Centerfield

I always find it amazing how many "partisans" will support a candidate who meets only 36 out of 100 (hypothetical figures) of their party criteria, but when one meets 99 out of 100, but that 1 missing one is abortion, or gay marriage, they trash them and try to get someone else (usually a 36 percenter) elected in their stead. And that goes for both parties. As long as you are Anti-abortion and pro-tax cut, you can be a Republican. And as long as you are pro-abortion and anti-tax cut, you can be a dem, but look out if you miss on one of them.

When are the parties going to wake up and embrace the centrists? Dont they see that these centrists are being elected en masse in the lower levels? RI typically elects a Republican centrist for governor and Republican centrist for one of two Senate seats.

The article cited is bogus misinformation.

Let's take the Sherwood example.

Reading the description of the accuser in the article Tully cites, you would think the candidate is quite conservative on economic issues.

What is the reality?

Out of 232 Republicans in the House, only 8 are more liberal than he is, specifically on Economic issues.

His rating is actually no more liberal on social issues than it is on economic issues.

It's a reasonable assessment that he is on the far left of the Republican party on economic issue, contrary to what the article portrays. A "club for growth" focused on economic conservatism thus would be expected to oppose him...

Great job of missing the point, Susan! Namely, that the GOP has their own squabbling wing & centrist factions, and that the wing hard-liners hate anyone who isn't a robotic partisan.

Come to think of it, nice job of making the point by missing the point.

Sometimes when people aren't getting your point, it isn't because they misread you, it's because what you wrote doesn't convey the point you thought it did.

Readers can only surmise your point from the article cited, because the only thing you actually said is "Gee, it all sounds so familiar, doesn't it?"

If the entire last half of your citation doesn't convey your point, why include them?

These two paragraphs focus specifically on the idea that a group purporting to work exclusively against economic liberals, is dishonest and actually goes after social liberals instead.

In any case, perhaps your readers might be surprised and interested in the fact that fully half of the content of your article is factually inaccurate.

Good post Tully,

The Club for Growth is currently doing a hatchet job on reliable centrist GOP Congressman Joe Schwarz of Michigan, and word is they may be successful in electing a wing nut in the primary. Let's hope this is not the case. Schwarz would be a huge loss. I am not usually this type, and I would hate to be compared to the Daily Kos, but if you can go to his site and give money, please do so.

For the record Susan, Boehlert represents the Republicans in his district which is why he has won primary after primary against more conservative opponents. Have you ever seen a pro-growth, pro-choice endorsement from the Club for Growth? That's because it doesn't happen.

It doesn't happen because the entire self-admitted purpose of the CfG is to enforce their own agenda on Republicans, not on elections in general. They exist to drive moderates and centrists out of the party, and enforce their own ideology on the party. They say so on their own website in fairly plain words. (WHICH OUGHTA SOUND REALLY [kossack lieberman etc.] DAMN FAMILIAR...)

They challenged Boehlert before with far-right pro-lifer David Walrath, and Walrath lost. Walrath even leaped over to the Conservative party to continue his challenge in the general--with CfG support. (What the article doesn't note is that Boehlert is retiring this year.) Another similarity between Boehlert and Schwarz--CfG backed Schwarz's hard-right pro-life conservative primary opponent last time around as well. This time, they're backing a far-right fundamentalist conservative pro-life minister against him who works for the Moody Bible Institute. Heh. Count up your own mileage there.

Here's what CfG says about their motivations:

Too many Congressional Republicans have veered away from the limited government agenda that got them elected to the majority in Congress.

Schwarz was NOT elected on that agenda--the voters had a clear choice in the primary, and voted for the pro-choice centrist over the pro-life conservative. In the general they had a clear choice again, between a pro-choice liberal and a pro-choice centrist, and they voted for the pro-choice centrist again. Same as with Boehlert. Both Boehlert and Schwarz maintain their loyalty to the party, but decry those who would force the party into that rigid ideological mold. Also on their target list is John McCain.

Susan, if I bother to say something, especially that briefly, it means something. It's not my bad if you dismiss it without consideration instead of trying to figure what it means. In this case, it meant what I said--it was meant to direct anyone paying attention to the parallel processes of rigidly ideological ostracization of party members by their wing-nuts. (WHICH OUGHTA SOUND REALLY [kossack lieberman etc.] DAMN FAMILIAR...)

Right on the money Professor Tully.

And the administration (besides McCain AND Clinton)are becoming the targets of both Kossack and CIGer attack. Sounds like a metaphor for the Middle East. I say it proves the theory of political relativity.

Where do you put Newt?

Stalking Horse. No chance to be elected, but will likely run in '08 and will do some active good in forcing issues into the discussion.

Another great one, Tully. It never ceases to amaze me how committed the partisan activist hardliners are to assaulting any candidates that don't fit into the ideological mold of their party. It's clear both sides do this (Kos, CFG, Family Research Council, etc).

Why are you upset that so called "wingers" are attempting to influence primaries? How is this interesting, unusual, or objectionable?

