Posted on 08/16/2005 10:34:18 AM PDT by MikeA
Morris is usually wrong on everything he says. When Hillary wins the Senate race, she will have grown in stature and will become the nominee for president for certain.
What I'm saying is that I'm tired of this same defeatist attitude that we must run candidates that are indecipherable from our 'Rat opponents on not only issues, but on ethics. Be it Governorships, be it Senatorial contests, we need to be unafraid to run people with non-statist IDEAS and willing to tackle corruption and the establishment. When I see stories about people like Slick Willie Weld, the worst RINO Governor in Massachusetts history, opining on whether to run for Governor of New York, I wonder why we even need a Republican party. Care to guess whom it was that appointed the Supreme Courts that gave us Gay Marriage in MA and the Torricelli switcheroo in NJ ? Hint: It wasn't DEMOCRAT Governors. What incentive do I have to vote for an individual like Pirro who is categorically WRONG on almost every single solitary issue ? Just to get rid of Hillary ? That's not enough. Why should we allow liberal slime to infest OUR party when THEY are the problem ? Just being a "Republican" isn't enough.
What incentive do I have to vote for an individual like "Pirro who is categorically WRONG on almost every single solitary issue ? Just to get rid of Hillary ? That's not enough. Why should we allow liberal slime to infest OUR party when THEY are the problem ? Just being a "Republican" isn't enough."
OH please, this is just silly. Pirro is more liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues. That hardly makes her "WRONG on almost every single solitary issue." You focus on social issues on which she'll have almost no influence, since most of these are handled in the courts, to the exclusion of those issues on which she'll be a reliable vote for the president's agenda: making tax cuts permanent, national security, voting for Bush nominees, etc.
Besides, when Republicans run claiming to be pro-choice or pro-gay rights or pro gun control whatever they almost never do anything to advance those causes. It might be their personal belief, but in the end they do little to expand government's role on those things. Schwarzenegger here in California is an example of that. He has governed well to the right but has done next to nothing to advocate for the things like abortion, gay rights or gun control.
You talk about a defeatist attitude. I call it political reality. Hard core conservatives do not win in hard core blue territory in Senate races in a nation as divided as we are now. It's the rare breed with personal appeal, charm and charisma who can win over liberal or moderate voters to vote for a hard core conservative, especially against a poser like Hillary who pretends to be a moderate. Do you REALLY think New Yorkers who have bought into the fiction that Hillary is a moderate will abandon her to vote for an Alan Keyes type?? We saw how far that thinking got us in Illinois to the tune of all of 29% of the vote.
No thanks. I'll stick with reality which is that we have to run pragmatic candidates in blue states who have politically effective opponents like Hillary Clinton.
Even a Lincoln Chafee with as big a pain in the ass as he is will bring SOMETHING POSITIVE to the table for Senate Republicans, certainly more so than a Democrat. If nothing else it's one more seat percentage wise on the committees, one more seat from Democrats taking control of the Senate and one less strident partisan voice mercilessly attacking the president and filibustering everything he does. That being said, I think Pirro will still prove to be much more valuable to us in the Senate than even that.
Certainly her win in the Senate will cause a bloodbath in the Democratic 08 primaries and cause them to waste valuable resources fighting what will then become a very contested primary versus a mere annointing if Hillary walks away with her Senate seat in a landslide.
Unfortunately, it's not.
"Pirro is more liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues."
People that posture as such often are anything but, even on economics. By being liberal on social issues, you almost always HAVE to be liberal on economics. This kind of a politician being legitimately both is almost a myth.
"That hardly makes her "WRONG on almost every single solitary issue." You focus on social issues on which she'll have almost no influence,"
Elect a landslide of likeminded Conservatives to ALL offices, and we damn well will have influence. Keep electing liberal statists and NO change will ever happen.
"since most of these are handled in the courts, to the exclusion of those issues on which she'll be a reliable vote for the president's agenda: making tax cuts permanent, national security, voting for Bush nominees, etc."
