubscribed. Fuck them.

Posted by: Peaches at December 03, 2012 09:46 PM (kpCLl)

60 Mother Jones is mostly Labrador.

No... strike that, man. It's all Labrador shit.

Posted by: Tommy Chong in drag at December 03, 2012 09:48 PM (vlC9n)

61 Examples of carefully monitored firearms usage permitted by Costas:

A starter pistol, fired point blank into Joe Buck's ear
The Bisexual Biathalon
Shotgunning a fine 1989 Reichsgraf von Kesselstatt Wiltinger Braunfels Riesling Spatlese
Shooting those fucking geese always making a mess of the 13th fairway, if handled by the Panamanian groundskeepers, after dark, on a Tuesday
When handled cautiously by those who protect & serve, guys like David Caruso and uh, Jerry Orbach


Posted by: Reasonably Controlled Circumstances at December 03, 2012 09:50 PM (Ezq3m)

62 Cache. No no. that's the wrong word. You mean cachet. Cache is a stash, and it rhymes with stash.

Other than that I agree with 100% of your post.

Posted by: stace, L.I.B. at December 03, 2012 09:51 PM (m+UHL)

63
Just one thing, though - why is he spilling to Motherfucking Jones?
Posted by: Beth




Looking at the MJ article, it appears they got a copy of Armey;s resignation memo and asked for a comment. It doesn't read like he went to them to cry on their shoulder.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 03, 2012 09:52 PM (kdS6q)

64

Also, it looks like Freedomworks, like some newspapers, has a standing policy not to endorse for President but will endorse for other offices.

So it doesn't seem Mitt was being singled out.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 03, 2012 09:56 PM (kdS6q)

65 Some local Freedomworks supporters were pretty instrumental in Ted Cruz's primary win, as I understand it. I like Ted Cruz a lot, but I didn't see what was so awful about the favorite, Dewhurst. Anyway, that seems to be one Freedomworks success, if it's true what they say about their role.

Not supporting our nominee for president vs Ebola is unacceptable though.

Posted by: stace, a skirt who says L.I.B. at December 03, 2012 10:01 PM (m+UHL)

66 Mother Jones? Srsly? Couldn't Dick Armey at least leave without giving fodder to our enemies? When Dick Armey was in charge in the House, how many times did Mother Jones wish damnation and ruination on him?

Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2012 10:16 PM (d/5qf)

67 People making fun of his name should be ashamed of themselves.

Posted by: Dick Stretcher at December 03, 2012 10:19 PM (Z0mn0)

68 67
You took it right out of my mouth.
Some people are so juvenile.

Posted by: Dick Gobbler at December 03, 2012 10:21 PM (Z0mn0)

69 Good for Armey. Bad on him for getting involved with them in the first place.

They are just another one of the several bogus "Tea Party" groups who appointed themselves, were never elected by anybody and represent no one but themselves and their leadership, and were more oriented to gaining power and influence for themselves than in advancing any principle.

I seriously doubt they have been influential in any race, and if they were it was likely in a negative way.

Posted by: Adjoran at December 03, 2012 10:23 PM (ZHQvg)

70 Awww yeeah!

Posted by: Dick 'Splodin at December 03, 2012 10:26 PM (Z0mn0)

71 Mother Jones? He must REALLY be ticked off at Freedom Works...

Posted by: Baldy at December 03, 2012 10:28 PM (opS9C)

72 Not supporting our nominee for president vs Ebola is unacceptable though.

Posted by: stace, a skirt who says L.I.B. at December 03, 2012 10:01 PM (m+UHL)

THAT!

Posted by: Peaches at December 03, 2012 10:34 PM (kpCLl)

73 Most, if not all, of the conservative organisations such as Freedomworks, etc seem to have lost their way. In the early days of SCOAMF, we thought that sending letters to congress, signing petitions, and tea parties would wake up politicans, send them scurrying back into whatever hole they crawled out from, terrified for their careers, and make them see the light. It didn't work. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING we did made much of a difference, apart from getting some conservatives elected into office. And now John Bohener has seen fit to toss these guys out of whatever positions they might have worked towards. So, after all this time, you would think that Freedomworks etc would figure out that petitions etc don't do a damm thing. Yet they continue on with them. Fill my inbox daily from all these organisations' emails that maybe will somehow start to have an effect. Nope. My take is that Freedomworks have actually become like so many other large companies, too large to change much, and people working there just trying to keep a job, doing the same old thing day in and day out.