I thought in America it is thought of as a good thing for the entire ideological spectrum to express and exert themselves in our political life. I can disagree with KOS's wrongheaded ideology, but I'm not going to say he shouldn't fundraise to influence elections. I hope he goes wild, because he never wins anyway. I do not see that CfG is doing anything underhanded here - in fact they are following their stated charter rather well in this case.

Would you likewise oppose centrists attempting to influence primaries in favor of their candidates and agenda? Would you use the same argument that a winger has been elected on the agenda he ran on, therefore no centrist should oppose him in a primary?

Schwarz was NOT elected on that agenda--the voters had a clear choice in the primary, and voted for the pro-choice centrist over the pro-life conservative.

I don't think abortion is the only issue on the minds of voters. Perhaps a campaign focusing on other differences might succeed in unseating him.

They exist to drive moderates and centrists out of the party, and enforce their own ideology on the party.

Think about the term centrist. Where is the center of the US electorate? Where is the center of the Democrat party? They are two very different things.

Within the context of the Republican party, Schwarz is neither a moderate nor a centrist. He is an extremist, since he is on the extreme left end of the Republican party. As such you should not be surprised when a group that truly is in the center of the Republican party, opposes him.

Nor should you be surprised when a group that represents the ideological center of the Democrat party (ok not KOS), opposes Lieberman, who is also an "extremist" within the context of the Democrat party, out of touch with the center of the Democrat party.

Susan, "surprised" is an interesting choice of words, especially since you seem to be the only one using it. I don't recall Tully expressing surprise, nor do any of us ever express surprise when we point ou the foibles of wingers. Far from being surprised, Tully is calling attention to how familiar this behavior seems.

To whatever extent the regulars here are centrists, we're centrists without regard to the alleged centers of either party.

In the view of most of us here, Kos does not represent the center of the democrats, and CfG does not represent the center of the GOP. I think we here are pretty safe in assuming that you represent the portion of the GOP that is quite conservative. Even though you are usually quite careful to avoid stating your own views, we are all familiar with what and who you leap to defend, and what and who you don't ever leap to defend. That's my impression anyway. If I am mistaken, please straighten me out by summarizing your own personal views at length, taking care to state your position on hot-button issues. It's an invitation! :-) Is it one you'll decline via silence?

It seems pretty unlikely to me that CfG represents the moderate center of the GOP between its own left and right wings. I'd like to hear from others more familar with internal GOP politics on that. As regards the democratic party, I think it's fair to say that their schism lies between the Kos wing and the DLC, roughly and quickly speaking. Now what lies precisely on that border I can't say, but I feel quite comfortable chuckling at your whopper that the Kos wing is the center of the democratic party. Obvious such a whopper suits the purposes of the socon wing of the GOP splendidly.

We continually point out that the most vocal rabble-rousers in each party are poor representatives of their party. When we do, we are reliably challenged by who? Wait for it...wait for it.....whichever vocal rabble-rousers we've offended. This is NEVER a surprise to us. You can trust me on that.

And here's the thing...suppose we could put the names of all the really big, serious, and genuinely powerful organizations and institutions of the world into a hat. Then suppose we pulled 100 of them out of a hat. In how many of those 100 randomly chosen organizations would we find that the vocal rabble rousers were in charge, running things, making the important decisions? My guess? None. Zero. Certainly no more than a handful. Far more often the vocal rabble rousers are the ones that the organization regards with a combination of fear and realistic respect, and does their best to control and fence in, so that decent realistic achievable goals can be attained.

There's an old saying that "better is the enemy of best." IMO, wingers and moderates alike BOTH are familiar with the idea. They both agree that it's true. It's just that wingers believe that it's a prescription for renewed purity, while moderates believe it's a prescription for hard work combined with a bit of acceptance and compromise. M experience is that a solid majority of regular everyday Americans prefer the half-loaf they can live on to the perfect loaf that never reaches the oven, never mind gets baked and eaten.

What Brian said.

To whatever extent the regulars here are centrists, we're centrists without regard to the alleged centers of either party.

Exactly. Trying to find the "center" of the parties is fruitless. Moving target. You can only come towards the center of the electorate. I'm a democratic pluralist myself.

I don't think abortion is the only issue on the minds of voters. Perhaps a campaign focusing on other differences might succeed in unseating him.

It was in Schwarz's election. It was crucial, and it will be this time around as well, even more so given his opponent. I know, I've been paying attention. Schwarz has been in office under two years, less than a full term. His only major departures from the GOP preferred line in that time have been on pension protection, stem cell research (Schwarz is a surgeon), the anti-gay marriage amendment, the Voting Rights Act renewal (he voted to renew, as did many other Republicans), and against the Flag-Burning amendment. I see ONE fiscal-impact bill there, the pension plan protection bill. ALL the votes that CfG cites for Schwarz being a "pro-tax" Congresscritter were "negotiation votes" for contested appropriations bills, ones voted on sometimes dozens of times without passing. That's a standard tactic for winning goodies for the district. He voted WITH the GOP preferred position on every final passed appropriations bill.

