Re: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive

wordsmith — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:34:42 -0000

That's funny....I thought that's what you were for. (^_^)

Re: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive

wordsmith — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:17:22 -0000

You know, Curt....this could also end up confusing as well. If you revisit a thread, you might miss new comments, if they are posted as responses to specific comments; meaning, new comments will not necessarily appear at the very bottom. Generally, that's where one would look, for anything new in the comments on a post.

Re: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive

wordsmith — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:14:22 -0000

*Ack* That means I'll have to educate myself on using something new.

Yeah, I only realized it looks like I am replying to Infohawk, after I already published. I didn't realize that a new reply box is at the top of the comments section, and not at the bottom. I hit "reply" where I saw it.

Re: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive

wordsmith — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 21:43:48 -0000

*Ahem*....also, I notice that new comments posted in disqus comment threads aren't showing up in the sidebar.

Re: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive

wordsmith — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 21:35:56 -0000

wordsmith whined:

Curt, I'm not sure I like this disqus thingy.

Another thing, Curt: I did not receive a single notification that anyone had commented on this post. My inbox only showed crickets chirping. Any reason for that?

Re: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive

wordsmith — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 21:33:45 -0000

skip wrote:

The problem with using the ACU rankings is that they're not weighted at all, so every vote counts the same, and we all know that they aren't. So while they're a useful start, they're just that. A start.

Another thing is, the 83 ranking is a lifetime average. I don't know what his score has been for each year, but I heard it's been going down; or at least isn't always at 83.

We're going to have that regardless. It simply cannot be helped. On average, every President gets to put one person on SCOTUS, and on average, about half of the ones that the Republicans put on go bad. So until and unless SCOTUS is term-limited that's not a solvable problem.

From my earlier post, citing American Thinker:

In the next four to eight years, we can anticipate that there will be at least two and perhaps as many as five new appointments to the Court. As of November 2008, when the next president will be elected, the ages of the current justices will be as follows: John Paul Stevens (88), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (75), Antonin Scalia (72), Anthony Kennedy (72), Stephen Breyer (70), David Souter (69), Clarence Thomas (60), Samuel Alito (58), and John Roberts (53). The good news for Republicans is that the three youngest justices are solid conservatives, while the two oldest are strident liberals. These two, Stevens and Ginsburg, almost certainly will leave the bench during the next president’s tenure in office. By 2016, Kennedy, Breyer, and/or Souter (not to mention Scalia) also may succumb to age or infirmity. Replacing these justices with solid conservatives may finally accomplish the conservative counter-revolution on the Supreme Court that Republicans have worked tirelessly to achieve for decades.

The next 4 to 8 years is hardly an "average term".

And using that as logic, you're basically saying "I don't care how bad a nominee is, if he's got the (R) after his name I'm supporting him."

In partial essence, yes. I'm not asking you to put forth a candidate that is so watered down, that he is indistinguishable from the Democratic candidate; but what I am saying, is that the "R" in front of a candidate's name is important. Party loyalty, is important (until such time, as the opposition party becomes more conservative than the Republican Party). Even one of McCain's staunchest critics, Hugh Hewitt, would agree. Besides the Presidency, winning House and Senate seats is vital to being able to control the direction of the country. The party who commands the majority in Congress, gets to legislate. This is why even "RINO"s can be more desirable than the alternative, which is giving up a Senate or House seat to the Democrats. THAT is harmful.

Remember also: primaries are for teaching lessons; but when it comes to the general election, winning is better than losing. which is also why electability matters; and taking that into account is smart politics. Sticking to party, is smart politics, and is ultimately principled.

As I said in my post, half the country does not tilt in your direction, politically. Simply putting forth your conservative dream candidate, if you also know that he has negligible chances of convincing independents and cross-over voters from the other party that he will make a fine president, is not good enough. "Oh, but at least I stuck to principle, and voted my conscience." Nonsense. I'd rather vote for a candidate who shares Electability has to be taken into consideration. And sitting out an election because you don't agree with the GOP nominee on 40% of the issues, only insures that the other party will put into office their candidate, with whom you are in disagreement 95% of the time.

From Hugh Hewitt's 2004 book, "If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat", pg77:

Republicans need to keep a majority of Senate seats in Republican hands; thus, we need liberal GOP senators as well as very conservative GOP senators and all those in between.

Which brings me to the subject of incumbents, especially those of your own party that you don't like much.

Throughout 2003, a small group of conservative activists attempted to rally support to the insurgent candidacy of Pennsylvania Congressman Pat Toomey, who declared against incumbent Republican Senator Arlen Specter- a liberal Republican.

The Toomey candidacy came very close to unseating Specter, but it failed by a few thousand votes because serious conservatives understood that Specter keeps the Senate in GOP hands. Even had Toomey won in the primary, he would have been left open to withering attacks in the general election- with no money and Specter "moderates" practicing paybacks- as well as leaving disaffected the GOP voters who have stood with the iconoclastic Specter for many years.

