Replies

quidnunc:

For conservatives I guess the choice is between getting 75%-80% of what we want or getting nothing.
Like it or not, the candidates preferred by this board — Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich, Duncan Hunter, et al — are certain losers.

Jim:

I’d long for 75%. Hell, Rudy isn’t even 25% of what I want and he’s 100% of what I outright reject!

And quidnunc, "laying out the case for his candidate", responds by explaining how Rudy is actually 75% of what Jim wants, getting him banned.

No wait, that's not what happened. What happened was quidnunc responding with:

So you prefer Hillary, then?

Now, to be fair, that's probably the best quidnunc could DO to make a case for his candidate: "Vote for Rudy, he's not Hillary" (she looks better in a dress).

But if I questioned your opinion of your candidate being "80%" conservative, and you responded by telling me I wanted Hillary to be president, I'd be tempted to respond belligerantly.

People who have tried to defend Giuliani honestly, or raised honest issues about other candidates, are still here posting away, or at least not banned (a few simply stopped posting, but are still active).

People dissenting from the purges, dissenting from the arguments of conservatives, dissenting from the supposed mob, are still here, because they haven't been too uncivil (you are still here).

Jim took some real time to write a long and articulate vision of what HIS SITE was going to be. quidnunc ignored it, and attacked Jim for not being willing to throw out all those principles he just articulated simply to keep Hillary out of the white house. And he did it by calling Jim a Hillary supporter.