The ONLY place that Schwarz significantly departs from the GOP line is on social issues. He's a dependable caucus voter on fiscal issues.

I think what is being missed here is the "WHY," of this issue.

That is, "why," do these groups demand that Congressmen check their independence at the door?

I haven't seen this one discussed much, but Campaign Finance is really, I think, the reason.

The leadership of the Republican Party controls the flow of campaign dollars to each of its members so tightly now, that they tend to control members in a parliamentary fashion. The price of these dollars is that each of a half-dozen check marks be checked-off a list. They don't want to hear from a Congressman that he/she thought about the group's issues and, "came around," to their position. What they want to hear is, I want your money and I have complied with the checklist given to me. This is an integral part of why Congress seems to have had a lobotomy when it comes to excercising its independent functions.

It is only small comfort that there are, in fact, still a handful of Congressmen who risk defeat biennially by foregoing these groups and thinking on their own.

This is a very hard issue, though, because the public has been inundated by so-called reformers who think that CF restrictions and Public Financing are the answer, when it's the restrictions that make it so difficult for anyone but a, "bought-and-paid-for," incumbent to win.

If I was a betting man I'd say the fate of this issue could be decided, in part, by the fate of a couple of candidacies, say, McCain and Feingold. By which I do not mean to indicate a slam-dunk for either. In fact, the way things look now it would not be a stretch to see them BOTH lose (the bigger surprise being the loss of McCain). However, every now and then fate plays its hand.

The irony could be that the War issue ends up delivering the respective nominations to each and that the stridently Pro-War McCain would face-off against the stridently Anti-War Feingold. In which case, what do they talk about on Campaign Finance? Shades of T.R. vs. Woodrow Wilson, perhaps?

Club for Growth aside, I think the grassroots conservative vote is fit-to-be-tied as regards spending, immigration, and even the lack of follow through on Social Policy, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a breakaway Conservative 3rd Party emerge after a Knock-down drag-out GOP nomination fight. I don't think the Club for Growth speaks for them. After all, if the GOP has followed through on anything it's tax-cut after tax-cut.

Should this occur vis-a-vis McCain and Feingold nominations I hope said 3rd Party candidate would articulate what a racket the campaign finance laws are and how they help the incumbents and not the challengers (of which we need MORE).

Why did Tully post this at all?

Those who are more conservative, are seeking to defeat more liberal candidates in primaries.

Those who are liberal, are seeking to defeat more conservative candidates in primaries.

How is this interesting or objectionable at all? Voters and political groups with different ideologies are trying to influence elections. So what?

Do you find centrist political activity equally objectionable? Why not? Shouldn't centrists try to get their candidates elected in primaries?

Trying to find the "center" of the parties is fruitless. Moving target. You can only come towards the center of the electorate.

The center of a political party, exists every bit as much of the center of the populace. Yes it moves, that's why it is a good thing for people to focus on and get active in primaries. The center of the populace is also a "moving target". As an example, I notice the centrist position on slavery has moved over time.

I'm a democratic pluralist myself.

Then why object to active primary races with viable challengers? To me the most deplorable thing about American democracy is uncontested elections. I include primaries in that. More candidates running, more political choices, that's a good thing! You seem to think it is so very horrible to have a primary challenger, to give voters further choice, and for a political group to publicize that choice.

The ONLY place that Schwarz significantly departs from the GOP line is on social issues. He's a dependable caucus voter on fiscal issues.

I noted earlier that only 8 republicans are rated more liberal than Schwarz, SPECIFICALLY on economic issues. That's out of 232 congressmen, putting Schwarz on the very extreme left end of the Republican party on economic issues. Appropriation bills are often party line votes, perhaps you are focusing on the wrong votes to see where the politicians have distinguished themselves right or left in economics.

p.s. Brian, your habit of personalizing discussions shows a sad lack of integrity.

Susan,

This is a Centrist Blog site. The CfG does everything possible to knock out the last remaining Centrists in the GOP and replace them with people who see the Democrats not as their opponents, but as their ENEMY.

People on this site attempt, as best they can, to come up with honest compromises on issues. I used to think like you do, that clear lines of demarcation between the parties was the only way, and that elements within the party seem to undermine whenever they can.

Today, I call this George W. Bush.

People here find it objectionable to find themselves pushed out of their political home by people who demand they check their brains at the front door.

Have you not noticed how FAR we've come from the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan?

Why did Tully post this at all?

Just to drive you nuts, Susan. Actually, to continue a theme I've extended for years right here in plain sight, namely that knee-jerk wingbottism leads to self-defeating idiocy and is bad for the nation as a whole. Also, in this case, to note that Lieberman is not the only centrist being savaged, and the lefties aren't the only side that does it. A brief comment like mine after such an article exceprt is meant to encourage thought about the inherent dangers of patellar-reflexive ideology. In that regard it's an intelligence test of sorts. Want your score?

Those who are more conservative, are seeking to defeat more liberal candidates in primaries. Those who are liberal, are seeking to defeat more conservative candidates in primaries.

And those not in the extreme wing factions are bound to notice that centrism and moderation is under attack by the ideology uber alles crowd on both sides, those who place their extreme agendas above the welfare of their parties and the process itself and (arguably) even their nation, and do their damndest to turn the parties into goose-stepping wingbot factories. With some success.

I noted earlier that only 8 republicans are rated more liberal than Schwarz, SPECIFICALLY on economic issues.

You noted a meaningless factoid parroted from his opponent's propaganda, without ever examining the substance behind it. But you can't name a single bill he voted on in a "disagreeable" fiscal fashion without running to Google--or referencing my notation on the pension reform bill above.

Since you also seem unaware of the meaning and import of democratic pluralism as a foundation of the American democratic republic, might I recommend a close and thoughtful reading of James Madison's rather brilliant discussion of same in Federalist Papers #10? The Founding Fathers had some clear thoughts on the subject.

I'll have my eggs-Susan-ne sunny-side up please, Tully.

Behold the power of sense and sober wisdom. Way to stand your ground Tully, you do your namesake proud.

Tully,

I think you are going a little far here. You may disagree with the particular agendas the wings are pushing (lord knows I disagree with alot of them), you may think that they are not turning on thier brains about many issues..... but I think with a few exceptions it is entirely unfounded to suggest that they are placing thier agendas above the good of the nation or even thier respective parties.

Have you entirely discounted the possibility that they might actualy believe that thier extreme agendas ARE for the best of nation and their respective parties?

Frankly, I don't see what they are doing is, at it's core, that different then what you guys are doing. Which is to use the democratic process, political influence, and the power of expression to advance a particular philosophy of government and set of policies tied to that philosophy in this country. At heart that IS what our system is about.

Now, I tend to agree with you particular philosophy a little bit more.....and I think you guys are (in general) more willing to look at things the way they actualy are rather then how you'd like them to be. But in short, if it's ok for you guys to promote particular agendas and philsophies and even make contributions to candidates that support them.... I don't see where you get to call foul for groups like CFG when they are doing the same damn thing?

Cengel,

Just wait until the Republican Party steps on one of YOUR sacred cows, and see how it makes you feel.

Each Party is getting narrower and narrower leaving people with moderate & now even nationalist or libertarian views OUT of the system. In order to have an impact in politics, at least at the present, you have to be part of, or aligned with, the Democrats or Republicans. The point is, in order to play you have to check your opinions & your conscience at the door. In order to please those who FUND their campaigns every Republican (and especially the elected ones) is expected to be rigidly pro-life, pro-rich, and pro-war. The point is, the litmus test rules, not the people. There is no dialogue about what is right. The interest groups inform us what our opinions are, and to play we're expected to fall in line.

I will agree that there are some issues where moderate Republicans tend to scald the GOP in a reflexive fashion and in districts that are probably Republican enough for a conservative to win, but it seems increasingly that being part of the, "conservative," wing of the GOP requires one to be, essentially, the parliamentary wing of the President's government. And being 80% of the way there doesn't count.

What Cav said.

Have you entirely discounted the possibility that they might actualy believe that thier extreme agendas ARE for the best of nation and their respective parties?

Not at all. True Believers always believe they're right, by definition. I'm pointing out that what they want, the methods employed, are not, for want of a better word, American. Our political structure is founded on principles of strength through diversity, not on the crushing of dissent. E pluribus unum. Pluralism. Wingbots want ideologically pure synchronized goose-stepping as a unifying path to power, which is antithetical to those principles.

They certainly have the right to advance their vision of government, but I prefer the original. And I believe that what they're promoting is destructive of that pluralism, which has been the great strength of our system. Burning the system in order to save it doesn't attract me. Madison covered much of this in Federalist #10--and what I am arguing against is exactly what he was, the tyranny of the masses and the tyranny of powerful interests in a diverse nation.

As I continually point out, elected officials are supposed to represent their constituents first, before their party or their own interests. If their party's best interests do not align with those of their constituents, then they can and should go against their party. I will happily defend those that do so, even if I disagree with them on their particulars or judgement. It takes no cojones or principles at all to be a get-along partybot. It takes a ton of 'em to do what you believe is the right thing for your constituents when it can actually cost you.

Just wait until the Republican Party steps on one of YOUR sacred cows, and see how it makes you feel.

The point is, in order to play you have to check your opinions & your conscience at the door.

With the misinformation presented in this thread, I can't blame you for not knowing that the Republican party is actually supporting the centrist Schwarz against his conservative opponent-- with official endorsements, funding, etc...
CfG is rebelling against the Republican party position by opposing the centrist Schwarz.

You probably also don't know that the district in question is one of the most conservative districts in the nation, where a more conservative candidate would actually be a better fit to represent constituents. Yet the groupthink here is that every instance of conservative opposition to centrists is reflexive wingnuttery. Centrists can be knee jerk too in forming their judgements, who would have thought?

You probably also don't know that the reason Schwarz won the election in the first place, was because 5 candidates ran in the primary, leaving the conservative vote split several times. The impression left by this thread is that the voters simply prefer Schwarz brand of politics, which would leave you very surprised if he actually loses this tuesday.... I wonder how Tully would explain that one?

You do know however, that Tully has a rather high opinion himself, insults those who questions his threads, stands his ground on a mountain of misinformation, and thinks supporting pluralism means bemoaning the political participation of those who disagree with him, and preferring uncontested races.

LMAO.

You probably also don't know that the district in question is one of the most conservative districts in the nation, where a more conservative candidate would actually be a better fit to represent constituents.

Which choice, of course, the voters made. For Schwarz. Those stupid constitutents--they elected the wrong guy! Maybe it was mass dyslexia. By the way, Susan, when calling someone a liar it doesn't pay to blatantly lie while doing so. Projection is a poor substitute for evidence. Schwarz's district went to Kerry in 2004. "Most conservative in the nation" and "a better fit," my ass. No, it's not.

CfG is rebelling against the Republican party position by opposing the centrist Schwarz.

And the Kos Krewe is rebelling against the bulk of the Democratic Party leadership and most of their PACs, who have endorsed Lieberman. Which is a major part of the point you keep ignoring and trying to dismiss.

You do know however, that Tully has a rather high opinion himself, insults those who questions his threads, stands his ground on a mountain of misinformation, and thinks supporting pluralism means bemoaning the political participation of those who disagree with him, and preferring uncontested races.

Translation: You can't point to anything but your debunked factoids and false proclamations in support of your argument. I repeat: Projection is a poor substitute for evidence.

Cav,

The GOP has stepped on my sacred cows PLENTY of times. I actualy tend to be somewhat libertarian in most of my views....which as you might observe hasn't tended to be the prevailing attitude in the GOP these days in alot of areas.

What I dispute is just because they don't happen to subscribe to my particular brand of conservatism and want to advocate thier own that makes them some sort of neo-totolitarians or something.

-----

Tully,

"Not at all. True Believers always believe they're right, by definition. I'm pointing out that what they want, the methods employed, are not, for want of a better word, American."

What methods? Are they kid-napping peoples kids? Dragging rogue politicians off in the middle of the night never to be heard from again? Threatening to break some-ones knee-caps if they don't vote the way they want? Stuffing ballot boxes, what?

I don't see them doing anything that the entire rest of the country (including centrists) are doing which is to say to pols if you want thier votes and want thier campaign contributions then they've got to support thier positions on certain key issues. What could be more "American" then that? Looks like representative government in action to me.

Maybe I'm wrong but it sounds like your version of "democratic pluralism" means no-one ever having to take a position on anything. The fact of the matter is in government your ALWAYS going to disappoint some portion of the populace. Either stoplights are blue or they are red.....and if you make them red you are going to disappoint the people who wanted em blue.... but at some point you gotta make a choice and you've got to be prepaired to disapoint some portion of the electorate, even though you represent those people too.

Furthermore, you said it yourself.... the voters get to decide. If what the wingnuts want is so out of touch with the rest of the populace.... the candidates they support wont win and thier agenda won't be advanced.... it's a self-correcting .... So where is the problem?

As you've pointed out in detail to me before....Special interest groups and platform committees can try to insist on idealogical purity until they are blue in the face....but they can't actualy do anything to force a candidate to conform.....all they can do is try to cajoule with promises of support or threaten witholding of support..... the candidate gets to decide what position they take....and the voters get to decide if they put that candidate in office.

No one can make you vote for a candidate you don't want to vote for. No one can tell you that you can't contribute time or money to the candidate of your choice..... and if there isn't a candidate out there that you stomache.... and you have enough support you can even run for office yourself.

So again, I ask where is the big problem? Where is the "un-american-ness" other then these particular groups not happening to support the candidates/positions that YOU like?

cengel, they have every right to be goose-stepping wingbots. And I have every right to point out that goose-stepping wingbottism is mindlessly moronic, and essentially dishonest, and that the goals of goose-stepping wingbots are pretty universally antithetical to pluralistic democracy. I also have the right to ridicule CfG, just as I ridicule the Kossacks. Conflating me beyond that is your own nickle.

In the case of CfG, you can see this mindset in their claim that they and only they possess the true soul agenda of the Republican Party. That those who dissent from their agenda are not true Republicans, and must be drummed out of the party to make way for the CfG annointed. Yet the person they're trying to drum out is endorsed by the GOP leadership, and beat his last opponent nearly two to one running as a Republican in a Dem-leaning district. And you see the same dynamic at work in the Democratic party with the Kossacks.

The argument that under a pluralist system they have the right to be wingbots is irrelevant. They also have a right to pick their noses in public, but that doesn't make it pretty. That they have a right to promote their agenda does not make their agenda or their tactics any less robotic or offensive or antithetical to goals of pluralistic democracy. EX: You have a perfect right to run for office as a Cat Hater, advocating the forcible confiscation of all felines and euthanization thereof, and the Cat Haters for Cyanide Flea Dips would have every right to support your candidacy on the GOP ticket. And I would still have every right to ridicule you and the Cat Haters for Cyanide Flea Dips, note that the agenda and tactics used are actively harmful to the GOP, and encourages fugnutty wing extremism.

If you'd like further expansion on that and on democratic pluralism in general, go read Federalist #10.

Cengal,

Please tell me you are not so obtuse that you can't recognize the decay in our democratic system?

It just sounds like you and Susan have simply bought into this worldview where the Democrats are responsible for EVERYTHING and must be kept out at ALL costs REGARDLESS of the changes made to the GOP agenda. Your not subjecting the GOP to any genuine scrutiny.

There IS NO GOP ideology EXCEPT WINNING. If the GOP is stepping on your sacred cows, Cengal, you sure wouldn't know it, or they must not be that sacred to you. WHERE is your OUTRAGE at the betrayal of 40 years of limited government ideology my, "libertarian," friend? And can you not see that they are betraying it, in part by pricing the competition OUT OF THE MARKET!!!

The only way someone can get the money to run for Congress or Senate, unless they are already RICH, is to check the litmus off the checklist, indicating that you've attached your robot arm to its socket, the control to which is in Tom Delay's pocket (and now Boehner's). VOTE-VOTE-VOTE-VOTE-VOTE.

The best example of this was the vote on the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill. A new BIG GOVERNENT PROGRAM created the REPUBLICAN PARTY?!?!?!?!?!?! The way that was done is that when the 15 minutes for the vote were done and the bill had gone down 216 for, 218 against, Delay held the vote open for over AN HOUR until they could arm twist 4 members into voting it to passage.

You CAN NOT call yourself a conservative or libertarian and not be PI**ed OFF at what these people are doing. So you look at these primaries and see that they aren't doing anything wrong????

Look, I don't have any particular love for moderates, but one thing they DO seem to have retained (though not all of them) is their ability to represent their consituents through independent thinking.

In the case of the conservative districts half the GOP should have told President Bush to blow this Great Society program out his A**. But they didn't because all the money groups, including CfG told them to tow the President's line or see their funding dry up and a new challenger emerge.

Now Tully and I probably part ways on the point of view we'd like most to see represented in Congress, but we agree that the reason BOTH of our viewpoints is dying in Congress is NOT because of the flowering of democracy, but because of its ROT.

Susan,

Boehner, Hastert, & Co. will alway push for incumbents over challengers. It's part of their gameplan of playing BOTH sides.

It's just this mindset that Delay & Co. were/are the fulfilment of the Reagan Revolution when all they are doing to is SHILLING for their corporate contributors. IS the government smaller? No? Has W. Bush held the line on spending which THE GOP Congress passed??? NO, in fact, he's been a critical factor in seeing it grow in order to buy swing voters in the 2004 election.

Do you really BUY it, Susan? Do you? Do you BUY that they can't HELP themselves and let's just give them ANOTHER CHANCE to REALLY PUSH Conservatism, after 10 years of NOT doing it? Where is the point at which you SNAP?

They aren't pushing ideology in these primaries, they're pushing partisanship. That's what the interest groups are all about.

Tully,

No one is disputing your right to ridicule thier agenda .... in many instances I share your views on thier agenda. What I do dispute is that the methods they employ to attempt to achieve that agenda are some-how not "American"... your words not mine.

"I'm pointing out that what they want, the methods employed, are not, for want of a better word, American. "

I re-iterate the question.... what methods are they employing that are so anti-thetical to the American system?

All I see them doing is raising cash from voluntary donors and contributing it and thier endorsements to candidates who support thier positions on key issues and forcefully advocating and witholding support from candidates who don't.
As far as I can see that IS the basis of our system of government and no different then the methods that every other interest group in the nation (including centrist ones) employ.

What makes it ok for you, Tully, to contribute your own cash to candidates who support your own positions and withhold it from ones who don't.... but when some-one else does it, it becomes Un-"American"?

I've got no problem if you say thier goals stink. I'm sure I'd find some of them objectionable too..... but as far as thier methods, I just don't see any difference between them and you guys.

------------------
Cav,

Choose not to believe me if you like... but there is a significant amount that I disagree with in the GOP today. That doesn't mean that I think the Democrats are any BETTER or that it would be preferable to see them in office. Despite my disagreements with many of the directions the GOP has taken these days, I still believe that (on average) they more closely represent my point of view on the issues I care most about then (on average) the Democrats do.

I might be willing to vote for individual Democrats over individual GOP'ers in specific races...but on average I'll still end up voting GOP far more often then Dem.

Yeah, the importance of money in the political process today IS troubling and I've got a few ideas on addressing it....though I think many of the cures that have been propossed (i.e. McCain-Fiengold) are worse then the disease. However, as Ross Perot (who I voted for btw -twice) has prooved all the money in the world sill won't buy you into office. As long as voters still have the ability to choose who they vote for.... I think it's system at it's core is basicaly still ok. Groups like CFG and Move-On can spend a 100 million dollars trying to convince voters who to vote for.... but at the end of the day grandma Pearl still gets to decide which lever to pull in the voting booth.... and she can give CFG and Move-On the finger if she wants.