Similar efforts have been launched in the recent past, including one against John McCain by Arizona conservatives who believe McCain to be insufficiently pure.

All such efforts against incumbents of all ideological shades are ill conceived and harmful, with one exception: where an incumbent is too weak to win reelection.

This happened in 2002 in New Hampshire where Senator Bob Smith, the Senate's oddest Republican duck and an unreliable Republican- he bolted the party once, only to return later- was trailing the likely Democratic nominee in polls. A congressman, John Sununu, took on Smith in a primary and won, and he went on to hold the seat for the GOP in the fall 2002 elections. It was the sort of challenge to an incumbent that made sense, but it is rare.

Neither Specter nor McCain is a weak incumbent in general elections. Conservative purists should not only leave both men alone; they should enthusiastically support their reelection efforts. All the money and effort that goes into campaigns to push them out would be far better spent on helping folk like John Thune in South Dakota, a more conservative candidate than either McCain or Specter, but also a Republican running against a powerful Democrat- Tom Daschle.

Please absorb this basic fact about American politics: majorities, not individuals, govern. Without an understanding of this, the GOP's return to near permanent minority status- and the powerlessness it includes- is all but guaranteed.

skip writes:

You're focused on the short-term damage that another Clinton term would do. But the damage that McCain would do is long-term.

*sigh* I knew this would happen; and it's exactly what I wanted to avoid: defending McCain. But here we go:

In my opinion, should McCain be the nominee, it is vital that we support him and the GOP, because the long-term damage should we enable Hillary or Obama to be elected is long-term. Just on the issue of Supreme Court Justices, alone. But also think of national security. On this issue, I trust McCain more, to keep my country safe, as far as one man in the big chair has the means to do so. So no, I'm not focused on "the short-term".

By rewarding his behavior you'll be inviting everyone to move to the left.

It's not about rewarding bad behavior. If not "choosing the greater of two goods", then it must be about holding your nose and choosing "the lesser of two bads." I repeat: Primaries are for teaching lessons, general elections are for winning them. Willfully losing an election is narcissism and selfishness, at heart. It does nothing to advance the conservative movement.

rovin wrote:

(is this the comment flavor of the weeK? :) Actually, I like this modus, but still miss the preview)

Curt, I'm not sure I like this disqus thingy. Also, what html coding am I able to publish? In the other one, I am able to publish photos in the comments. Does this still hold true?

jainphx wrote:

I,m really getting a sick feeling in my stomach listening to so call conservatives back McCain.

You're not misunderstanding me, are you, and think I support McCain? What I disapprove of is the hyperbolic tone of anger. Kinda like this one by you:

How many times must he stab us in the back before we realize he is our natural enemy.

steve smith wrote:

I just think he is running in the wrong party primary and if you think he is entitled to head this party maybe you just need to declare yourself a Democrat.

Was that directed at me, or a generalized statement for McCain supporters? Because if you think I am a McCainanite, you didn't read the post I had written. I guess it's true: Seething rage does tend to blind.

jainphx wrote:

My only effort is to try and show every one just how bad a person McCain is.

On this blog, I do believe you are preaching to the choir. Yes?

I hope readers can comprehend what I am saying, and not knee-jerk react with McCDS- McCain Derangement Syndrome. I'd be shocked if any one had something anti-McCain to write, that I haven't already heard before.

I think it's reasonable to criticize McCain, without conflating the criticism into smears and exaggerated indignation. His demerits should stand for themselves without hyperventilating them and hyper-exaggerating the case against him.

Re: Peggy Noonans Absurd Bush Rant

wordsmith — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:53:32 -0000

Peggy has really disappointed me the past few years. I used to admire the way she used words and communicated her passion with them. But when I hear or read her now I feel disconnected from what she is saying.

I feel the same way.

I seem to recall Reagan promising to reduce the size of government; yet he expanded it by adding a secretary of veteran affairs to the Cabinet.

Withdrawing our forces when 241 American servicemen were killed in their barracks in Lebanon only emboldened Hezbollah.

There are a number of things you could be critical of Reagan for. For today's Bush critics who worship at the altar of Reagan, I think it's a rightwing strain of BDS that has afflicted them. The unrelenting criticism from the left has finally cowed them into distancing themselves from President Bush. For the purists, if they want to disown Bush as "no true conservative" and make the claim that Bush 43 "destroyed the Republican Party", then he's in good company, with Ronald Reagan. What conservative will ever be immaculate enough, for them? The country is evenly divided 50/50. Political leaders have to work with that reality.

Disqus - Latest Comments for wordsmith

Re: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive

Re: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive

Re: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive

Re: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive

Re: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive

Re: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive

Re: Peggy Noonans Absurd Bush Rant