Posted by: DGA at December 03, 2012 11:44 PM (M32et)

74 I'm still sick, I missed Dick Armey quitting Freedom Works. Ism't Mother Jones the enemy that exposed Romney's 47% comment? I am pretty sure they were.

WTF? If Armey was so conservative, wouldn't he tell it to a conservative site? I"m still sick, I may not have read all of it, but Mother Jones pissed me off!

Posted by: CarolT at December 04, 2012 12:16 AM (z4WKX)

75 "apart from getting some conservatives elected into office. And now John
Bohener has seen fit to toss these guys out of whatever positions they
might have worked towards."

Yeah, because they kept voting with the Democrats, albeit for different reasons. Bottom line is, though, they kept voting with the Democrats so they might as well be Democrats. This 100% my way or nothing crap doesn't work in politics. It might be emotionally satisfying to some watching from the peanut gallery but it is not effective. Now those guys have exactly 100% of nothing and they brought it on themselves.


Posted by: crosspatch at December 04, 2012 12:32 AM (ZbLJZ)

76 They have been in my spam filters for several years.

Posted by: Larry Sheldon at December 04, 2012 12:35 AM (qnqTc)

77 As soon as the words "Mother Jones" appear, my hackles arise. Why would anyone with any intelligence at all talk to them?

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at December 04, 2012 12:49 AM (i0App)

78 Another substantial difference between Romney and Obama is that Romney held a real job in the private sector for 20+ years with a company he helped found.

That by itself is a BIG F***ING DEAL (to quote our newly re-elected Vice President).

(And that's not even getting into the fact that one of them is a commie who sat in a church for 20 years with a pastor who said "G. dam America.").

Those who claim there is "no substantial difference" between Romney and Obama are (1) idiots; (2) delusional; or (3) MOBYs (who played the first two like a fiddle).

Posted by: angienc at December 04, 2012 12:55 AM (w3JGl)

79 Yeah, because they kept voting with the Democrats, albeit for different reasons. Bottom line is, though, they kept voting with the Democrats so they might as well be Democrats. This 100% my way or nothing crap doesn't work in politics.


LOFL. Holy shit, are you immune to irony?

Posted by: entropy at December 04, 2012 01:07 AM (YUttk)

80 " I can sit here all day and say "This person isn't conservative enough for my tastes; he falls short of my standard." And I suppose I could/would accrue a certain amount of credibility for doing so.

At the end of the day, though, what am I doing, aside from increasing my own cache and my own value?"

How's selling out been working since Reagan?

Posted by: Just A Guy at December 04, 2012 01:08 AM (nKMiQ)

81 Ace is basically right on here. The purity fetish seems to me particularly rampant among libertarians, as opposed to the social cons or neocons. I count myself as alibertarian leaning Tea Party Republican so reading Reason for example can be endlessly frustrating in this regard.

Posted by: smokedaddy at December 04, 2012 01:37 AM (lTmpG)

82 The Libertarian party should at this point not set their sights higher than state government. If they want to get people into local and state government, fine. At this point their best interest is in allying with the Republicans to get the Democrats out of office at the federal government level, then maybe start running some candidates of their own for Congress. I wouldn't even think about running a Presidential candidate until you have enough seats in Congress to make a difference by being the swing voting block. By this I mean if the Republicans have a 15 House seat majority over the Democrats and the Libertarians have 16 seats, that puts them in a pretty good negotiating position and can support a Libertarian President. Until that time, running a Libertarian candidate for President is just a big waste of everyone's time and money. Having zero seats in congress guarantees such a President would have zero effectiveness.

Posted by: crosspatch at December 03, 2012 09:11 PM (ZbLJZ)



The trouble is most Libertarians are anti-war kooks who want to toe Dennis Kucinich's line on foreign policy, that's part of why so many try to run at the federal level instead of the state level.