Of which we have no guarantee she will, and as one who unapologetically touts her liberal credentials, I simply will not trust, period. Enough is enough.
"Besides, when Republicans run claiming to be pro-choice or pro-gay rights or pro gun control whatever they almost never do anything to advance those causes. It might be their personal belief, but in the end they do little to expand government's role on those things. Schwarzenegger here in California is an example of that. He has governed well to the right but has done next to nothing to advocate for the things like abortion, gay rights or gun control."
Simply astonishing, and simply baloney. RINOs along with their liberal 'Rat cohorts HAVE been pushing these odious agendas. As for Ah-nold governing "well to the right", you will definitely have some arguments. He may be "to the right" of the Marxist legislature, but then doesn't mean he's "right."
"You talk about a defeatist attitude. I call it political reality."
Of course it's defeatist. For every step forward you think you're taking, you actually take several steps back. Electing liberal RINOs NEVER benefits the Conservative cause... NEVER. Now that is the reality.
"Hard core conservatives do not win in hard core blue territory in Senate races in a nation as divided as we are now."
Another remarkable development as of late is how many Republicans have "accepted" without a fight the MSM's labelling of Republicans the historic color of leftism and communism while lending the 'Rats the respectable veneer of blue, the historic color of Republicanism. This shows how out of whack we're becoming. Despite my problems with a certain former Senator from NY, what has happened since as recently as 1998 that makes electing anyone remotely with Conservative views immediately disqualified ?
"It's the rare breed with personal appeal, charm and charisma who can win over liberal or moderate voters to vote for a hard core conservative, especially against a poser like Hillary who pretends to be a moderate."
I do not expect a Jesse Helms to win in New York, but does that mean we have to run a candidate who votes like Jesse Jackson ? At some point, you have to draw the line.
"Do you REALLY think New Yorkers who have bought into the fiction that Hillary is a moderate will abandon her to vote for an Alan Keyes type?? We saw how far that thinking got us in Illinois to the tune of all of 29% of the vote."
If you'd like to engage in a long-winded discussion of how each state party operates and how Amb. Keyes was duped into running a race he had no business running by a corrupt state party as to "discredit" the "far right" (sic), I'll be happy to oblige. I think given that you are in CA, you're well aware of the plethora of RINOs that have been run for the Senate in the past decade and how they've all come up short. I'm sure if you give it some thought as to what I'm saying, you realize why you have 2 Senators well to the left of even California's political mainstream.
"No thanks. I'll stick with reality which is that we have to run pragmatic candidates in blue states who have politically effective opponents like Hillary Clinton."
Pirro is damaged goods, period. If she were a 'Rat candidate (which isn't much of a stretch for her, since she's got their whole platform down pat), she might get away with it, but not while running as an "R." You may think you're being pragmatic, but all you're really doing is just selling us up the river for peanuts.
"Even a Lincoln Chafee with as big a pain in the ass as he is will bring SOMETHING POSITIVE to the table for Senate Republicans, certainly more so than a Democrat. If nothing else it's one more seat percentage wise on the committees, one more seat from Democrats taking control of the Senate and one less strident partisan voice mercilessly attacking the president and filibustering everything he does. That being said, I think Pirro will still prove to be much more valuable to us in the Senate than even that."
Chafee brings us precisely nothing. He is a number on paper. You forget that treacherous twit SITS on said committees, and usually votes WRONG. He didn't even vote for the President last November. That's not pragmatism, that's apostasy. I endorsed his 'Rat opponent in 2000, and for good reason. If he is renominated, I will do so again. As for Pirro, I doubt she'll bring any more to the table than a Sen. Slick Willie Weld or a Christie Toad Whitless would. Thanks, but I'd rather keep the leftist trash on the rodent side of the Senate aisle.
"Certainly her win in the Senate will cause a bloodbath in the Democratic 08 primaries and cause them to waste valuable resources fighting what will then become a very contested primary versus a mere annointing if Hillary walks away with her Senate seat in a landslide."
Assuming Pirro does anything to inflict damage on Hillary. The MSM is already protecting her fraudulency. Naah, I think I'll stick with former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer. At least I'll be able to look at myself in the mirror.
He'll do whatever he's told; say whatever she tells him to say.
Dick's words mean squat.
"People that posture as such often are anything but, even on economics. By being liberal on social issues, you almost always HAVE to be liberal on economics. This kind of a politician being legitimately both is almost a myth."
That is the sloppiest of sloppy thinking. Schwarzenegger here in California has been exceptionally conservative on economics within what a very left wing Assembly will allow while being socially liberal. To say you're all or nothing is just silly and a major logical fallacy. There is a wide range of thought and ideology in politics. Few people, unlike you I guess, are all one thing or all another. I have some pretty liberal stands on some social issues (or more correctly LIBERTARIAN VIEWS) on these issues, but am second to none in terms of economic conservatism. Some of what you call liberal others might see as being truly conservative, i.e. less govt. involvement in the private lives of others.
Wow, if you really think Morris works for Hillary you really don't know much about him. Go read his scorching book on Hillary which is a point by point refutation of the lies of her autobiography. If you think that was written by a guy on Hillary's payroll, you're nuts. Hillary would have to be a sado masochist to pay for a barn burner like that which absolutely laid her bare!
Chafee brings us precisely nothing. He is a number on paper. You forget that treacherous twit SITS on said committees, and usually votes WRONG. He didn't even vote for the President last November.
He didn't vote for Kerry either. He voted for Bush's father. Look, Chafee is just a crank. I SERIOUSLY doubt Pirro will be another Lincoln Chafee. Yes she won't be a Rick Santorum or a Tom Colburn, but she will probably be more like a Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins both of whom probably support the president in the Senate about 70% of the time. That's a lot better than you'll get from these Democrats you claim to support.
You know, the Republican party is a big enough tent to support a wide range of views knowing that the country is not a homogenous whole when it comes to politics, but that different regions support differing political ideologies. Pirro is much more in line with the politics of a majority of New York voters than would be a hardcore conservative. If Hillary were seriously damaged goods with a low approval rating, then we could afford to run a hard-core conservative against her. But we need to give New Yorkers an alternative they can stomach. You're not going to get past Hillary's 60% approval rating with some fire-breathing conservative.
Finally, I would not be so sure that California's Senators are further to the left of the electorate here. This is a very left leaning state now. And Feinstein is perceived as a moderate. It is why Schwarzenegger pushes the envelope to get as much conservative policy done as possible, but can only do so much. You should see the attack ads against him right now just for proposing to control state pensions and retirements and for wanting a line item veto on budgets to control spending.
Again the reality is it is better to take 70% of you want than have to swallow 0%.
I think the point most are trying to make about Morris is that most of us wouldn't trust anything this guy has to say as far as we could throw him. That aside, his predictions are usually wrong.
It's not been my experience that Morris is wrong about a whole lot. His political instincts are keen and quite on the mark.
"He didn't vote for Kerry either. He voted for Bush's father. Look, Chafee is just a crank. I SERIOUSLY doubt Pirro will be another Lincoln Chafee. Yes she won't be a Rick Santorum or a Tom Colburn, but she will probably be more like a Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins both of whom probably support the president in the Senate about 70% of the time. That's a lot better than you'll get from these Democrats you claim to support."
Well, at least I'm glad to see you backing away a bit from Chafee. At some point, you do have to draw the line, and Chafee (along with Jeffords) on their own accord took several steps out of the "big tent." I'm not for putting a gun to these people's heads to stay, but in not being with us, they should not expect any support from us. I'm fully backing Chafee's impending opponent, Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey. Again, I'm not looking for a Senator to be a carbon-copy of another from a dissimilar state. There is such a thing as New York Conservatives (like Staten Island Congressman Vito Fossella). But, again, the problem with a lot of these state parties (NY, IL, MA, NJ, CT, etc.) is that they don't want anyone that doesn't take to the "business as usual" attitude (meaning NO reformers). Most Conservatives are inherently reformists, and they are a threat to the status quo. We've got to clean up these state parties of these destructive establishment types, who deliberately sabotage Conservative reformers (I needn't point out why Sen. Pete Fitzgerald didn't seek a 2nd term in IL -- and also why the RINO establishment wasn't that unhappy to see a radical leftist in Barack Hussein Obama take his place). This discussion just isn't about Pirro herself, but to the heart of what we stand for as a party, and the way the local/state parties operate. Interesting that you should mention Coburn, because the White House and the OK GOP establishment (though not nearly as rotten as some of those aforementioned states) did NOT want him, preferring an establishment OKC Mayor (who, in fact, quite probably would've LOST in a general election). Coburn is a threat because he is a reformer, and an unapologetic one at that. Santorum, on the other hand, has diminished quite a bit because he chose to back the senile, dying, and apostatic loon Arlen "Lex Luthor" Specter, the very epitome of statist etablishment, over reformer Pat Toomey (and for that, he may very well lose next year to a very lightweight 'Rat with a heavyweight name).
"You know, the Republican party is a big enough tent to support a wide range of views knowing that the country is not a homogenous whole when it comes to politics, but that different regions support differing political ideologies. Pirro is much more in line with the politics of a majority of New York voters than would be a hardcore conservative."
In states which are "blatantly" Conservative, electing those that reflect those views are a minimum expectation. In states that are allegedly more liberal, it behooves us to try to elect individuals who can MOVE the electorate in a more rightward direction. Sometimes, there is even some confusion that because a state is necessarily overrun with 'Rat politicians that the state is overwhelmingly leftist. In places like MA, the reason for the lack of Republicans is not due to the national scene but because of the dynamics of the local and state parties (as I cited above). It's hard to comprehend, but in MA, the Democrat party at the local level covers the entire political spectrum, while most of what is left of the GOP pols are statist liberal RINOs (case in point, when after Rep. Joe Moakley passed on, the two individuals running for his vacant seat, the Republican was about as far to the left as you could get, and the Democrat was fairly Conservative, or even in the historic 8th district of MA, which was the JFK/Tip O'Neill seat and hasn't sent a Republican since the 19th Century, almost saw a DINO in Ray Flynn win the seat when Joe Kennedy retired). In states where our party is "damaged" with a lack of officials (or even where there isn't), we need to do a serious evaluation and clean-up job (IL, NJ, MA & NY are at the top of that list).
"If Hillary were seriously damaged goods with a low approval rating, then we could afford to run a hard-core conservative against her. But we need to give New Yorkers an alternative they can stomach. You're not going to get past Hillary's 60% approval rating with some fire-breathing conservative."
You may not get past that with anyone. The problem I have is that in running Pirro, we may be doing more damage to ourselves.
"Finally, I would not be so sure that California's Senators are further to the left of the electorate here. This is a very left leaning state now."
It may be more liberal than I'd like, but I don't believe it's a lost cause. But with many of the eastern states, CA has also had a problem with the establishment rot (and that came to a crescendo under Pete Wilson). But that's a whole other discussion...
"And Feinstein is perceived as a moderate."
Perception and reality are two different things. She is more moderate than Boxer in the way that Boxer is slightly more moderate than Pol Pot. Both are still quite leftist, only that Feinstein doesn't scare people as much as Boxer does.
"It is why Schwarzenegger pushes the envelope to get as much conservative policy done as possible, but can only do so much. You should see the attack ads against him right now just for proposing to control state pensions and retirements and for wanting a line item veto on budgets to control spending."
All I've seen from Ah-nold is half-hearted attempts and backtracking. But this was never a surprise as I never supported him in the first place. I'm very wary of the redistricting thing (judges LESS partisan ? HA !), which may actually see us lose to RINOs and only see the rise of slightly less leftist 'Rats. Meaning we'll see a slightly less Marxist legislature with even fewer "Republicans" to stand up to these extra-chromosomers. But any "Republican" party that has Ah-nold, Gerry Parsky, Brooks Firestone and Dickie Riordan leading the charge is party non grata to me.
"Again the reality is it is better to take 70% of you want than have to swallow 0%."
Problem is, we're not getting the 70% (and by most accounts, getting a 70 on a test is still an "F"), it's more like 30%, and on issues that are largely unimportant. And by the time these RINOs have worked their magic, even the 30% is gone, and we've jumped into the negative figures since the usual end result of a RINO pol is a liberal 'Rat successor. Pete Wilson begat Gray Davis. Ah-nold begats... Antonio Villaraigosa ?
"Isn't Dick Morris notoriously wrong?"
Yep he is
Well, you'll definitely be in the minority on that opinion. I believe one of his infamous "predictions" was that Rick Lazio would have nothing to worry about back in 2000. I'd rather stick to listening to individuals with integrity, like Michael Barone.
She won't be able to win dog-catcher once Able Danger's done with her and her husband.
Well, you'll definitely be in the minority on that opinion. I believe one of his infamous "predictions" was that Rick Lazio would have nothing to worry about back in 2000. I'd rather stick to listening to individuals with integrity, like Michael Barone.
While I agree Barone is an incredibly insightful political analyist, I would not be so quick to dismiss Morris. I don't recall him having made a prediction about Lazio winning, but I do recall he was wrong in claiming Hillary wouldn't run to begin with. But Limbaugh made the same prediction.
Look, every political analyst has been wrong at least once in their carreer. I daresay Michael Barone being the humble man he is would admit as much. The important thing is to deal with this current analysis on its own merits, not on some perceived past inaccuracies.
"Well, at least I'm glad to see you backing away a bit from Chafee"
Please don't think I harbor any deep affection for this guy or that I was ever advocating for him other than to say I would still prefer the worst Republican occupying a Senate seat than the best Democrat (the exception being the glorious Zell Miller to whom I have pledged my eternal love...haha.)
What passes for the best conservative Democrats these days tend to still be wolves in sheep's clothing just waiting to attack the president on some issue or another. And with the way they're all in obstructionist lock-step these days, I'm not sure there's any Democrat in the Senate I trust anymore. All seem prepared to block Bush on things like making tax cuts permanent, Social Security reform, etc.
In any event, I think Chafee is a weasel and I have little more than contempt for him. My only point is I will still rather have even the most nominal Republican holding that seat than just about any Democrat, especially a Northeastern Democrat who are almost all invariably hardline liberal.
Anyway, on the rest I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I will say however I think you're wrong on Arnold. He is fighting the good fight on preventing tax hikes, trying to hold the line on spending, fighting off driver's licenses for illegals, reforming workman's comp. which literally saved the economy in this state. And he has held off a whole host of other wackball legislation coming out this extremist state Assembly. The Democrats hate him almost as much as Bush now which tells me he's doing something right. His yearning to cut budgets has unleashed a torrent of attack ads against him. This is not a man liberals are finding common cause with these days. By no means is Arnold a "RINO" when you examine his record.
Anyhow, like I said we'll just have to acknowledge we don't see eye to eye on these points and leave it at that. We'll see what happens in the long run and who was right on all this.
Well, you're about where I was in defense of Republicanism close to a decade ago, but when I started to analyze patterns and where they related to actual policy positions (Conservative vs. liberal) and where one ideology was advancing at the expense of the other, I started to see that some Republicans were every inch as bad as those we were purporting to fight against. It's hard to fight the enemy when there's way too many of 'em in our own camp. I wish I could be as sunnily optimistic as you on many things, but I've had to much experience and studied this way too much to know that things aren't so.
Thank you for sharing that. What is your opinion of former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.