"You CAN NOT call yourself a conservative or libertarian and not be PI**ed OFF at what these people are doing. So you look at these primaries and see that they aren't doing anything wrong????"

I'm P**d OFF at some of the Agenda items they are pushing (the illegal immigration Amnesty comes to mind) but that doesn't mean that I think the METHODS they are using to push them are wrong.... they are the exact same methods that you or I or anybody else in the country would use to push our agenda.

I'll reserve my OUTRAGE for groups that push thier agendas through methods like the ones Hezbollah and Hammas use.

I re-iterate the question.... what methods are they employing that are so anti-thetical to the American system?

I have no problem at all with their raising money and using it to support candidates. The methods I find (as I said, for want of a better word) "un-American" is in trying to swing/bludgeon the party into robotic goose-stepping ideology by punishing any who stray from their conception of the ideal partybot. And yes, I find that "un-American." It's definitively non-pluralistic. It's the same thing that's going on in the Democratic party, coming from their wingbots. Wing ideology uber alles.

While American pluralism rightfully allows the promotion of varied ideas and agendas, that DOES NOT make every idea and agenda promoted good for the party, the nation, etc. Indeed, the basis of pluralism is weeding out extremism so as to prevent forced catastrophic change while allowing incremental change through compromise. Social evolution, if you will.

You're confusing process with particulars. I thoroughly support the process, which is what makes me a pluralist. I thoroughly disdain those who would try to use it to destroy it, and am pointing out the particulars used and the goals desired by thosse using them. I repeat for the someteenth time--Madison explored this territory in the Federalist Papers, particularly in #10 (to which #9 leads).

Cengal,

Your even-handedness would be admireable if its object weren't so undeserving.

Why apologize for those who are alot more willful in their rightness than you are? They aren't just the OTHER guy, and I believe in my heart-of-hearts that we are not OUTVOTED but outGUNNED. Yet you treat them like worthy adversaries??? (Your willingness to look outside the GOP, not once, but twice, however, gives me some hope.)

For the record, in my decade-and-a-half of civic duty I have only twice voted for a Democrat at any level. Once for Senate and once for President. They are the originators of what is wrong with this country, but even in a two-party system everyone should have at least one ally. And the current crop of Republicans isn't working for America. In the end, betrayal is more offensive than genuine opposition.

And we may be on the same page regarding this Amnesty Travesty. Probably the most poignant example of where the grassroots is ready to fight and those that are supposed to be working for that grassroots are, in reality, working for the enemy.

And you're absolutely right, McCain-Feingold is not now, nor will ever be the answer to the problem, but rather I think, the essence of the problem itself.

Your final comments set-off a red flag to me:

"I'll reserve my OUTRAGE for groups that push thier agendas through methods like the ones Hezbollah and Hammas use."

WHAT has Hammas or Hezbollah done to YOU? Done to AMERICA??? Israel is NOT America. And while I wish them well, their security is their OWN responsibility, NOT ours. AND they seem to be doing JUST fine.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Tully, but Federalist #10 is the one where Madison articulates the need for larger, broader congressional constituencies so that no one faction can atomize the larger part of a legislative body into seats RESERVED for party HACKS.

In essence broader constituencies bring genuine competition. Competition which the seemingly ancient practice of gerrymandering has near perfectly destroyed.

And... and... and... and...

Sorry Cengal, it was a looooong night, last night.

In essence broader constituencies bring genuine competition. Competition which the seemingly ancient practice of gerrymandering has near perfectly destroyed.

Gerrymandering is a change of subject, but I note that it's also a form of political competition. Your first sentence is entirely correct. What the wingbots are attempting is to eliminate the broader competitive party constituencies in favor of very narrow non-competitive constituencies with disproportionate power.

To use an illustrative metaphor (as poor as all of the are) our endurance as a nation has had a helluva lot to do with smorgasbord politics, where the electorate could pick and choose what they wanted on their plate at every meal. The wingbots want to reduce the electorate's buffet to a permanent two-item menu, of which you can only have one at any sitting.

Long night, Cav? Long month! (As I blogwhore attention to this post elsewhere.)

Yes, and the night seems to have also taken its toll on my math skills.

I just want to be clear, did the Fundies lose TWO of their Republican nominations, or just one? And if it's two doesn't that mean that Kansas is already, for the time being anyway, safe for Science?

And did you insult yourself in your StubbornFacts post??? No, I think I just need a Mulligan.

I insult myself all the time, but not there. I was on the winning side last night--and I worked for both Republicans and Democrats.

Kansas Republicans kicked out two of the creationist fundies on the state board. And one of the Dem moderate incumbents stood off a Dem fundie who was angling for her seat. Two more of the remaining four fundies on the board were unopposed in the primary, but are facing some hefty competition in the November general election. (The board has ten members serving four-year terms, with five seats open every two years.)

It was a major defeat for the hard right faction of the state GOP, a major victory for moderates in both parties. We won the battle to get a moderate majority on the board in the primaries, and we may well extend that moderate majority in the general.

Done deal! Congrats Tully.

It's nice to know there is a point where REPUBLICAN PRIMARY voters decide things can go too far.

"WHAT has Hammas or Hezbollah done to YOU? Done to AMERICA??? Israel is NOT America. And while I wish them well, their security is their OWN responsibility, NOT ours. AND they seem to be doing JUST fine."
-----

To me personaly, nothing...but then again neither did Milosovic or Pol Pot or the folks commiting genocide in Darfur.

I'm simply using them as an example of METHODS that I consider an OUTRAGE.

I may not agree with the GOALS CFG (I really don't know enough about them to provide an answer to that) or MoveOn or any of the thousand or so other special intrest lobbies..... but as long as the METHODS they use fall within the same democratic system that all the rest of us use....all I can do is shrug and say "good luck with that". They've got the same right to use the democratic system that any of the rest of us do.

------------------
Tully,

"The methods I find (as I said, for want of a better word) "un-American" is in trying to swing/bludgeon the party into robotic goose-stepping ideology by punishing any who stray from their conception of the ideal partybot."

So what should they do? Give money/support to candidates that support positions that they vehemently oppose?

Aren't we ALL trying to shape politicians into supporting as many of the positions we hold dear as possible? I know I am to the very small degree that I can.

I've probably got a dozen or half-dozen issues that I care about vehemently. If a politician meets ALL of those positions and is in a race that can affect me, I might consider kicking them a few bucks if I can afford it. I'll certainly vote for them. If politician doesn't match on ALL of those issues, I won't be contributing to them..... and I might not vote for them depending upon how many issues they miss on and how far they miss by and how important those issues are to me.

Does that make me a "goose-stepping wingnut"?

O.k. Cengal,

I guess we'll just have to agree to remain each on our own side of the Twilight Zone.

Glad to know the country is safe for democracy.

They could start by ceasing the claim that only those who goose-step their agenda are true Republicans, or the claim that only they represent the "real" Republican Party. Since both of those are obviously lies.

Their goal is bot-control of the party. Their method is "locking out" moderate Republicans. I don't claim at all that they are not free to try. But your main objection seems to be that I find their goals and methods (as I said, for want of a better word) "un-American." If you prefer "unpluralistic" instead as a substitute, feel free to so substitute if it will notch down your reaction.

It's a definitively authoritarian/absolutist approach that they're using. If you wish to claim that that's "American," feel free.

O'er the Land of the ......er, oh, um, uh, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, and the Hoooooooooome of thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah Braaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaave.

p.s. Brian, your habit of personalizing discussions shows a sad lack of integrity.

Oh, I didn' realize that the only way to have a discussion with integrity was by speaking in an impersonal fashion, Ayn. My bad.

Once again your prove yourself a skilled rhetorician. When someone throws down a point-blank gauntlet, and you have no leg to stand on and sit in abject fear that answering the challenge might expose your own internal inconsistencies, you sidestep the challenge while name-calling. I guess it was your only move....cluck, cluck, cluck.

I remain confident in my personal integrity. You're trying to remain unidentfied with any personal views, keeping yourself unchallengeable while you attack those here who are willing to state their own views in goodwill.

I don't think you're fooling anyone. Anyone convinced that the only virtue lies in the victory of their theses over their opponents antitheses MUST always challenge anyone who suggests that virtue may rest with synthesis. You have shown this pattern repeatedly.

Now I'm happy to be fair, so I'll cheerfully concede that in a way, centrism includes the same elements of true believerism that we decry in the wings. I must speak as a true believer to state with confidence that I am committed to rational discussion, evolution of ideas, and moving from thesis-antithesis to synthesis. It's as logically unescapable as it is a trivial insight. Unless you're a closet nihilist.

By the way, Susan, when calling someone a liar it doesn't pay to blatantly lie while doing so. Projection is a poor substitute for evidence. Schwarz's district went to Kerry in 2004.

Hi Tully. Schwarz's district actually went to Bush, over Kerry, in 2004. Your facts are wrong.
It is Michigan district 7 if you'd like to double check where you went wrong.

If I were to follow your example, I would call you a blatant liar for posting incorrect facts.
But I won't, I will say that you made an honest mistake.
I suppose I shouldn't hold my breath for an apology.

Great job http://phentermine-online.cq.bz/ phentermin14

Great job http://nclub.info/ nclubinfo2

It is forbidden party poker bonus code http://www.iparty-poker.net/archives/absolute-party-poker.html to puddle the live card(s) "Tommy Grimes " to avoid the copious consequences. Inadvertently his big blind trick a resentful major league game. Glamorously party poker http://www.iparty-poker.net/archives/fourth-of-july-party-for-poker.html my brunch entrain his perfidious final table.