Posted by: Crazy Bald Guy at December 04, 2012 01:50 AM (8ltUk)

83 "Max Pappas, the group’s former vice president for public policy and government affairs, has also left."

Via The Gateway Pundit

Posted by: crosspatch at December 04, 2012 02:50 AM (ZbLJZ)

84 This is what happens when a group forgets that political outcomes matter, and that political theory disconnected from outcome is nothing but self-indulgent wishful thinking.

I suspect that Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy had a hand in all this as well.

Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic
organization there will be two kinds of people":


First, there will be those
who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated
classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and
launch technicians and
scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the
former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself.
Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many
professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA
headquarters staff, etc.


The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and
keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control
promotions within the organization.

Posted by: Lee Reynolds at December 04, 2012 05:57 AM (waa/k)

85 Freedom works is a front for taking money (sort of like Jesse Jackson)...they have thrown a lot of folks under the bus...you support some cause...then get the behind the scense money to pay you to flip....they are not what they seem...Armey may have finally figured it out....strange a guy with his experience should have seen through the front... on the surface Freedom Works has some great issues...but like many of these organizations....you probably would not want to be in a fox hole with them...you might wake up late at night to find they are gone...oh well I think we will see a lot more stories like this....there is too much money to be made supporting causes and shaking folks down to contribute....

Posted by: John at December 04, 2012 08:40 AM (uU4aK)

86 I'm very pleased that FreedomWorks didn't endorse a candidate. As long as we have a party that purports to represent conservatism through its platform, yet refuses to discover, develop, promote, and nominate a conservative for the highest office in the land, we'll need think tanks and other organizations that support conservatives.

It's just that simple.

We need a party that discovers, develops, promotes, and nominates conservatives. We don't have one of those. So . . . the party that purports to represent conservatives will need to either be reformed or overthrown. And that starts with people like me not supporting candidates or organizations which do not act in keeping with conservative principles and values.

Posted by: Sarah at December 04, 2012 09:56 AM (fejYH)

87 Armey endorsed and campaigned with Kay Beltway Hutchison in the 2010 primary against Rick Perry. Say what you want about Rick, but Kay Beltway by that time was firmly in the big govt. DC crowd and stood for virtually nothing that the Tea Party stood for. Armey's credibility took a huge, if not fatal hit with me on that one.

Posted by: thirteen28 at December 04, 2012 11:27 AM (AbmsP)

88 Freedomworks seems to be following/leading Glenn Beck on an adventure to form a new "Tea Party" party. Maybe as a former leader of congressional republicans, Armey does not agree with leaving the GOP.
I think that may be where this divide comes from...what to do in the future versus what happened in the past.

Posted by: Cassady75 at December 04, 2012 11:48 AM (LjeoB)

89 <i>I can sit here all day and say "This person isn't conservative enough for my tastes; he falls short of my standard."</i>

Um, maybe this is what we should have done. Look how not doing this worked out for us. We sucked the big <b>moderate Republican</b> stogie and we got stiffed. Again.

Now, for a cherry on top, go read the articles about how Boehner is purging the House Republican leadership of conservatives.

So, I ask you again. Are you going to bend over for the RINOs again or are you going to at least try to think of something different. I know I am. I'm not a Republican any more. And I'm off down the rabbit hole journey to help bring about the death of the Republican Party. Because, well, what do we have to lose? It's not like what ever we do we'll still end up with a Democrat, is it? Oh wait. Yes, it is like that.

F' the Republican Party. Now.

Posted by: Paul A'Barge at December 04, 2012 01:02 PM (7JpOx)

90 Crosspatch

Republicans WON the House, and the result is a REPUBLICAN drive for amnesty, $800 Billion higher taxes, "truce on social issues" and a debt ceiling hike this calendar year.

STFU about your stupid partisan crusade. It's pointless. Register Democrat and run Boehner in the primary.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at December 04, 2012 08:59 PM (3GtyG)






Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0247 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0135 seconds, 99 records returned.
Page size 68 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat